clearn as the sun

[David Argall]

According to Reason Online ...

"Car groups say the proposal would boost fuel use. Motorcyclists say it could endanger them because they would no longer stand out on the road. But the British tabloid The Sun reports that new European Union rules will require automobile to have their lights on whenever they are on the road, even during daylight. The newspaper reports that bureaucrats claim the rule will reduce accidents by making vehicles more visible."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006470316,00.html

[Windhaven]

New cars sold in the US already have "Driving lights" as a standard feature. When the car is running, the lights are on.

The reason is exactly the same, and is apparently backed by studies.

How *dare* those lawmakers try to keep us safe on the roads!

[Magnus Bergqvist]

The use of driving lights has long been mandatory here in Sweden. Took the rest of the EU long enough to catch on.

Yes, you are also legally required to have lights on on a bicycle if driving it when dark.

/Magnus

[Cranky Dog]

Daytime running lights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp) have been the standard of canadian automobiles since the 90s. I was sort taking it for granted that it was like that in most countries now.

Guess not.


Cranky Dog
"I have a lights on opinion, international!"

[Origen]

Yes, you are also legally required to have lights on on a bicycle if driving it when dark.

Didn't the peasants storm the Bastille for less than that?

[Windhaven]

Well I suspect that Reason Online, like our favorite subscriber to it, has been living in mother's basement for a while and didn't know that this was old news.

[Magnus Bergqvist]

Didn't the peasants storm the Bastille for less than that?

Nah, wrong peasants... The peasants here got whipped by Gustav Wasa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Wasa)back in the 16th century.

But I do know that they had the same requirements of light on a bike, in Ireland back in 1996. Got stopped 3 times by the Gardai. 2 times by the same officer within 14 days, and he sadly remembered me. *oops* He was not amused... I managed to talk myself out of having to pay any fines on all accounts, though. =^_^=

/Magnus

[Blue Jackal]

Yes, you are also legally required to have lights on on a bicycle if driving it when dark.



Pretty sure it's the same way in the U.S., at least in California.

[LagomorphPrime]

GM has had running lights on all their vehicles for over a decade now. Some of the other manufacturers offer them on some models as well, but to date only GM has made it mandatory on their vehicles. They've also pushed to make it a requirement in the US but not everyone else is onboard with that.

[TinSoldier]

GM has had running lights on all their vehicles for over a decade now. Some of the other manufacturers offer them on some models as well, but to date only GM has made it mandatory on their vehicles. They've also pushed to make it a requirement in the US but not everyone else is onboard with that.Yes, because of the requirement for daytime running lights in Canada and GM does a lot of business in Canada. It's cheaper for GM to have one model for the US and Canada than it is to make two separate models.

None of my current vehicles has daytime running lights but I almost always turn my headlights on when I drive anyway.

[Pruc]

Won't change much for me, I have my car lights on whether I'm driving in full daylight or at night.

[Paulypalooza]

GM has had running lights on all their vehicles for over a decade now. Some of the other manufacturers offer them on some models as well, but to date only GM has made it mandatory on their vehicles. They've also pushed to make it a requirement in the US but not everyone else is onboard with that.

Not all US cars have daytime running lights. I have a 99 Ford without them.

[TinSoldier]

Not all US cars have daytime running lights. I have a 99 Ford without them.Right. He said "GM".

[Mouser]

A) My Toyota Corolla has lights running when the car is on, AND a switch to turn on the lights...

2) My insurance company asked me if my car had that feature when underwriting the auto insurance policy, so it's evidently something they look for.

[Paulypalooza]

Right. He said "GM".

I know I was just saying that not all US manufacturers are on board with daytime running lights.

[TinSoldier]

Sorry. I misunderstood.

I remember reading in Car and Driver magazine when GM first decided to add that feature. I don't remember other manufacturers doing the same.

Mouser's comment regarding his Corolla is interesting. What year is it?

[LagomorphPrime]

Which is exactly what I said in that post. :p

There are differences between models in the US and Canada. We have a Cadillac CTS right now that we had to wholesale because it's Canadian. I asked why we wouldn't sell a Canadian car, especially a Cadillac that's only 2 years old, and the reason was that the odometer is in kilometers with no option to switch it over to miles. Many vehicles with electronic gauges give you the option of toggling between displaying everything in kilometers or miles, but not all. Cadillac is a GM product for those that aren't familiar with all the extended auto families.

