It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Better roll your windows up!(107 posts)(107 posts)
(107 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 01, 2012
avatar
Starmaker: You are absolutely should be required to wear a seatbelt. People who do not wear seatbelts put a strain on society (even if you personally may be an exception).
That is a pretty weak argument considering we have not yet banned smoking.

Edit: I will say this though: children should be required to wear seat belts until they are old enough to make their own idiotic choices.
Post edited October 01, 2012 by Darling_Jimmy
Posted October 01, 2012
avatar
xyem: Why stop at requiring seatbelts?
I have no idea what you mean by that, but just in case you're offhandedly accusing me of some libertarian crap: I'm a commie.

People who do not wear seatbelts get more serious injuries and carry a greater risk of death. Injured people, dead people, orphaned kids etc are all a strain on society. The most cost-effective solution to mitigate that strain is of course care for them. For free. Again, just in case anyone has crazy strawman ideas: not putting unemployed people on welfare is extremely expensive, it's more stupid than taking all your rare earth and throwing it into the ocean.

But behavior that leads to more strain on society should be discouraged (by the most cost-effective methods available). It's the commie version of "love the sinner, hate the sin".

(And yes, if the society had less weird sexual hangups, I'd suggest fines for unsafe sex, too. However, as of now the social cost of telling consenting adults what they can and cannot do in their bedroom is overwhelming. Therefore: mandatory seatbelts - yes, mandatory condoms - no.)

avatar
Darling_Jimmy: That is a pretty weak argument considering we have not yet banned smoking.
That's a pretty fallacious argument.
Posted October 01, 2012
avatar
Stevedog13: Isn't it a private citizens car? What business is it to anyone else if it's secure or not?
Here in British Columbia, auto insurance is provincially controlled. You have no choice but to get your basic insurance through ICBC (Insurance Corporation of British Columbia). I'm not sure if this is the reason for the particular law in question, but I wouldn't be surprised. Leaving your car unsecured vastly increases the risk of an insurance claim, and since insurance is paid out through a provincially run corporation... you can probably do the math.
Posted October 01, 2012
avatar
Starmaker: That's a pretty fallacious argument.
Umm... nice try but no. I accept your surrender. ;)

avatar
Starmaker: I'd suggest fines for unsafe sex, too. However, as of now the social cost of telling consenting adults what they can and cannot do in their bedroom is overwhelming. Therefore: mandatory seatbelts - yes, mandatory condoms - no.)
Actually the consequences in Canada are far steeper than a fine:
In many countries, including Canada, it is a criminal offence to transmit or expose another person to HIV through unprotected sex. Legislators and courts have decided that the criminal law requires people living with HIV to disclose their HIV status before engaging in behaviours that risk transmitting HIV. As a consequence, some people living with HIV have been convicted of serious criminal offences, such as aggravated sexual assault or grievous bodily harm, and sentenced to significant time in prison for failing to disclose their HIV status.
http://www.aidslaw.ca/EN/issues/criminal_law.htm
Posted October 01, 2012
avatar
Stevedog13: Isn't it a private citizens car? What business is it to anyone else if it's secure or not?
avatar
Coelocanth: Here in British Columbia, auto insurance is provincially controlled. You have no choice but to get your basic insurance through ICBC (Insurance Corporation of British Columbia). I'm not sure if this is the reason for the particular law in question, but I wouldn't be surprised. Leaving your car unsecured vastly increases the risk of an insurance claim, and since insurance is paid out through a provincially run corporation... you can probably do the math.
That makes sense. I figured it was just one of those old laws where some city official got mad at their neighbor and had a stupid law passed by way of retribution.
Posted October 01, 2012
avatar
FraterPerdurabo: I look at it from a different perspective. It's not a matter of whether or not I live in / frequent a good neighbourhood but rather: am I willing to deal with bullshit?
It's a simple cost-benefit analysis:
I can leave my car doors and windows open because there is a 99% chance that nothing will happen. Or I can take those TWO SECONDS to close them in order to prevent that 1% chance of someone stealing / wrecking my car / my belongings, etc. Ultimately you have a lot more to lose with the former option than you have with the other.
I consider someone smashing my window open to get at an 8 dollar six pack of beer far more hassle than just having someone swipe the beer, especially considering that no one ever swipes my beer. I get the better safe than sorry attitude, but I drive POS cars that I pay for with cash, with 200,000 miles on them and ripped up bodies, they never even have a stereo left in them by the time I get them. If it was about my life or something terribly valuable and irreplaceable, then I'm right there with you. But in many areas absolutely nothing will ever happen if you leave your windows down, and the multiple smash and grabs when something does happen lets me know that nothing so simple as a locked door will deter someone for getting at whatever it is inside that they want.
Posted October 01, 2012
avatar
Coelocanth: Here in British Columbia, auto insurance is provincially controlled. You have no choice but to get your basic insurance through ICBC (Insurance Corporation of British Columbia). I'm not sure if this is the reason for the particular law in question, but I wouldn't be surprised. Leaving your car unsecured vastly increases the risk of an insurance claim, and since insurance is paid out through a provincially run corporation... you can probably do the math.
That was my first thought when I heard this story and am surprised that you're the first person in this thread to mention this possibility - that it's not just about "protecting people from their own stupidity" but protecting someone else who will "suffer" when your car is stolen: insurance companies. I also know that some German insurance companies won't pay up if your car gets stolen in unprotected areas in some countries (German users will instantly think of Poland but the case I've heard about was actually Italy). So it's not surprising for me that in some areas you are legally bound to reduce the probability of car theft by shutting your windows.
Post edited October 01, 2012 by F4LL0UT
Posted October 01, 2012
avatar
DieRuhe: I just found it interesting, because is this really something there needs to be a law for?
avatar
Darling_Jimmy: No. We also shouldn't be required to wear a seat belt (though it is a good idea to wear a seat belt.)
This is a desires of the few vs. the wants of the many. So long as anyone at fault is required to pay medical expenses for injured parties in an accident then yeah, it makes sense for society to consider enforcing basic harm reduction habits. Even though you hear those random anecdotes about seatbelts having been a bad idea in a particular crash, those are just that: anecdotes, mentioned because they fall so far outside the norm.

