Opinions on seatbelt/helmet laws?

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You gotta love the non-thinkers here. Their reasoning is that if I don't support a sealbelt law, then I must be one of those guys who never wears his seatbelt, all the while ignoring the fact that I've repeatedly said that I always wear mine.

it's a reasonable assumption to make that if someone thinks the seatbelt law is total BS that they probably aren't wearing one.

Blasphemy.

I always wear mine, even when driving across the fvcking parking lot.

I just think nanny state laws are ridiculous.

i didn't claim my assumption was an absolute.

But your assumption is probably wrong. Most people that oppose seatbelt and helmet laws do so because of the implication that the government is somehow responsible for their individual safety. I don't like any law designed to protect me from myself.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

B. there is no set line of what the government should and should not be able to do. The whole purpose of politics and democracy is to further the way the government works in order to better suit the nation as a whole

There is a set line what the government should not be able to do. It's written in the Constitution.

the federal constitution, apart from the 14th amendmentment and some of the bill of rights incorporated in the 14th amendment, does not apply to the states. see amendment 10 for more information. for the other powers of your state government, see it's constitution. but, i'm pretty certain they didn't give up much of their police powers.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Linflas
But your assumption is probably wrong. Most people that oppose seatbelt and helmet laws do so because of the implication that the government is somehow responsible for their individual safety. I don't like any law designed to protect me from myself.

the government is and has been responsible for personal safety since before the founding of this country.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

B. there is no set line of what the government should and should not be able to do. The whole purpose of politics and democracy is to further the way the government works in order to better suit the nation as a whole

There is a set line what the government should not be able to do. It's written in the Constitution.

the federal constitution, apart from the 14th amendmentment and some of the bill of rights incorporated in the 14th amendment, does not apply to the states. see amendment 10 for more information. for the other powers of your state government, see it's constitution. but, i'm pretty certain they didn't give up much of their police powers.

The 14th does apply to the states and as I understand it says that while the states retain all their traditional powers they cannot ignore what is in the Federal Constitution since their citizens are also US citizens. The way the Feds get around the 10th is through amendments 16 and 17. A good example of this is the old 55 MPH limit. The Feds had no authority to enforce this upon the states, the way the did it was to deny Federal highway funding to those states that refused to go along. This is how they push down all of their mandates such as the 21 year old drinking age, seatbelt laws etc. The 16th amendment is what allows them to take this money out of the states in the first place and the 17th ensures the states have no one representing their interests in congress.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You gotta love the non-thinkers here. Their reasoning is that if I don't support a sealbelt law, then I must be one of those guys who never wears his seatbelt, all the while ignoring the fact that I've repeatedly said that I always wear mine.

it's a reasonable assumption to make that if someone thinks the seatbelt law is total BS that they probably aren't wearing one.

Blasphemy.

I always wear mine, even when driving across the fvcking parking lot.

I just think nanny state laws are ridiculous.

i didn't claim my assumption was an absolute.

But your assumption is probably wrong. Most people that oppose seatbelt and helmet laws do so because of the implication that the government is somehow responsible for their individual safety. I don't like any law designed to protect me from myself.

look. those that feel the law is fine AREN'T the ones not wearing helmets and seatbelts.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You gotta love the non-thinkers here. Their reasoning is that if I don't support a sealbelt law, then I must be one of those guys who never wears his seatbelt, all the while ignoring the fact that I've repeatedly said that I always wear mine.

it's a reasonable assumption to make that if someone thinks the seatbelt law is total BS that they probably aren't wearing one.

Ah, yes!

And people who speak out in favor of gays are clearly gay themselves, right?

People opposed to the war on drug are clearly drug addicts, correct?

People opposed to smoking bans are clearly nasty smokers, huh?

Some people will actually care when it's not their bull being gored. Just because you don't doesn't mean they don't.

So no, it is not reasonable to assume. There is a clear difference between the common sense of using a personal safety device, and being forced to under threat of punishment by your government.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You gotta love the non-thinkers here. Their reasoning is that if I don't support a sealbelt law, then I must be one of those guys who never wears his seatbelt, all the while ignoring the fact that I've repeatedly said that I always wear mine.

it's a reasonable assumption to make that if someone thinks the seatbelt law is total BS that they probably aren't wearing one.

