I don’t understate or underestimate the impact or cost of obesity, I only point out that no one else has to directly pay for your care because you got fat by your own choice, but others might and often do foot the bill for the irresponsibility of not wearing a seat belt.
Discounting is a partial fix….by how much? How do they decide how much worse your injuries are because you didn’t wear a belt…and who decides…and what’s the cost of doing that math? I’m perfectly fine with people not being safe as long as they accept 100% of the risk….it should be wear no belt, get no injury recovery (or insurance coverage) period. Anything less makes the case for seatbelt requirements imo.

I'm having a hard time imagining the case where wearing a seat belt is going to make you have better control of your car after a collision.

Your moral case, for wearing a seatbelt, while personally compelling, doesn't mean the government should be controlling that activity for individuals. Being selfish is usually not a crime.

There is shared risk if you look deep enough in all activities that people engage in throughout their lives. Newtboy's assertion that these types of activities should be regulated because of their knock-on effects doesn't seem practical in a "free" society.

The reason I don't understand why this is a law is because the affects to society are so low and are similar to many other unregulated choices people are allowed to make. The inconsistency is painful.

In this case I don't think it's just cash for cops.

As far as I know most western countries have laws against it and if nothing else that's normalised it. If I'm not wearing a belt in a front seat I feel really weird. I haven't quite got to that point sitting in the back, but I hope my son does.

Recently a relative from Russia got into my car and didn't belt up and I didn't feel comfortable moving until I reminded her. She just wasn't in the habit. Last time I was in Russia I got funny looks every time I belted up, which has the opposite effect: normalising not wearing it.

Wearing a belt is good. The more it can be normalised the better.

If those people could sign waivers refusing any medical care they don’t pre pay for, waiving any physical damages if they aren’t at fault (I shouldn’t have to pay for your preventable injuries just because we crashed) and hospitals honor those waivers…just a dot on your license that says if your wallet is empty you agree to be a live organ donor…I’d agree.
Since that’s not the case and as often as not the paying public ends up footing the bill in one way or another for the irresponsible behavior like not wearing a seat belt, mandating seat belt usage seems 100% reasonable.
Also, since most learning/teaching is by example, it’s near child abuse to not wear it with kids in the car. Akin to shooting drugs or playing Russian roulette in front of them….taking a deadly risk for no purpose.

Seat belts will better help keep you in control of your vehicle after a collision. If your car rolls over or you go sideways into a tree it helps keep you from back, head and neck injuries which could leave you with pain and mobility issues long after the crash. I also see it as being very selfish to your family and loved ones who potentially may have to care for you if you survive, in which case you will be very annoyed and annoying.

It should be mandated by government because some people think they are the best drivers ever.

Does any of your family members drive the disabled alarm car?

It's a public safety issue if you speed & crash, and then got flung onto the road.... but that's admittedly extreme.

I myself prefer to take the seatbelt off when I'm reversing.

The guy not only need to wear a seat belt, he needs to be strapped in a padded room...

Your video, Man Rips Up His Cash Over Seat Belt Ticket, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Big surprise, Trump’s false announcement about his pending arrest a week ago was little more than a fund raising ploy.
He immediately began hammering supporters with demands for cash to protect their favorite (disgraced) president.
There was no evidence he was about to be arrested last Tuesday, the grand jury was/is still in session…he just said it for grift. He’s raised millions over the claim, millions he spends on gold seat belt buckles and toilet seats for his plane, not his flailing failing defense.

What no one seems to have pieced together is, his behavior over the last few years has been calculated to demonstrate a complete break from reality because he’s going to use an insanity defense to shield himself from court…and it will work.

Initial arrest report coming out…they claimed he was an aggravated assault suspect (not true), was sweating profusely and irate when exiting the car (not true), grabbed detective Martin’s gun (not true-yet Martin is listed as “victim” on the report), and pulled on other officers gun belts (also not true).
No mention of any punching or kicking of Nichols.
Also turns out one officer involved on scene was the official supervisor on duty and he signed off on that report.
I hope they all get life in gen pop.

Oh, I misread, I thought you asked why WASN’T he in uniform. My bad. Where it said in writing he was in uniform, (1:00) that was covered by the video header on my tablet.

While I agree, wearing the uniform and gun belt off duty is just a power trip (only reason I can come up with), there’s nothing against it in the law. Why would these cops just assume he’s not a cop?

Not sure I follow... I'd think a police academy student would wear a uniform while they were taking the course. But when they are graduated, and don't actually have a job in law enforcement, there isn't a reason (besides cosplay) of wearing a uniform and carrying a gun/utility belt.

I see how the cops here were wrong.. but also WTF is a police academy graduate doing walking around with a uniform and gun belt? A bit cringe if you ask me.