this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
471 points (97.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43940 readers
682 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Laws that aren't intended to be actually enforced, but serve as cover for a search or whatever other cop activity. Seat belt, drug, and helmet laws for example. I don't think it's even about tickets it's just reason to pull you over and brow beat you for a while.
You're telling me the state that doesn't give a fuck if I die from gesticulates generally around suddenly cares whether I make a personal decision about my own safety?
This is coming from someone who wears his seat belt 100% of the time and gets car sick if I don't, who has been ticketed for not wearing one even though I was.
The way I heard it the insurance companies lobbied for seatbelt laws.
Something about if you die in an accident the payout could be larger than if you survived.
Opposite for motorcycles and helmets. On a bike you aren't eligible for the same death payout as someone in a car so it's cheaper if you die.
Again this is just how I heard it and I've never cared enough to actually look into any of this at all but on the surface and seems plausible.
It's not that. It's that they can deny the payout if you broke the law.
Ahhhh ok. That does make more sense.
To add to this, I feel this with recent updated road laws here to make them more "cycling friendly", a trend that laws keep getting written that are either impossible to enforce the way they're written or nobody gives a shit either. Basically just making the question of liablity easier after the fact. Which seems sort of like a very shit proposition for road laws to me