Click it or ticket

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: syberscott

Originally posted by: Insane3D
No! If that happens...I won't be able to drive well over the speed limit in my Mustang all the time. Do you have any idea how fun it is to put a high horsepower V8 car sideways?

It is fun to put a high horsepower V8 car sideways. So why are you mentioning a Mustang?

Yeah yeah...I guess you have never heard of modifications? The only thing stock on my car is the block and pistons.

So you have aftermarket rods, heads, cams, etc, but not pistons?

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: syberscott

Originally posted by: Insane3D
No! If that happens...I won't be able to drive well over the speed limit in my Mustang all the time. Do you have any idea how fun it is to put a high horsepower V8 car sideways?

It is fun to put a high horsepower V8 car sideways. So why are you mentioning a Mustang?

Yeah yeah...I guess you have never heard of modifications? The only thing stock on my car is the block and pistons.

So you have aftermarket rods, heads, cams, etc, but not pistons?

I guess I should have been more specific. The block, pistons, and rods and crank are stock. I have the FMS GT40X heads, GT-40 Intake, and a custom ground cam from a local 5.0 shop. I have a 1992 GT which was the last year they came with forged pistons stock. The pistons I have are plenty strong for what my motor is making. All Mustangs post '92, with maybe the exception of the newer Cobra's come with Hypeuretic pistons AFAIK. I will try to be more clear next time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So, everyone knows that this is because of Fed coercion right? And that this is happening under Bush and Ashcroft, right? That they could stop this with a phone call, right? (dont tell me that if Bush wants a thing he is to shy to ask).

Hope they dont stop me while I ride my bike. :Q


Seriously, the Feds are going to far with this. I think I liked gridlock better. At least they were fighting with each other and didn't pay to much attention to us.

 

[sandorski]

I have no problem with seatbelt checks. Like their counter-part Drinking and Driving checks, they help to remind drivers of the traffic laws.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I have no problem with seatbelt checks. Like their counter-part Drinking and Driving checks, they help to remind drivers of the traffic laws.

Seat Belt laws should not exist for any adult. It should be the decision of the person, and not the government.

 

[jackschmittusa]

sandorski

When I have Alzheimer's Disease maybe I will agree that I need to be reminded by "Big Brother" that some things are against the law. Maybe states should have a program for you where you could sign up for email reminders of the traffic laws. That might keep your level of awareness high.

 

[dmcowen674]

Hmmm, adult has no choice and must wear seat belt inside 2,000 lb vehicle, there is no seat belt on a 800 lb Motorcycle.

 

[sandorski]

Though the "Freedom" arguement makes some sense, refusing to use a seatbelt doesn't. Just click it or ticket!

Seatbelt laws are no more "Big Brother" than laws requiring you to wear clothes in public. Just fargin do it! Death, a coma, or being wheelchair bound is not "Freedom".

 

[Moonbeam]

Nobody tells me what to do becasue I'm an American male. I've watched the movies and learned my part.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: sandorski
I have no problem with seatbelt checks. Like their counter-part Drinking and Driving checks, they help to remind drivers of the traffic laws.

Seat Belt laws should not exist for any adult. It should be the decision of the person, and not the government.

I'm surprised that more insurance companies and employers that provide healthcare don't require that the people they insure wear seatbelts. My employer does and it is their option if they want to pay my medicial bills if I am in an accident and not wearing a seatbelt.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nobody tells me what to do becasue I'm an American male. I've watched the movies and learned my part.

 

[Moonbeam]

I see Millennium learned his too.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I see Millennium learned his too.

 

[Syringer]

I think the issue here is that if an adult male does not wear a seatbelt, then he may not be telling his kids or whatever to do the same, and at that point it doesn't only become his problem, but the problem of others as well.

And what happens when someone gets into a big accident without a seatbelt and needs to be taken to the hospital for intensive care? And he doesn't have insurance? I'm sure as hell are not going to pay for that.

It really makes no difference to me though, and I don't see why anyone who wears a seatbelt, as you should, should care at all.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Syringer
I think the issue here is that if an adult male does not wear a seatbelt, then he may not be telling his kids or whatever to do the same, and at that point it doesn't only become his problem, but the problem of others as well.

And what happens when someone gets into a big accident without a seatbelt and needs to be taken to the hospital for intensive care? And he doesn't have insurance? I'm sure as hell are not going to pay for that.

It really makes no difference to me though, and I don't see why anyone who wears a seatbelt, as you should, should care at all.

Because it isn't neccesarily about seatbelts It is about lawenforcement setting up checkpoints so drivers have to prove they are following the law, a law which is questionable to it's legality pertaining to our freedoms.

CkG

 

[SharkyTM]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I believe that these checkpoints are the same thing as the "sobriety checkpoints". They are an unwarrented and unjustified abuse of police power that presumes that every driver may be breaking the law. There is no probable cause or even the diluted reasonable suspicion that every driver coming down the pike is breaking the law and must be stopped until they prove themselves innocent.
I was stopped once for another violation and ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt as well. I went to court to fight the ticket (did't even need a lawer) and had the other violation thrown out. When told that I would have to pay $60 and court costs for the seatbelt violation, I refused to pay and accepted 5hr community service instead. The court personel also had it fouled up about which courtroom and what I time I was to appear, This resulted in a delay that meant the parking meter expired (by 5 minutes) and got me a $20 parking ticket. I fought this and won too. I just refused to contribute to the city's revenue stream. Maybe if enough people did this, they would loose interest.
We have arguments about motorcycle helmet laws in my state as well and it is always mentioned in the local paper whether a motorcycle rider was wearing a helmet or not if he/she is involved in an accident. A guy I know was killed in a wreck where a roadside signpost went through his chest. The paper did not report his injuries but did point out that he was not wearing a helmet. I'm sure that there were people who thought a helmet might have saved his life. I'm sure that the great motorcycle fatality database does not have a field for "helmet wouldn't have made a difference". I doubt that the seatbelt databases have such a field either.
I also find it funny that if you are a seatbelt crusader, seatbelt use is responsible for the greatest reduction in fatalities. If you are a DUI crusader, it is tougher DUI laws that have the big effect. Speed limit crusader .......

sobriety checkpoints make sense because drunk drivers kill OTHER people... people who dont wear seatbelts are only endangering their own lives, so setting up roadblocks that inconvenience everyone is a waste of tax money... i think the law makes sense, in that it makes it illegal to not wear a seatbelt nationwide, but checkpoints?, nope...

