Boat seat belts

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Yeah, 30+ years ago New York was that way. Don't think it is still secondary. At least secondary is better than primary. I always was puzzed by that--either it's bad and totally illegal or not(?).... What other laws are secondary? Here's something interesting--In driving through N.H. I was told at a toll booth that seat belts are only required if a driver is under 18 (think it's 18). If that's true, how did they get away with that? Any NH locals out there?

The state motto of NH is "Live free or die", sometimes it is "Live, freeze or die" in the winter.

In any case, the residents (including myself until my unfortunate relocation to <gasp> west Texas) tend to have a very independent streak (although not overly conservative or liberal).

Thus the lack of mandatory seat belt laws for adults - i.e. they let adults make their own decisions. Ditto for motorcycle helmets. Also interesting is the lack of state income and sales tax. Revenue is generated from a locally controlled property tax (a bit hefty).

 

[novicediver]

I am all for letting adults make their own decisions except when those decisions can have a negative impact on other's well being. Not wearing a seat belt and then getting into a crash will have repercussions that affect more than yourself but you are too selfish to recognize it.

 

[Rhone Man]

I think it is apples and oranges. Cars drive along roads immediately adjacent to cars travelling in the opposite direction. Boats don't. If a car crashes, you want to stay still until the ambulance arrives. In a boat, that is often not advisable, especially if it is sinking. If there really is a need for greater safety in boats (and I'm not honestly sure that there is, looking at the numbers) I think we'll see helmets before we see seatbelts.

This reminds me of a debate years ago when the British Govenment wanted to make it mandatory to impose temperature controls on taps, to make sure that no one accidentally scalded themselves with water which was too hot. Vast expense to fix a non-existent problem. Probably the most embarassing moment of Tony Blair's leadership.

 

[DandyDon]

Also, back seat passengers here (18 yo and older) are not required to wear a seat belt.

It's good that they protect the minors, but I like knowing that the people in back are not going to fly forward regardless of their age.

I am all for letting adults make their own decisions except when those decisions can have a negative impact on other's well being. Not wearing a seat belt and then getting into a crash will have repercussions that affect more than yourself but you are too selfish to recognize it.

Yeah, within and beyond the vehicle. Society does exist.

 

[Rhone Man]

I am all for letting adults make their own decisions except when those decisions can have a negative impact on other's well being. Not wearing a seat belt and then getting into a crash will have repercussions that affect more than yourself but you are too selfish to recognize it.

In law school they call this 'second order harms'. How far do you go to stop behaviour on the basis of potential negative impact on someone else? Do you ban people from drinking because their inability to hold down a job is bad for their family? Stop people from engaging in risky sports? Force them to eat healthy food? Make suicide illegal?

Most societies really require some direct and significant negative consequences of behaviour before prohibiting it. There's a reason for that.

 

[GrumpyOldGuy]

I am all for letting adults make their own decisions except when those decisions can have a negative impact on other's well being. Not wearing a seat belt and then getting into a crash will have repercussions that affect more than yourself but you are too selfish to recognize it.

If we follow your logic to the extreme....

It has been shown that yellow cars are the most visible on the road and thus should be the safest car. Since we are so concerned about the repercussions that affect others, maybe we should mandate all new cars must be yellow.

At some point you have to draw a line between personal freedom and the greater good. The communist drew it one place off to the side, the anarchist off of the other side and the rest of us need to find a good place in the center.

 

[novicediver]

We aren't drawing it to an extreme, we drawing it to an immediate consequence of personal stupidity. Seat belts in cars save lives, not wearing seat belts results in higher morbidity and mortality rates. If you go another step, then you get where the higher morbidity and mortality rates result in increased overall premiums. Why not champion your so called rights and rail against domestic wiretapping, data mining, the Patriot Act, and big brother. At any rate this is a dead horse topic. If you crash your car and fly through a windshield and die, you are one less defect in the gene pool.

 

[TMHeimer]

I don't see how wearing a seat belt has anything to do with civil liberties. Last time I checked, driving was a privilege not a right. As with any privilege, there are things called rules that you must abide by. Little things like driving on the correct side of the road, stopping at crosswalks, obeying traffic signals, and not driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. For some of you it is less an issue of your precious "rights" and more an issue of not wanting to be told what to do. That just isn't a legitimate reason especially when your actions put yourself and others at risk. By not wearing a seat belt, you have now increased the likelihood of being ejected and becoming a projectile that may very well cause a secondary crash. Also you increase the overall insurance carrier rates and now many companies are refusing to pay claims on those that wantonly choose to disobey traffic laws.

I couldn't agree more with Rhone Man's reply. Correct side of the road, crosswalks, traffic signals, no drugs/alcohol: These are things that can directly and often do cause harm & death to others. I'm sure it's happened, but I've never heard of a human projectile causing a secondary accident. Those occurrences are probably offset by the times the seat belt jammed causing burning or drowning deaths. Restricting one's civil liberties may at times be really the same as the govt. just sticking it's nose in too far. There are so many things the govt. could do to regulate diving, but almost everyone I know is glad they haven't (yet). Though I do support the dive flag laws where they exist, and appreciate the lack of them where it is not necessary. I do see your point about car insurances increasing--can't argue with you there. And the fact that most companies probably won't pay if you're not wearing a belt is a secondary reason why I wear mine. That's why I've always figured the start of the whole seat belt thing was an insurance thing, not a safety thing. If money is not the reason for such laws and safety is, then why hasn't the diving world been regulated? Remember the dreadded national speed limit of 55? That was beacuse of the perceived world oil shortage and opec's prices in 1974. Then in the 80s it became "55 saves lives". Of course it does. 25 saves a lot more. Then in 1986 when there was no more "oil shortage" the law was repealed, speed limits went gradually back up to where they were and the heck with saving lives.

 

[GrumpyOldGuy]

We aren't drawing it to an extreme, we drawing it to an immediate consequence of your personal stupidity. Seat belts in cars save lives, not wearing seat belts results in higher morbidity and mortality rates. If you go another step, then you get where the higher morbidity and mortality rates result in increased overall premiums. Why not champion your so called rights and rail against domestic wiretapping, data mining, the Patriot Act, and big brother. At any rate this is a dead horse topic. If you crash your car and fly through a windshield and die, you are one less defect in the gene pool.

I could do without the name calling and rant. Lets behave like adults and treat each other as such.

 

[novicediver]

Refusing to wear a seat belt in a moving vehicle makes you an idiot. Much like going into a wreck without proper gear.