Seat belt laws

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-25-2006, 05:19 PM
  #1  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
SouthernBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Suburb of Manassas, VA
Posts: 8,342
Received 162 Likes on 102 Posts
Seat belt laws

For those of you who may favor seat belt laws (something I've argued against for a number of years), enjoy the good Dr. Williams' article from yesterday.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...24/198422.html
Old 05-25-2006, 05:21 PM
  #2  
Senior Moderator
 
Crazy Bimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Chicago Burbs
Age: 43
Posts: 34,937
Received 638 Likes on 276 Posts
uh yea good reasoning.

Why dont you want to wear your belt?
Old 05-25-2006, 05:32 PM
  #3  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
SouthernBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Suburb of Manassas, VA
Posts: 8,342
Received 162 Likes on 102 Posts
Originally Posted by Crazy Sellout
uh yea good reasoning.

Why dont you want to wear your belt?
Sir, I never said I don't want to wear a seat belt. In fact, I would not even consider taking my car out of my garage and onto the streets without buckling up. I just don't like the government dictating this to me. It's none of their business how I wish to conduct myself in such regards.
Old 05-25-2006, 05:44 PM
  #4  
Yeehaw
 
BEETROOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Age: 44
Posts: 20,972
Received 26 Likes on 5 Posts
Letter my brother sent in to the click it or ticket program yesterday:
Comment: Dear Sirs,

I am concerned that the Connecticut's 'Click It Or Ticket'; safety
belt campaign will be of suboptimal effectiveness. While traffic safety is
certainly a legitimate goal of our government, and encouraging motorists to
wear safety belts is a reasonable and proper component thereof, the current
effort to convince or compel safety belt usage is unlikely to have the
desired effect.

The 'Click It'; campaign, at least in its present manifestation,
operates on fear of the state's authority, an incentive to which the
citizenry will probably not respond well. The Department of Transportation
is telling motorists to 'buckle up' singularly because the state will do
violence to them should they fail to do so.

It seems unlikely that a person who consistently fails to use a safety belt
will be convinced to do so by the state's threat of financial harm. The
current message may in fact prove worse than useless if it encourages some
to continue reckless behavior merely out of a sense of defiance of what they
perceive to be intrusive state meddling in their personal affairs.

It is this citizen's opinion that a more thoughtful effort would turn on the
immediate safety considerations pertinent to the use of safety belts, or
more precisely, the failure to use them. An informative campaign apprising
the reckless motorist of the unnecessary risks to his life may be more
effective. Perhaps a message along the lines of, 'Buckle Up If You Like
Being Alive'; or some such appeal to motorists' survival instincts
would carry more weight with them. Perhaps a graphic depiction of the
corporeal consequences of flying through windshields and being wrapped
around trees would help compel a behavioral change.
Old 05-25-2006, 05:45 PM
  #5  
Yeehaw
 
BEETROOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Age: 44
Posts: 20,972
Received 26 Likes on 5 Posts
Response:

Your comments regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA's) "Click It or Ticket" campaign have been
referred to me. I appreciate your interest in the campaign and your
thoughtful comments on change in focus of the campaign from
enforcement to safety.



NHTSA has been involved in promoting safety belt use since belts were
first installed in motor vehicles. In the early 1980's, the approach
was education on the safety aspects of safety belts. Remember Vince &
Larry, the crash test dummies? Safety belt use was 14 percent. In
the mid-1980's, States began to introduce legislation requiring safety
belt use, and use rates began to rise rapidly, because motorists did
not want to be ticketed. In fact, rates increased to from 37 percent
(1986) to 68 percent (1996), and then began to level off.



Several States began to mobilize their law enforcement agencies to
focus enforcement on safety belt laws during time periods when
fatalities were high, and they let the motoring public know that they
would be increasing enforcement. When that happened, safety belt use
rates began to increase again. NHTSA evaluated successful State
programs and found that, when the motoring public were informed of the
increased enforcement, they were more likely to wear safety belts than
when informed of the safety aspects of the devices. It became obvious
to NHTSA that, when enforcement increased and motorists were informed
of that, they buckled up in greater numbers than through just
educational messages alone. Today's use rate is 82 percent
nationally.



