Click it or ticket

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Hell, often they do the same kind of advertising campaign for speeding, running red lights, and other traffic violations up here in this part of Canada as well. Not for the money, but for the reminder and practice of the traffic laws.

Speeding, running red lights, and other traffic violations affect the safety of the public whereas seatbelts only potentially protect a person involved in a wreck.

I don't care if Canadians allow checkpoints, but checkpoints here in the US tread dangerously close to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our constitutional rights.

CkG

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep That is exactly it. Not wearing a seatbelt does not put the public at risk, it only potentially increases the risk of the non-wearing person. But again, that isn't the whole point. Checkpoints are a dangerous proposition. If people become conditioned to accept seatbelt checkpoints what other things will they(gov't) use checkpoints to check for. It is a question of assumed guilt.

CkG

The problem though is that if someone is critically injured BECAUSE they didn't wear a seatbelt would have to end up in a hospital, and their health DOES matter if they are to require a transplant..which would prevent someone else who needs one from receving one. And add to that the expensive hospital bills they'll be left with might be passed on to the tax paying public. THAT's when it becomes MY problem, just because some idiot is too stubborn to take 3 seconds to put on their damn seatbelt.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep That is exactly it. Not wearing a seatbelt does not put the public at risk, it only potentially increases the risk of the non-wearing person. But again, that isn't the whole point. Checkpoints are a dangerous proposition. If people become conditioned to accept seatbelt checkpoints what other things will they(gov't) use checkpoints to check for. It is a question of assumed guilt.

CkG

The problem though is that if someone is critically injured BECAUSE they didn't wear a seatbelt would have to end up in a hospital, and their health DOES matter if they are to require a transplant..which would prevent someone else who needs one from receving one. And add to that the expensive hospital bills they'll be left with might be passed on to the tax paying public. THAT's when it becomes MY problem, just because some idiot is too stubborn to take 3 seconds to put on their damn seatbelt.

I highlighted your post
Have any real numbers on non-insured transplant recievers who's injuries were caused by them not wearing a seatbelt and then didn't pay the bill?

Let me rework your post a bit here also

The problem though is that if someone is critically injured in a car accident, they would be in a hospital, and their health DOES matter if they are to require a transplant..which would prevent someone else who needs one from recieving one. And add to that the expensive hospital bills they'll be left with might be passed on to the tax paying public. THAT's when it becomes MY problem, just because some idiot got into a car accident.
Yes, seatbelts may save some lives, but then again if we outlawed cars we could save lives too. Just think of the savings to our environment, court systems, and healthcare systems! WHOO HOO

Rediculous? yup but so was your argument

CkG

 

[Lucky]

The problem though is that if someone is critically injured BECAUSE they didn't wear a seatbelt would have to end up in a hospital, and their health DOES matter if they are to require a transplant..which would prevent someone else who needs one from receving one. And add to that the expensive hospital bills they'll be left with might be passed on to the tax paying public. THAT's when it becomes MY problem, just because some idiot is too stubborn to take 3 seconds to put on their damn seatbelt.

In that case, let's ban social/government health care of any kind to those who smoke. Don't want them wasting my taxdollars on something they don't need to be in the hospital for anyways...

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


I highlighted your post
Have any real numbers on non-insured transplant recievers who's injuries were caused by them not wearing a seatbelt and then didn't pay the bill?
CkG

Are you so dense as to not understand the simple concept that seat belts save lives, and that not wearing seat belts increases the chance of death and serious injuries? Look around, every study ever done (although I should say *most* just to be safe), has supported the fact that seatbelts are a very necessary safety feature in cars.

Add to that the fact that there are 40 million people in the US without health insurance, and will depend in tax payers to pay for their bills because they're idiots. How hard of a concept is that to understand?

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: Lucky

In that case, let's ban social/government health care of any kind to those who smoke. Don't want them wasting my taxdollars on something they don't need to be in the hospital for anyways...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


I highlighted your post
Have any real numbers on non-insured transplant recievers who's injuries were caused by them not wearing a seatbelt and then didn't pay the bill?
CkG

Are you so dense as to not understand the simple concept that seat belts save lives, and that not wearing seat belts increases the chance of death and serious injuries? Look around, every study ever done (although I should say *most* just to be safe), has supported the fact that seatbelts are a very necessary safety feature in cars.

Add to that the fact that there are 40 million people in the US without health insurance, and will depend in tax payers to pay for their bills because they're idiots. How hard of a concept is that to understand?

"Are you so dense as to not" read my first post?

Again, Do you have any real numbers on non-insured people who's injuries were caused by them not wearing a seatbelt and then didn't pay the bill?

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Hell, often they do the same kind of advertising campaign for speeding, running red lights, and other traffic violations up here in this part of Canada as well. Not for the money, but for the reminder and practice of the traffic laws.

Speeding, running red lights, and other traffic violations affect the safety of the public whereas seatbelts only potentially protect a person involved in a wreck.

