wearing seatbelt is an option

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
This is my point. What you believe has merit, another may not. In the case of restricting personal liberty to protect you from yourself, I feel that any such law is intrusive. Seatbelt laws do NOT protect you if you would wear your seatbelt regardless.

why do you think it is infringing on your personal liberty? is driving a personal liberty? no, it is a privledge given to you by the state. is it not?

 

[Thegonagle]

This guy can't be for real.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
This is my point. What you believe has merit, another may not. In the case of restricting personal liberty to protect you from yourself, I feel that any such law is intrusive. Seatbelt laws do NOT protect you if you would wear your seatbelt regardless.

why do you think it is infringing on your personal liberty? is driving a personal liberty? no, it is a privledge given to you by the state. is it not?

Do you believe our only liberties those enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

Does the licensing of cars and drivers mean we have no expectation of privacy or liberty while in our cars?

By your line of thinking, would it be alright for the state to outlaw sex in the back of a limo? Would it be alright for them to ban eating or drinking in cars?

How far are you willing to take this? Is any action in an automobile protected?

The regulation of automobiles and roads were originally enacted to protect OTHERS from dangerous drivers. Now we've surpassed that and seek to protect dangerous drivers from themselves. A line that never should have been crossed, IMO.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Dumbass!!

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: AmusedOneDo you believe our only liberties those enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

Does the licensing of cars and drivers mean we have no expectation of privacy or liberty while in their cars?

By your line of thinking, would it be alright for the state to outlaw sex in the back of a limo? Would it be alright for them to ban eating or drinking in cars?

How far are you willing to take this? Is any action in an automobile protected?

whoa..slow down tiger. i'm not looking for a political debate here, just trying to understand your reasoning.

no i don't believe our only liberties are in the BOR

privacy is one thing, liberty is a gray area when you are talking about protecting the health and well-being of your inhabitants

sex, eating and drinking doesn't have a direct effect on whether a person lives or dies in a split second (well for the most part, leaving out extreme circumstances).

I'm not willing to take it anywhere, i am fine with the laws as they exist currently.

 

[royaldank]

The government has the ability to limit what is done in your car and has for a long time. It's a precedent that was set a long time ago. Requiring a seat belt is just the latest in rules and regulations. It doesn't impair your ability to do anything required for driving or living.

 

[pyonir]

The regulation of automobiles and roads were originally enacted to protects OTHERS from dangerous drivers. Now we've surpassed that and seek to protect dangerous drivers from themselves. A line that never should have been crossed, IMO.

they why shouldn't kids be considered 'protecting others'. they can't decide for themselves.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: AmusedOneDo you believe our only liberties those enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

Does the licensing of cars and drivers mean we have no expectation of privacy or liberty while in their cars?

By your line of thinking, would it be alright for the state to outlaw sex in the back of a limo? Would it be alright for them to ban eating or drinking in cars?

How far are you willing to take this? Is any action in an automobile protected?

whoa..slow down tiger. i'm not looking for a political debate here, just trying to understand your reasoning.

no i don't believe our only liberties are in the BOR

privacy is one thing, liberty is a gray area when you are talking about protecting the health and well-being of your inhabitants

sex, eating and drinking doesn't have a direct effect on whether a person lives or dies in a split second (well for the most part, leaving out extreme circumstances).

I'm not willing to take it anywhere, i am fine with the laws as they exist currently.

My point again. The current laws have reached your comfort level, surpassed my comfort level, and there are a lot of people who would take them quite a bit further.

My point is a line must be drawn. And I believe that line should exist just before the law starts protecting us from ourselves. It's a very clear and easily definable line, and puts responsibility back in the hands of the individual, where it was originally intended to be.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: PC166
I believe that as long as others don't force it upon on me, it is fine. but the majority seem to alway shove thing down everyone else's throat because of few who died without seatbelt. who care, it's their life not yours. and they wouldnt surivive anyway because of the head on collision. The cops pull people over occasionally for not wearing seatbelt this imo is silly. I have gotten into a few wrecks, no seatbelt and no harm whatsoever thought the car is seriously trashed lol. If you can't stop everyone from smoking and drinking i dont' see how you can all to wear seatbelt because of hippos. I have been reminded by some nosy folk driving along the road pull his seatbelt out just to show how proud he is wearing one and how safe he feel. This was like 10 years ago, till this day I am still laughing my heads off. Remember, a good driver is one who is cautious, not one who is reckless with a seatbelt because he think he cannot be killed regardless even if say direct hit head on collision at 60 mph. Defensive driving is key to safety. Wearing a seatbelt should not make you feel much safer then not wearing one, again the key is to have fast reaction and avoid it at all cost. Even if you have to go off road or slide over to the next lane because some dumbo had just jammed his break on you. Also it just look impressive to the majority, look ma no seatbelt cool right? you bet I am.

I dont think you are one to be preaching about safe driving

Please dont wear your seatbelt, and PLEASE get sterilized. Thank you.

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
My point again. The current laws have reached your comfort level, surpassed my comfort level, and there are a lot of people who would take them quite a bit further.

My point is a line must be drawn. And I believe that line should exist just before the law starts protecting us from ourselves. It's a very clear and easily definable line, and puts responsibility back in the hands of the individual, where it was originally intended to be.

Understood.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: pyonir

The regulation of automobiles and roads were originally enacted to protects OTHERS from dangerous drivers. Now we've surpassed that and seek to protect dangerous drivers from themselves. A line that never should have been crossed, IMO.

they why shouldn't kids be considered 'protecting others'. they can't decide for themselves.

