Life Vests Should Be Mandated For All Swimmers

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fivepoint, May 25, 2011.

  1. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #1
    In the name of saving lives, and in order to maintain consistency with the majority of opinions in this forum based on previous discussions regarding motorcycle helmet laws, I thought I might suggest a logical addition to this line of thinking in the form of a law which requires anyone swimming in America to wear a life vest.


    In 2010 there were ~3,500 motorcycle deaths in America suggesting that the number of motorcycle accident deaths and swimming deaths are almost identical. This is simply unacceptable! How can we as a society put up with this? Are we ok letting these people die? Are we going to continue to fool ourselves into thinking that people are smart enough to take care of themselves? Something must be done to save these aquatic Americans from themselves!


    Worst of all, it seems to be children who are hurt more than anyone. In 2004 26% of all deaths of children between the ages of 1-4, were due to drowning. Pathetic. It's about the children, folks. Think of the children!


    We clearly must pass some sort of federal law which prohibits the act of swimming; professionally, for leisure, or otherwise, without the use of a government approved safety vest. Heck, think economically... how much needless money is being spent on emergency services, insurance, etc. spent on these people who refuse to stop being morons swimming w/out protective gear!

    Who's with me on this? Who wants to start the petition? Call Senator Franken! Call Speaker Pelosi! Call President Obama. Think of the children!
     
  2. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #2
    Really? This is your argument?

    So, you are against all the anti-choice laws.
     
  3. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #3
    re-do your numbers in deaths per 1000 in each category.

    Motorcycle numbers are a hell of a lot higher when you account for the much fewer number who ride than those who get in the water at some point during the year.

    if you want to ride with out a helmet then make it so insurance companies do not have to pay 1 cent of the injuries that result from a crash. It must be all out of your own pocket.
     
  4. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #4
    I think all swimmers riding on a machine that travels at speeds between 30-130 mph, and that can get hit by other much larger machines, should wear life vests.

    Oh, yeah, and any swimmer that swims on a public highway should wear a life vest too.

    Don't forget, any swimmer with a license issued by the state to swim should also probably abide by state laws, including wearing a life vest.
     
  5. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #5
    Drowning is the sole cause of 25% of deaths of our 1-4 year olds, and you think that riding a motorcycle is dangerous? Sheesh! All this time we've been spending putting companies who make roman-shades out of business and the real problem-child was water!!

    Also, how many of those motorcycle deaths do you think would have been prevented had the rider been wearing a helmet? 10%? 20%? What percentage of drowning deaths would be eliminated due to a security flotation device? Probably closer to 90% would be my guess.

    Numbers don't matter, we need to save our aquatic citizenry! Even one death is too many! Help us big government, help! Save us from ourselves!
     
  6. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #6
    I can't believe anyone even bothered to respond to this thread. It's not worth your trouble, folks.
     
  7. DeaconGraves macrumors 65816

    DeaconGraves

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #7
    You're absolutely right FivePoint. Let's move this one step further and say that the federal government can't tell me who to marry or whether or not my significant other can have an abortion.
     
  8. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #8
    like to point out that most of those kids 1-4 who die of drowning die at home in a bath tub or fall in a pool. Both of which could not be prevented by life vest. Also most drowning victims are not a result of being in a pool at the time.
    As for Motorcycle deaths quite a few. You should see the numbers of helmet vs no helmet deaths and it is staggering.
     
  9. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #9
    Yes, unlike some, I avoid hypocrisy by standing up for all liberties... not just the ones I that affect my life personally. I hate smoking in restaurants, but I think it's the restaurant owner's right to choose what can go on in his building, and your choice as a consumer to do business where you want. Likewise, government shouldn't be telling us who can marry and who can't... if two adults want to tie their finances together, let them. If they want to marry in their church, let them. As for abortion, there are two pro-liberty positions. Either you support the mother's freedom to choose, or the child's right to life. It all hinges on whether or not you consider the fetus/baby life.
     
  10. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #10
    I think we should force all Libertarians to live on deserted islands, as they already believe that they are islands unto themselves.

