you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments