Mandatory Seatbelt Use

[cleoeo]

A few years back we passed a law here in WI making seatbelt use mandatory for both drivers and passengers. Advocates point to the fact that it will save some lives as justification. I say it's an infringment on freedom of choice - that it's not the government's role to reduce risky behaviour through legislation so long as that risky behavior does not infringe on others' rights. I always wear my seatbelt anyway, but I personally am opposed to the mandatory seatbelt law. Why not make me wear a crash helmet and install a roll bar while they're at it?

[paulgro]

We have the same law in NJ and NY. New york has seat belt checks like DWI road blocks. NJ can only ticket you if they stop you for a violation and see you're not wearing a seat belt.

The law just got tougher here in North Carolina. It says that if the cops catch someone under 16 in a car and they're not wearing a seatbelt, then whoever is driving the car gets nailed regardless of whether they're wearing a seatbelt or not!! In other words, one person screws up, and a completely innocent person gets nailed!! TOTALLY UNFAIR!!

[wendy66]

Well, this coming from a goverment who also declared suicide illegal in some states, not surprising http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif I think it should be required for children and drivers should enforce it for them, if you don't think seatbelts save lives, go into any trauma unit, in any hospital, in any city, and stay awhile... But if you are an adult...it's your life and you shouldn't be babysat by the government.
On the lines of suicide... why do we put some criminals on "suicide watch"????


------------------
if you stand for nothing...you'll fall for anything

Yea, save money, let the criminals kill themselves. Also, I'm totally against the seat belt law with the exception of small children.

------------------
Co-Owner
Bueno Technologies

You know I remember hearing similar things when they brought in the seatbelt law in the 80s here in the UK. It has been proven to reduce road deaths and has therefore been a weight taken off the NHS. Now I understand that the US doesn't have a National Health Service, but surely most people have family. Putting yourself in a position that it is possible to die is only selfish. I think when you weigh it up, it's a good law, attempting to protect Joe Public from themselves.


------------------
We're the Sweeny, son and we haven't had any dinner. You kept us waiting. So unless you want a kicking you'll tell us where those photographs are.

[Idnew]

I'm for making it a law for small children but not for adults and I'll tell you my reason. Not too long ago my vehicle hydroplaned and I saw me heading straight for a tree. I had no seat belt on. All I could do was fall over in the seat. The vehicle stopped about 1 foot of that tree. If I had that seat belt on there would be no way in hell for me to lay down in the seat. Many years ago a friend of mine was heading under the rear end of a semi when he layed down on the seat. It saved his life because he wasn't wearing a seat belt. The top of his small car was taken off but he was OK.

I'm against it, except, as others had mentioned, in the case of small children. It is not the government's responsibility to protect the public from itself. As to the arguments for the healthcare system or affecting others, yes, that's true, but to use that as an argument is to invoke a whole new set of implications, like the banning of fastfood, skydiving, etc. Basically anything dangerous would become illegal.

[Serendipity]

The government cannot make you wear a seatbelt all the time, so it's up to you. Governments use statistics (ugh),and the number of RTAs where using seatbelts has saved lives is surely greater than those where not using them has? I wear them, even in the back seat. Why? Imagine what happens to a belt-wearing passenger in the front with a loose human body hitting the back of their seat. I've even seen adults in a car with a child on their lap and a seatbelt over the pair of them. Think about it.

Taking precautions to ensure that you don't become a burden on anyone is basic good citizenship, as well as being nice to your family. As I said, I’ve already heard all the arguments, and although people objected to them it has been proven to save lives and everything that goes with that. We all use cars (please don’t get pedantic) and should do so responsibly. Why do you think there are laws for wearing helmets on motorbikes? Is that also restricting your right to top yourself?

There was one seat-belt law which I helped campaign against in the late 80s, which some slow-witted Tory MP (if you’ll forgive the tautology) wanted all bikers to be attached to their Bikes. Obviously, you don’t want to be strapped to half a ton of metal when you’re flying through the air, or be dragged under a lorry or something.

With reference to Idnew’s statement about not wearing a seatbelt actually saved a life, there were plenty of similar stories when the UK was passed. Trouble is, I refer you back to the fact that it works. Sorry, chaps, but freedom of expression only goes so far when you’re not effecting others. Topping yourself does effect others. QED.