Anyways, while I'm sure the Canadian laws did factor into GM's decision oh so long ago to make all their vehicles with daytime running lights, there are still model differences and other factors like the insurance issue. Mouser is correct, you do get a bit of an insurance break if your car has daytime running lights, just like the little breaks you get if the VIN is etched into the glass on your door windows and things like that.

[Mouser]

Mouser's comment regarding his Corolla is interesting. What year is it?

It's a 1998

[David Argall]

apparently backed by studies.

How *dare* those lawmakers try to keep us safe on the roads!

The source quoted Daytime running lights says...

"Scientific study of the value of DRL has yielded widely divergent results. It is problematic and difficult to apply the successful results obtained in Scandinavian countries to jurisdictions like the U.S., Canada and Australia, as the ambient light conditions and vehicles in use are extremely different. Studies conducted in North America have thus far not shown a conclusive safety benefit to DRL and have raised questions about possible safety disbenefits, such as turn signal masking and glare affecting motorcycle safety, from certain DRL implementations. Nevertheless, a safety improvement is at least suggested by many studies."

It is quite common for governments, in the name of safety, to mandate things that are useless or outright harmful. The reasons can be some misunderstanding or a lie designed to help some other cause. But as usual, when the man says "I'm from the government and I am here to help you, it is time to check for escape routes.

[BlueNinja]

I can think of a few places where driving with your lights on during the day is useless.

Like crossing the Mojave in the summertime.
Or virtually anywhere in Las Vegas at almost any time of the year.

[Origen]

I hate daytime running lights. My car has them, now. I'm an adult. I can turn on my own damn lights, thank you. It's not quite as bad as the beeper in the redhead's car that annoys you if you don't buckle your seatbelt. I call it the Nannymobile.

[Amso]

My truck has daylight running lights and sensors to turn on the headlights when it gets dark. I don't even know how to turn them off. Getting in a car that requires you to turn on or off your lights is weird for me. I usually forget to do one or the other, or both.

[Rallan]

New cars sold in the US already have "Driving lights" as a standard feature. When the car is running, the lights are on.

The reason is exactly the same, and is apparently backed by studies.

How *dare* those lawmakers try to keep us safe on the roads!

You don't get it Windhaven. This is part of an insidious campaign to erode our freedoms and create an absolute autocratic state. First banning drunk driving, then making seatbelts mandatory, and now this. Clearly if we don't act now to ensure similar legislation isn't adopted in sensible countries, the Blue Helmets will be able to form a world government and indoctrinate us all into being EuroHomos or something.

[Rallan]

company asked me if my car had that feature when underwriting the auto insurance policy, so it's evidently something they look for.

And yet if every driver in America had a car with that feature because it was required to get cheaper insurance, David Argall wouldn't be getting his panties in a twist about the evil pressures of conformity the folks in charge are placing upon us all :)

[Starhawk]

I hate daytime running lights. My car has them, now. I'm an adult. I can turn on my own damn lights, thank you. It's not quite as bad as the beeper in the redhead's car that annoys you if you don't buckle your seatbelt. I call it the Nannymobile.

Me too! How am I ever going to stealth my car up to a meeting of mobsters in a dark, grimy alley if I've got those namby-pamby DRLs on?

[Parzival]

I'm biased. <shrug> Where I live, headlights on during the daytime actually make you car more difficult to see. (sun glare, light-colored background and all that)

Of course, the Nevada government has mandated that people drive with their lights on in such areas.
(Idaho's a nice state, but we have some really odd neighbors.)

[David Argall]

And yet if every driver in America had a car with that feature because it was required to get cheaper insurance, David Argall wouldn't be getting his panties in a twist about the evil pressures of conformity the folks in charge are placing upon us all :)

Now the basic point is that not every driver in America would have such a car. You can spend an afternoon on the phone and come up with a score of different insurance plans and options. So there would be people who would try to save the money and others who would feel it not worth the bother. To get the uniformity up to "every", you pretty much need government action.