    What does this have to do with the subject?

    Well, if you live on an island, life vests might come in handy.
     
  11. DeaconGraves macrumors 65816

    DeaconGraves

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #11
    Crap. FP agrees with me on something. :p
     
  12. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #12
    A flotation device couldn't be designed to fit around the neck and prevent a young children from drowning in shallow water? Really?

    Also, what's the cutoff? The 3,500 motorcyclists that die must be protected, but the 3,100 that die from swimming must not? Are you being prejudiced against aquatic Americans? Their lives matter less? Certainly properly designed and implemented flotation devices could prevent upwards of 90% of drowning deaths. Helmets won't even come remotely close to that with motorcycle accidents... certainly less than 50%.

    Maybe it's because you swim, but don't ride motorcycle? Maybe it's because you think wearing a safety device would reduce the quality of your swimming experience? Either way, you seem to be blatantly applying your nanny-state restrictions in a rather inconsistent manor... don't worry, you're not the only one. ;)
     
  13. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #13
    THIS.

    Stop encouraging the insanity.
     
  14. bobr1952 macrumors 68020

    bobr1952

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    #14
    Sounds a bit tongue in cheek but on a serious note as someone who lives in Florida--many of the accidental deaths have nothing to do with the availability of life vests as many involve small children--who haven't learned how to swim--getting out of the eye of their parents or guardian and finding that pool--which is usually located just off the porch. :(
     
  15. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #15
    If you want to ride with out a helemet so be it. but I do not want ONE CENT of the increase cost due to the higher risk of injury to come back and effect me. These means in insurance premiums or tax dollars.

    Would you support a law that states for Helmetless motocyler rides that any injury that results from a crash (your fault or not) you are 100% responsible for medical care and have no right to sue. If you have a helmet on then you have the right.

    Also as i pointed out earlier I need deaths per 1000 or 100,000 numbers or it is complete irrelevant because does not account for the fact that there are a huge number more swimmers than riders.

    For cigirets guess what I 100% support the laws that say no smoking in public buildings. I also think Cigurate taxes need to be raised to cover all cost resulting from medical care from them and smokers should have much higher insurance premiums as I a non smoker should not have to pay for any of it.
     
  16. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #16
    To decrease forum morbidity I propose all Libertarians have their "New Thread" button inactivated.
     
  17. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #17
    Plus one.
     
  18. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #18
    I've always been against seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws. If you're stupid enough to go without those, you're not smart enough to live. Please, by all means, cleanse the gene pool. We make far too many laws that protect the stupid.
     
  19. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #19
    Ah, but the government does not like losing minions due to stupidity.

    In that regard, they are not unlike the Catholic church.
     
  20. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #20
    but if you are dumb enough to go with out them then you also should not recieve any money for injuries or death that result from it (no matter who is at fault) my premiums should not be increased to cover those people's stupidity.
     
  21. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
  22. DeaconGraves macrumors 65816

    DeaconGraves

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #22
    In some ways I think you could get this result without passing any laws.

    As far as negligence liability goes, basic tort laws use comparative or contributive negligence standards; if you were negligent yourself you could can't recover for someone else's negligence. Could be convincingly argued that riding in a car without your sealtbelt or riding a motocycle without a helmet is negligent.

    And, knowing how insurance companies try as hard as they can not to pay, it shouldn't be very hard to convince them to add clauses to their policies voiding the policy if a person doesn't wear a helmet (I'd be shocked if there wasn't something like this already in there, at least on the auto insurance side; not so sure about the medical insurance side).
     
  23. kavika411, May 25, 2011
    Last edited: May 25, 2011

    kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #23
    Hence why this thread - regardless of how or by whom it was presented - merits a discussion.

    I agree with you both.
     
  24. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #24
    Indeed. It only increases forum governmental intervention, after all.
     
  25. ender land macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #25
    I guess the government should prevent people from having children.

    I mean, 100% of them will die - this means parents are having kids to let them die!

    At least some of these kids survive their encounters of drowning when they are younger... no one can ever survive life :\
     

Share This Page