Ah, yes!

And people who speak out in favor of gays are clearly gay themselves, right?

People opposed to the war on drug are clearly drug addicts, correct?

People opposed to smoking bans are clearly nasty smokers, huh?

Some people will actually care when it's not their bull being gored. Just because you don't doesn't mean they don't.

So no, it is not reasonable to assume. There is a clear difference between the common sense of using a personal safety device, and being forced to under threat of punishment by your government.

pretty much.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You gotta love the non-thinkers here. Their reasoning is that if I don't support a sealbelt law, then I must be one of those guys who never wears his seatbelt, all the while ignoring the fact that I've repeatedly said that I always wear mine.

it's a reasonable assumption to make that if someone thinks the seatbelt law is total BS that they probably aren't wearing one.

Ah, yes!

And people who speak out in favor of gays are clearly gay themselves, right?

People opposed to the war on drug are clearly drug addicts, correct?

People opposed to smoking bans are clearly nasty smokers, huh?

Some people will actually care when it's not their bull being gored. Just because you don't doesn't mean they don't.

So no, it is not reasonable to assume. There is a clear difference between the common sense of using a personal safety device, and being forced to under threat of punishment by your government.

pretty much.

How sad that you think so.

Believe it or not, some people actually defend individual freedom.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You gotta love the non-thinkers here. Their reasoning is that if I don't support a sealbelt law, then I must be one of those guys who never wears his seatbelt, all the while ignoring the fact that I've repeatedly said that I always wear mine.

it's a reasonable assumption to make that if someone thinks the seatbelt law is total BS that they probably aren't wearing one.

Ah, yes!

And people who speak out in favor of gays are clearly gay themselves, right?

People opposed to the war on drug are clearly drug addicts, correct?

People opposed to smoking bans are clearly nasty smokers, huh?

Some people will actually care when it's not their bull being gored. Just because you don't doesn't mean they don't.

So no, it is not reasonable to assume. There is a clear difference between the common sense of using a personal safety device, and being forced to under threat of punishment by your government.

pretty much.

How sad that you think so.

Believe it or not, some people actually defend individual freedom.

we can have different opinions w/o fighting to the death on here.

i don't know about you, but if everyone agreed with me i would be bored to death.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

we can have different opinions w/o fighting to the death on here.

i don't know about you, but if everyone agreed with me i would be bored to death.

No one is pulling out the dueling pistols, oh queen of assumption.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

we can have different opinions w/o fighting to the death on here.

i don't know about you, but if everyone agreed with me i would be bored to death.

No one is pulling out the dueling pistols, oh queen of assumption.

i prefer dueling banjos. although i'm not anti-gun.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

we can have different opinions w/o fighting to the death on here.

i don't know about you, but if everyone agreed with me i would be bored to death.

No one is pulling out the dueling pistols, oh queen of assumption.

i prefer dueling banjos. although i'm not anti-gun.

I think I saw you once in a Burt Reynolds movie... you were kinda young then and sittin' on a porch.

 

[j00fek]

Originally posted by: Alprazolam
Seatbelt Law= Complete BS. End of Story.

:thumbsup:

 

[ShockwaveVT]

its pretty simple, seatbelt laws serve 2 functions. Which one you focus on shows a lot about how you think of politics

The first and most obvious is that they encourage drivers/passengers to protect themselves by fining them if they do not wear a seatbelt. This is the one where all the anti-government types focus on, because they say "well it should be the driver/passenger's choice as to the level of risk they take when driving!". Thats a valid argument, however it completely ignores the second function of seatbelt laws.

The other function is the protection it gives to everyone else in the community. This includes protection from emotional damage (relatives, friends, who would suffer distress upon the individual's serious injury or death), protection from finanical damage (insurance outlays that raise the rates of insurance for everyone else, family forced to empty bank accounts to pay for medical care, goverment funds paying what bills are left over) and not in the least, protecting the life of others. (the resources & time spent by doctors and nurses treating the non-seatbelt wearer could be spent treating another dying patient).