And to the extent we do reach "every" in a private system, that is simply a matter of your choice. Nobody is forcing you one way or the other. If you think it a bad idea, you go elsewhere.

Which is the option missing with the government. You must do it their way, and they have a long record of being wrong, both by blunder and by intent.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm
At $1.50 a gallon, that's $600 million per year. Looking at it another way, an extra 8 billion pounds of Carbon Dioxide would be added to the atmosphere by this law.

http://www.swov.nl/rapport/R-97-36.PDF

This meta-analysis gives a benefit ratio of 1.8, and then corrects some errors to bring this down to 1.24. While that is still positive, and the ratio can possibly be improved, it reminds us that the figures are uncertain, and to a degree that makes a negative reality a distinct possibility.

Also, there seems to be a quite large variation by latitude. Scandanavain benefits are much higher than at Canadian latitudes, and of course US benefits are even lower. The study is for the EU, but would seem to say the typical US driver loses from these lights.

[LagomorphPrime]

Wow, that is some pretty retarded shit David. Apparently they know all about metric conversions, and nothing about how an alternator actually works. It's already on. The belt on your alternator is turning while your engine is running. Period. Whether the alternator is actually generating electricity at any given moment is dictated by a number of factors, but the mechanical energy to spin it is ALWAYS BEING SPENT already. So having your lights on or off doesn't change anything.

[TinSoldier]

Wow, that is some pretty retarded shit David. Apparently they know all about metric conversions, and nothing about how an alternator actually works. It's already on. The belt on your alternator is turning while your engine is running. Period. Whether the alternator is actually generating electricity at any given moment is dictated by a number of factors, but the mechanical energy to spin it is ALWAYS BEING SPENT already. So having your lights on or off doesn't change anything.Umm, actually it can. A heavier electrical load makes it harder for the engine to turn the alternator thereby requiring more energy from the motor and decreasing gas mileage.

I'm just saying.

[LagomorphPrime]

We're talking about a shitty alternator that strains under the power of headlights.

[TinSoldier]

We're talking about a shitty alternator that strains under the power of headlights.I didn't say strain... it just adds to the load. Energy ain't free, you know. Even if it is a very small addition it is still an addition.

[Rallan]

I was under the impression that the alternator's output was pretty much constant regardless of whether you're using any electrical doohickeys or whether or not the battery needs recharging. Its forever trying to dump its entire energy output straight into the battery or whatever.

And if I am wrong, then hell, why isn't David Argall weeping about the environmental cost of car air-conditioning instead? Because that'd chew through the watts at a far greater rate than your headlights ever will.

[TinSoldier]

I was under the impression that the alternator's output was pretty much constant regardless of whether you're using any electrical doohickeys or whether or not the battery needs recharging. Its forever trying to dump its entire energy output straight into the battery or whatever.

And if I am wrong, then hell, why isn't David Argall weeping about the environmental cost of car air-conditioning instead? Because that'd chew through the watts at a far greater rate than your headlights ever will.Yes, the output of an alternator is supposed to be constant, but the work the engine has to do will change at the input. That's why alternators have regulators at their output--to regulate the output voltage regardless of load or engine speed. Otherwise the output voltage would change with engine speed and with output load.

If an alternator has no load (not even the engine ignition) then even if it is creating a voltage there is no current being used at the output. The only work done is that required to overcome the friction of the alternator.

As soon as more electrical accessories load down the output (increasing the current flow) then the engine has to work harder to turn it even if the change is small, it still exists.

Regarding airconditioning, yes it also decreases gas mileage when running. Same concept. There have been experiments done (where the results are different with each vehicle) but traveling at slow speeds with windows open is more fuel efficient than running an AC. Running at higher speeds, the energy used by the AC is less than the excess drag caused by open windows.

Note: My background is in electronics, not in automotive. But the principles are the same.

[Joe Kickass]

And if I am wrong, then hell, why isn't David Argall weeping about the environmental cost of car air-conditioning instead? Because that'd chew through the watts at a far greater rate than your headlights ever will.

