The active crash avoidance and lane departure shouldn't be there. That's just protecting people that text and drive or are falling asleep behind the wheel.
I feel the same about speed limits...
Ah, so anything that might prolong a road closure is an unacceptable risk? Engine oil should be banned because if it spills in a crash it takes longer to clean up.
Or maybe anything that creates additional traffic should be banned too? In that case bicycles should be banned from the roadway, as should cars in general, really - buses and trains only from now on, right?
Disability is an unacceptable "drain on society", eh? Let's ban all sports then, including jogging and weightlifting.
A young person's death is too great a cost to society? I'll just stop here before going on a pro-life rant.
I have no stance on this one, we're all big boys now and capable of making our own decisions. Having said that, I'm very glad that manufacturers are forced to put seatbelts and airbags on their cars. It's a good measure against the idiocy of others. They have already saved my life once.
The active crash avoidance and lane departure shouldn't be there. That's just protecting people that text and drive or are falling asleep behind the wheel.
The active crash avoidance and lane departure shouldn't be there. That's just protecting people that text and drive or are falling asleep behind the wheel.
Those two are contradictory - if you say you're capable of making your own decisions regarding wearing your seat belt, you're also capable of choosing a car with seat belts and air bags or choosing a cheaper one without them.
I don't think they are. Forcing seatbelts on all cars maximizes the number of people that can actually make that choice. They can decide whether they wear it or not regardless of purchasing power, or even if they actually own the car as opposed of being forced to ride in it. Example: A penny-pinching fleet manager orders a whole bunch of cars with no seatbelts and company policy forces you to use them instead of your belted car. Or you don't even own a car so you are forced to use a taxi without seatbelts even though you would rather ride in a car that does.
In all those situations, ultimate personal responsibility leaves you with choices.
Individual purchasing power is your own problem in that world view, the community shouldn't subsidize your seat belt by forcing everyone else to buy one - you should just make more money.
Choose to drive fleet cars without a seat belt, or change company policy, or get a different job.
Choose to ride in a cheaper taxi without seatbelts, or ride in a taxi advertising "I have seatbelts" as a premium feature - the market would ensure that those exist.
Well, no, of course not. Things were different back then. It was normal for kids to ride in the back of a ute (pickup) or panel van when I was a kid. But then, it was also normal for the road toll to be much higher back then than it is now. For all the talk about "nanny states" and over-protectiveness, the reality is that basic safety requirements such as requiring children to remain INSIDE moving vehicles are a no-brainer and any parent in this day and age who would get their son to stand up through a sun roof should be charged with child endangerment.
Now you read like an extreme libertarian (aside and irrelevant from the argument, but I really really loathe the phrase "just make more money"). You and I know the world does not work like that so I am left to assume you are just taking the other position to point out the flaws.
Edit: And before you say it no, I don't think liking something counts as a stance. At least not as much as "The government shouldn't tell me when I buckle up." or "You should be handed a jail sentence for not buckling up.".
I'm all for being smart and safe behind the wheel, I was just surprised that this non-story made the news. If the kid got decapitated by a pelican or something, then we'd be talking.
I'm all for being smart and safe behind the wheel, I was just surprised that this non-story made the news. If the kid got decapitated by a pelican or something, then we'd be talking.
No, they're not. Clubs establish their own rules regarding eyes and ears but there are no laws about it. Also, hunters frequently skip ear pro in order to hear better in the woods. Recreationally, if you're shooting in your back yard, go ahead and skip protection - not my problem if you lose hearing or an eye.Who needs safety measures at the shooting range, for example, right? Aren't you free to wear or not goggles? Yet eyes and ear protections are well regulated, aren't they?
No, they're not. Clubs establish their own rules regarding eyes and ears but there are no laws about it. Also, hunters frequently skip ear pro in order to hear better in the woods. Recreationally, if you're shooting in your back yard, go ahead and skip protection - not my problem if you lose hearing or an eye.
No it's called reductio ad absurdum.It's a continuation of the previous post: "
Do possums fart often?
And none of that is really relevant because there is still no law that requires me to wear eye and ear protection - the key here is the difference between laws and the rules of a private club. Same thing with motorcycles really - any race event is going to require that you wear a helmet, sure, but there shouldn't be a law about it - if you are an adult and you make the conscious decision to ride a motorcycle without protection, that's your own choice - a stupid choice, imho, but a choice nonetheless. With cars, I don't have a problem with laws that require automobile manufacturers to provide seatbelts but I don't think that on the individual level we should be forced to use them. Basically, I think you should be free to make bad decisions with your own life.How many serious (as in they know what they are doing) clubs allow unprotected ears or eyes? Why? To avoid lawsuits following damage. Why? Because so many people are not really choosing anything, rather they understand only too late, when the damage is already done.