The "Click It or Ticket" campaign is not a year-round campaign or
message. The national mobilization takes place once a year—just
before the summer vacation season. The rest of the year, NHTSA
promotes the message "Buckle Up America. Every Trip. Every Time."
This message relates to the safety reasons for buckling up, in terms
fatalities and injuries, and the impact they have on loved ones. The
"Click It or Ticket" law enforcement mobilization is for those who
have not heard the "Buckle Up America" message. And, as evidenced in
the data, it does work.



Again, I appreciate your comments about the campaign. And, more
importantly, I hope that you and your loved ones buckle up – every
trip, every time. I saw a spot on the news earlier this week in which
an SUV driver was 'clipped' by a car and rolled over about 10 times
before coming to a stop in a ditch. The driver broke her thumb and
several ribs. Had she not had on her safety belt, I believe the
result would have been far different.



Stay safe,



Robin Mayer

Chief, Office of Consumer Information

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Old 05-25-2006, 06:27 PM
  #6  
dɐɹɔ ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ
 
iTimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lexington, KY
Age: 43
Posts: 7,522
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I was in a bad car accident a number of years ago and I am convinced a seat belt saved my life, I NEVER drive with out a seatbelt on(even if I'm in the backseat). However, I don't see how its public safety to enforce people to wear their seatbelts, its more personal safety. Its not often you hear of a car accident where a passenger is discharged from the car landing on an innocent person and killing them. That said I think idiots who die in car accidents not wearing seatbelts is good for public safety in the big picture, it removes them from the gene pool.

At the end of the day its all about money, its an excuse to write tickets and generate revenue.
Old 05-25-2006, 06:45 PM
  #7  
Senior Moderator
 
GreenMonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Swansea, MA
Age: 58
Posts: 35,218
Received 15 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by SouthernBoy
Sir, I never said I don't want to wear a seat belt. In fact, I would not even consider taking my car out of my garage and onto the streets without buckling up. I just don't like the government dictating this to me. It's none of their business how I wish to conduct myself in such regards.
Fucking A'...

I wear my seatbelt, but I don't think that mandating it's use is necessary...

I believe that helmets save motorcyclists lives, but I don't think it should be law...

I don't smoke pot anymore, but I don't think it should be illegal...

Keep the gov't out of my business... kthxbye...
Old 05-25-2006, 06:46 PM
  #8  
Go Giants
 
Whiskers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: PA
Age: 53
Posts: 69,918
Received 1,236 Likes on 825 Posts
Wear your damn seatbelt and shut the F up about it....
Old 05-25-2006, 07:06 PM
  #9  
Safety Car
 
heyitsme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually, people getting hurt in accidents by not wearing their seatbelts has an affect on everyone through higher insurance rates. So this whole arguement of "I can do what I want in my car because it only applies to me" doesn't really work too well.
Old 05-25-2006, 07:13 PM
  #10  
go like hell
 
Water-S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Anna,OH(home of the honda/acura motors)
Age: 42
Posts: 5,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Okay being a firefighter/EMT I can tell you guys wearing a seat belt CRITICAL. here's why. lets say you're unbuckled and you stop all the sudden at a red light or stop sign.(leather really bad about this vs carpet) you will want to "keep on going" even though the car has stopped it's called inertia. pretty basic. now only thing is take that times about 50 or 100. because often when you hit or someone else hits you you become a projectile. the odds when you stay in the car of you live IS MUCH BETTER vs being thrown from the car. I had to respond to a call where one of my close friends died on the scence yes he was driving like a bat out of hell I'll admit to that. however he was thrown out of the car because he didn't wear a seatbelt. I don't care if you have any make of car with 17-18 how many ever airbags is standard equipment. it does NO GOOD WITHOUT YOUR SEATBELT ON.
I don't drive anywhere(even 3-4 mile trips) without my seat belt. if i showed you guys pics of victims of similar accidents with seatbelts(which is usually minor cuts a good bruise maybe mostly minor stuff) vs without seatbelt (massive head trama, glass or other car parts in head).
for me i don't only wear it for myself but also for my family
Old 05-25-2006, 08:42 PM
  #11  
I miss my 03 CL-S :(
 
einsatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 7,140
Received 445 Likes on 214 Posts
Water-S I think you're missing the OPs point... I don't think you'll find many people here dumb enough to say seat belts don't save lives. What's being talked about is wheter a state has the right to tell you what you can and can't do as far as what measures you take to protect yourself.