No, their parents decide for them. Of course, I've already covered this. My position may sound cruel, and heartless to the bleeding hearts out there... but it's sound.

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
No, their parents decide for them. Of course, I've already covered this. My position may sound cruel, and heartless to the bleeding hearts out there... but it's sound.

for the record: i am far from a bleeding heart, this just is a topic that i take a great interest in.

anyway, IMO it isn't sound. it isn't protecting the ones that don't know any better than to protect themselves. I do agree that the parents should be the ones that strap them in, but since the child can't decide, the parent should be held responsible for not strapping them in.

agree to disagree?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
No, their parents decide for them. Of course, I've already covered this. My position may sound cruel, and heartless to the bleeding hearts out there... but it's sound.

for the record: i am far from a bleeding heart, this just is a topic that i take a great interest in.

anyway, IMO it isn't sound. it isn't protecting the ones that don't know any better than to protect themselves. I do agree that the parents should be the ones that strap them in, but since the child can't decide, the parent should be held responsible for not strapping them in.

agree to disagree?

Hey, I'm all for locking up a parent who, through negligence, causes injury or death to their child. I am not, in any way, in favor of forcing parents to protect their kids before the fact. It is, for all intents and purposes an unenforcable law, unless you violate their right to privacy.

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
Hey, I'm all for locking up a parent who, through negligence, causes injury or death to their child. I am not, in any way, in favor of forcing parents to protect their kids before the fact. It is, for all intents and purposes an unenforcable law, unless you violate their right to privacy.

even as a secondary offense? i could understand your argument for a primary offense, but a secondary?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
Hey, I'm all for locking up a parent who, through negligence, causes injury or death to their child. I am not, in any way, in favor of forcing parents to protect their kids before the fact. It is, for all intents and purposes an unenforcable law, unless you violate their right to privacy.

even as a secondary offense? i could understand your argument for a primary offense, but a secondary?

I made a point about secondary offenses above. It's unenforceable, and just plain silly. Locking up negligent parents after the fact will do far more as a deterant than catching a few here and there through basically unenforceable laws.

Education will also do far more. There is a provision in the Constitution that allows the federal government to promote the general welfare. Nothing does this better than education. Locking parents up for negligent homicide and actively promoting safety will do far more than passing intrusive, and unenforceable laws.

Not to mention, many states that had secondary laws have made them into primary laws. I believe CA is one, and IL is another.

 

[shiner]

Eh...don't be too hard on the boy....with views like his he most likely won't be in the gene pool much longer anyway.

 

[exp]

People who believe in not wearing seatbelts shouldn't . . . it tends to reinforce the "survival of the fittest" notion and not passing their defective genes on to future offspring.

That is my position on the subject as well. In the sterilized environment of modern society we find ourselves with precious few ways to weed out idiots such as PC166 from the gene pool. Those few sources of selective pressure that remain ought to be treasured, not legislated against.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Lucky

The reason mandatory seatbelt/helmet laws exist is due to the economic cost of treating injured people who do not have insurance.

Thats just what they want you to believe. Selt belt laws are just one of many intrusive laws that the government never should have passed. I wear my seltbelt every time I drive, but I DONT support the use of our justice system to try and make people wear them (at least not for adults, kids are another story).

I'm in complete and utter shock. I agree with Lucky! WOW.

 

[Chaotic42]

What about when your ass flies out of your windshield and hits the other car, crashes through the windshield and kills a little kid?

If you still live, it'll be time to pull out the glock.

 

[ElFenix]

have some consideration for the emergency crew who has to clean up the wreak. scraping your dead ass off the highway with a shovel isn't something you should be wishing on people

 

[Pliablemoose]

My wife's ex didn't believe in wearing seabelts either, I actually have his cremains in my trunk.

Score: City bus: 1
Moron who didn't wear his seatbelt: 0

We were going through his (my dead ex-husband-in-law) cancelled checks yesterday & saw he'd been ticketed for no seatbelt in Nov. of 2001.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Seatbelt laws aren't about safety, it's a way for insurance companies to save on payouts. think about it, by enforcing seatbelt laws and having the STATE do it, the insurance companies automatically get a reduction in payouts. the fact is SEATBELTS do save lives, but that's not why they are required by law. they are required by law because insurance companies make sure they are required by law because it reduces their payouts, do they reduce our premiums when this law goes into effect? no, they only increase our premiums if we choose not to wear our seatbelts and get caught. or they can even refuse to pay full benefits if you were in a car accident and got injured because you weren't wearing you seatbelt.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Seatbelt laws aren't about safety, it's a way for insurance companies to save on payouts. think about it, by enforcing seatbelt laws and having the STATE do it, the insurance companies automatically get a reduction in payouts. the fact is SEATBELTS do save lives, but that's not why they are required by law. they are required by law because insurance companies make sure they are required by law because it reduces their payouts, do they reduce our premiums when this law goes into effect? no, they only increase our premiums if we choose not to wear our seatbelts and get caught. or they can even refuse to pay full benefits if you were in a car accident and got injured because you weren't wearing you seatbelt.

This begs a very interesting question: After the enactment of seatbelt laws, who here saw a decline in their insurance rate? I know I didn't. The only breaks I've had on insurance were: marriage (lost that when I got divorced), 25 and good driving record. NO insurance rate cut was ever handed out attibuting manditory seatbelt use as the cause.

You've all been had.

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: AmusedOneYou have all been had.

only if you haven't worn your seat belt all the time anyway. (which i do)

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: AmusedOneYou have all been had.

only if you haven't worn your seat belt all the time anyway. (which i do)

I always have too. But the laws were passed with the claim that they would reduce insurance rates. Where are our rebates?