I generally agree with this, but it gets tricky when you factor in social services.

If a society decides that it should support health or medical services with public funds then there is a line of logic that conditions based on that support (such as a seatbelt laws, drug laws, or even banning soda) should be allowed.

I don't agree with this, but if I was arguing for that side that would be how I'd frame it.

The seatbelt law is particularly weird to me considering that motorcycles are perfectly legal.

In a car accident you want to stop people form being thrown around the car, hitting each other, steering wheels etc.

'Judy Knew Her Killer' is a good example of why even backseat passengers should wear belts - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEa8j98eR9g

On a motorbike you want the rider to separate from the bike, if a bike is rolling and the rider is attached to it they are going to get really mangled.

I didn't mean to imply that the motorcycle rider should be strapped to the bike, but rather that if the seat belt law is about safety the legality of motorcycles seems a bit hypocritical.

Although your point about not injuring other passengers within the car could be part of it.

I guess it's about harm minimisation and if you banned motorbikes, I guess you'd have to ban cycles too.

There were moves in the EU a few years back to limit engine capacity of bikes.

Interesting point about motorcycles. I wonder though, would motorcycles actually benefit from seatbelts? In an accident a car will provide a substantial amount of protection to the driver, so it's in the driver's interest to be fastened in place. Perhaps it's actually better for the motorcyclist to be separated from the bike as opposed to bring dragged along..

This is getting a bit off topic, but no, motorcycles would not benefit from seatbelts. They would actually be a huge detriment. You're right with the idea that it is advantageous to be separated from the motorcycle in a crash. Not just due to not wanting to be dragged along however.

When I started riding a motorcycle several years back I took a proper safety and rider training course. One of the strategies that could be employed for an imminent crash was literally referred to as a "Superman Dive". Basically, you see you're about to hit a car/truck so you put your feet on the footpegs, hands on the gas tank and jump over the vehicle you're about to hit and then do your best to roll when you hit the ground on the other side. A seatbelt would naturally prevent this.

While hitting the ground on the other side of the vehicle and then going for a roll is far from a good day, it beats going from whatever-speed-you're-at to zero instantly when you're flung into the other vehicle. Since there is no metal box around you on a motorcycle, rather than be a safety feature, a seatbelt would limit or prevent actions that could seriously reduce the chances and severity of injuries.

Wow, it never occurred to me that the seatbelt law is particularly weird given motorcycles.

Just because people are insane on motorcycles doesn't mean the state should pay for the health care of people in cars who could wear a seatbelt. The legality of motorcycles is a separate issue.

And lets be honest. We already have to drive regulated cars, with regulated emission, with gas that is regulated, at the speeds that are regulated, and only if we have regulated licenses. Is a seat belt really a big deal? Wearing one will probably save your life. Is that so bad?

| Is that so bad?

Please, I wasn't making a value judgement, but one of consistency. We all know that laws are inconsistent and applied inconsistently, but I was surprised that I'd never considered that particular inconsistency in the seat belt debate. Now I'm curious, do you have to wear a seat belt on an ATV? If the desire is maximum safety, then why a lap belt and not a 4-point harness? Why not a motorcycle helmet!

| The legality of motorcycles is a separate issue.

Motorcycles aren't that cleanly separated: the relevant definitions of a "motor vehicle" cover cars, trucks, motorcycles, ATVs, farm vehicles, powered scooters, and, in some cases, Segways. Also see DUI laws and bicycles.

| Just because people are insane on motorcycles...

Although accidents are more brutal, it's not necessarily insane to ride a motorcycle considering their fuel economy. People do insane things in cars as well (eat, text, read, apply makeup).

Sort of OT: I processed accident claims for over five years. You don't have to do anything "insane" on a motorcycle to get seriously racked up. What would be a minor fenderbender in a car leading to minor whiplash, where the policyholder was trying to see how many neckrubs he could get covered, on a motorcycle can be them picking gravel out of your road rash and involve broken bones that don't want to mend right and require surgery weeks later. I also saw plenty of second degree burns on the leg from contact with the tailpipe. I never saw a single burn claim for just routine driving of a car.

As for ATVs, they should require more protection. I saw at least one claim involving loss of the foot and lower leg. It made even motorcycle accidents look relatively tame.

I probably reviewed over 60,000 accident files in my time with the company, to give some context for my impressions that motorcycles are just crazy dangerous, no matter how careful you are.

And the motorcyclists who do not get injured? You saw their insurance claims, too?

You have the most biased perspective on this as is possible :)

I am only remarking on comparable things, like a low speed, one vehicle car crash versus a low speed, one vehicle motor cycle crash. The outcomes are drastically different. Yes I also saw files on car crashes that left people mangled for life. Those folks usually were doing insane things, like drinking or doing drugs and driving 100mph at night. You can just be in the wrong place at the wrong time on a motorcycle and get your shit very permanently, very fucked up because of some other careless driver who did not see you. The same outcome in a car takes a lot more going wrong.

Edit: In reviewing that many files, most serious accidents had an element of "accident waiting to happen". Cases of "Damn, it sucks to be you. Shit happens." were very extremely in the minority. It radically changed my view of risk assessment.

That's not fair; she could easily look at the number of policyholders versus claims broken down by vehicle type. I'm sure the numbers looks as bad as she describes.

Note: Mz is a "she".

Thanks, fixed.

Suggestion 1 - all on duty cops should at all times wear a chest mounted video camera recording all of their actions.

How would you propose to preserve police discretion under such a system?

By "discretion" to you mean officers revealing private/personal info or images (such as going to the bathroom)? In that case, you allow the officer to turn the system off for preset intervals (say, 5-10 minutes), with the understanding that if an arrest or alteration were to coincidentally happen during that shutdown period, the officer's account would be treated with extreme skepticism - and multiple occurrences of incidents happening during shutdown periods would be grounds for termination.

If by "discretion" you're talking about officers using their judgment in the field to let offenders go without citation, I don't see why video changes anything. Law enforement would still have the discretion to charge or not charge, and if anything, the video would be helpful to supporting that officer's discretion and for training purposes as examples of the right/wrong way to do things.

Turning of a chest-mounted camera while going to the bathroom? If you have to loop your penis up in front of your chest and back down to use the urinal, just wrap it back around waist instead, to avoid having it appear an camera. The most private thing they're going to catch is the sound of you passing gas while using the restroom.

Well assuming they're given limited leeway the context of the event is captured as well so it could be determined if the office acted appropriately.