Bill, I don't like being told what to do much. But, I made a choice as a teen to wear my seat belt-always. Still do. I made the same choice with masks prior to being mandated.
Hmmm, I guess I also wore a helmet in my motor cycle days way before any mandates.
Yet, never tell me I can't fart, because I will kill the planet!
Brad

I guess most of us are of an age that have been brought up that wearing seat belts was just normal and safer. However, I recall my dad (an ex-RAF pilot, therefore trained and well-acquainted with being strapped in) being infuriated in the late 1970's when wearing seatbelts were first made compulsory in a car. He used to refer to a fire scenario and being trapped and stubbornly refused to strap in.

Methinks that was more a case of him 'rationalising' his intense dislike of removal of personal choice. 

I Purchased a motorcycle in college as a rational decision, IMHO. Cheap transportation, great MPG, and special bike parking in all parking lots-and near the buildings. No endless circling the lot waiting to catch an open space with a car, then being late to class. BTW, I was married.
But, when I showed up at my folks house, with wife on the back, my dad (WWII Marine) made it very clear that I was a dumb SOB and that he better never see me again with wife on that killing machine. I made the choice not to let that happen again. Brad

Many years ago I didn't wear a seat belt in town because I didn't think it was necessary. Then a good friend of mine had a bad wreck .... in town... and was seriously hurt because she wasn't buckled in. Taught me a lesson. From that day on I always buckled up the minute I get in the car and now insist anyone in the car with me also buckle up before I even start the car.

I really dislike wearing masks but definitely think it's necessary, at least for me, to protect myself from others. Masks are irritating, hard to wear, fog up my glasses and sometimes tend to slip off my nose. However, even with all that irritation, I will still wear one when I go out as long as this pandemic is with us. I also hope others feel the same way.

Most accidents happen within 10 miles of home, so I make it a point to stay at least 10 miles away from home.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

Most accidents happen within 10 miles of home, so I make it a point to stay at least 10 miles away from home.

---

When I rode a motorcycle, I quickly learned that no matter how cautious I was, other people were going to do things that would cause an accident. After having 2 accidents, I quit riding the motorcycle. An acquaintance told me that when he saw a large car, and could not see the driver's head, he got as far away as possible from that car.

Bill R posted--" I guess many Americans dont like to be told they should do anything—particularly if they find it an inconvenience.--"

I do wonder if there is anything particularly "American" about that tendency? I will agree that we can be a cantankerous and ornery bunch, but is most of the Free world more compliant?

I pick-and-choose the "protocols".... and so far that approach has served me reasonably well.   As for "it's gonna happen sooner or later," ... yes that's true, but IF my reasoning/calculation (?) says the chance of "sooner" is 1-in-a-million and the chance of "later" is 3-out-of-four.... chances are I'll conveniently overlook protocol/recommendation nineteen times out of twenty.    ....and IF my reasoning isn't up to snuff, well.... I guess I'll cross that bridge if/when I come to it.  

...and sometimes the factor is $$$, not safety.  If I move my trike [the one I recently sold] from my shop to my front driveway, the risk re. safety is pretty much zee-row.... the risk [chance?] the po-leece might see me is considerably greater, so I usually put the helmet on ... once in a while I even fasten the strap.

I would ride my sidecar rig on remote back roads without a helmet. It's got three wheels, it's not going to tip over or fall down, I'm going about twenty mph, and if feels simply glorious. An acceptable risk. But I wore a helmet riding on busy roads getting to those back roads. My risk, my choice, no one else's business.

I have to disagree,,mildly. Your greater chance of injury, Bill, if you somehow lose control and get hurt contributes to higher health care costs, whether that be insurance premiums or gubm’nt programs. And I say this only because Jonty reprimanded me a while back when the semi-lockdowns started and it got me thinking. I mentioned I go for a drive out in the country once a week on the very quiet gravel roads. He questioned my judgement citing the same reasoning I just described to you, not over health care costs, but about risking injury in case of an accident and adding to the hospital overloading during a pandemic. 