The point is the repercussions of one person being seriously injured or killed extend far beyond the little bubble that they live their lives in. It affects everyone else in the community.

edit = bolded for emphasis

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: zixxer
I personally competely disagree with ANY law that is designed to protect a single individual.. i.e. seatbelt laws - that protect me only. Same for helmet laws, etc.


I think you're RETARDED to not wear a seatbelt or a helmet. However, WTF does it hurt? Insurance companies should only offer policies to people who use these safety devices... bleh


the gene pool is too crowded. Why do us americans try to make it worse? I don't understand.. help people who are mentally ill adapt so they can work - have families, etc...

I suppose you're against government sponsored anti-drug programs as well, right? Why not let those crackheads OD on the street? That's just one less crackhead to worry about.

 

[NatePo717]

Originally posted by: ShockwaveVT
its pretty simple, seatbelt laws serve 2 functions. Which one you focus on shows a lot about how you think of politics

The first and most obvious is that they encourage drivers/passengers to protect themselves by fining them if they do not wear a seatbelt. This is the one where all the anti-government types focus on, because they say "well it should be the driver/passenger's choice as to the level of risk they take when driving!". Thats a valid argument, however it completely ignores the second function of seatbelt laws.

The other function is the protection it gives to everyone else in the community. This includes protection from emotional damage (relatives, friends, who would suffer distress upon the individual's serious injury or death), protection from finanical damage (insurance outlays that raise the rates of insurance for everyone else, family forced to empty bank accounts to pay for medical care, goverment funds paying what bills are left over) and not in the least, protecting the life of others. (the resources & time spent by doctors and nurses treating the non-seatbelt wearer could be spent treating another dying patient).

The point is the repercussions of one person being seriously injured or killed extend far beyond the little bubble that they live their lives in. It affects everyone else in the community.

:thumbsup:

All you people in MA who don't wear your seatbelts are making me pay out the a$$ for insurance. $2400 a year for BASIC car insurance. It's getting out of controll.

 

[DougK62]

All of you in favor of seatbelt laws are riding a slippery slope. At what point is it OK for the government to "protect" you and at what point does it piss you off? I bet a lot of you would be mighty pissed if it became illegal to listen to music in your car. After all, the radio is a big distraction for a lot of drivers...

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: ShockwaveVT
its pretty simple, seatbelt laws serve 2 functions. Which one you focus on shows a lot about how you think of politics

The first and most obvious is that they encourage drivers/passengers to protect themselves by fining them if they do not wear a seatbelt. This is the one where all the anti-government types focus on, because they say "well it should be the driver/passenger's choice as to the level of risk they take when driving!". Thats a valid argument, however it completely ignores the second function of seatbelt laws.

The other function is the protection it gives to everyone else in the community. This includes protection from emotional damage (relatives, friends, who would suffer distress upon the individual's serious injury or death), protection from finanical damage (insurance outlays that raise the rates of insurance for everyone else, family forced to empty bank accounts to pay for medical care, goverment funds paying what bills are left over) and not in the least, protecting the life of others. (the resources & time spent by doctors and nurses treating the non-seatbelt wearer could be spent treating another dying patient).

The point is the repercussions of one person being seriously injured or killed extend far beyond the little bubble that they live their lives in. It affects everyone else in the community.

edit = bolded for emphasis

Best post of the thread.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
http://healthresearch.georgetown.edu/Erica/helmetlaws.htm

Stupidity isn't punishable by death. If you're too dumb to wear a helmet by choice, you need the government to protect you, not just for your sake, but the sake of your family, friends, employer, other insurance customers, etc.
Insurance companies can't refuse payout to riders not wearing helmets because that insurance is required by the state if you don't wear a helmet.
Plus helmet laws save money.

