this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2025
556 points (99.5% liked)
The Onion
5957 readers
490 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
- The Onion
- Clickhole
- McSweeney's
- Reductress
- The Chaser
- The Hard Times
- The Needling
- Tattletale Times
- The Beaverton
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you think about it, all regulations stemming from the DoT are.
They're infringing on my right to drive with no head or taillights.
They're infringing on my right to ignore traffic signs.
They're infringing on my right to drive on the left side of the road.
They're infringing on my right to drive a monster truck on the highway.
In a truly free country, I could drive my truck with 66" tires down the so-called "wrong" side of the road in the dead of night with no lights whatsoever. Sure, I might injure or kill someone, but I also might not, and stopping me from doing so is clearly stopping me from my pursuit of happiness.
Tail lights and the like are required for the safety of others. Seatbelts are basically the government being your mom and making you wear a winter coat because she worries.
The same goes for regulations requiring air bags, crumple zones, tempered glass windows, and other safety features designed to protect the occupants of a vehicle. If seatbelts are government overreach, then so are these. It's my God-given right to die as violently as possible in an easily-preventable accident.
Those are regulations upon the automobile industry.
They can make seatbelt installation mandatory, but forcing people to wear them is a violation of personal freedom.
It is what it is. Motorcycle helmets are exactly the same. Your state may require them, my state has declared helmet laws unconstitutional. This is from New Hampshire, the only state where seat belts are not required:
[New Hampshire has] "a strong emphasis on individual liberty and a reluctance to infringe on personal freedoms, rooted in their state motto, "Live Free or Die". Many residents and lawmakers believe the government should not dictate personal choices, such as whether or not to wear a seat belt. "
I'm not the person you responded to here, but the difference is that all of those things are very likely to cause negative externalities to other people, while, as I've pretty definitively shown in this thread, that's not at all the case with the negative outcomes of not wearing seatbelts, which are almost entirely limited to the person making the decision.
The United States has some very rural areas where you can be the only vehicle on the road for miles. "Stupid" driving is safer for other people there than "smart" driving is in more populated areas.
But if you're not in favor of totally deregulating public roads in areas like that, then let's look at just the light situation.
Having a light out is much easier to notice than whether or not someone is wearing a seatbelt, and is also used by law enforcement to pull people over, meet quotas, etc.
If I don't have headlights, but your taillights work, I can still see your vehicle in front of me and avoid a collision. Likewise, if I don't have taillights, but your headlights work, either you should see my vehicle in front of you and avoid a collision, or you shouldn't be driving at all if you can't tell you're getting closer to my vehicle.
In both situations, the lights on your car are sufficient to keep you safe if I choose to be "stupid" and drive without lights.