Rules for Safety? TOo much?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

What do you think is a reasonable level to go to help others or prevent them from causing suffering to themselves or others? W/out having a Nanny State, are there things you believe are reasonable to enforce as rules, to help others (safety IE).


IE. Seatbelts, helmits for riding open carriage vehicles etc.

[Mr Bean]

Pretty much what we have now except an extra crackdown on the Helmet laws.

Or should I say, if you want your bike insured, you better be wearing a helmet.

[FSTargetDrone]

Mandatory seatbelts/child seats and massive fines if whoever is driving doesn't use them. Too many times I've seen young children standing up in the back seat. I would go as far as temporary revocation (at least) of an individual's driver's license/increase in insurance if he or she is found to be driving around with children unrestrained (and in the back seat, if possible).

I would also have much heavier penalties for first-time convictions of DUI's and I'd keep people between 16-18 from driving at night. And absolutely no cell phone use for anyone while driving unless it's an emergency.

And I second the helmet laws, or at least raising insurance rates for those who stupidly decide to go without. Here in Pennsylvania someone had the bright idea of allowing riders to go without helmets which is one of the more brainless changes in law we've had as far as vehicle safety goes.

[FSTargetDrone]

While we are at it, let's raise the driving age to 18 and/or lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. If you can vote as well as potentially get drafted in the US military and then use a weapon and kill people, you should legally be able to drink.

[Broomstick]

And I second the helmet laws, or at least raising insurance rates for those who stupidly decide to go without. Here in Pennsylvania someone had the bright idea of allowing riders to go without helmets which is one of the more brainless changes in law we've had as far as vehicle safety goes.

On the upside, though, overturning mandatory helmet laws invariably increase the pool of organs available for donation.

[Molyneux]

What do you think is a reasonable level to go to help others or prevent them from causing suffering to themselves or others? W/out having a Nanny State, are there things you believe are reasonable to enforce as rules, to help others (safety IE).


IE. Seatbelts, helmits for riding open carriage vehicles etc.

Seatbelt, carseat and helmet laws for minors.
Mandatory gun-safety course and testing (like a driving test) for anyone who wishes to own a firearm.
Re-testing for a driver's license every few years.

Aaaaand...that's about all I can think of.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Haha. I was told that if people have to wear bike helmits, that necessarily means you must also make them wear leather =D. I don't know why.

[Flagg]

I agree with the gun safety (and also mandatory trigger locks) courses, and anyone under 18 being forced to wear a seatbelt.

If you are 18 and over, then I don't think anyone has the right to tell you that you must wear a seatbelt, motorcycle helmet, etc. As long as it doesn't injure someone elses person or property I don't think it should be legislated. At the same time if someone is injured in an accident and not wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet they shouldn't be eligable for any type of government assistance with their hospital bills, and hospitals should not be allowed to cover the persons medical costs. I would also possibly allow a car insurance company to be able to opt out on paying the hospital bills in a case like that. But only if it is provable that they were not wearing a seatbelt ot helmet.

[Flagg]

Haha. I was told that if people have to wear bike helmits, that necessarily means you must also make them wear leather =D. I don't know why.

It's because it protects your skin from road rash.

[Beowulf]

Haha. I was told that if people have to wear bike helmits, that necessarily means you must also make them wear leather =D. I don't know why.

It's because it protects your skin from road rash.

More like being flayed alive. It's funny to see someone wearing a tank top, shorts, and a helmet. Like the helmets going to do much good when you're missing half of your skin.

[Darth Wong]

What's wrong with a Nanny-State? You need a nanny when you're a child because you don't know any better. Logically, a nanny would be superfluous once you grow up and start acting like an adult. The problem is that even a cursory perusal of traffic reports and the news will reveal that many of the adults in this country still act like children, hence they need a nanny.

[Flagg]

Haha. I was told that if people have to wear bike helmits, that necessarily means you must also make them wear leather =D. I don't know why.

It's because it protects your skin from road rash.

More like being flayed alive. It's funny to see someone wearing a tank top, shorts, and a helmet. Like the helmets going to do much good when you're missing half of your skin.

The same thing goes for those shell helmets. They don't do a whole hell of alot of good when you do a faceplant.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

What's wrong with a Nanny-State? You need a nanny when you're a child because you don't know any better. Logically, a nanny would be superfluous once you grow up and start acting like an adult. The problem is that even a cursory perusal of traffic reports and the news will reveal that many of the adults in this country still act like children, hence they need a nanny.
_________________

Because obviously that's Fascism. At least that's what I am told.

[Chmee]

I'm only bothered by the logical extreme of the nanny-state .... that for the good of your soul, you will be compelled to attend the State church every week and abide by its moral strictures .... what's an arm or a leg compared to your Immortal Soul?

