Does A State Have The Right To Enact Safety Belt Laws?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='alixr' post='1773950' date='Feb 6 2009, 02:49 PM']Correct. I do not believe someone's face begins in a person's car with them buckling or not buckling their seatbelt.[/quote]
lol.

We had a teacher here die yesterday in a two-car accident because she did not wear her seatbelt. She left behind a husband, baby,and classes of students, friends, extended family etc.
Cannot we not say she failed in her responsibilty to ALL of them because she didn't simply buckle her seatbelt?

[alixr]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1773961' date='Feb 6 2009, 03:11 PM']lol.

We had a teacher here die yesterday in a two-car accident because she did not wear her seatbelt. She left behind a husband, baby,and classes of students, friends, extended family etc.
Cannot we not say she failed in her responsibilty to ALL of them because she didn't simply buckle her seatbelt?[/quote]


Absolutely. She completely failed her responsibility to them all. She did not infringe on constitutional rights subject to monitoring by law, though. I'm sorry for the loss of your acquaintance, by the way; my prayers are with her family.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='alixr' post='1773971' date='Feb 6 2009, 03:19 PM']Absolutely. She completely failed her responsibility to them all. She did not infringe on constitutional rights subject to monitoring by law, though. I'm sorry for the loss of your acquaintance, by the way; my prayers are with her family.[/quote]

No, she did not violate constitutional law, but cannot you say she violated the golden rule? Love your neighbor as yourself? Was she loving herself and by extension her family by ignoring a commonsense rule?

[alixr]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1773981' date='Feb 6 2009, 03:31 PM']No, she did not violate constitutional law, but cannot you say she violated the golden rule? Love your neighbor as yourself? Was she loving herself and by extension her family by ignoring a commonsense rule?[/quote]


Yes, she definitely did violate the golden rule. But the state is not an enforcer of the golden rule; it would have to be written into at least the state constitution and people would start suing people for not holding the door open for them and things like that. To which the person being sued would argue that they, personally, would prefer not to have doors held open for them and that's why they didn't hold the door open for the person doing the suing. The goldn rule is unenforceable because it is subjective. It is a rule that must be enforced by ones own conscience, not the law.

[lost_in_this_world]

i think that the state has the right to force laws when the action may affect other people aside from just the person doing it. seatbelts, i dont know if they have a right but its a good idea. the state should absolutely enforce cell phone laws because it can affect other people on the roan

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='alixr' post='1773797' date='Feb 6 2009, 11:26 AM']By extrapolation then, it should be against the law for a person to do anything unhealthy? Eat certain foods, smoke, drink, not go to the dentist regularly, go out in the cold without being dressed in a pre-specified type of clothing to ward off colds . . . anything that might make someone sick and drive up insurance premiums? You cannot begin infringing on personal freedoms like that or there will be nowhere to stop. It's your life, it's your choice; you do not infringe upon the life or liberty of others by not wearing a seatbelt; the state should not have the power to enforce this law.[/quote]
We live in a society. In order for a society to work, we give up certain freedoms. We have responsibilities to each other, some explicit, i.e. a parent to his / her child, some implicit, i.e. to a neighbor, even a stranger, when the public good is involved. The state regulates all kinds of things - use of alcohol, use of tobacco, driving, how many storeys / stories my house can be - there is no absolute freedom to do anything simply because it's "[my] life."

[alixr]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1774011' date='Feb 6 2009, 04:02 PM']We live in a society. In order for a society to work, we give up certain freedoms. We have responsibilities to each other, some explicit, i.e. a parent to his / her child, some implicit, i.e. to a neighbor, even a stranger, when the public good is involved. The state regulates all kinds of things - use of alcohol, use of tobacco, driving, how many storeys / stories my house can be - there is no absolute freedom to do anything simply because it's "[my] life."[/quote]


Living in the United States, you live in a country that assumes that it's people do, in fact, have certain inherent liberties and freedoms. There are other laws in place to protect various freedoms as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Lets not get started on group mentality and evils committed throughout the ages as a result of what was thought best for the group. Start infringing too much on personal liberties and you start setting disturbing precedents that bring us closer to those situations. As I stated before, tobacco I understand the laws about; also public drunkenness. Also certain driving laws, etc. But the simple law of wearing a seatbelt I just don't think has validity as enough of a public endangerment to warrant laws to enforce it. If more emphasis was placed on enforcing safe driving habits, and more driver education, we'd have fewer accidents to begin with.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='alixr' post='1774025' date='Feb 6 2009, 04:16 PM']Living in the United States, you live in a country that assumes that it's people do, in fact, have certain inherent liberties and freedoms. There are other laws in place to protect various freedoms as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Lets not get started on group mentality and evils committed throughout the ages as a result of what was thought best for the group. Start infringing too much on personal liberties and you start setting disturbing precedents that bring us closer to those situations. As I stated before, tobacco I understand the laws about; also public drunkenness. Also certain driving laws, etc. But the simple law of wearing a seatbelt I just don't think has validity as enough of a public endangerment to warrant laws to enforce it. If more emphasis was placed on enforcing safe driving habits, and more driver education, we'd have fewer accidents to begin with.[/quote]
Freedom of speech is a liberty. Wearing a seatbelt is associated with driving, which is a privilege. No one is guaranteed a "right" to drive. In fact, the state strictly regulates that activity by determining who can drive, how fast they can drive, that our vehicles must pass certain standards of working order, that our vehicles must only emit such-and-such a level of greenhouse gas emissions, etc.

[Nihil Obstat]

Alixr, do you have some kind of complex against agreeing with people?
Just asking...

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1771251' date='Feb 3 2009, 04:10 PM']+J.M.J.+
just wondering what you all think. does a state have the legal right to enact safety belt laws? or (as in the case of California, i think) does it have the right to say you cannot smoke in your own car (if there is a minor in your car)? or cell phone laws - they call it driving while distracted, but fail to recognize that having passengers in your car also leads to 'distracted driving'.[/quote]

Or listening to the radio up so loud that the bass literally shakes the car, like one can often see/hear around DC.

I do think the state has the right to enact safety belt laws because it's not just a matter of personal risk. It costs the state millions of dollars to deal with the carnage of a wreck involving a person who wasn't wearing a seatbelt, and it's an unnecesary burden on the local economy. If someone wants to take their life into their own hands by being careless, let them do it in a way that doesn't effect the taxpayer.

I think the smoking thing involves having children in the car, but I could be wrong. Seems like I read something about that--don't know what state though.