Laws regarding seatbelts and cigarettes

[brewer]

I agree, honestly. If I want to be stupid and kill myself by not wearing a seat belt that's my right. Though cars nowadays beep relentlessly when you don't, so you sort of have to anyways.

I disabled mine.

[Fireball]

Another point- cigarettes are not immediately lethal, and in fact, in the short term, not that bad, health wise. If you get in a crash, you're going to be immediately hurt, and potentially killed.

[zebo-the-fat]

It is illegal to drive without seat belts in the UK and anyone who wants to put burning leaves in their mouth needs to be taken out and shot

[Amarok]

You can quit cigarettes(thou it's a bitch )

You can't quit a car crash

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I Liked this one; before I left Indiana. They came down against drunk driving checks, declaring them an illegal search. At this same time, they passed legislation to increase seat belt check stops.   Needless to say, they where conducting a large amount of seat belt checks on after 10 PM on weekends.

Congratulations on escaping from Indiana. First time I did it I wound up in South East Asia. Most recently I left in medical transport. The place just doesn't work for me.

[johan]

When you are in an accident while not wearing a seatbelt, you become a dead weight projectile. Which means you might come through it just fine with relatively minor injuries. But if you go flying and end landing up on top of the belted in person sitting next you and break their neck, they die because you were a dick and didn't wear your belt.

And the immediate response to that is talking about the risks associated with second hand smoke. And what'd ya know, lots of states have laws designed to limit exposure to second hand smoke. Hmm.... its almost like both laws were created to prevent your poor choices from harming others. Hmmm....

[Succubus]

I really wish there was some level of consistency in the way the government makes laws regarding seatbelts and cigarettes. Currently seatbelts are mandatory while it's legal to buy/sell cigarettes.

Either:

1) Allow us to make poor decisions that may end up killing us by removing all laws that require one to wear a seatbelt and permitting people to freely buy/sell cigarettes

OR

2) Forbid us from making poor life/death decisions by requiring people to wear seatbelts and banning the sale of cigarettes.

Why is there a double standard with respect to these 2 issues?

Seatbelts and cigarettes, what an odd conflation. Why not seatbelts and alcohol, or seatbelts and guns?

If you are doing 77mph (UK) and for whatever reason you get into a swerve and not belted in, then you are not in control of the car and you can easily take out... how many other cars?
A petrol taker behind you breaks hard to avoid you and hit's a bus load of kids?

Car driver + seatbelt + concrete bridge = hospital.
Car driver - seatbelt + concrete bridge = undertakers.

Only a total prick drives without fastening the belt.

[chimp3]

I really wish there was some level of consistency in the way the government makes laws regarding seatbelts and cigarettes. Currently seatbelts are mandatory while it's legal to buy/sell cigarettes.

Either:

1) Allow us to make poor decisions that may end up killing us by removing all laws that require one to wear a seatbelt and permitting people to freely buy/sell cigarettes

OR

2) Forbid us from making poor life/death decisions by requiring people to wear seatbelts and banning the sale of cigarettes.

Why is there a double standard with respect to these 2 issues?

One argument for seat belts is that driver might lose control after even minor injuries. One argument against smoking is:

[The Valkyrie]

Is it still voluntary to wear a motorcycle helmet in some places over there?

[Ravenshire]

I really wish there was some level of consistency in the way the government makes laws regarding seatbelts and cigarettes. Currently seatbelts are mandatory while it's legal to buy/sell cigarettes.

Either:

1) Allow us to make poor decisions that may end up killing us by removing all laws that require one to wear a seatbelt and permitting people to freely buy/sell cigarettes

OR

2) Forbid us from making poor life/death decisions by requiring people to wear seatbelts and banning the sale of cigarettes.

Why is there a double standard with respect to these 2 issues?

It's not a double standard when you follow the money. The tobacco industry profits by continuing to sell. The insurance industry profits by not having to pay out as much.

Our lobbyists hard at work.

---

Is it still voluntary to wear a motorcycle helmet in some places over there?

Colorado actually rescinded their helmet law. The argument was that they saw an increase in motorcycle deaths after they passed the helmet law. I have no idea if the argument has any weight, but I've heard it argued that helmets reduce visibility, reduce the ability to hear and aren't designed to protect the head at the velocities typical of highway speeds.

Personally I won't get on one of those fucking death machines. It's not so much the cycles as all the assholes who don't bother to watch for other motorists of any type.

It doesn't help that the cyclists around here use the fucking highway shoulders as their personal passing lanes.