Many additional studies address the increased cost to taxpayers resulting from the increase in injury rates when helmet laws were repealed (14-17). NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use saved $13.2 billion between 1984 and 1999 (1). The United States General Accounting Office estimates that a surviving patient with a critical head injury incurs an average of $171,000 in medical and rehabilitation costs in the first year following the injury (18). Most insurance plans do not cover the complete costs of hospitalization or long-term rehabilitation for motorcycle crash victims, and approximately 22% of the costs of inpatient care alone are paid with public funds (19).

helmet laws are also responsible for our current lack of organ donors. ironic that the law designed to protect people ends up hurting others.

personally, let the stupid people die. it is not the job of the government to interupt the process of natural selection.

I agree on principle; however, I don't want their decapitated bodies becoming projectiles, posing a risk to others. They should politely keep their damned viscera off my car, I just waxed it, for Chrissakes!

 

[DivideBYZero]

If there is no need for a helmet and no need for a seatbelt, why the need for a driving license? Why should the government decide if I can drive or not? I don't want them to control every aspect of my life!!

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
If there is no need for a helmet and no need for a seatbelt, why the need for a driving license? Why should the government decide if I can drive or not? I don't want them to control every aspect of my life!!

Hahahahahahahahah. That's a ridiculous comparison. You're grasping for anything, and it's funny.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Meh. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You have to abide other rules while driving, this one is probably the most benign of any of them. You have to register yourself before you can operate a vehicle. You have to provide proof of insurance before you can own a vehicle. Once you own a vehicle you have to register it with the state. Once you are able to drive, and own a car, then you have to abide by the rules of your state.

Seatbelt laws are just one of those rules. Deal with it.

They save lives. They aren't bothering you. Stop your bitching. Driving a car isn't a freedom. You can always walk or ride a bike.

Man, I couldn't have been stated any better.

 

[BoberFett]

I don't wear a helmet because I choose not to. I do however wear my seatbelt all the time, and make my passengers do the same. Does that make sense? Probably not, but I don't care. That's the way I like it. I find that helmets are constrictive and diminish my enjoyment of the ride. If you don't ride a bike, you don't understand the difference between wearing a helmet and not, other than your mass media tainted view of how evil bikers are.

Honestly though, I get tired of having these debates every damn summer when bike season rolls around. I'm about to team up with the devil, and become a lobbyist for every law against individual freedoms that I can find. I think that may be the only way to stop the nanny-staters. To give them exactly what they want.

Maybe eventually I can pass enough laws to prohibit every from leaving their home without good reason, and a government approved pass. While at home, we can't use the internet or any other form of media that has not been approved. Things like ATOT are dangerous. Just think of the things that somebody could read here. Do you really think that ATOT is good for society? Food will be eliminated as unhealthy, and we'll all just pop government manufactured protein pills thrice daily. And if by chance we can be monitored during our trip, not allowed to deviate from the government approved path.

After all, we need to think of the children.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I don't wear a helmet because I choose not to. I do however wear my seatbelt all the time, and make my passengers do the same. Does that make sense? Probably not, but I don't care. That's the way I like it. I find that helmets are constrictive and diminish my enjoyment of the ride. If you don't ride a bike, you don't understand the difference between wearing a helmet and not, other than your mass media tainted view of how evil bikers are.

Honestly though, I get tired of having these debates every damn summer when bike season rolls around. I'm about to team up with the devil, and become a lobbyist for every law against individual freedoms that I can find. I think that may be the only way to stop the nanny-staters. To give them exactly what they want.

Maybe eventually I can pass enough laws to prohibit every from leaving their home without good reason, and a government approved pass. While at home, we can't use the internet or any other form of media that has not been approved. Things like ATOT are dangerous. Just think of the things that somebody could read here. Do you really think that ATOT is good for society? Food will be eliminated as unhealthy, and we'll all just pop government manufactured protein pills thrice daily. And if by chance we can be monitored during our trip, not allowed to deviate from the government approved path.

After all, we need to think of the children.

:thumbsup:

 

[mercanucaribe]

If motorcyclists who don't wear helmets value their freedom from the government so much, maybe we should kick them to the curb when they end up in the hospital and unable to pay the medical bills. Riding without a helmet would be an automatic waiver of the Hippocratic Oath.