I don't know how it works up north, but in the US I can say I'd rather pay for someone's broken arm then their permanent brain damage just because I fucked up once while I was driving. Society would likewise rather not have to support his now destitute effective widow and children. Yeah it sucks, I'd rather give folks the freedom to kill themselves if they want to, but this one definitely has a social impact as well.
avatar
SimonG: See also "broken window syndrome" (different, but somehow related)
avatar
Damuna: In that lack of attendance attracts crime, though is conditional and amplified in areas which already have noticeable crime. Hence why people doing all kinds of stupid things in a place like where I live doesn't add in any significant way to crime (which is exceedingly low in most aspects), but would do somewhere else.
The greatest predictor of crime in an area is proximity to poverty and hopelessness. Even by eliminating both of those globally, we'd still have crime, but it would be so reduced as to make it so rare that most folks would never personally experience much in their lifetimes.
Post edited October 01, 2012 by orcishgamer
Posted October 02, 2012
avatar
xyem: Why stop at requiring seatbelts?
avatar
Starmaker: I have no idea what you mean by that, but just in case you're offhandedly accusing me of some libertarian crap: I'm a commie.
I don't care what you are, only what your views and arguments are for the debate at hand.

I meant why stop at enforcing seatbelt use. As I mentioned earlier, there are a whole bunch of other safety equipment and measures that are not enforced which would further reduce how bad accidents are.

Not sure if you have seen the advert where a child is knocked over and it says "At 40mph hour there is an 80% chance I'll die. At 30, 80% chance I'll live". So why aren't all road vehicles capped to 30mph?[2] Do you wear a helmet while driving a car? A 5 point harness will reduce the severity of seatbelt-induced injuries by distributing the pressure.

My issue is that people seem to draw the line at seatbelts "because they save lives". All the other measures would also save lives, but they don't even voluntarily follow them, let alone call for them to be mandatory.

Look at it like an equation. By not calling for the enforcement of these other things even though they save lives, you cross "saves lives" from the reasons to have seatbelts be mandatory. What reasons are you left with?[1]

[1] I'm aware this is a very simple view and other variables come into account such as effectivity and diminishing returns, but no-one is bringing any of that up.
[2] Explanation for where 30mph came from, not Appeal to Emotion

EDIT: It's think it is quite interesting that I am arguing for a choice that I wouldn't really exercise. Not wearing my seatbelt? Screw that. I don't even take my seatbelt off on a plane, even when I'm allowed.
Post edited October 02, 2012 by xyem
Posted October 02, 2012
avatar
xyem: [1] I'm aware this is a very simple view and other variables come into account such as effectivity and diminishing returns, but no-one is bringing any of that up.
Actually, this is what occurred to me when reading your post.