Personally I'm all for seatbelt laws. If you're dumb enough to get caught without wearing one, you deserve a stupid tax in the form of a ticket.
Old 05-25-2006, 08:45 PM
  #12  
Safety Car
 
heyitsme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well how bout suicide laws then.
Old 05-26-2006, 10:55 AM
  #13  
Suzuka Master
 
SakiGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 41
Posts: 5,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by GreenMonster
Fucking A'...

I wear my seatbelt, but I don't think that mandating it's use is necessary...

I believe that helmets save motorcyclists lives, but I don't think it should be law...

I don't smoke pot anymore, but I don't think it should be illegal...

Keep the gov't out of my business... kthxbye...
Consider you cause an accident and someone flies out the window because they werent wearing one. All of a sudden your 100,000 liability insurance isnt enough to cover it. They sue.

I think seatbelts and helmets should be the law.
Old 05-26-2006, 11:15 AM
  #14  
Suzuka Master
 
mrdeeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
none of you have mentioned family and friends and loved ones yet.

for example, let's say your best friend doesn't like to wear his seatbelt, and bitching and whining about it to him doesn't make him do it...but getting a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt would. would you rather have him be allowed to make his own choice and be dead?

Or how about your mom, who usually wears seatbelts but is kinda ditzy, so one day she forgets...would you rather have her pulled over or pancaked?

Seatbelt laws and helmet laws aren't to protect the people that wear seatbelts and helments...it's for the people that don't. If we were isolated from everyone else and weren't friends or family with anyone that doesn't wear seatbelts, then that's one thing...but accidents that happen and people who are hurt because they didn't wear seatbelts affect more than just the driver, financially or otherwise.
Old 05-26-2006, 11:25 AM
  #15  
Suzuka Master
 
mrdeeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
This goes along with my buddy's argument (he's an avid pot smoker).

We call him "Big Angry" because he's always angry because he thinks pot should be legal. He smokes pot, he goes on with his life more or less just fine and doesn't do anythign stupid, so he says that the gov't shouldn't tell him what not to do.

I tell him that's wrong...the gov't can't make one law that applies to him letting him smoke, and then make one for the irresponsible pot smoker that would do something stupid and hurt someone else, like driving while high.

If everyone were smart, ethical, honest, virtuous and had common sense then there would be no need for laws, cops, or lawyers. Everyone would live together in peace and harmony...but that's not the case and therefore laws are made for the lowest common denominator of society.
Old 05-26-2006, 11:28 AM
  #16  
Yeehaw
 
BEETROOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Age: 44
Posts: 20,972
Received 26 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by heyitsme
Actually, people getting hurt in accidents by not wearing their seatbelts has an affect on everyone through higher insurance rates. So this whole arguement of "I can do what I want in my car because it only applies to me" doesn't really work too well.

In a perfect world, if you are in an accident and not wearing your seatbelt it should be you alone who pays the consequences...ie your own rates skyrocket for the rest of your life.


Originally Posted by SakiGT
Consider you cause an accident and someone flies out the window because they werent wearing one. All of a sudden your 100,000 liability insurance isnt enough to cover it. They sue.
Would they have legal grounds to sue? If not wearing a seatbelt is against the law, I'm not sure if they have a case.


Originally Posted by mrdeeno
none of you have mentioned family and friends and loved ones yet.

for example, let's say your best friend doesn't like to wear his seatbelt, and bitching and whining about it to him doesn't make him do it...but getting a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt would. would you rather have him be allowed to make his own choice and be dead?

Or how about your mom, who usually wears seatbelts but is kinda ditzy, so one day she forgets...would you rather have her pulled over or pancaked?

