Seat Belt Law
-
PineInchNenis69;169280 wrote:
If there are passengers in the vehicle than everyone should be required. If you're driving alone and are 18+ I don't see why not. Reason for the passengers is because there was a story (I think recently even) where 1 person wasn't wearing their seat belt, flew around in the car during the crash and their body ended up killing the 2 other passengers.very possible. Stories during EMS training of kids in the back seats coming forward and killing both parents in the front seats because the kids weren't belted in.
I nearly always buckle up.
-
I have no issues wearing my seatbelt, however most of my friends always bitch about it. My Denali beeps when the front passenger doesn't have it on, so I always make them wear it.
-
killer69penguin;169276 wrote:
there is no reason we should be MADE to wear a seat beltI disagree 100%. There is a DAMN good reason to have to wear one. It saves lives. Period. Aside from that it also minimizes bodily injury in the event of an accident which in turn saves each and every one of us money on our insurance (or rather costs us more if people aren't buckled up...<u>lower claims=lower costs=lower premiums</u> and<u>*** higher claim amounts=higher costs to insurance company=fucking those of us who DO use safety belts)
***</u>And don't give me the "what if I get knocked out, upside down in a lake and can't get out" line. Seatbelts save a TON more lives than they end. There is so much statistical data on that subject that it's not even funny.
Personally, I say triple the fine for no seatbelt use...
-
Sweet-WRX-Lovin;169274 wrote:
p.s. Yeah it's bullshit and that's coming from a dude who wears a seat belt religiously.I hear they come in handy if you slide backwards into a family of Koreans... :icon_joker:
-
jail time may be a bit extreme.
-
tjamz;169371 wrote:
I disagree 100%. There is a DAMN good reason to have to wear one. It saves lives. Period. Aside from that it also minimizes bodily injury in the event of an accident which in turn saves each and every one of us money on our insurance (or rather costs us more if people aren't buckled up...<u>lower claims=lower costs=lower premiums</u> and<u>*** higher claim amounts=higher costs to insurance company=fucking those of us who DO use safety belts)***</u>And don't give me the "what if I get knocked out, upside down in a lake and can't get out" line. Seatbelts save a TON more lives than they end. There is so much statistical data on that subject that it's not even funny.
Personally, I say triple the fine for no seatbelt use...
QFT!Giving jail time for no seat belt use would fill our jails to the top, and the punishment does not fit the crime.
-
Or rather, any deaths/injuries as a result of no belt usage should automatically revoke your insurance companies requirement to pay for any bills/etc.
For one thing, it's not like insurance companies are hurting for $$ or losing money, they are the biggest government backed scam on the face of the earth. Even so, they should have no obligation to pay out for any injuries that could have been prevented with a seatbelt.
-
I disagree 100%. There is a DAMN good reason to have to wear one. It saves lives. Period.
So does not driving in the first place.
The government's job isn't saving lives; it especially is not saving your life from your own stupid self.
Not wearing seatbelts is stupid, and I don't mind the people that remove their damaged stock from the gene pool by not doing so.
However, what pisses me off is that those mouth breathers are going to cause the government to unconstitutionally increase its powers, which affects all of us.
What next? I'm not allowed to sit on wobbly chairs in my house?
The local government doesn't need more reasons for invasive search and seizure, and it doesn't need more ways to tax drivers. And no level of government needs more arbitrary authority with subjective enforcement.
Want to continue to erode the rule of law and the respect for the law in this country? Keep passing bullshit laws.
Solid work, Nanny-State! Let's keep filling our prisons with pot heads, helmetless harley riders, and weirdos that don't use seatbelts. That way we can keep dumping L3 sex offenders back into our neighborhoods.
-
thrash;169395 wrote:
-
So does not driving in the first place.
-
The government's job isn't saving lives; it especially is not saving your life from your own stupid self.
-
Not wearing seatbelts is stupid, and I don't mind the people that remove their damaged stock from the gene pool by not doing so.
-
However, what pisses me off is that those mouth breathers are going to cause the government to unconstitutionally increase its powers, which affects all of us.
-
What next? I'm not allowed to sit on wobbly chairs in my house?
-
The local government doesn't need more reasons for invasive search and seizure, and it doesn't need more ways to tax drivers. And no level of government needs more arbitrary authority with subjective enforcement.
-
Want to continue to erode the rule of law and the respect for the law in this country? Keep passing bullshit laws.
-
Solid work, Nanny-State! Let's keep filling our prisons with pot heads, helmetless harley riders, and weirdos that don't use seatbelts. That way we can keep dumping L3 sex offenders back into our neighborhoods.
