• Kalcifer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It could then be argued that it would only be required under the circumstances in which the lack of a seatbelt would create a situation where the safety of others is threatened, and those affected do not consent to the risk.

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I would say that such a law, when being written, should maintain the original mindset as described in this comment of mine. What I mean by this is to say “whenever you are driving” does not cover the situations in which there would never be (or, at least, extremely unlikely to be) any harm to another except yourself, or those consenting. An example of this woud be offroading – perhaps you were implying for such laws to only apply when driving on public roads, but this wasn’t specified explicitly, so I’m making assumptions.

        • LukeMedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, you are correct in both statements. I was not thinking of the more fringe scenarios, I meant specifically public roads.

          • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I was not thinking of the more fringe scenarios

            Unfortunately, the contention around many laws lies within the gray rather than the black, and white.

            • LukeMedia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You are correct, though I am not a lawyer nor a lawmaker. I’m a guy on the Internet with opinions, and I don’t always immediately think of gray areas.