People have a right to live their lives how they wish

[david51058]

People should have a right to live their lives how they wish as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, consequently I don't believe there should be any legislation on anything purely to protect people from themselves. The only condition being is that no one else is affected.
Seat belts and crash helmets are two of the obvious ones that spring to mind.

[jackthehat]

And this squares with your pontification on drug addicts...........how ?

[B00]

But what happens if the none seat belt wearer injures another person, purely because of the lack of a safety device?

[redcrx]

youre saying people shouldnt have to wear seatbelts?

try explaining that it hurts no-one else to those injured/killed by rear seat passengers flying through the car, or to those emergency services personell who have to deal with an accident where unbelted drivers have gone through the screen.

[andy-hughes]

I think part of a rresponsible society is indeed protecting people from themselves.

You infer that everyone makes an informed choice, which is patently not true.

Plus - as advised - there is the knock-on effects of irresponsible choices which cannot be right for society as a whole.

And what is society, but a group of individuals, who in an ideal world would make excellent intelligent choices - but of course, that's not where we live.

[pa___ul3]

I understand the reasoning, that people should be fully responsible for their own actions, but when simple measures can be put in place that will save lives, why not. The laws of the country are there essentially to protect it's people and that's what these laws do.

[cazzz1975]

I bet david would still want the right to claim conpensation should he hurt himself as a result of his ideals...

[ummmm]

I think he's also posted on the compensation culture..

[cazzz1975]

lol ummm, my neighbour was bitching about people claiming compensation until she slipped over in mcdonalds, she couldnt claim fast enough..

[New Judge]

It’s a strange business with seat belts in cars.
As has been explained, it is often not only the unbelted car occupant that is the sole victim in the event of an accident. However, even if it were, I have never heard any howls of protest from air passengers when they are told to belt up on an aircraft. Yet tell them to do the same in a car and all hell lets loose.

What I cannot reconcile with such laws (and I apologise for going off at a tangent) is the exemption provided on religious grounds for Sikhs which allows them to ride a motorbike without a crash helmet. If the law is there to protect not only the rider but also those who might have to scrape them off the road, it seems those emergency workers can get stuffed to accommodate the Sikhs’ religious proclivities.

It’s a funny old world.

[Old_Geezer]

Whilst generally sympathetic to the view, how far should it go ? Should society allow the mentally ill to self harm because we don't have a right to protect the vulnerable ? IMO there is always a line to be agreed upon.

And yes there should be no frivolous exceptions to what is agreed. If it is ok for one person not to comply with a safety law then it should be ok for all not to comply.

[Old_Geezer]

One claims compensation of someone else has failed in their responsibilty to your safety, not if the cause of your injury was yourself.

[daftgrandad]

How do you qualify "as long as it does,nt hurt anyone else"
I think anything you do,in life,will hurt someone somewhere.
Drink-driving,talking on a mobile phone,etc,won,t hurt anyone,until the fateful day
you realise that oops someone has been affected.

[jake-the-peg]

So are you then going to decriminilise cocaine or criminalise alcohol?

[Answerprancer]

"I think part of a responsible society is indeed protecting people from themselves".
Maybe so Andy, but where do you draw the line (if at all) between this and being the child of a totalitarian "nanny" state ? I for one am not prepared to be nannied by some dubious government that I didn't vote for. 'One size fits all' rules are against my principles and I will flout the law if I don't agree with it (eg. drug use).

[jomifl]

If someone takes dodgy substances and turns themself into a even more mindless idiot can I exert my free will and not fund their care by the state? Probably not, so these state imposed restrictions are part of a social bargain. There are plenty of parts of the world where people can do what the fcuk they like to themselves and others and they do. Best to stay in the civilised world and give up a little liberty as a price for being looked after and not being murdered.

[wildwood]

I do know what you mean but everything you do does affects someone somewhere.

Severe injury from no seat belts or helmet has to be paid for by Society, that money could be used for saving me if I have an heart attack. You're also causing a traffic jam for miles while they scrape your pieces up from the tarmac - non-injury accidents are cleared up quickly.

We do need to find a generally acceptable balance of people's rights and being fair to the Society you live in.
Unfortunately, "generally acceptable balance of people's rights" is not in a politician's dictionary so I really do not know how we can overthrow the Nanny State protocol.

[kineton1]

David is going from one extreme to another. Now perhaps he would be happy to see us all suddenly abandon our cars and walk everywhere. We all know that emissions are harmful to us all. So, David, are we to give up transportation as your condition is violated? Aside from that and still on the transportation subject do we not need legislation to tell us what side of the road to drive on or how to negotiate where there are cross roads. You must understand that for every action there is a re-action.