There is a phenomenon that people seem to get somewhat stupid in their eagerness to argue and insult with DA. The obvious difference is that AC is not required to be running at all times.

[Rallan]

No, but I'd say between the couple of really hot months in summer and the couple of really cold months in winter, your average motorist is gonna waste far more energy keeping the inside of his car comfortable than he ever will keeping his headlights on every time he drives.

[David Argall]

I was under the impression that the alternator's output was pretty much constant regardless of whether you're using any electrical doohickeys or whether or not the battery needs recharging. Its forever trying to dump its entire energy output straight into the battery or whatever.
My knowledge of auto mechanics is only slightly above knowing mechanics do expensive things to whatever is in there. However, we have the basic principle that nothing is free. When we use energy, it is going to cost, and of course burning a light uses energy.
Now we can have limited conditions as suggested here, such as where we are using, say, 60% of the energy and find a way to switch to 70%. But in most cases, we were at 60% for a good reason and the switch only works in limited conditions. We would find at the next car model year that we either need a bigger alternator or can get by with a smaller one. Either way, the cost of the extra lighting becomes apparent.

why isn't David Argall weeping about the environmental cost of car air-conditioning instead? Because that'd chew through the watts at a far greater rate than your headlights ever will.
Because I am not concerned with the environmental costs of themselves here. In particular, I am not concerned here with the environmental costs of other issues. That I can save $10 elsewhere does not mean I should not try to save $1 here.
The basic idea of the government forcing people to do something is objectionable. The defense is offered here that the regulation is a net profit for people, which means we need to consider what the costs and benefits are.
So far we have found these net benefits are uncertain, quite possibly small, and likely negative in many if not most cases. And this is from the view of proponents. That is not a strong case for government action, where everybody must follow the regulation, including those that lose by it.
[The higher benefit in the far North suggests that most of the benefit comes from the lights being on at dusk, when the light is reduced, but not yet really dark. Dusk is longer the further north you go. This in turn suggests several possible alternatives to the regulation that could be distinctly cheaper.]

[carmachu]

The basic idea of the government forcing people to do something is objectionable.



But why?

[Windhaven]

Hey, just because David's poorly informed, poorly advised and generally clueless doesn't mean that he's wrong.

It's the fact that he's passionately misguided and clueless that does that. :)

[BattleNymph]

But why?
I've noticed that this is your general response to anything David writes. Is it that you really want to know or you just enjoy watching his perambulations in trying to answer it?

[carmachu]

I've noticed that this is your general response to anything David writes. Is it that you really want to know or you just enjoy watching his perambulations in trying to answer it?
Yes. But why?

[Origen]

It's a quick, easy way to set David Argall off talking to himself. carm doesn't actually listen to anything he says. He just enjoys cracking his whip, and watching DA dance.

[BattleNymph]

Yes. But why?

*pinches Carmachu*

[ed]

i believe that carm deems it relevant? :>

ed

[carmachu]

*pinches Carmachu*


*ouch* But why?

[BattleNymph]

*ouch* But why?

...What?....

[carmachu]

i believe that carm deems it relevant? :>

ed

But why did I do so?

[BattleNymph]

i believe that carm deems it relevant? :>

ed

Then you are a very gullible young man.

[carmachu]

...What?....

No. why. *grin*

[carmachu]

Then you are a very gullible young man.

Didnt I say those without might not get it?

[BattleNymph]

Didnt I say those without might not get it?

...What?.... :sagrin:

[carmachu]

...What?.... :sagrin:


*Pulls another page out of the playbook*


huh?

[Wook]

I hate daytime running lights. My car has them, now. I'm an adult. I can turn on my own damn lights, thank you. It's not quite as bad as the beeper in the redhead's car that annoys you if you don't buckle your seatbelt. I call it the Nannymobile.

Given the amount of litigation and criminal prosecution in the form of traffic laws that exists are you surprised to see these faeatures pushed by manufacturers and mandated by governments? Knowing 1st hand what a lawsuit costs a corporation on average when it *doesn't* involve an accident i can only imagine how bad it must be when there is injury or loss of life and limb involved.