-
Weak argument
-
No, its job is to protect its people, sometimes from themselves.
-
I do mind, because those that don't wear them cause the cost of insurance to go up.
-
Whats unconstitutional about it? We elected these people by majority vote and they made the rules they saw fit. Don't like the rules? Petition to have them changed in the next election.
-
Whats more likely to cause serious injury, a wobbly chair collapsing or flying through a windshield?
-
Its not a search and seizure issue. If they can clearly see you are breaking the law, they have every right to pull your ass over. Period.
-
Not sure where not wearing a seatbelt belt erodes and laws, but if you say so....
-
How many people are in jail for no seatbelt, no helmet, and possession of small amounts of Marijuana? Not many, if any....especially first time offenders when it comes to drug usage (depends on quantity of illegal substance). Please show me one case, any case, where the county jails were filled by non-seatbelt wearers which caused the court to say "Oh shit, lets let this Level 3 sex offender out to make room for this guy"
-
-
tjamz;169402 wrote:
8. How many people are in jail for no seatbelt, no helmet, and possession of small amounts of Marijuana?Agree with everything basically except here. There are hundreds of thousands of people in jail for marijuana possession at any given point in time in America. Not just those with an amount that says "intent to sell", simple possession. In ND for example, if it's found on you in ANY quantity, you get a 1 way ticket to jail. Other states have just as harsh if not harsher penalties. I'll leave it there I guess, we already had a marijuana debate thread.
-
PineInchNenis69;169413 wrote:
Agree with everything basically except here. There are hundreds of thousands of people in jail for marijuana possession at any given point in time in America. Not just those with an amount that says "intent to sell", simple possession. In ND for example, if it's found on you in ANY quantity, you get a 1 way ticket to jail. Other states have just as harsh if not harsher penalties. I'll leave it there I guess, we already had a marijuana debate thread.Not necessarily true. I know of several friends who have been caught w/ a small quantity (usually a one-hitter & dug-out) that if they got any amount of time, it was a night in county jail...or maybe a weekend, still not filling up the long term facilities which was the original point.
-
tjamz;169432 wrote:
Not necessarily true. I know of several friends who have been caught w/ a small quantity (usually a one-hitter & dug-out) that if they got any amount of time, it was a night in county jail...or maybe a weekend, still not filling up the long term facilities which was the original point.Yeah true I guess it depends on the definition of "small amount" too. Either way, it shouldn't be something to go to jail for anyways. That's a different thread at a different time though
-
tjamz;169402 wrote:
- Weak argument
Why? Do I get to just dimiss your arguments by saying "ugly", or is something more substantial required?
- No, its job is to protect its people, sometimes from themselves.
Which part of the Constitution is about protecting people from themselves? Ralph Nader doesn't run the country yet.
- I do mind, because those that don't wear them cause the cost of insurance to go up.
Maybe you should find a different insurance carrier? (Too bad that since insurance is government mandated, there's little incentive to compete on merit in the insurance space)
- Whats unconstitutional about it? We elected these people by majority vote and they made the rules they saw fit. Don't like the rules? Petition to have them changed in the next election.
The constitution enumerates the rights the people have granted to the government. The opinion of the early liberals, and the foundation of the Western system of society was one of strict individualism and limited government. "Over all matters concerning onesself, the individual must reign supreme".
- Whats more likely to cause serious injury, a wobbly chair collapsing or flying through a windshield?
My wife fell off a stool I made in middle school and broke her arm. She's never flown through a windshield. In my family, wobbly chairs are infinitely more likely to cause injury than windshields are. I don't see what point you're trying to make.
- Its not a search and seizure issue. If they can clearly see you are breaking the law, they have every right to pull your ass over. Period.
What business do they have looking into your car to begin with? Are you for or against window tinting laws? Why or why not?
- Not sure where not wearing a seatbelt belt erodes and laws, but if you say so....
It's a stupid thing to legislate, as it is a victimless crime. When the government makes stupid laws that needlessly bind some of the population, the society's respect for the rule of law (the government's respect for the rule of law for that matter) decline. Even thousands of years ago philosophers understood... "the more corrupt the state.. the more numerous its laws".
- How many people are in jail for no seatbelt, no helmet, and possession of small amounts of Marijuana? Not many, if any....especially first time offenders when it comes to drug usage (depends on quantity of illegal substance). Please show me one case, any case, where the county jails were filled by non-seatbelt wearers which caused the court to say "Oh shit, lets let this Level 3 sex offender out to make room for this guy"
The problem is an illustration of the fucked up priorities that some people have. The notion that there is prison overcrowding due to drug related crimes is not debatable, and if you're going to be thickheaded about it, I'll dig up links. Obviously prison overcrowding due to helmet or seatbelt laws is hyperbole (for now).
