re: I am against seatbelt laws (and helmet laws) for adults

quote:

---

It makes no sense that a state that has a seatbelt mandate doesn't also have a motorcycle helmet mandate.

---

Now that I think about it, I don't see too many seatbelts on school buses either.

It's getting quite Libertarian in here.

Why is the assumption that people not wearing seat belts can’t afford insurance premiums?

The pro government propaganda really did a number on you boomers…

quote:

---

My suspicion: These laws were driven by insurance industry lobbyists

---

That's probably true, but that doesn't mean they are automatically bad laws.

That's what the new brand of populist can't seem to wrap his or her mind around...two things can be true at once. It can benefit insurance companies to have those laws, and it can also benefit the general public. It's a genetic fallacy to conclude that because the law came from the insurance lobby it has to be bad.

So are those bad laws? Not in the context of modern America.

If you want to go full Libertarian (and who does that these days except for kooks?), then maybe those are bad laws. But that changes a whole lot more than those laws.

If you want EMTs and hospitals to be able to refuse care when someone didn't wear a seatbelt/helmet, insurance companies to be able to refuse coverage for any accident in which someone wasn't wearing a seatbelt/helmet, including life insurance companies to be able to deny payout because someone didn't wear seatbelt/helmet, and/or health insurance companies to be able to refuse reimbursement for injuries caused in an accident with no seatbelt/helmet, etc., then o.k., fine. Let's do away with those laws/regulations.

Until then, though, the actions of the driver affect other interested parties.

And the constitutional rationale is pretty easy. The roads you drive on where these laws apply are public roads. You can careen around on your private property all you want without wearing anything.

But once you pull out on a public road, the state has a right to dictate how you do so.

Driving on public roads as you wish isn’t a right.

Bad laws, used mainly for police to contact you for further issues.

But anyone not wearing a seatbelt is a legit idiot.

This push started as I began to drive in the late sixties. Do we have stats from that time till now on percentages of lives saved from seatbelt or without?

I am sure it is a public health issue of sorts, while allowing for intrusions.

quote:

---

Bad laws, used mainly for police to contact you for further issues.

---

Incorrect.

That may be the purpose they serve for the police, but as I posted above, there are other interested parties who are affected by these decisions as well. Multiple things can be true at the same time.

If we want to allow health insurance companies to refuse to pay claims related to accidents in which the driver/occupants were not wearing seatbelts/helmets, for example, o.k. Same with life insurance companies, auto insurance companies, etc. That makes a lot more sense to me.

Matter of fact, the more I think about it, the more I think we should allow them to do so anyway.

Why should BC/BS have to pay for a potentially preventable injury when the insured was breaking the law by not following the safety precaution that could have prevented it?

quote:

---

Nosy women.

---

Karens? O.k., sure.

I was talking about entities who have to pay out more money because John Q. Public won't strap himself in his car like someone with an IQ above room temp.

If we remove the responsibility of those entities to have to bear the financial brunt of such stupidity, then I'm a lot more willing to accept doing away with those laws.