[Grendel]

Just yesterday I was driving in the fast lane and as I tried to move to the middle lane I just barely made out a car speeding up the lane and so I waited for it to pass. I could just as easily have kept turning right into the car. We were on the dark side of a hill as dusk was approaching (but still fairly bright out). If that car had its lights on I would have noticed it right away. I don't have daytime running lights on my Honda Civic and I had always thought of them as pointless and nanny-like. But I have recently grown to appreciate the idea.

[Joe Kickass]

I find the daytime running lights useful, especially on roads where cars are parked on the side of the street. Those with lights on are the ones that aren't parked. On an overcast day it makes other cars much more visible as well.

I don't know if that means they should be legally required however. If it can be proven that it increases safety, then sure.

[StarkDaddy]

I'm sure that it is obvious, but its interesting to compare DRL laws and seat belt laws. DRL laws are primarily for other people's safety while seat belt laws are mainly for your safety - see what I mean?

[Windhaven]

I was opposed to seatbelt laws as being nanny-state when they first came out, but I learned better.

When there's an accident at any speed where we care about seat belts, there are a couple of secondary collisions that can happen. One of them is the car hitting someone or something else, after the initial impact. This happens a lot if the driver isn't in the driver's seat any more, which is what happens when you don't wear your seatbelt. You get bounced around and aren't in a position to control the vehicle any more.

So seatbelts not only protect you, but also protect the people around you after an accident has happened.

[BlueNinja]

Hey, just because David's poorly informed, poorly advised and generally clueless doesn't mean that he's wrong.

It's the fact that he's passionately misguided and clueless that does that. :) If he hadn't been online and arguing long before 2000, I'd say he was taking cues from the President. :juggle:

[David Argall]

When there's an accident at any speed where we care about seat belts, there are a couple of secondary collisions that can happen. One of them is the car hitting someone or something else, after the initial impact. This happens a lot if the driver isn't in the driver's seat any more, which is what happens when you don't wear your seatbelt. You get bounced around and aren't in a position to control the vehicle any more.

So seatbelts not only protect you, but also protect the people around you after an accident has happened.
The number of deaths prevented this way is rather trivial. In most accidents, there are no secondary collisions that would fall under this situation. [Most secondary collisions happen when the car or cars involved in the original accident are at a dead stop.] And when one car does go banging off the original accident to hit another the driver is generally no longer controlling the car in any case.

http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=777729
"The typical secondary crash on the State of California Highway System is a rear-end, property damage only crash on a greater than a four lane urban freeway that occurs during one of the peak periods and is caused by excessive speed."

Now if you want a major effect of seatbelts, consider its effect on the attitude of the driver, who knows he is safer, and thus drives a little bit faster and recklessly. Despite this, the number of drivers killed goes down because the driver is that much safer. But the number of passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists killed rises, quite possibly enough that seatbelts kill more than they save.

[Joe Kickass]

Now if you want a major effect of seatbelts, consider its effect on the attitude of the driver, who knows he is safer, and thus drives a little bit faster and recklessly. Despite this, the number of drivers killed goes down because the driver is that much safer. But the number of passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists killed rises, quite possibly enough that seatbelts kill more than they save.

Is this science fact or something you decided?


What about drivers/passengers as deadly projecticles? Does that ever happen?

[TinSoldier]

What about drivers/passengers as deadly projecticles? Does that ever happen?It does whenever I watch Cops! or Scariest Police Chases.

Of course, those are all staged in order to show government forces in a good light. Propaganda as it were.

[David Argall]

Is this science fact or something you decided?


http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/920710.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation#Non-vehicle_occupants

http://www.geocities.com/galwaycyclist/info/seatbelts.html

http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/SeatbeltLaws.html

http://www.timharford.com/writing/2006/02/driven-to-destruction.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,00.html?cnn=no

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Seat%20belts%20for%20significance.pdf

None of this proves seatbelts kill more than they save, but they do establish they kill some, and the number may be quite large.

[carmachu]

None of this proves seatbelts kill more than they save, but they do establish they kill some, and the number may be quite large.

But why david?

[Rallan]

But why david?