I don't care if Canadians allow checkpoints, but checkpoints here in the US tread dangerously close to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our constitutional rights.

CkG

Canadians have pretty much the same "Constitutional Rights", not wearing a seatbelt is not one of them.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Hell, often they do the same kind of advertising campaign for speeding, running red lights, and other traffic violations up here in this part of Canada as well. Not for the money, but for the reminder and practice of the traffic laws.

Speeding, running red lights, and other traffic violations affect the safety of the public whereas seatbelts only potentially protect a person involved in a wreck.

I don't care if Canadians allow checkpoints, but checkpoints here in the US tread dangerously close to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our constitutional rights.

CkG

Canadians have pretty much the same "Constitutional Rights", not wearing a seatbelt is not one of them.

Read very carefully here "but checkpoints here in the US tread dangerously close to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our constitutional rights." No where did I say that seatbelt laws were "unconstitutional".

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Hell, often they do the same kind of advertising campaign for speeding, running red lights, and other traffic violations up here in this part of Canada as well. Not for the money, but for the reminder and practice of the traffic laws.

Speeding, running red lights, and other traffic violations affect the safety of the public whereas seatbelts only potentially protect a person involved in a wreck.

I don't care if Canadians allow checkpoints, but checkpoints here in the US tread dangerously close to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our constitutional rights.

CkG

Canadians have pretty much the same "Constitutional Rights", not wearing a seatbelt is not one of them.

Read very carefully here "but checkpoints here in the US tread dangerously close to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our constitutional rights." No where did I say that seatbelt laws were "unconstitutional".

CkG

If they only "tread closely"(something I find kinda ridiculous by itself) then what's the problem?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Hell, often they do the same kind of advertising campaign for speeding, running red lights, and other traffic violations up here in this part of Canada as well. Not for the money, but for the reminder and practice of the traffic laws.

Speeding, running red lights, and other traffic violations affect the safety of the public whereas seatbelts only potentially protect a person involved in a wreck.

I don't care if Canadians allow checkpoints, but checkpoints here in the US tread dangerously close to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our constitutional rights.

CkG

Canadians have pretty much the same "Constitutional Rights", not wearing a seatbelt is not one of them.

Read very carefully here "but checkpoints here in the US tread dangerously close to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our constitutional rights." No where did I say that seatbelt laws were "unconstitutional".

CkG

If they only "tread closely"(something I find kinda ridiculous by itself) then what's the problem?

Do you have a reading problem? "...to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our..."

Anyone come up with some uninsured, no seatbelt wearing, no bill paying numbers yet? ....didn't think so

CkG

 

[przero]

If you don't think you need to wear a seat belt, don't. there is nothing there worth protecting. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. Stopping you at a checkpoint is not illegal, as long as they stop everyone with uniformity, (i.e. ,every 3rd car, etc.), so quit your whining. Grow up. CLICK IT or TICKET!

 

[ScottyB]

Only a idiot would not wear a seatbelt. That being said the loss of the person not wearing the belt might help clean our gene pool a little.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Hell, often they do the same kind of advertising campaign for speeding, running red lights, and other traffic violations up here in this part of Canada as well. Not for the money, but for the reminder and practice of the traffic laws.

Speeding, running red lights, and other traffic violations affect the safety of the public whereas seatbelts only potentially protect a person involved in a wreck.

I don't care if Canadians allow checkpoints, but checkpoints here in the US tread dangerously close to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our constitutional rights.

CkG

Canadians have pretty much the same "Constitutional Rights", not wearing a seatbelt is not one of them.

Read very carefully here "but checkpoints here in the US tread dangerously close to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our constitutional rights." No where did I say that seatbelt laws were "unconstitutional".

CkG

If they only "tread closely"(something I find kinda ridiculous by itself) then what's the problem?

Do you have a reading problem? "...to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our..."

Anyone come up with some uninsured, no seatbelt wearing, no bill paying numbers yet? ....didn't think so

CkG

Ok, read it 3 times, splain yourself, cause I've responded to 2 different ways of "reading" it. Is it "constitutional" or not? yes/no

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Hell, often they do the same kind of advertising campaign for speeding, running red lights, and other traffic violations up here in this part of Canada as well. Not for the money, but for the reminder and practice of the traffic laws.

Speeding, running red lights, and other traffic violations affect the safety of the public whereas seatbelts only potentially protect a person involved in a wreck.

I don't care if Canadians allow checkpoints, but checkpoints here in the US tread dangerously close to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our constitutional rights.

CkG

Canadians have pretty much the same "Constitutional Rights", not wearing a seatbelt is not one of them.

Read very carefully here "but checkpoints here in the US tread dangerously close to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our constitutional rights." No where did I say that seatbelt laws were "unconstitutional".

CkG

If they only "tread closely"(something I find kinda ridiculous by itself) then what's the problem?

Do you have a reading problem? "...to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our..."

