**POLL** What do you think about this new seatbelt law (US)??

[Electric Amish]

The law basically states that EVERY person in a vehicle must wear a seatbelt at all times AND that a policeman can pull you over strictly on the basis of checking seatbelts.

IMO, it is completely ludicrous. I wear my seatbelt out of habit, but I don't understand FORCING people to wear them if they don't want to. It hurts noone else but that person.

Requiring them for children is fine because kids are stupid and don't know any better, but adults, while the majority are stupid and don't know any better, are legally considered responsible for their actions.

It just bothers me that the government can force something like this upon us....What's going to be next, is all I can wonder about.

amish

 

[Mr N8]

I don't see a problem with it. I honestly use it everywhere I go. I don't see why it has to be a federal law, since most states already adhear to this law.

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

I don't really care, I always wear my seat belt anyway.

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon
I don't really care, I always wear my seat belt anyway.

Yeah, but if you have passengers they will have to wear their belts or you'll get a ticket.

amish

 

[Joker81]

I don't think its a new law I just think its now being enforced, at least its a law in washington state been that way for a while now. Both to make money and protect people. Even in a 5mph car crash if you don't have a seatbelt you can't stop your self from moving forward.
I think the rule is that if you are under 16 in the car without a seat belt the driver is responisble for your fine. If you are 16 and over you have to pay the fine even ifyou aren't the driver.

 

[notfred]

I don't belevie in seatbelt laws, helmet laws, drug laws, etc.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I think thats a great idea. Its so very simple to put on a seatbelt, and from what I have seen, seatbelts do drasticly cut down on fatalities as well as the severity of the injuries recieved in he event of a collision.

 

[nativesunshine]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon
I don't really care, I always wear my seat belt anyway.

Yeah, but if you have passengers they will have to wear their belts or you'll get a ticket.

amish

Actually....I heard that if the passenger is over 18 and not wearing seat belt...HE gets fined...not the driver. But I don't know for sure if it's true.

 

[edmicman]

i agree with it, but what i don't understand is what the beef is with the people that are vehemently against laws like this and the requiring wearing a motorcycle helmet laws. is there something WRONG with requiring you to wear a protective device that is proven to help reduce injury if you are in an accident? i don't buy the "if they go this far, whats next?" argument - its not like they're infringing on a major freedom here. they're just requiring use of a safety device. the "i'm gonna use it anyway, just don't force me to do it" doesn't work either. if you were going to use it anyway, then who cares? its possibly saving the life of someone else who WASN'T going to use it.

just my .02

 

[Regs]

Maybe because the government is having a hard time keeping drunks off the road. Or maybe licensing bad drivers.

Either way, its now a 3 point ticket in NJ where insurance rates are all ready sky high. So Bah.

The lady who ran a red light who smashed me into a wall got 2 points.

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: nativesunshine

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon
I don't really care, I always wear my seat belt anyway.

Yeah, but if you have passengers they will have to wear their belts or you'll get a ticket.

amish

Actually....I heard that if the passenger is over 18 and not wearing seat belt...HE gets fined...not the driver. But I don't know for sure if it's true.

That could be true...I just assumed it'd be the driver.

amish

 

[Quixfire]

There should be no laws restricting personal freedom of choice.

 

[monk3y]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
The law basically states that EVERY person in a vehicle must wear a seatbelt at all times AND that a policeman can pull you over strictly on the basis of checking seatbelts.

I like the fact that they want everyone to wear seatbelts but I DON'T like the fact that they can pull you over just to check seatbelts.

 

[ggavinmoss]

I wonder if part of the motivation for this law was to reduce the amount that has to be paid on behalf of the uninsured who have injuries related to car accidents and not wearing seat belts... from that perspective it makes some sense. On the other hand, restricts people's sovereign right to be asshats.

-geoff

 

[J Heartless Slick]

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon
I don't really care, I always wear my seat belt anyway.

 

[Hammer]

i always wear my seatbelt, but i dont like that a cop can pull you over solely for checking your seatbelt. are you sure about that? there's no pc.