You really have to stop doing that. It's ruining the memories of one of my favourite science fiction novels, where "But why?" was a way for the kids to prompt their teacher into attempts to explain ever more fundamental principles to explain what seemed on the surface to be a simple macroscopic physics problem. My brain's gonna feel forever raped if it ends up associating "but why?" with attempts to goad David Argall into explaining the fundamental tenets he bases his political philosophy on.

Especially since the politics of the author (Kim Stanley Robinson) would work Dave into a masturbatory fury of self-righteousness :)

[carmachu]

But why Rallan?

[BattleNymph]

*pinches Carmachu because he deserves it*

[carmachu]

*pinches Carmachu because he deserves it*

What ?

[Origen]

Hmmm. I'm beginning to see the light, carm.

[carmachu]

Hmmm. I'm beginning to see the light, carm.

But why Origen?

[Origen]

Exactly.

(fillerfillerfiller)

[Cranky Dog]

But why Origen?
[woman]
Oh, you know why!
[\woman]


Cranky Dog
"I have a male, i.e. totally clueless, opinion, international!"

[carmachu]

[woman]
Oh, you know why!
[\woman]





What ?

[Cranky Dog]

What ?
[Everyone's mom]
Don't act as if you don't know!

Look at me when I'm talking to you young man!

Go to your room and think about what you just did!
[\Everyone's mom]


Cranky Dog
"I have a recurring nightmare opinion, international!"

[carmachu]

huh?


(filler filler filler)

[TinSoldier]

huh?Huh, hell! Pay attention!

[BattleNymph]

Damn that sounds just like my teenage son.....

*pinches eyes together to stop growing headache*

[carmachu]

Damn that sounds just like my teenage son.....

*pinches eyes together to stop growing headache*



What?


(filler)

[BattleNymph]

What?


(filler)
One more time and you're going to the corner young man.

[carmachu]

One more time and you're going to the corner young man.


Huh?






(filler )

[BattleNymph]

Huh?


Ok, I warned you...

*puts Carmachu in the corner for 1/2 hour... and since he's not so young really she uses handcuffs to keep him there*

[carmachu]

Ok, I warned you...

*puts Carmachu in the corner for 1/2 hour... and since he's not so young really she uses handcuffs to keep him there*


*preforms a houdini trick, and hands them back to BN*

But why?

[BattleNymph]

*preforms a houdini trick, and hands them back to BN*

But why?
....*sigh*....

[carmachu]

....*sigh*....



.....what?

[BattleNymph]

.....what?

*gives up and wanders away*

You win. :)

[carmachu]

But why ?

[David Argall]

DCA: "None of this proves seatbelts kill more than they save, but they do establish they kill some, and the number may be quite large."

But why david?

Having declared myself somewhat in the role of teacher, I am somewhat under a duty to answer this under the faint hope it is serious. Fortunately its non-serious nature rapidly becomes apparent, but that still means I have to be answering longer than most.

A look at the studies pretty much answers the question. Most of these show lower numbers of extra "innocent bystanders" killed than they show of drivers not killed. Confidence levels can be 99% for the reduction of driver deaths, while only 90% for other party deaths. The case that seat belts kill non-users is quite strong, but there is, so far, a stronger case that seat belts save lives over all.

It is, however, far from a iron-clad case. Most of the evidence in favor of seat belts is on the order of "2 years ago, we lost 100 lives. Then we required seat belts. Last year, we only lost 90. So seat belts saved 10 lives." Seems like a good case until you find out that 3 years ago, they lost 110 lives, making a straight trend line. Or you hear that the state/city next door didn't require seat belts [or had required them years earlier], and also had a 10% drop. Or you hear that due to the gas shortage, there was 10% less driving. Or...
Such is what we find with the seat belt evidence. A couple of the links point out that a claimed successful program in Britain was at the same time as a very aggressive anti-drunk driver program, and that most of the reduction in deaths was at hours where there were lots of drunk drivers, making it likely the bulk of the credit goes to getting drunks off the road, not to seat belts. Another study finds no big difference in deaths between countries without seatbelt laws and those with. All experienced drops in driver deaths.
It goes against all experience and reason to think wearing a seat belt will not make you safer, but it is easy to grossly err on how much, particularly when one is a safety fanatic who is in love with anything that saves lives.

