[Jeroen]

Just came across this one. It truly baffles me:

http://en.rocketnews24.com/2012/08/2...orries-police/


Jeroen

[extreme_torque]

This is nothing new. I have seen and read about this a long time back though not in the chinese context. It came as one of those 'LOL' email forwards.

I dont think the authorities can do anything other than to promote safe driving and possibly banning the sale of the same. On second thoughts, I think people in Europe will wear their seat belts as a matter of safety which has become a habit.

[autonarr]

Yes, I recall seeing something similar online a while back too.

Another ploy used by some drivers is to use "dummies"in the passenger seats to use HOV lanes in countries like the USA:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1741410

[alpha1]

Actually in countries like India where public healthcare exists mostly on paper only - rules like seat belt and helmet are, to me, draconian. When the individual himself will bear the cost of his idiocy, he should be free to choose his way of death/disability.

Rules like these have a justification mostly in states where the govt (and thus the tax payers collectively) will have to bear expenses of one idiot.

[zenren]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Actually in countries like India where public healthcare exists mostly on paper only - rules like seat belt and helmet are, to me, draconian. When the individual himself will bear the cost of his idiocy, he should be free to choose his way of death/disability.

Rules like these have a justification mostly in states where the govt (and thus the tax payers collectively) will have to bear expenses of one idiot.

Suppose a biker without helmet hits a vehicle driven by you and gets head injury, it won't be easy for you either. If I'm not mistaken, you would still be charged initially with causing an accident resulting in serious injury/death and would need to fight it out to prove your innocence. If one party dies, there would be enough witnesses among the bystanders who would attribute the fault to the other driver. We have seen reports in the accidents thread where underage kids took out two wheelers, died in accidents and the parents blamed the other party of not avoiding the accident.

It won't be just the individual who bears the cost of his mistake. It would be his family and friends too. If the sole breadwinner in a family dies or gets seriously injured in an accident, it would impact the way his family survives from then on. It is not just a matter of public healthcare.

[sourabhzen]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Actually in countries like India where public healthcare exists mostly on paper only - rules like seat belt and helmet are, to me, draconian. When the individual himself will bear the cost of his idiocy, he should be free to choose his way of death/disability.

Rules like these have a justification mostly in states where the govt (and thus the tax payers collectively) will have to bear expenses of one idiot.

Even by your logic, not wearing seat belt can be case of attempted suicide; and in India committing suicide (at anybody's cost) is a crime.

[jinojohnt]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Actually in countries like India where public healthcare exists mostly on paper only - rules like seat belt and helmet are, to me, draconian. When the individual himself will bear the cost of his idiocy, he should be free to choose his way of death/disability.

Insurance claims go up when people die because of not wearing helmets/seat belts. That means the insurance companies gradually raise the premiums for their policies. While this may not be the only reason for the increased premiums, I would still be paying for some moron who crashed without a helmet/seat belt.

[akshay87kumar]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Actually in countries like India where public healthcare exists mostly on paper only - rules like seat belt and helmet are, to me, draconian. When the individual himself will bear the cost of his idiocy, he should be free to choose his way of death/disability.

Rules like these have a justification mostly in states where the govt (and thus the tax payers collectively) will have to bear expenses of one idiot.

Your assumption is that accidents are caused only due to drivers themselves. Think of a careless driver hitting a biker. The biker does not "bear the cost of his idiocy, nor did he choose for his death or disability." Hope the point is conveyed.

[zenren]

Originally Posted by akshay87kumar

Your assumption is that accidents are caused only due to drivers themselves. Think of a careless driver hitting a biker. The biker does not "bear the cost of his idiocy, nor did he choose for his death or disability." Hope the point is conveyed.

I disagree to the above argument. If we start looking at wearing safety gear as a safeguard against idiots on the road, same logic applies to pedestrians and we'll need to propose that all pedestrians should walk along or cross the roads wearing helmets.

