|Originally posted by EddieZilker |
I think you're ignoring some pertinent nuances though. Examine the seat belt issue, for instance. It's not just the person who isn't wearing their seat belt who is affected when they fly out of their windshield in a head-on collision. There are the witnesses who will likely be more psychologically traumatized than they would have been, otherwise. There are the emergency responders - their field subject to an already high turn-over rate - who have to cope with the post-traumatic impact of such aftermaths. There are the spouse and offspring who have to cope with the loss; the life-insurance companies who have to pay benefits; the costs to the public associated with clean-up. You can legislate some of these things, like allowing life-insurance companies to opt out of providing coverage for people who don't wear their seat-belts, but you're still legislating.
Beat me to it. Let's also not forget the on-going medical costs. What if the person lives and then leaches off the healthcare system for the rest of their life? I would rather that person be forced to wear a simple yet highly effective safety device, than cry about their apparent lack of freedom because they can't choose to not wear a seatbelt.
What's next, Meat complaining about not being allowed to drive 100km/h down a suburban road?