SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Cogito who wrote (187522)4/23/2012 3:57:48 PM
From: Dale Baker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 540741
 
Another good one is, if driving is a private act, who do you expect to come scrape you off the windshield when you crash, a private rescue service? And surely your treatment will be limited to private clinics where you have full coverage through your private insurance. And if you do end up badly disabled and unable to work or care for yourself, does your family have the means to provide all of your care?

Since these accidents happen on public roadways with police and ambulance services and much of the treatment could be paid for by the government, seems like requiring seatbelts is not much of a bigger stretch than other safety requirements.



To: Cogito who wrote (187522)4/24/2012 1:42:13 AM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 540741
 
I've never questioned the wisdom of wearing a seat belt, even before they were legal. I was involved a couple of accidents in my youth, before cars even had seat belts, including one rollover.

That said, I've owned 23 motorcycles without having an accident on one for 30 years, but I always have worn a helmet, required or not. Skulls are just too thin!