Boat seat belts

[TMHeimer]

peterbj7, We can, of course, go round and round with this. Generally speaking, I think we agree that in a huge % of situations it is much better to be belted in. When we're dealing with public transportation such as planes, busses, even trains, I do think it is best to be belted. And I agree with the requirement to do so on planes (I assume it's a law as well?). I feel it should be at least a requirement that busses and trains HAVE belts. Whether they must be used maybe should be a law, or maybe up to the OWNER of the vehicle/company (not sure which I support). I know I have strayed from the boat question. Again, I think in a public transportation boat--particularly a high speed one, at least the belts should be provided. People can argue all day about whether they would cause significant numbers of drownings with a sinking boat. With a PRIVATE boat, it should be up to the owner--and you don't have to go with him if there are no belts. Regarding your UK back seat example. Did I not say that I think everyone who is not of legal age should be required by law to be buckled up? One of the kids in the back seat here was not, whether he unbuckled himself or was never buckled. Agreed, it shows exactly what can happen. If it happened to a car full of legal adults, it may sound callous, but it would be their personal choice, and I would feel more like saying: "I feel for them, but too bad, that's what you get for not buckling everyone in". There's a difference.

 

[DandyDon]

If it happened to a car full of legal adults, it may sound callous, but it would be their personal choice, and I would feel more like saying: "I feel for them, but too bad, that's what you get for not buckling everyone in". There's a difference.

But in the video with 3 out of 4 adults buckled, 1 made the choice of not buckling - then flew around the wreck killing and injuring the rest, who we presume did not vote on the decision of the 1.

 

[peterbj7]

If it happened to a car full of legal adults, it may sound callous, but it would be their personal choice, and I would feel more like saying: "I feel for them, but too bad, that's what you get for not buckling everyone in". There's a difference.

Cant agree with this. It might be the personal choice of the guy behind who chooses not to be belted in, but how about the person in front whom he hits? In that video clip that Don posted do you think the mother had agreed to being hit and killed by her son? I'm afraid that you can see from the spread of anti-smoking legislation across the world that people's "freedom" is now generally regarded as secondary to the effect exercising it has on other people. And that's just as true in "the land of the free" as anywhere else.

 

[TMHeimer]

Cant agree with this. It might be the personal choice of the guy behind who chooses not to be belted in, but how about the person in front whom he hits? In that video clip that Don posted do you think the mother had agreed to being hit and killed by her son? I'm afraid that you can see from the spread of anti-smoking legislation across the world that people's "freedom" is now generally regarded as secondary to the effect exercising it has on other people. And that's just as true in "the land of the free" as anywhere else.

No, the mother didn't agree. But you missed another thing I said way back. I said the driver ("owner") of the car sets the rules. He can insist everyone be bucked up. If you don't like it, you don't go with him. If there are underage people there is no choice, it should be law. IF all people in the car are adults and all agree, in obeyance with the driver, that they won't buckle up, that should be their choice. MANY, probably a majority of folks disagree with me, but what can I say. The seat belt "campaign" has been going on for close to 40 years. There probably isn't a driver alive who hasn't heard about all the statistics. If some adults are not yet smart enough to buckle up, that should be their choice. I know this is kind of a picky little arguement I make, but I honestly think it's a matter of the govt. not allowing adults to think on their own. I won't get started on smoking. Oh, well guess I will. I smoke a pipe. NEVER in a public place, ever in some casinos where it is legal-- since I got that first dirty look in a lounge from CIGARETTE smokers like 30 years ago (!!!) I made that logical, responsible decision. Public places such as bus depots, airports, govt. buildings, etc. are no brainers. Places like stadiums, movie houses, bars, restaurants--you don't have to go there. But there is the issue of people who work there. This is probably an issue for employees/unions and bosses. MAYBE there is cause for govt. to step in here. Some municipalities ban smoking in some places outside. An example of the law, in some cases going a little over the edge. I'm considerate enough not to smoke where it will bother anyone--before any of the laws came in. Maybe I'm wrong about all of my points and I rant because I just think we have too many laws piled on over the years, so the govt. makes sure we do the right thing. Maybe today's society needs those laws. Too bad.

 

[SC_Hoaty]

@TMHeimer
If more "responsible" adults were as considerate as you, there would be no need for some many of the nanny-state laws. Some people exist just to Pi$$ off others. Thus, the law sometimes falls to the lowest common denominator.

 

[peterbj7]

Can someone please define "nanny state"?

 

[ScubaSteve]

Let me google that for you

 

[peterbj7]

Yes, I know that, and it's a very inadequate description. What I'm interested in is what people here who use that term mean by it. There's no hard line between "protectionism, economic interventionism, or regulatory policies" that are excessive and those that are not.

I think most people would agree that there have to be some laws, eg. against murder, breach of contract, libel, etc. The question is where the line should be drawn, and I've not been able to determine from the posts of people who use the term just where they think it should be. Or perhaps they are in favour of a complete free-for-all, where the strongest prevails? It can't be that most Americans want minimalist legislation, because there is no nation on earth quicker to rush to law shouting "foul" when they don't like something that's been done to them.

 

[TMHeimer]

Yes, I know that, and it's a very inadequate description. What I'm interested in is what people here who use that term mean by it. There's no hard line between "protectionism, economic interventionism, or regulatory policies" that are excessive and those that are not.

I think most people would agree that there have to be some laws, eg. against murder, breach of contract, libel, etc. The question is where the line should be drawn, and I've not been able to determine from the posts of people who use the term just where they think it should be. Or perhaps they are in favour of a complete free-for-all, where the strongest prevails? It can't be that most Americans want minimalist legislation, because there is no nation on earth quicker to rush to law shouting "foul" when they don't like something that's been done to them.

Yes, I agree with everything you say here. Drawing that line is indeed difficult. Does make for good discussion though.

 

[AfterDark]

Can someone please define "nanny state"?

Where people unknown to you, often unqualified or inexperienced dictate, limit, or eliminate choices available to you, for your or societies own good.

C.S. Lewis says it well; "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under the omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.