Shark

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Syringer
I think the issue here is that if an adult male does not wear a seatbelt, then he may not be telling his kids or whatever to do the same, and at that point it doesn't only become his problem, but the problem of others as well.

And what happens when someone gets into a big accident without a seatbelt and needs to be taken to the hospital for intensive care? And he doesn't have insurance? I'm sure as hell are not going to pay for that.

It really makes no difference to me though, and I don't see why anyone who wears a seatbelt, as you should, should care at all.

Because it isn't neccesarily about seatbelts It is about lawenforcement setting up checkpoints so drivers have to prove they are following the law, a law which is questionable to it's legality pertaining to our freedoms.

CkG

Our freedom not to use protective measures that will prevent us from killing ourselves?

Hmm, makes sense.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Syringer
I think the issue here is that if an adult male does not wear a seatbelt, then he may not be telling his kids or whatever to do the same, and at that point it doesn't only become his problem, but the problem of others as well.

And what happens when someone gets into a big accident without a seatbelt and needs to be taken to the hospital for intensive care? And he doesn't have insurance? I'm sure as hell are not going to pay for that.

It really makes no difference to me though, and I don't see why anyone who wears a seatbelt, as you should, should care at all.

Because it isn't neccesarily about seatbelts It is about lawenforcement setting up checkpoints so drivers have to prove they are following the law, a law which is questionable to it's legality pertaining to our freedoms.

CkG

Our freedom not to use protective measures that will prevent us from killing ourselves?

Hmm, makes sense.

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

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Syringer
I think the issue here is that if an adult male does not wear a seatbelt, then he may not be telling his kids or whatever to do the same, and at that point it doesn't only become his problem, but the problem of others as well.

And what happens when someone gets into a big accident without a seatbelt and needs to be taken to the hospital for intensive care? And he doesn't have insurance? I'm sure as hell are not going to pay for that.

It really makes no difference to me though, and I don't see why anyone who wears a seatbelt, as you should, should care at all.

Because it isn't neccesarily about seatbelts It is about lawenforcement setting up checkpoints so drivers have to prove they are following the law, a law which is questionable to it's legality pertaining to our freedoms.

CkG

Our freedom not to use protective measures that will prevent us from killing ourselves?

Hmm, makes sense.

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 universe is out of phase today because I find myself agreeing with CkG on something

I have every right to engage in dangerous behaviors. I can ride my motorcycle, I can rock climb, I can ski. All of these things would be eliminated by those who would force this on us. The hypocritical difference is that the latter makes money for someone. I wear a seat belt and when riding my motorcycle, use a helment even if in a state that does not require it. I do not and never did buy the "if this saves just one life, it will be worth it" line.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

The universe is out of phase today because I find myself agreeing with CkG on something

I'm willing to bet that we agree on a majority of issues, but it is those few high profile ones that we have differing opinions on

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

The chip will monitor every aspect of your life. You will buckle up, your health and blood will be monitored for disease and drugs or poisons. Your breathing and heart rate will call the ambulance. There will be no check points because you will live in one. The machine will drive. You will live within the net and it will catch you. Get it?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

The universe is out of phase today because I find myself agreeing with CkG on something

I'm willing to bet that we agree on a majority of issues, but it is those few high profile ones that we have differing opinions on

CkG

Probably true. OH NO I AGREEDED AGAIN arrgghhh!!!!!!!

 

[Gaard]

I normally don't wear a seatbelt. I choose not to. But this damn campaign has scared me to wearing it.

Commercial - "If they won't buckle up to save their life, maybe they'll buckle up to save their money." Yep, it's true.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I normally don't wear a seatbelt. I choose not to. But this damn campaign has scared me to wearing it.

Commercial - "If they won't buckle up to save their life, maybe they'll buckle up to save their money." Yep, it's true.

This is what really bothers me the most about this and other similar government programs. Making someone choose to do the right thing for the wrong reason really undermines the whole point of choosing to do the right thing.

 

[sandorski]

Checkpoints

Has one ever noticed that these Checkpoint campaigns are usually announced and advertised to the public? Have you thought about why?

They do this to get people to wear their fargin seatbelts! It's not about revenue or trying to catch you, if they wanted to do these things they'd just spring these up whenever and wherever. Some people just have this notion that a seatbelt is "x"(usually "uncofortable", "restricting", yadda ya), these were common complaints by a lot of people back in the 70's when mandatory seatbelt useage began. Prior to that hardly anyone used seatbelts, I know no one who did and most of those people whined about all these issues back then. After the laws were passed a good portion began wearing their seatbelts, but many still refused on principle. Eventually when the topic of conversation came up, you'd hear a lot of, "I thought it was going to be X, but it's not like that..." or "I hated it at first, but after awhile I stopped noticing it and now if I forget to put it on something feels odd."

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.

Click it or ticket!