Quote:
But before I can take a statement like that seriously, I'd need to have some reasonable degree of proof that the belted occupants would have been better off unbelted and that the unbelted occupant would NOT have been better off belted.
We have doctors' statements that it was a belt which caused a broken neck or cracked ribs and ruptured internal organs. We have testimony from witnesses who tried to help people get out of a burning car but were unable to do so because the belt buckle was jammed. How much evidence do you need that in some cases belts do more harm than good?
Quote:
For me, what Paul has highlighted is the skewed side of laws for one thing, without any proper research or consent, but not laws in other walks of life.
Indeed. As I said earlier, if people accept seat belt and helmet laws, then why should they not accept a government-enforced diet, mandatory warm clothing, compulsory immunizations and surgery, and a whole range of other things "for your own good" or for the benefit of society as a whole?
Moreover, what I can't understand is how so many people who would be absolutely horrified at the thought of any of those laws aren't similarly opposed to the seat belt laws. It's illogical.
Quote:
It really doesn't bother anybody whatsoever, unless they are so fat as to have a medical condition - in which case your doctor will prescribe a note to absolve you of such a terrible safety measure.
I can assure you that belts
do bother a lot of people. I know many who find them uncomfortable and freely admit that they are only using them because of the law. Maybe if you've grown up always using a belt you find it odd to ride without one, but there are many of us who grew up never using belts and who find them horribly restrictive.
I was going to mention the medical exemption. If belts are to be forced upon everybody because it's supposedly for their own good, then why should some people be allowed this exemption? Unequal application of the law again.