[SirNitram]

I'm only bothered by the logical extreme of the nanny-state .... that for the good of your soul, you will be compelled to attend the State church every week and abide by its moral strictures .... what's an arm or a leg compared to your Immortal Soul?

You mean the Illogical Extreme, IE, slippery slope fallacy.

[Darth Wong]

I'm only bothered by the logical extreme of the nanny-state .... that for the good of your soul, you will be compelled to attend the State church every week and abide by its moral strictures .... what's an arm or a leg compared to your Immortal Soul?

Non sequitur. The identification and mitigation of objective harm by the state does not translate into a governmental imperative to enforce subjective belief systems upon the populace.

[Chmee]

I'm only bothered by the logical extreme of the nanny-state .... that for the good of your soul, you will be compelled to attend the State church every week and abide by its moral strictures .... what's an arm or a leg compared to your Immortal Soul?

Non sequitur. The identification and mitigation of objective harm by the state does not translate into a governmental imperative to enforce subjective belief systems upon the populace.

Now all you have to do is get the people who adhere to those belief systems to agree with you that they're subjective ... which unfortunately, they do not. As far as they're concerned, they're immutable truths every bit as valid as injury statistics. If they were willing to draw the same logical distinction as you, I wouldn't worry ... but they don't, so I do.

[SirNitram]

Now all you have to do is get the people who adhere to those belief systems to agree with you that they're subjective ... which unfortunately, they do not. As far as they're concerned, they're immutable truths every bit as valid as injury statistics. If they were willing to draw the same logical distinction as you, I wouldn't worry ... but they don't, so I do.

Re-iterated: Slippery Slope Fallacy. Nothing means that once you have one, you have this nightmare scenario you yanked wholesale from your ass.

[Jalinth]

More like being flayed alive. It's funny to see someone wearing a tank top, shorts, and a helmet. Like the helmets going to do much good when you're missing half of your skin.

Apparently other motorbikers call them road pizza. Apparently this is a pretty good description of what you look like after an accident. Road rash X 10

[Flagg]

More like being flayed alive. It's funny to see someone wearing a tank top, shorts, and a helmet. Like the helmets going to do much good when you're missing half of your skin.

Apparently other motorbikers call them road pizza. Apparently this is a pretty good description of what you look like after an accident. Road rash X 10

I've seen pictures, and it's not pretty. Does look amazingly like pizza, though. Especially if it's on their back.

[Darth Wong]

I'm only bothered by the logical extreme of the nanny-state .... that for the good of your soul, you will be compelled to attend the State church every week and abide by its moral strictures .... what's an arm or a leg compared to your Immortal Soul?

Non sequitur. The identification and mitigation of objective harm by the state does not translate into a governmental imperative to enforce subjective belief systems upon the populace.

Now all you have to do is get the people who adhere to those belief systems to agree with you that they're subjective ... which unfortunately, they do not. As far as they're concerned, they're immutable truths every bit as valid as injury statistics. If they were willing to draw the same logical distinction as you, I wouldn't worry ... but they don't, so I do.

This is like saying that we should not allow objective data to influence the laws in general because fundies think the Bible is objective. Don't be a retard. The deranged ravings of fanatics are not a "logical extreme" of the mitigation of objective harm, no matter how much bullshit you try to pile upon it. They are a most illogical conclusion, and the fact that some wackos out there will leap to it anyway does not make it logical.

[HemlockGrey]

I don't think mandatory seatbelt laws for over 18's have much purpose other than kicking a few hundred extra bucks into the treasury now and then. If they're too stupid to wear a helmet while biking, fuck 'em.

[Flagg]

I think a logical extreme could be banning swimming in the ocean for fear of shark attacks, or banning fatty foods because they can cause heart disease. I don't know where that fundie shit came from though.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think mandatory seatbelt laws for over 18's have much purpose other than kicking a few hundred extra bucks into the treasury now and then.

Are there any jurisdictions out there with primary enforcement seatbelt laws where they did not experience a statistically significant increase in seatbelt use after the passage of these laws? All of the examples I've heard indicate that such an increase does generally occur, thus saving lives.

If they're too stupid to wear a helmet while biking, fuck 'em.

Let me get this straight: you have no objection to letting them be killed or maimed, but you will stand up to keep them from being ticketed? What's wrong with fining people for this kind of stupidity?

[Darth Wong]

I think a logical extreme could be banning swimming in the ocean for fear of shark attacks, or banning fatty foods because they can cause heart disease.

Actually, if there is a public health hazard at the beach, they will close it down. Similarly, they can and do ban certain foods or food additives because of health risks. It's just a question of where the line is drawn; those who pretend that there is no line at all are merely fooling themselves.

I don't know where that fundie shit came from though.

Neither do I.