The Best Wear-Your-Seat-Belt Video Ever

[ShockBand]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-8PBx7isoM

This commercial from the UK is a work of art. Love it.

[ShockTalk]

Re: The Best Wear-Your-Seat-Belt Video Ever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-8PBx7isoM

This commercial from the UK is a work of art. Love it.

Well done!!

[pogo]

Someone needs to send this to our legislators, but then again they may think it has problems with profiling. :shock:

[t7017s]

Why do our legislators need this? They are about to sell out our personal freedoms (mandatory seat belt laws) for 13 mil in stimulus cash. Youd be better off sending them pictures money because they are !@#$%^&*!!!

[pogo]

Your personal freedom to be stupid?

[The Mad Hatter]

Why do our legislators need this? They are about to sell out our personal freedoms (mandatory seat belt laws) for 13 mil in stimulus cash. Youd be better off sending them pictures money because they are !@#$%^&*!!!

Ah yes, the personal freedom to unnecessarily injure yourself thereby driving up insurance and health care rates for the rest of the population. It is indeed our most precious freedom.

[Shirley Schmidt]

Ask that dumb a** Derrick Thomas about seatbelt use good chance he would be alive today.

But I guess he was just to manly to wear a seatbelt and is now taking a dirt nap.

[SubGod22]

I agree that they shouldn't be legislating this stuff. If I choose not to wear a seat belt and something happens I only hurt myself. When are they gonna come and put some sort of temperature gauge on my sink or shower so I don't accidentally burn myself with hot water?

[rjl]

I agree that they shouldn't be legislating this stuff. If I choose not to wear a seat belt and something happens I only hurt myself. When are they gonna come and put some sort of temperature gauge on my sink or shower so I don't accidentally burn myself with hot water?

I assume you are for the legalization of all narcotics, then?

[pogo]

Do you choose not to belt in your children?

[KC Shox]

Ask that dumb a** Derrick Thomas about seatbelt use good chance he would be alive today.

But I guess he was just to manly to wear a seatbelt and is now taking a dirt nap.

Not wearing his seatbelt ended being his undoing, the cause of the accident was the dumbass driver who was speeding in bad snow/ice conditions. So the lesson here, if you are riding with someone who is driving like a 5-year old girl, put your damn seatbelt on or grab the driver's attention and tell his ass to slow down! It will lower the probabiliy of being killed.

[pogo]

I would bet that by doing BOTH (fastening the seatbelt AND slowing down) lowers the probability of death exponentially.

[The Mad Hatter]

I agree that they shouldn't be legislating this stuff. If I choose not to wear a seat belt and something happens I only hurt myself. When are they gonna come and put some sort of temperature gauge on my sink or shower so I don't accidentally burn myself with hot water?

As I said above, we have such things as car and health insurance. These systems are based on shared risk. If one person does something stupid that incurs an unnecessary expense, everyone in the system has to pay for it.

As for your water example, we do indeed have building codes that regulate how potentially dangerous things like electricity and plumbing are installed, or how structures are made secure. And yes, these regulations are a good idea because they save lives.

I have sympathy with a lot of the libertarian arguments about small government, but when you argue against government action that has enormous social benefit and little or no possible downside, it just makes you look silly. Save the anti-government venom for things that are actually damaging or you will look like the boy who cried wolf.

[RoyalShock]

I agree that they shouldn't be legislating this stuff. If I choose not to wear a seat belt and something happens I only hurt myself. When are they gonna come and put some sort of temperature gauge on my sink or shower so I don't accidentally burn myself with hot water?

As I said above, we have such things as car and health insurance. These systems are based on shared risk. If one person does something stupid that incurs an unnecessary expense, everyone in the system has to pay for it.

As for your water example, we do indeed have building codes that regulate how potentially dangerous things like electricity and plumbing are installed, or how structures are made secure. And yes, these regulations are a good idea because they save lives.

I have sympathy with a lot of the libertarian arguments about small government, but when you argue against government action that has enormous social benefit and little or no possible downside, it just makes you look silly. Save the anti-government venom for things that are actually damaging or you will look like the boy who cried wolf.

The bolded portion is where the crux of the issue is for liberty-minded people. You don't see the danger of sacrificing the liberty of some (a liberty you imply is really not important) to achieve a social benefit. But some would disagree and that it 1. is important to them (hey, I don't have to be convinced to wear my seatbelt or buckle my kids in, but I'm not everyone), 2. feel that since neither government nor those it purports to serve can seem to limit itself, they don't trust them not to continue eroding even more important liberties. Can you blame them?

For you to say it's silly is disrespectful, condescending, and actually hurts your argument, in my opinion.

[The Mad Hatter]

I agree that they shouldn't be legislating this stuff. If I choose not to wear a seat belt and something happens I only hurt myself. When are they gonna come and put some sort of temperature gauge on my sink or shower so I don't accidentally burn myself with hot water?

As I said above, we have such things as car and health insurance. These systems are based on shared risk. If one person does something stupid that incurs an unnecessary expense, everyone in the system has to pay for it.

As for your water example, we do indeed have building codes that regulate how potentially dangerous things like electricity and plumbing are installed, or how structures are made secure. And yes, these regulations are a good idea because they save lives.

I have sympathy with a lot of the libertarian arguments about small government, but when you argue against government action that has enormous social benefit and little or no possible downside, it just makes you look silly. Save the anti-government venom for things that are actually damaging or you will look like the boy who cried wolf.

The bolded portion is where the crux of the issue is for liberty-minded people. You don't see the danger of sacrificing the liberty of some (a liberty you imply is really not important) to achieve a social benefit. But some would disagree and that it 1. is important to them (hey, I don't have to be convinced to wear my seatbelt or buckle my kids in, but I'm not everyone), 2. feel that since neither government nor those it purports to serve can seem to limit itself, they don't trust them not to continue eroding even more important liberties. Can you blame them?

For you to say it's silly is disrespectful, condescending, and actually hurts your argument, in my opinion.

The very existence of government is a sacrifice of liberty. To say that government should not do something because it sacrifices liberty is the argument for anarchy. This principle can be found at least as far back as the writings of Plato and Aristotle.

The true argument is not whether or not we are going to sacrifice liberty for governmental rule. The question always is where the appropriate balance is between the benefit of such sacrifice of liberty and any potential harm from said sacrifice. The concept of civil liberties is not the protection of all human liberty, or else there would be no government at all, but determining which liberties are valuable enough that we determine that it would be detrimental to sacrifice them.

Other than loss of liberty in a general sense (which, once again, is an argument that can be made against any action of government), what is the harm inflicted upon either individuals or society as a whole by requiring seat belt usage?

As to the slippery slope argument, that the erosion of some liberties will lead to the loss of more important ones, this is precisely the issue I was addressing when I commented on the issue of the boy who cried wolf. Within libertarian circles, crying bloody murder over these kinds of issues may play well, but to the general public, you are only serving to marginalize your voice and risk not being taken seriously when far more serious issues of liberty emerge.

EDIT: This isn't the politics forum, so this will be the last I post on this topic on this thread.