If you talk to people who routinely pick up the remains of people putting just themselves at risk, you'll find that some of them do carry a burden put on them by the danger seekers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Bill R posted--" I guess many Americans dont like to be told they should do anything—particularly if they find it an inconvenience.--"

I do wonder if there is anything particularly "American" about that tendency? I will agree that we can be a cantankerous and ornery bunch, but is most of the Free world more compliant?

---

I think it strongly depends on the culture how pronounced individual freedoms are in comparison to common duties. E.g. have a look at South Korea or Japan, both free and democratic countries, and compare them to the USA. As for minor inconveniences, I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of South Koreans and Japanese wear face masks if mandated to and it sure shows in their covid19 statistics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by phb

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Bill R posted--" I guess many Americans dont like to be told they should do anything—particularly if they find it an inconvenience.--"

I do wonder if there is anything particularly "American" about that tendency? I will agree that we can be a cantankerous and ornery bunch, but is most of the Free world more compliant?

---

I think it strongly depends on the culture how pronounced individual freedoms are in comparison to common duties. E.g. have a look at South Korea or Japan, both free and democratic countries, and compare them to the USA. As for minor inconveniences, I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of South Koreans and Japanese wear face masks if mandated to and it sure shows in their covid19 statistics.

 

---

Exactly. And that difference is a product of culture not the extent of freedom per se.

Japan and South Korea are no less free or democratic countries but have cultures that cultivate and inculcate greater humility and do not raise the individual above all other considerations. Some cultures exist within environments of equal freedom but promote greater self-restraint and social responsibility. The prevailing ultra-individualistic culture within the US promotes the opposite. To the extent that what are commonly in effect the tantrums and refusal to cooperate of 6 foot, 280lb toddlers are deemed unremarkable whereas they would be unacceptable and stigmatised in other cultures.

....unremarkable ... but highly entertaining.       

...and that's gotta count for something!!

Chuck posted--"I have to disagree,,mildly. Your greater chance of injury, Bill, if you somehow lose control and get hurt contributes to higher health care costs, whether that be insurance premiums or gubm’nt programs.---"

Chuck, there is no end to that line of thinking. Is there any reason to get on a motorcycle at all? Why stop with requiring a helmet? Have you looked at bicycle accident statistics? Get rid of them, too. Why should anyone ski down a steep slope? Let's ban skiing. Why should anyone jump out of a perfectly good airplane for the sake of the thrill? Why should we not all just stay at home all of the time, or more, be REQUIRED to stay at home unless participating in a permitted activity? I don't like that slippery slope one bit, and is one of my main objections to public health insurance as under the guise of public responsibility there is no end to what may become prohibited, with everyone saying "why should I pay for my neighbor's recklessness" until their own cherished activity comes under scrutiny. Nobody really needs to climb a ladder to decorate for Christmas, and those pub darts are sharp, you could lose an eye!

Fighter jet pilots and race car drivers wear seat belts. Must be a good reason.
I always figured that was good enough for me to wear a seat belt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

Japan and South Korea are no less free or democratic countries but have cultures that cultivate and inculcate greater humility and do not raise the individual above all other considerations. Some cultures exist within environments of equal freedom but promote greater self-restraint and social responsibility. The prevailing ultra-individualistic culture within the US promotes the opposite. To the extent that what are commonly in effect the tantrums and refusal to cooperate of 6 foot, 280lb toddlers are deemed unremarkable whereas they would be unacceptable and stigmatised in other cultures.

---

Somehow you seem to agree with me but managed to make it sound very condescending when I was trying not to judge...

quote:

---

Originally posted by phb

quote:

---

Originally posted by m06

Japan and South Korea are no less free or democratic countries but have cultures that cultivate and inculcate greater humility and do not raise the individual above all other considerations. Some cultures exist within environments of equal freedom but promote greater self-restraint and social responsibility. The prevailing ultra-individualistic culture within the US promotes the opposite. To the extent that what are commonly in effect the tantrums and refusal to cooperate of 6 foot, 280lb toddlers are deemed unremarkable whereas they would be unacceptable and stigmatised in other cultures.

---

Somehow you seem to agree with me but managed to make it sound very condescending when I was trying not to judge...

 

---

...or plain speaking. Say what you see. 

