People generally cite the lawsuit threat, but the threat cuts both ways. I've seen lawsuits for putatively malfunctioning anti-lock brakes, and I've seen lawsuits for not including anti-lock brakes. At some point, once it is reasonably well demonstrated that automated cars drive more safely than humans under some circumstances, someone is going to file a lawsuit for not having automated drivers. It's only a matter of time. That's when it really gets legally interesting.
Note I said "interesting", not "the beginning of the inevitable victory". I say "interesting" because I think we can pretty much all agree how this plays out until that happens, but I can't see past that event.
Yup, I forsee the current seat belt system, where even in situations when it's advisable not to be wearing a seatbelt and/or the other mandated safety systems it's still illegal.
The problem is a systemic one that stems from the belief that the gov't is the omnipresent nanny of its citizenry.
Note: Before I get downvoted, I recognize that statistically seat belts save lives, however, there are conditions in which seatbelts cause fatalities (even when used properly), and that the choice of whether to wear or not wear one should be that of informed consent.
There are conditions when vaccines kill children, but there is NO situation where the sensible choice is to not vaccinate your healthy child. The same with seatbelts.
Driving on an iced lake or any other condition where your car is more likely to become submerged than you are to run into something, being unable to exit the vehicle quickly can be fatal.
The typical example is an underage child in an adult seatbelt. Because of the difference in dimensions, a crash causes the seatbelt to impact the neck.
I'm not sure that would be classed as "used properly", though.
Is it a legal requirement for underage children to use an adult seatbelt? I know here in Sweden for example it is illegal to have child, under a certain height, in a car without proper child seatbelt/car seat. Form a legal point of view no seatbelt and adult seatbelt are more or less equivalent.
Given informed consent for seatbelts, what do you think the ratio would be between people who choose not to wear one because they have completely informed themselves from reliable sources and calculated that they're more likely to survive without one than with one, versus people who will just leave their seatbelt off because it's uncomfortable?
I'm not sure but if a person prefers to be more severely injured in the event of an accident rather than uncomfortable all the times they are not in an accident then it's an appropriate choice for them. I don't feel it's my place or any other third party to make these choices for adults.
Sure, or even have to share emergency resources. I mean, why on earth would an ambulance attend a person who's seriously injured because they exercised their right to be comfortable when the ambulance could be attending someone who actually took some responsibility for his own safety and considers the well-being of the community at large.
Not that I'm this much of a bastard, but for those of us that have faith-based issues around community-provided health services.
Let's put aside the "who's paying for the ER" argument. A driver that loses control of the car trying to brace oneself or restrain a passenger that isn't wearing a seat belt can increase the severity of an accident for other people, too. A car crash victim that falls on to the street suddenly becomes a hazard to other vehicles, too.
As a non-smoker I like smoking bans, since smoking affects me as a by-stander, too. I would also be OK with people injecting heroin instead of smoking---anything that doesn't stink.
Note I said "interesting", not "the beginning of the inevitable victory". I say "interesting" because I think we can pretty much all agree how this plays out until that happens, but I can't see past that event.