Seatbelt laws and helmet laws aren't to protect the people that wear seatbelts and helments...it's for the people that don't. If we were isolated from everyone else and weren't friends or family with anyone that doesn't wear seatbelts, then that's one thing...but accidents that happen and people who are hurt because they didn't wear seatbelts affect more than just the driver, financially or otherwise.
I don't think my tax dollars should be used to make sure your friends and family take basic common sense safety measures. The role of government should be to protect people from each other, it should not be to protect them from their own stupidity. I guess this is just a basic political philosophy difference.... I'd like the government involved with as little of my life as possible. I don't need the government to tell me to buckle up, wear a helmet, put on sunscreen or wear a hat when its cold outside.

I think seatbelt laws should be on the books... if you go flying out the window because you weren't buckled up you should not have a right to sue the guy who caused the wreck...but they shouldn't be actively enforced. Perhaps an informational campaign promoting the dangers of going unbuckled, but not cops standing in intersections looking into vehicles.
Old 05-26-2006, 11:31 AM
  #17  
Yeehaw
 
BEETROOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Age: 44
Posts: 20,972
Received 26 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeeno

I tell him that's wrong...the gov't can't make one law that applies to him letting him smoke, and then make one for the irresponsible pot smoker that would do something stupid and hurt someone else, like driving while high.


You mean like alcohol laws?
Old 05-26-2006, 11:37 AM
  #18  
Suzuka Master
 
mrdeeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by BEETROOT
I don't think my tax dollars should be used to make sure your friends and family take basic common sense safety measures. The role of government should be to protect people from each other, it should not be to protect them from their own stupidity. I guess this is just a basic political philosophy difference.... I'd like the government involved with as little of my life as possible. I don't need the government to tell me to buckle up, wear a helmet, put on sunscreen or wear a hat when its cold outside.
Sure, but do you think your tax dollars should be used to make sure YOUR friends and family take basic common sense safety measures? Are you telling meyour family and friends are so perfect that every one of them wears their seatbelts 100% of the time while in a motor vehicle? Would you not be affected at all if your co-worker is killed in an accident because he didn't wear his seatbelt? Would you call his family and just tell them that it was HIS stupidity?

If the gov't doesn't protect people from their own stupidity, you don't think that has any effect on others?

Along the same lines of your argument, do you think they should abandon mandatory schooling...because you don't need the gov't to tell you to send your kids to school? But how about your neighbor's kids, who would end up milking society had he not be required to go to school?
Old 05-26-2006, 11:40 AM
  #19  
Suzuka Master
 
mrdeeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by BEETROOT


You mean like alcohol laws?
Well, that's the other side of the argument. He compares pot to alcohol laws and I agree that it is a double standard.

But I don't "agree" with these laws per se and feel that a lot of it is political bullshit. I just try to explain to him the reasoning behind them. And I'm not angry about it since I don't smoke pot and wear my seatbelt.

Which is why I don't really care about the seatbelt law as it applies to me...but i do see the benefit when it applies to people who don't wear seatbelts...i don't know about you, but i'd rather see someone saved from their stupidity than killed by it, whether I personally know this person or not.

Last edited by mrdeeno; 05-26-2006 at 11:43 AM.
Old 05-26-2006, 11:51 AM
  #20  
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (2)
 
fuzzy02CLS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South FL
Age: 48
Posts: 16,847
Received 223 Likes on 184 Posts
If everyone were smart, ethical, honest, virtuous and had common sense then there would be no need for laws, cops, or lawyers. Everyone would live together in peace and harmony...but that's not the case and therefore laws are made for the lowest common denominator of society.
X 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000

Don't like it? LEAVE!
Old 05-26-2006, 11:53 AM
  #21  
Suzuka Master
 
SakiGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 41
Posts: 5,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Your rights end where mine begin, basically. If a motorist couldnt hold anyone liable for injuries if they didnt wear a seatbelt I wouldnt care, but the fact is they can (and rightly so, imo).
Old 05-26-2006, 11:55 AM
  #22  
Yeehaw
 
BEETROOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Age: 44
Posts: 20,972
Received 26 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
Sure, but do you think your tax dollars should be used to make sure YOUR friends and family take basic common sense safety measures? Are you telling meyour family and friends are so perfect that every one of them wears their seatbelts 100% of the time while in a motor vehicle? Would you not be affected at all if your co-worker is killed in an accident because he didn't wear his seatbelt? Would you call his family and just tell them that it was HIS stupidity?
Of course I would be affected, and of course I would like all of my friends and family to wear seat belts. I just don't see what the government has to do with it. I'd also prefer they refrain from running at the pool, doesn't mean I want an officer in my backyard.

