First off, I would like to state you're all a bunch of hairy little monkeys.
Alright, that out of the way...
Indeed bungee jumping and swimming with sharks are dangerous activities, however they are activities where the maximum possible precautions are taken to minimise danger and risk to the customer. If these appropriate safety precautions are not taken and an accident does occur, then your bungee jump or diving instructor is liable to pay compensation for negligently failing to do so.
*bing*
You made my argument for me. There is no law that enforces such precautions. It is, by and large, an insurance scene -- a means for insurance companies to increase their profit margins. By making it a law, insurance companies can
"not pay out" on insurance claims if they can prove the injured parties failed to wear a seat belt (i.e., committed a crime).
Let's take your example of smoking; why don't we just apply additional taxes to cars that fail to incorporate such safety devices as we do cigarettes, say 100% of the cost of otherwise including these devices? No more of an infringement of your civil liberties (to increase your risk of dying a traumatic and horrible death) than any other existing measure, and it may not go down well with the auto manufacturers, but I for one shall swallow that pill quite happily
Governments should not be participating in the profiteering needs of corporations, particularly since corporations are borderless.
laws are made for people who have no common sense.
Unfortunately Neo, that's not the reality. The reality is laws are put in place because of special interest groups that have enough clout and lobbying influence to push their personal agendas through the door. Either that, or it's a media hot-button that will get politicians voted in for another term.
In the case of seat belt laws, it's the former.
I don't know any manufacturer around here, who doesn't produce cars without airbags for driver and front seat passenger (the majority also has them on the side and some for other passengers). Airbags aren't required by law here, but economics seem to dictate them anyway. People apparently just won't buy cars without airbags.
What's the population of Germany again? What percentage of the automobile market do they entail? Btw, your argument is anecdotal.
The vast majority of consumers buy cars they can afford, regardless of whether it has airbags. If you wish to push the airbag argument, you're going the wrong direction.
Unlike other activities that endanger yourself, driving without seat belts generally results in costs for the community (cleaning of roads, counsel for witnesses, hospital stays and operations in case you're injured etc.) Other stuff doesn't affect as many people.
Jack, those costs are incurred regardless of life loss. Those costs are incurred by the accidents in and of themselves, and end up being managed by the insurance companies. Once again you're arguing for government finance of insurance companies.
If you do not believe the safety precautions are good enough then you don't have to do them whereas driving is essential and therefore should be made as safe as possible.
No, driving is not essential. Public transportation exists, but people
prefer to drive their own vehicles. However, it is a helluva lot cheaper to take public transportation. Anyway, your argument is not strong, because you're arguing that recreational activities can endanger your life without government regulations, whilst essentials must be regulated. That just doesn't make sense.
And although car manufacturers don't have to spend all that extra money making your car safe, in the long run it would be cheaper for them to do so, because that way they aren't being sued by people being injured in their cars or suffering from the inevitable drop in sales through people deciding that their cars are unsafe and not buying them
Not true. Auto manufacturers spend for lawsuits regardless, they have attorneys on staff. Such things cannot be avoided, and if it's not mandated by law, there really is no case because a consumer opts to purchase and drive a vehicle without airbags.
I wish to hit another angle all of you are forgetting. Airbags and seat-belts are not designed to accommodate all body sizes and age groups. Airbags can (and do) kill minors and small people (under 5'). Seat-belts do tremendous damage to overweight people
(the bulk of Americans are overweight, fancy that) and there are many reports of neck/esophageal injuries occurring to minors and small drivers who were unfortunate to wear seat-belts. And when you combine small with overweight, the likelihood of injury by seat-belt and/or airbag goes up exponentially.
So, really, making it mandatory for a small person to wear a seat-belt actually endangers the person and he/she could make a might fine lawsuit against the government for mandating such.