The # of L3 sex offenders being released due to overcrowding is a non-zero number. If it's drug users we're filling prisons with, that's a perversion of the criminal system, IMO.
Specifically, we're talking about the cost/benefit analysis of trying to force people to wear seatbelts. The "benefit" is the assumption that people who don't currently wear them will suddenly start wearing them out of fear of not wanting to get fined. The "costs" are manifold, but one of them is that our police departments continue to become a streamlined mechanism for extracting money from citizens (instead of keeping the roads safe). Another is the further erosion of individual liberties in the political mindshare. Yet another is the distraction this will cause officers from actually doing real police work. Yet another is all of the time (read: taxpayer dollars) our legislators have spent arguing about this law.
Generically, this is an argument about what nature of government power ought to be. I always wear my seatbelt, and I've never taken any kind of illegal drug at all (and potheads irritate me). IOW, this law won't affect me personally at all. But I get my panties in a wad about any new law that restricts what the people can do, especially if they create victimless "Crimes" or if they further dilute the rule of the individual over his own being. Someday, someone will come along and pass a law that DOES affect my lifestyle, and by then, society will have become so complacent so as to neither notice nor care.
We've got this dipshit in a yellow GTO out on the roads trying to kill everyone, and people are seriously suggesting that cops should be looking for people not wearing seatbelts to get them "in the door" to come up with as many other revenue generating tickets as possible? What kind of perversion of priorities is that?
I encourage everyone to wear their seatbelts all the time. And to check out http://www.lp.org
-
thrash;169438 wrote:
Why? Do I get to just dimiss your arguments by saying "ugly", or is something more substantial required?Which part of the Constitution is about protecting people from themselves? Ralph Nader doesn't run the country yet.
Maybe you should find a different insurance carrier? (Too bad that since insurance is government mandated, there's little incentive to compete on merit in the insurance space)
The constitution enumerates the rights the people have granted to the government. The opinion of the early liberals, and the foundation of the Western system of society was one of strict individualism and limited government. "Over all matters concerning onesself, the individual must reign supreme".
My wife fell off a stool I made in middle school and broke her arm. She's never flown through a windshield. In my family, wobbly chairs are infinitely more likely to cause injury than windshields are. I don't see what point you're trying to make.
What business do they have looking into your car to begin with? Are you for or against window tinting laws? Why or why not?
It's a stupid thing to legislate, as it is a victimless crime. When the government makes stupid laws that needlessly bind some of the population, the society's respect for the rule of law (the government's respect for the rule of law for that matter) decline. Even thousands of years ago philosophers understood... "the more corrupt the state.. the more numerous its laws".
The problem is an illustration of the fucked up priorities that some people have. The notion that there is prison overcrowding due to drug related crimes is not debatable, and if you're going to be thickheaded about it, I'll dig up links. Obviously prison overcrowding due to helmet or seatbelt laws is hyperbole (for now).
The # of L3 sex offenders being released due to overcrowding is a non-zero number. If it's drug users we're filling prisons with, that's a perversion of the criminal system, IMO.
Specifically, we're talking about the cost/benefit analysis of trying to force people to wear seatbelts. The "benefit" is the assumption that people who don't currently wear them will suddenly start wearing them out of fear of not wanting to get fined. The "costs" are manifold, but one of them is that our police departments continue to become a streamlined mechanism for extracting money from citizens (instead of keeping the roads safe). Another is the further erosion of individual liberties in the political mindshare. Yet another is the distraction this will cause officers from actually doing real police work. Yet another is all of the time (read: taxpayer dollars) our legislators have spent arguing about this law.
Generically, this is an argument about what nature of government power ought to be. I always wear my seatbelt, and I've never taken any kind of illegal drug at all (and potheads irritate me). IOW, this law won't affect me personally at all. But I get my panties in a wad about any new law that restricts what the people can do, especially if they create victimless "Crimes" or if they further dilute the rule of the individual over his own being. Someday, someone will come along and pass a law that DOES affect my lifestyle, and by then, society will have become so complacent so as to neither notice nor care.
We've got this dipshit in a yellow GTO out on the roads trying to kill everyone, and people are seriously suggesting that cops should be looking for people not wearing seatbelts to get them "in the door" to come up with as many other revenue generating tickets as possible? What kind of perversion of priorities is that?
I encourage everyone to wear their seatbelts all the time. And to check out http://www.lp.org
:patriot:
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login