If the gov't doesn't protect people from their own stupidity, you don't think that has any effect on others?
It does, but this is not the role of government (in my mind).

Along the same lines of your argument, do you think they should abandon mandatory schooling...because you don't need the gov't to tell you to send your kids to school? But how about your neighbor's kids, who would end up milking society had he not be required to go to school?
Well, I think we are getting off topic... but actually I do not agree with mandatory schooling. If I don't want to send my kids to school I don't think the government should be able to intervene. However I think that the benefit of education is self evident and an overwhelming majority of the population would send their children to school regardless of any legal obligation.
Old 05-26-2006, 12:00 PM
  #23  
Yeehaw
 
BEETROOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Age: 44
Posts: 20,972
Received 26 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
Well, that's the other side of the argument. He compares pot to alcohol laws and I agree that it is a double standard.

But I don't "agree" with these laws per se and feel that a lot of it is political bullshit. I just try to explain to him the reasoning behind them. And I'm not angry about it since I don't smoke pot and wear my seatbelt.

Which is why I don't really care about the seatbelt law as it applies to me...but i do see the benefit when it applies to people who don't wear seatbelts...i don't know about you, but i'd rather see someone saved from their stupidity than killed by it, whether I personally know this person or not.
Of course you see the benefit, I see it too. Its just not a 'benefit' that the government should be involved in providing.

The question is, how much out of your pocket are you willing to give up in order to protect someone else from their own stupidity? Personally, I say very little. A few bucks here and there for educational campaigns around things that aren't common sense... but if I had the choice I would not give one thin dime to 'protect' someone dumb enough to drive without a seatbelt.
Old 05-26-2006, 12:02 PM
  #24  
Yeehaw
 
BEETROOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Age: 44
Posts: 20,972
Received 26 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by fuzzy02CLS
X 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000

Don't like it? LEAVE!

I really hope this isn't your political philosophy.
Old 05-26-2006, 12:05 PM
  #25  
Yeehaw
 
BEETROOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Age: 44
Posts: 20,972
Received 26 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by SakiGT
Your rights end where mine begin, basically. If a motorist couldnt hold anyone liable for injuries if they didnt wear a seatbelt I wouldnt care, but the fact is they can (and rightly so, imo).

How do you say 'rightly so'? If you were to rear end someone, and they went flying out the windshield because they weren't belted in, you think they would be justified in suing you for the damages over what would have happened had they been wearing a seat belt?
Old 05-26-2006, 12:12 PM
  #26  
Suzuka Master
 
SakiGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 41
Posts: 5,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEETROOT
How do you say 'rightly so'? If you were to rear end someone, and they went flying out the windshield because they weren't belted in, you think they would be justified in suing you for the damages over what would have happened had they been wearing a seat belt?
I agree. But consider the consequences of not being able to sue for not using seatbelts. What about not using airbags? I think its too vague to say: You cant sue someone if you werent wearing a seatbelt. What about in case of a people in a horrible accident who probably wouldve dies with one on anyways. That gray area would be impossible to decide.

Really I dont see and excuse for NOT wearing one. I can see the whole government stepping in issue, but I dont see it as the government protecting them...I see it as the government protecting me from outrageous insurance costs due to idiots not wearing seatbelts.
Old 05-26-2006, 12:36 PM
  #27  
Yeehaw
 
BEETROOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Age: 44
Posts: 20,972
Received 26 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by SakiGT
Really I dont see and excuse for NOT wearing one. I can see the whole government stepping in issue, but I dont see it as the government protecting them...I see it as the government protecting me from outrageous insurance costs due to idiots not wearing seatbelts.
I can agree with this.
Old 05-26-2006, 12:55 PM
  #28  
Suzuka Master
 
SakiGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 41
Posts: 5,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Its amazing how similar everyone's opinion can be when you put an arguement in the right perspective.