Free peoples of other countries whose culture value humility and self-restraint would be uncomfortable with the social tension they would associate with the 'individual first' attitude that is culturally acceptable in the US. That's just a neutral statement of fact. It works both ways. Many Americans would no doubt feel put-upon in a culture where self-restraint and social duty were cultural expectations.  It would be wrong if I suggested that all Americans behave in that manner. What is common is that even those who do not themselves exhibit extreme individualistic behaviour, tend not to have an external cultural comparison for those of their countrymen who do. That insularity, in the US and elsewhere, functions to 'normalise' the extreme.

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

I would ride my sidecar rig on remote back roads without a helmet. It's got three wheels, it's not going to tip over or fall down, I'm going about twenty mph, and if feels simply glorious. An acceptable risk. But I wore a helmet riding on busy roads getting to those back roads. My risk, my choice, no one else's business.

---

Until you get injured.  Then it becomes everybody's business: the police who have to go to the scene of the accident; the EMTS who try to keep you alive; the hospital bed you occupy; the doctors and nurses who rehabilitate you; the people who make your prosthetic limb; and above all, the people who have to pay for all the above.  If you are insured, fine, but that means that everyone with the same insurance is going to see an increas in their rates just because you were too dumb to wear a helmet.

Bill, I’ve never quite bought into the “slippery slope” argument,,, every new bylaw and regulation can thereby be lumped into that belief (!). It’s a balance between freedom and prudence. Why pick on public health insurance? You know private insurance companies lobby legislators all the time to put regs in place to lower their payouts. Please tell me how the seat belt law was a slippery slope scenario.

The first several times I got on my motor scooter, I automatically began to reach for a seat belt.
And I wear a helmet, even though the Law does not mandate it, because when I was being trained at the Hospital, one of the instructors reminded us that NONE of us are REALLY more than four minutes away from being brain-damaged and unable to care for ourselves.

And I remember heading west on Locust street, and, as we came down the hill between First and Third, a car pulled out heading north on Second, did a left turn onto Locust, the passenger door swung open, and a small child tumbled out.

We had plenty of time to slam on the brakes.
But I wonder if that mom ever EVER again put the kid in the car without a belt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Chuck, there is no end to that line of thinking. Is there any reason to get on a motorcycle at all? Why stop with requiring a helmet? Have you looked at bicycle accident statistics? Get rid of them, too. ... I don't like that slippery slope

---

"Slippery slopes" seem to be an important part of your thinking. All things haven't got only one quality. Riding a bicycle is better for your health and the environment but a road accident with a bicycle is more likely to be fatal. What now? You'll have to weight the pros and cons according to your preferences and make a choice. That's all. What are the pros of not putting on a safety belt (your personal comfort)? How do you weight them against the cons (including your expectation to still get treatment if you barely survive an accident)? If you ponder and then make reasonable choices, you are not very likely to skid down a slippery slope. If you extract just one abstract aspect of a given thing to construct an argument and ignore the rest, it will just be a flawed argument.

The difference between public and private anything is that private is optional and public usually is not. Seat belts are a slippery slope in that they were one of the first laws requiring individual to protect themselves when the focus of laws is generally on protecting others from our actions. I do believe that if someone wants to take a risk that does not directly effect others then that action is nobody else's business, and I reject the indirect effects because there is no end to that. Ordering me to not smoke because the smoke is a nuisance and a health threat to others is legitimate. Ordering me not to smoke to protect MY health is crossing the line!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian T

Fighter jet pilots and race car drivers wear seat belts. Must be a good reason.
I always figured that was good enough for me to wear a seat belt.

---

I wonder what proportion of those ^^  pilots/drivers would take all precautions [ATGATT] when moving a trike from back yard > back alley > street > to front driveway ... maybe 100 yards total, walking speed, no obstructions re. visibility.

Another one from personal experience [and if that isn't the basis for extrapolation, I don't know what is!]:  Back when I was trying to farm, when mixing herbicides I used only the protective gear that I considered would be beneficial  [i.e. a respirator some of the time].... and none of the gear such as bulky boots, gloves or hazmat outfits, that  I figured [i.e. as close to a 100% guarantee as there is] would greatly increase the odds of me having an accident.   [Edit: I kept a jug of clean water somewhere nearby.] Where did I go wrong?