Anyone come up with some uninsured, no seatbelt wearing, no bill paying numbers yet? ....didn't think so

CkG

Ok, read it 3 times, splain yourself, cause I've responded to 2 different ways of "reading" it. Is it "constitutional" or not? yes/no

Do I need to hold your hand while quoting myself time after time?

Yes - I feel it is unconstitutional, which is what I said here "but checkpoints here in the US tread dangerously close to violating(or in my opinion - actually do violate) our constitutional rights." <-I highlighted the part you seem to be missing

Oh and if you wan't to know why, I'll quote myself again "Checkpoints are a dangerous proposition. .... It is a question of assumed guilt." And just so you fully comprehend my position, Checkpoints assume guilt until you prove to an officer that you are obeying the law.

CkG

 

[sandorski]

If they "violate", IYO , your Constitutional Rights, wouldn't that mean IYO they are "unConstitutional"?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski
If they "violate", IYO , your Constitutional Rights, wouldn't that mean IYO they are "unConstitutional"?

You are a stubborn cuss aren't you

Reread the post right before yours and you will get your answer.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

CADdy, you are going to meet a lot of people who will butt heads with you because you are a ram. Learn how to say, "I will take any petty issue and make a federal case out of it because I just can't admit I'm wrong. I need to work on my humility." People who are stubborn and also right will always have the advantage.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
If they "violate", IYO , your Constitutional Rights, wouldn't that mean IYO they are "unConstitutional"?

You are a stubborn cuss aren't you

Reread the post right before yours and you will get your answer.

CkG

Hmm, are you talking about the "assumed guilt"? If you are, there is no assumed guilt. They pre-announce it for a reason. That reason is to have you use your seatbelt.

Click it or ticket. (your gonna remember this slogan if nothing else! )

 

[jackschmittusa]

sandorski
There is no "assumed compliance" or they would let everyone pass. It seems to me that there is the assumption that the drivers are violating the law and need to be pulled over to be checked. Maybe it would be in the public interest to examine the bank accounts of everyone living on Maple St. to see if they might be cheating on their taxes. How about checking all of the basements on Lincoln Ave. to see if anyone is growing weed? It had never been the policy of the governments in the U.S. to look at random groups of people to see if any law-breakers can be found. This policy is wrong and if allowed to continue, will be extended to other things as well.

 

[Nitemare]

I get tired of law enforcement's revenue generators. Why fine some stupid moron who chooses to put their own life in danger? I wear my seat belt all the time, but then again I don't have a deathwish. I would not weep if someone died in an accident because they were brain dead for not wearing a seat belt...I would think...what a dumbass and then go on with my life.

That is the first question I ask whenever someone dies in an accident, were they wearing a seatbelt? If yes, sorry to hear that, if no..sh!t happens, what a moron.

This is as bad as getting a 250 dollar fine for speeding in a work zone where the only workers and equipment there are disguised as orange and white safety barrels...(the wife)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
CADdy, you are going to meet a lot of people who will butt heads with you because you are a ram. Learn how to say, "I will take any petty issue and make a federal case out of it because I just can't admit I'm wrong. I need to work on my humility." People who are stubborn and also right will always have the advantage.

Am I stubborn? Yep And proud of it. Am I wrong sometimes? Sure, never said I was always right. I'm not sure why you directed this statement at me though, the reason I had to reply so many times in this thread is because sandorski had trouble reading.

*So tell me moony, why shouldn't I get to state and argue my side, even if I'm wrong?(like you are with the Gore 2000 thing )
*Any issue? Ha!
*Humility? Sure I could use some work on that but remember..."Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself"

Wait a minute... why is this about me personally? I'm pretty sure that this post was about checkpoints, seatbelts, and the law. Oh, I get it now It isn't about winning the debate(or argument) for you anymore is it moonbeam? It's all about riddles, quotes, and "personal reflections"

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Anyone come up with some uninsured, no seatbelt wearing, no bill paying numbers yet?

CkG

 

[przero]

Her's one no seat belt number. In my parish in La. court cost are $137.50. Add that to the $25.00 fine for not wearing a seat belt and your out $162.50. That the number you want?

Oh, and a good friend of mine is a retired La. State Trooper and he has a great quote:

"I worked a thousand wrecks, and I never had to unbuckle a dead man."

So that is another important number - 0.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: przero
Her's one no seat belt number. In my parish in La. court cost are $137.50. Add that to the $25.00 fine for not wearing a seat belt and your out $162.50. That the number you want?

Oh, and a good friend of mine is a retired La. State Trooper and he has a great quote:

"I worked a thousand wrecks, and I never had to unbuckle a dead man."

So that is another important number - 0.

That sure is all warm and fuzzy, but doesn't answer the question.
I already stated that I wear my seatbelt and I think anyone with half a brain would realize that it is prudent to do so, but just because it may be something we should do, doesn't mean that we should "force" people to do it.

CkG