Now. If we can get a President to do that, we'll be golden
Old 05-26-2006, 01:46 PM
  #29  
Senior Moderator
 
Chief F1 Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Western New York
Age: 64
Posts: 25,425
Received 7,470 Likes on 3,776 Posts
Originally Posted by SouthernBoy
It's none of their business how I wish to conduct myself in such regards.

It is particularly the government's business when as a result of not wearing a seat belt, your injuries are increased resulting in increased healthcare costs, at times borne by the other people of your state. Or, increased strains on medical facilities perhaps, unnecessarily.
Old 05-26-2006, 02:06 PM
  #30  
Senior Moderator
 
Ken1997TL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,641
Received 2,329 Likes on 1,309 Posts
I think it should be a law, if you arent wearing your seatbelt in an accident, you cannot sue for injury, get medical care on the taxpayer's dime and you obviously enjoy higher insurance costs. After all those worries, you may still choose stupidity.

Common sense.
Old 05-26-2006, 02:07 PM
  #31  
Senior Moderator
 
Ken1997TL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,641
Received 2,329 Likes on 1,309 Posts
Originally Posted by Chief F1 Fan
It is particularly the government's business when as a result of not wearing a seat belt, your injuries are increased resulting in increased healthcare costs, at times borne by the other people of your state. Or, increased strains on medical facilities perhaps, unnecessarily.


People seem to think that they live in a bubble and their actions or lack thereof somehow do not impact anyone else.
Old 05-26-2006, 02:25 PM
  #32  
Suzuka Master
 
Ashburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Houston
Age: 46
Posts: 6,034
Received 10 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by GreenMonster
Fucking A'...

I wear my seatbelt, but I don't think that mandating it's use is necessary...

I believe that helmets save motorcyclists lives, but I don't think it should be law...

I don't smoke pot anymore, but I don't think it should be illegal...

Keep the gov't out of my business... kthxbye...


I feel exactly the same way on all accounts
Old 05-26-2006, 09:54 PM
  #33  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
SouthernBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Suburb of Manassas, VA
Posts: 8,342
Received 162 Likes on 102 Posts
Originally Posted by Chief F1 Fan
It is particularly the government's business when as a result of not wearing a seat belt, your injuries are increased resulting in increased healthcare costs, at times borne by the other people of your state. Or, increased strains on medical facilities perhaps, unnecessarily.
There is nothing in our founding documents which requires one person , or a group of people, to be the caretakers or keepers of another. What has happened over the years is that, through compassion and national success, we have taken it upon ourselves to do these things.. this and laws promoted by special interest groups (insurance lobby??).

As I mentioned, I always wear a seatbelt and have ever since my first car over 40 years ago. That's not the issue with me. The nanny state mentality is, because there are greater dangers here. Look at the recent court rulings about smoking and various locales passing non-smoking laws in private businesses. I could go on but you get the point.

I do appreciate your response and suggest that this has developed into a most interesting thread.

BTW, did you read the article in the link I supplied?
Old 05-26-2006, 10:31 PM
  #34  
is Pretty Much a Moron
 
TypeSAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Rochester, NY
Age: 38
Posts: 8,140
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by SouthernBoy
There is nothing in our founding documents which requires one person , or a group of people, to be the caretakers or keepers of another. What has happened over the years is that, through compassion and national success, we have taken it upon ourselves to do these things.. this and laws promoted by special interest groups (insurance lobby??).

As I mentioned, I always wear a seatbelt and have ever since my first car over 40 years ago. That's not the issue with me. The nanny state mentality is, because there are greater dangers here. Look at the recent court rulings about smoking and various locales passing non-smoking laws in private businesses. I could go on but you get the point.

I do appreciate your response and suggest that this has developed into a most interesting thread.