If the driver chose to go into the 'battlefield' without proper 'armour', he knew the risks and the idiotic act has already happened the moment he started to drive without helmet/seat belt. If a bigger idiot hits him before he got a chance to hit someone else, it doesn't make him less idiotic. Moreover, someone who doesn't mind violating one rule is more likely to violate others too, which puts such drivers at higher risk of accidents. I'm yet to see any driver/rider who refuses to wear helmet but follows every other rule. People may dislike it but those who follow other rules typically comply with this one too even if they don't like it.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

This is nothing new. I have seen and read about this a long time back though not in the chinese context. It came as one of those 'LOL' email forwards.

I dont think the authorities can do anything other than to promote safe driving and possibly banning the sale of the same. On second thoughts, I think people in Europe will wear their seat belts as a matter of safety which has become a habit.

Yes, they do wear it as habit. Its just the way we do things. Wasn't always so. My dad never wore a seatbelt. When I started driving seat belts had just been made compulsory, so for me it is just what you do. He never did, no matter what my mother, three sisters and me said to him. Even when our sister flew through the front window, at a car park, very moderate speed, slammed into another car, but no seatbelt, he still wouldn't wear one. He told her repeatedly she should have been wearing one, but he had some sort of divine exemption of some sorts.

You can get a pretty hefty fine in most European (and the USA) for not wearing your seat belts. Cops will pull you over if they see no seat belts.

Also, if you are in an accident and were not wearing seat belts, it might have consequences if you want to sue the other party. Even if it was their fault, the compensation you might be getting could be affected.

Originally Posted by alpha1

Actually in countries like India where public healthcare exists mostly on paper only - rules like seat belt and helmet are, to me, draconian. When the individual himself will bear the cost of his idiocy, he should be free to choose his way of death/disability.

Rules like these have a justification mostly in states where the govt (and thus the tax payers collectively) will have to bear expenses of one idiot.

You would get on like a house on fire with our friends back in the USA of a more Republican disposition. I'm not saying you are wrong. Just that many (democratic) countries believe that a civilized society is more than just everybody bearing their own cost of being stupid. Or to put it differently, when people are being stupid, some might argue society at large has an obligation to step in.

Originally Posted by akshay87kumar

Your assumption is that accidents are caused only due to drivers themselves. Think of a careless driver hitting a biker. The biker does not "bear the cost of his idiocy, nor did he choose for his death or disability." Hope the point is conveyed.

Very good point! But, probably wasted, as to Alpha1's point these people are stupid anyway!

Jeroen

[akshay87kumar]

Originally Posted by zenren

I disagree to the above argument. If we start looking at wearing safety gear as a safeguard against idiots on the road, same logic applies to pedestrians and we'll need to propose that all pedestrians should walk along or cross the roads wearing helmets.

If the driver chose to go into the 'battlefield' without proper 'armour', he knew the risks and the idiotic act has already happened the moment he started to drive without helmet/seat belt. If a bigger idiot hits him before he got a chance to hit someone else, it doesn't make him less idiotic. Moreover, someone who doesn't mind violating one rule is more likely to violate others too, which puts such drivers at higher risk of accidents. I'm yet to see any driver/rider who refuses to wear helmet but follows every other rule. People may dislike it but those who follow other rules typically comply with this one too even if they don't like it.

Not everyone on the road is an idiot. Not everyone drives without a helmet/seat belt. Not every accident is caused due to driver's idiocy.But as was earlier pointed by Jeroen, if the number of idiots increases too far, government must step in with regulations to bridle them. If at all a time came when pedestrians had to wear helmets and armour, it would be about time government enforced stricter traffic rules. And as far as lesser and larger idiots are concerned, I am not sure how do we measure them. I would love to see you and me fare relatively!

[condor]

When seat-belts were made compulsory in India, we actually had a cartoon depicting the concept of a T-shirt with the seat-belt on it.

So, not new