3mo ago

Federal Regulators Hold Celebratory Seatbelt-Cutting Ceremony

theonion.com

113 comments

!remindme 1 year
- @remindme@mstdn.social is the bot you're looking for.
  
  !remindme @remindme@mstdn.social
Finally cutting the bonds that have shackled Americans since the 1960s. Next we'll take down the Motorcycle Helmet Nazis - feel the wind in your crewcut again!
I know this is the onion but I'm honestly glad for companies like Subaru building in a way to disable the seatbelt chime. When I'm slow rolling a rocky dirt road at 10mph with no one else on it, I feel dumb wearing a seatbelt. Or having the windows up for that matter.
- Praise be to Subaru for saving you from such a cruel fate. No one should have to feel dumb wearing a seatbelt!
  
  Coincidentally, anyone feeling dumb for wearing a seatbelt most probably IS dumb (but not for wearing a seatbelt).
- How are you so insecure that a seatbelt makes you feel dumb?
  
  It's not about being insecure. I'm just old enough to remember riding in old trucks and cars that didn't even have seatbelts. They make sense for most situations and I wear my seatbelt, but there are sometimes situations where it just feels like unnecessary compliance.
Not wearing a seatbelt should be completely legal (once you're over 18). It's stupid, but it should absolutely be legal.
- No. It also puts the other party's life (in a crash) in danger.
  
  Nope, it doesn't.
  The chances of that happening are so astronomically low as to be completely irrelevant, and it doesn't hold a candle to the violation of personal liberty.
- My wife works in a hospital and receives patients from car crashes. If driving without a seatbelt was legal she would find another job.
  Intact she has worked in a country where no one, even kids are required to wear seatbelts, and she doesn't want to work like that now
  
  Not everyone's cut out to work in medical care - it's a tough field.
- This is like the 3rd or 4th dumb take I've seen come out of lemm.ee users within the past few hours.
  Yall must be migrating from the highly intellectual youtube community section.
  
  At least the other people complaining and downvoting here are bringing actual arguments to the table and engaging in productive dialogue.
  What a useless comment.
- Since you don't care about human life, maybe money matters more to you: Seatbelts decrease auto insurance costs.
  
  I absolutely care about human life, and it's sad and senseless when people kill themselves with stupid choices.
  I just respect their humanity enough to not impose my will on theirs, when their decisions don't cause significant enough externalities for the people around them to justify treating them as less human than I see myself.
  Seatbelts decrease auto insurance costs.
  And legal penalties for high BMI decreases health insurance costs, which are much, much higher than car insurance costs (as well as preventing far more needless deaths, since you're such a humanitarian).
  Why is freedom of choice valid in the more egregious cost scenario but not less egregious one?
- Clearly from a country without socialized healthcare...
  
  Yes, because that's the dangerous activity that causes the most additional load.
  What's the average BMI in your country with socialized healthcare? What are your criteria for which dangerous activities we should and should not be allowed to engage in due to additional load on the medical system?
- I'd be for it if they were the only ones who get affected in a crash. What about innocent people who might get hurt from a 90kg projectile? Or the people who have to mop up the mess?
  
  a) the chance is that happening is so low as to be completely irrelevant. Note that you even used "might" when describing this incredibly unlikely event.
  b) that's part of the job, just like gore and dead bodies are part of the job for doctors. Again, this should be discounted entirely, especially when making choices that restrict people's freedom.
- While at it, we should legalize drunk driving. Drunk driving got a bad name in the past because irresponsible drunk drivers were drinking behind the wheel and purposefully running people over. My father drove drunk for 30 years and he was only in 7 car accidents. It’s non sense.
  
  The difference being, of course, that drunk driving has an incredibly high chance of negatively affecting others, while not wearing a seatbelt has an incredibly low chance of negatively affecting others.
  
  The 3 down voters didn't get the implied /s
- Do you also think it should be the law for car manufacturers to provide seatbelts? If you don't, then you've got an even worse take
  Wearing a seatbelt should 100% be the law. It affects others, you're just doing mental gymnastics to pretend it doesn't.
  If you didn't mandate seatbelt usage it would take up extra valuable hospital resources, extra valuable emergency response resources, and simply expose more people to death of someone they know.
  Go live outside of society, if you truly feel this way. Honestly.
  Take your downvotes as a small microcosm that the vast majority of society is not with you on this, and maybe reconsider.
  
  Manufacturers should be required to provide seatbelts. Failure to do so affects others negatively.
  If we continue to not mandate healthy eating habits, easily preventable diseases will continue to take up extra valuable hospital resources, extra valuable emergency response resources, and simply expose more people to death of someone they know. Outlaw high BMI now!
  Lemmy is a combination of control-obsessed tankies and nanny state libs - of course I'm getting downvotes. Fortunately, I'd rather be right than popular, and I guarantee you that someone read my comments here and realized for the first time just how ridiculous and hypocritical seatbelt laws are. They probably still downvoted, because accepting that what you've always been told is incorrect is difficult, but the seed will have been planted.
- I agree. It is VERY stupid to not wear one, but seatbelt laws in the US were a test of control, not safety.
  Seatbelts are a constitutional violation on personal freedom. Argue all you want, but they are.
  
  which part of the constitution was the seatbelt law supposed to be violating again?
  
  I mean, then so is not allowing people to randomly test nukes on their own property.
  As is every law against suicide or selling clearly harmful chemicals.
  The penalty is a ticket, and rarely enforced, get over your shit.
  
  If you think about it, all regulations stemming from the DoT are.
  They're infringing on my right to drive with no head or taillights.
  They're infringing on my right to ignore traffic signs.
  They're infringing on my right to drive on the left side of the road.
  They're infringing on my right to drive a monster truck on the highway.
  In a truly free country, I could drive my truck with 66" tires down the so-called "wrong" side of the road in the dead of night with no lights whatsoever. Sure, I might injure or kill someone, but I also might not, and stopping me from doing so is clearly stopping me from my pursuit of happiness.
  
  <3

113 comments