BTW, did you read the article in the link I supplied?
x 100000

The fact is, government keeps us in a state of perpetual childhood. I can see the argument that, as it stands now, seatbelt use should be required because of the excess strain that it places on society through the need for expanding social service and welfare programs to the injured who are unable to pay. The fact is, those programs are just as superfluous as the seatbelt laws themselves. The only legitimate function of government, said Thomas Jefferson, is defense. The government is not here to provide us with medical care. They are not here to make sure that we don't get hurt as a result of our own actions. They are here to combat threats to our security, both foreign and domestic. That's all.
Old 05-26-2006, 10:34 PM
  #35  
is Pretty Much a Moron
 
TypeSAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Rochester, NY
Age: 38
Posts: 8,140
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Ken1997TL
I think it should be a law, if you arent wearing your seatbelt in an accident, you cannot sue for injury, get medical care on the taxpayer's dime and you obviously enjoy higher insurance costs. After all those worries, you may still choose stupidity.

Common sense.
If we abolish needless and excessive, taxpayer funded, government health welfare programs, suddenly the strain as a result of one individual getting hurt is minimized. If we abolish government over-regulation of insurance companies, the free market will allow for a far more effecient system of health and automobile insurance that will not punish others for the actions of a minority through higher rates.
Old 05-26-2006, 10:36 PM
  #36  
is Pretty Much a Moron
 
TypeSAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Rochester, NY
Age: 38
Posts: 8,140
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
none of you have mentioned family and friends and loved ones yet.

for example, let's say your best friend doesn't like to wear his seatbelt, and bitching and whining about it to him doesn't make him do it...but getting a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt would. would you rather have him be allowed to make his own choice and be dead?

Or how about your mom, who usually wears seatbelts but is kinda ditzy, so one day she forgets...would you rather have her pulled over or pancaked?

Seatbelt laws and helmet laws aren't to protect the people that wear seatbelts and helments...it's for the people that don't. If we were isolated from everyone else and weren't friends or family with anyone that doesn't wear seatbelts, then that's one thing...but accidents that happen and people who are hurt because they didn't wear seatbelts affect more than just the driver, financially or otherwise.
The government is not here to protect my family from emotional strain as a result of my decisions. Should it be illegal for me to run away to Bangladesh and not tell my family? Of course not. But the end result is still the same for them as if I had died in a car accident. They are upset. Is it the role of the government to protect them from such? I hardly think so.
Old 05-26-2006, 10:39 PM
  #37  
is Pretty Much a Moron
 
TypeSAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Rochester, NY
Age: 38
Posts: 8,140
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
This goes along with my buddy's argument (he's an avid pot smoker).

We call him "Big Angry" because he's always angry because he thinks pot should be legal. He smokes pot, he goes on with his life more or less just fine and doesn't do anythign stupid, so he says that the gov't shouldn't tell him what not to do.

I tell him that's wrong...the gov't can't make one law that applies to him letting him smoke, and then make one for the irresponsible pot smoker that would do something stupid and hurt someone else, like driving while high.

If everyone were smart, ethical, honest, virtuous and had common sense then there would be no need for laws, cops, or lawyers. Everyone would live together in peace and harmony...but that's not the case and therefore laws are made for the lowest common denominator of society.
The law, therefore, should be that it is illegal to drive while high, not that it should be illegal to smoke at all. Since any codification of legal principle really embodies a philosophical system, minor issues and semantic distinctions that may seem trivial are really very important. Therefore, it is appropriate for the government to make illegal those activities that directly harm another individual. Driving while high is a perfect example. The actual act of smoking marijuana, however, has no direct, adverse repurcussions on others and, as a result, should be legal. The distinction may seem insignifcant, but on principle it truly is not.
Old 05-27-2006, 11:30 AM
  #38  
Suzuka Master
 
SakiGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 41
Posts: 5,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The government is not babysitting.

The government is protecting me from the babies.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MrHeeltoe
1G TSX Tires, Wheels, & Suspension
20
02-23-2023 01:54 PM
tsx_boy
1G TSX Performance Parts & Modifications
4
12-13-2019 08:33 PM
MrHeeltoe
2G TSX Tires, Wheels & Suspension
3
09-29-2015 10:43 PM
Boraxo
1/2G MDX (2001-2013)
2
09-29-2015 04:35 PM
MrHeeltoe
3G TL Tires, Wheels & Suspension
0
09-28-2015 05:43 PM



Quick Reply: Seat belt laws



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:36 PM.