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: InstincT
I like the fact that they want everyone to wear seatbelts but I DON'T like the fact that they can pull you over just to check seatbelts.

ding ding ding. What most people don't realize is that the police officer is going to use the new seat belt laws to pull someone over, in hopes of finding more than just no seatbeat.

 

[ILikeStuff]

If the gov't is forcing you to wear the seat belt, can the gov't be held liable if you die because you are wearing a seatbelt? (rare, but it does happen) if so, then fine, make it a law, if not, fvck off and stop trying to control my life

BTW, I always wear my seat belt and force my passengers to as well.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: edmicman
is there something WRONG with requiring you to wear a protective device that is proven to help reduce injury if you are in an accident?

Some people find seatbelts and helmets uncomfortable, or expensive, or stupid looking or whatever. It should be THIER choice to pick comfort over safety, or vice versa. Not yours, nor congress' nor anyone else except the person who's comfort and safety are in question.

 

[MisfitsFiend]

they should give the ticket to the person not wearing the seatbelt, like in europe.
-mf

 

[Turf03]

When you are given permission by the state to drive a vehicle, you are given the responsibility of obaying all laws made by that state, you are also given the responsibility of other people's lives. i.e You get in a wreck and the people in the back seat are not wearing their seatbelts and you are. They die. You live. You get charged with invaulentary manslaughter becuase you didn't take responsibility for that persons life. Just like a taxi cab driver gets in a wreck and kills his passenger. He is at fault in the wreck. He can be sued. It is your responsibility to do the things the state asks of you and also it is not a God given right to drive. It is a privilidge. Seatbelt laws are good!

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: edmicman
is there something WRONG with requiring you to wear a protective device that is proven to help reduce injury if you are in an accident?

Some people find seatbelts and helmets uncomfortable, or expensive, or stupid looking or whatever. It should be THIER choice to pick comfort over safety, or vice versa. Not yours, nor congress' nor anyone else except the person who's comfort and safety are in question.

Except when my health insurance premiums skyrocket because they wanted to ride their motorcycle without a helmet. So if I am forced to pay higher premiums because people are discomforted by safety devices, then I feel it is appropriate to force them to wear a device that will save hundreds of thousands of dollars (per incident) in medical bills.

 

[Jzero]

So what law is this? I'm more concerned that you seem to be implying that the federal government has just implemented a nationwide seatbelt law. I don't think that is constitutional.

But I disagree with seatbelt laws. i don't need to waste taxpayer time and money to know when I need protective safety equipment. I wear a helmet when I kayak, I don't need a law to tell me that.

And cops pulling you over just for the hell of it is REALLY bad.

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: InstincT
I like the fact that they want everyone to wear seatbelts but I DON'T like the fact that they can pull you over just to check seatbelts.

ding ding ding. What most people don't realize is that the police officer is going to use the new seat belt laws to pull someone over, in hopes of finding more than just no seatbeat.

I agree with both of you guys. I think it is great that they make you wear one to protect you from...well yourself I guess, but I don't like the fact that this give the police another "reason" to pull you over. Now if they don't like the way you look or the color of your car, they can just pull you over and say they were checking for seatbelts and then probably find something else wrong, like that stash of drugs in your trunk, or a broken blinker, or that you put your sticker on your plate in the wrong spot ($17.50 fine 5 years ago anyway).

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: edmicman
is there something WRONG with requiring you to wear a protective device that is proven to help reduce injury if you are in an accident?

Some people find seatbelts and helmets uncomfortable, or expensive, or stupid looking or whatever. It should be THIER choice to pick comfort over safety, or vice versa. Not yours, nor congress' nor anyone else except the person who's comfort and safety are in question.

Except when my health insurance premiums skyrocket because they wanted to ride their motorcycle without a helmet. So if I am forced to pay higher premiums because people are discomforted by safety devices, then I feel it is appropriate to force them to wear a device that will save hundreds of thousands of dollars (per incident) in medical bills.

But that's a circumstantial inconventiance to you compared to a DIRECT inconvenience to them. The one who is affected directly by something should have precedence over the person who only feels an indirected, diluted impact.