• @LukeMedia
    link
    English
    251 year ago

    Not wearing a seatbelt can harm your passengers in an accident. Based on that alone it’s reasonable imo

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It could then be argued that it would only be required under the circumstances in which the lack of a seatbelt would create a situation where the safety of others is threatened, and those affected do not consent to the risk.

      • @LukeMedia
        link
        21 year ago

        So, whenever you are driving and could possibly get in a wreck.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I would say that such a law, when being written, should maintain the original mindset as described in this comment of mine. What I mean by this is to say “whenever you are driving” does not cover the situations in which there would never be (or, at least, extremely unlikely to be) any harm to another except yourself, or those consenting. An example of this woud be offroading – perhaps you were implying for such laws to only apply when driving on public roads, but this wasn’t specified explicitly, so I’m making assumptions.

          • @LukeMedia
            link
            11 year ago

            Yes, you are correct in both statements. I was not thinking of the more fringe scenarios, I meant specifically public roads.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              I was not thinking of the more fringe scenarios

              Unfortunately, the contention around many laws lies within the gray rather than the black, and white.

              • @LukeMedia
                link
                11 year ago

                You are correct, though I am not a lawyer nor a lawmaker. I’m a guy on the Internet with opinions, and I don’t always immediately think of gray areas.