Comment by ein0p
7 months ago
You are aware that “first responders” send you a bill after you use their services, right? And that’s in addition to taxes and levies that fund them in the first place. I don’t mind the seat belts of course, but let’s not pretend that all of that is free of charge to begin with. Besides, first responders will likely need to be there anyway in most situations where a seatbelt would save your life.
In a lot of countries there is no bill, it's all paid for by taxes.
Which is why seatbelt mandates make sense, they reduce the cost for everyone.
Who do I send the bill to when I'm stuck in traffic for 2 hours waiting for them to mop up the ejected person?
In the US that bill is typically paid for by insurance, which means that, even if your neighbor needs the ambulance, you're paying for it in the awkwardly socialized form of raised premiums or perhaps even more awkwardly removed: lower direct compensation due to employer provided health care comprising a larger share of your total comp.
Doesn't using seatbelts still reduce cost then, as it can prevent you from having to pay for first responders?