Now we might note a serious moral difference in direct and indirect seat belt deaths and rescues. If I refuse to wear a seat belt and get killed, the vast majority of the cost falls on me. We can hunt hard and find some minor costs society has to bear, but if it were possible to give me the choice, I would pay those in a shot to avoid being dead. I would also pay those of the broke drivers as well. No contest. [Of course I would also likely be looking for a way to pay neither and still get out alive, but when it came down to "pay or die", out would come the checkbook.]
By contrast, the extra deaths of pedestrians are of innocent bystanders who largely have no way of knowing of the added risk because I am wearing a seat belt. That means we are somewhat comparing suicide vs murder. It is rather clear which we want to make the effort to forbid. And that means there is a moral bias against seat belts even if they do save lives.

[Origen]

That doesn't make any sense, David.

Could you explain more?

[carmachu]

Having declared myself somewhat in the role of teacher, I am somewhat under a duty to answer this under the faint hope it is serious. Fortunately its non-serious nature rapidly becomes apparent, but that still means I have to be answering longer than most.

But why is that?



A look at the studies pretty much answers the question. Most of these show lower numbers of extra "innocent bystanders" killed than they show of drivers not killed. Confidence levels can be 99% for the reduction of driver deaths, while only 90% for other party deaths. The case that seat belts kill non-users is quite strong, but there is, so far, a stronger case that seat belts save lives over all.

But why?



It is, however, far from a iron-clad case. Most of the evidence in favor of seat belts is on the order of "2 years ago, we lost 100 lives. Then we required seat belts. Last year, we only lost 90. So seat belts saved 10 lives." Seems like a good case until you find out that 3 years ago, they lost 110 lives, making a straight trend line. Or you hear that the state/city next door didn't require seat belts [or had required them years earlier], and also had a 10% drop. Or you hear that due to the gas shortage, there was 10% less driving.

But why is that?


Such is what we find with the seat belt evidence. A couple of the links point out that a claimed successful program in Britain was at the same time as a very aggressive anti-drunk driver program, and that most of the reduction in deaths was at hours where there were lots of drunk drivers, making it likely the bulk of the credit goes to getting drunks off the road, not to seat belts. Another study finds no big difference in deaths between countries without seatbelt laws and those with. All experienced drops in driver deaths.

But why?


It goes against all experience and reason to think wearing a seat belt will not make you safer, but it is easy to grossly err on how much, particularly when one is a safety fanatic who is in love with anything that saves lives.

What?


Now we might note a serious moral difference in direct and indirect seat belt deaths and rescues. If I refuse to wear a seat belt and get killed, the vast majority of the cost falls on me. We can hunt hard and find some minor costs society has to bear, but if it were possible to give me the choice, I would pay those in a shot to avoid being dead. I would also pay those of the broke drivers as well. No contest. [Of course I would also likely be looking for a way to pay neither and still get out alive, but when it came down to "pay or die", out would come the checkbook.]


Huh?


By contrast, the extra deaths of pedestrians are of innocent bystanders who largely have no way of knowing of the added risk because I am wearing a seat belt. That means we are somewhat comparing suicide vs murder. It is rather clear which we want to make the effort to forbid. And that means there is a moral bias against seat belts even if they do save lives.


But why?

[Detritus]

But why is that?




But why?




But why is that?



But why?



What?




Huh?




But why?
Awesome...

[Origen]

*Origen bows to carm's Why-Fu*

[Rallan]

Oh dear God, not seatbelts as a civil liberties issue. And not the argument that seatbelts are dangerous to try and back up the seatbelts as a civil liberty issue. If we pretend that David's beaten us all with his startling insights and flawless logic, do you think he'll fuck off and find another part of the internet to win?

[LagomorphPrime]

Pfffft. You know better than to think anything will ever satisfy his needs. Well, anything over 11 at least.

And seatbelts are a legitimate example of civil liberties vs the government. It's the state telling me what's for my own good, which is not what government is supposed to be for.

[Grendel]

You know better than to think anything will ever satisfy his needs. Well, anything over 11 at least.
At first I wasn't sure if you meant "years" or "inches". But clearly you meant both. :D