Re the 30 MPH aspect as opposed to seat belts being mandatory: how many accidents happen per year where a child is killed by a car going over 30 MPH compared to how many accidents occur where a seat belt drastically reduced the severity of injuries?

I don't know that number myself, but I'm willing to bet it's orders of magnitude.
Posted October 02, 2012
avatar
Starmaker: That's a pretty fallacious argument.
avatar
Darling_Jimmy: Umm... nice try but no. I accept your surrender. ;)
Being obtuse on purpose is not funny. Not diversifying is indeed good - up to a certain limit.

That's a real thing in economics called marginal costs. Suppose the most cost-effective way of saving human lives is buying mosquito nets to prevent malaria, at $5 per net (source: indiegamestand), $500 per saved life (source: LW). That does not mean everyone in the world should stop doing whatever it is they're doing and make more mosquito nets, because there's a limited amount of nets that are needed. After a certain limit is surpassed, a dollar spent on mosquito nets will save fewer lives than a dollar spent on e.g. free food.

Thus, for seatbelt fines to be pronounced ineffective (less effective than anti-tobacco propaganda), it should be shown that money invested in anti-tobacco propaganda and lobbying results in a greater number of lives saved per dollar than the money it takes to pay salaries to the extra number of cops required to extract fines from unseatbelted people. Lives per dollar - figures that show the relative effectiveness of two specific policies, not lung cancer deaths total vs automotive deaths total, not "what if everyone stops smoking" vs "what is everyone starts wearing seatbelts". No magic.

I do not know the figures - it may as well be that seatbelt fines do not save lives and funds should be redirected more efficiently. But neither, apparently, do you. Saying "other problems exist" is exactly zero bytes of information for everyone present. A zero-byte rhetorical trick (deepity) is always fallacious.

Also: I'm a former wrestler. I do not surrender unless I say so, even if and especially if I give up on changing your mind. Not changing your mind is not a virtue, and giving up on a discussion is not a surrender. I do not talk about gay rights with local neo-nazis, but that does not mean I admit they're right.

avatar
Darling_Jimmy: Actually the consequences in Canada are far steeper than a fine
That's exposure to HIV. The automotive analogy would be "did not secure a child in the child seat and the child broke his spine" rather than "did not secure a child in the child seat and a cop saw it".
Post edited October 02, 2012 by Starmaker
Posted October 02, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: I don't know how it works up north, but in the US I can say I'd rather pay for someone's broken arm then their permanent brain damage just because I fucked up once while I was driving.
Or when they fucked up, but somehow got it blamed on you, which happens too. >.>
Posted October 02, 2012
avatar
Starmaker: I have no idea what you mean by that, but just in case you're offhandedly accusing me of some libertarian crap: I'm a commie.
avatar
xyem: I don't care what you are, only what your views and arguments are for the debate at hand.
Soryr about that; it's just "why stop at requiring seatbelts" without further elaboration sounded like a setup for a strawman. Glad to see I was wrong.
Posted October 02, 2012
avatar
Starmaker: Saying "other problems exist" is exactly zero bytes of information for everyone present. A zero-byte rhetorical trick (deepity) is always fallacious.
I will give you the language barrier benefit of the doubt. I didn't say other problems exist nor did I mention anti-smoking campaigns.

You believe not wearing seat belts should be a fineable offence because it puts an (unnecessary) strain on socialized health care. (Right?) So why is smoking not a fineable offence for putting the greatest (unnecessary) strain on socialized health care?
Posted October 02, 2012
The govt. cares about us so much! I love the govt.!
avatar
SimonG: See also "broken window syndrome" (different, but somehow related)
You meant broken window fallacy?

Maybe we should ban skirts, because "many crimes are comitted without planning", and a short skirt may encourage rape? It's said that pissing in sedentary position is healthier than while standing, so maybe we fine people who piss while standing, to "prevent" prostate cancer.

Prevention should stop criminals from commiting crimes, not oridinary people to do whatever they want with their property unless it makes harm to anybody. Ticketing people for rolling down their windows is Orwellian prevention.
Post edited October 02, 2012 by keeveek
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Better roll your windows up!(107 posts)(107 posts)
(107 posts)