------------------
We're the Sweeny, son and we haven't had any dinner. You kept us waiting. So unless you want a kicking you'll tell us where those photographs are.

Originally posted by Mandala:
Taking precautions to ensure that you don't become a burden on anyone is basic good citizenship, as well as being nice to your family. As I said, I’ve already heard all the arguments, and although people objected to them it has been proven to save lives and everything that goes with that. We all use cars (please don’t get pedantic) and should do so responsibly. Why do you think there are laws for wearing helmets on motorbikes? Is that also restricting your right to top yourself?

Yes, of course.

With reference to Idnew’s statement about not wearing a seatbelt actually saved a life, there were plenty of similar stories when the UK was passed. Trouble is, I refer you back to the fact that it works. Sorry, chaps, but freedom of expression only goes so far when you’re not effecting others. Topping yourself does effect others. QED.

Please. Once you start controlling people like that, where does it end? I can't swear because others are affected? I can't choose to view pornography because it offends some? I'm forced to become Christian because some fear for the purity of mankind? Once you start removing liberties, it never stops.


[/B][/QUOTE]

[~wildangel~]

I think we should make our own choices as adults to decide if we want to wear a seatbelt or not,but as for small children I think the law is a mandatory,and the helmet law on the back of a motercycle really irritates me,it should be our choice,for instance my hubby(when he was younger)got in a Harley accident and he went face(mouth) first along a chain link fence (the kind with the posts on top)It all happened so fast that he could have been easilly decapitated if he had been wearing his helmet.(one of his teeth went up through his tounge hit the roof of his mouth and back out throu his tounge and he couldnt eat for weeks,he got REALLY sick of Capri Suns!

There was a case of a bunch of perverts who enjoyed meeting and nailing their “pirate of men’s pants” to a table. They were arrested and charged…er…. With something or other. Now you can consider that an infringement of their right to self mutilation, but I doubt that what they did was life threatening, and I would defend their right to get their kicks in that way. You see they were not harming anyone else.

Now back to the seatbelt law… it’s not a case of open the door a crack and all our liberties will be taken away from us. Let’s try to have a middle ground where if your actions cause havoc for others then you should be restricted from doing so.

As for the unfortunate bike crash, I refer you back to the answer I gave some time ago.


------------------
We're the Sweeny, son and we haven't had any dinner. You kept us waiting. So unless you want a kicking you'll tell us where those photographs are.

[Idnew]

If your a danger to someone else, yes then you should be obliged not to be. As for as me being a passenger in someone else's vehicle and they choose to wear a seatbelt and I do not, I am not indangering them. As for as riding in the backseat and not wearing one I don't think I would be endangering them either. Good case in point. Princess Diana only killed herself by not wearing one in the back seat. Anyone over the age of 18 should have the right and not be mandated to do what they want as for as it only effects their life and not others.

[Serendipity]

Idnew, if you're in the back of a car and it has a head-on collision, you're endangering the lives of those in the front. Or is 50+ kilos of human body flying forwards at 50 mph a safe thing to have in a crashing car? The car Diana was in was not an ordinary car like you or I drive (mind, I've had a peek at your site... http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif), it was a limo with a partition, and two other people died in that crash, the driver and Dodi Al-Fayed. As far as I'm concerned, this is not about liberty, it's about responsiblity. Some ppl's thin-end-of-the-wedgery in this discussion has been absurd. I wear seatbelts not because I'm bothered about obeying the law, but because I can see the consequences of not wearing a seatbelt.

[wendy66]

I have to agree with Seredipity. Sorry Idnew, but anyone in my car wears a seatbelt because maybe they wouldn't endanger anyone in the event of an accident, but I don't want to have to live the rest of my life feeling guilty about their death in my car.(Let alone they law suits possibly filed by a grieving family member) If they were wearing a belt, I could have peace of mind knowing it was unavoidable. Everyone has a "story" with near-misses due to NOT protecting themselves. The truth is that they WORK and save lives and substantial injuries MORE OFTEN THAN NOT. Playing monday night quarter-back is really easy. I once heard a highway patrolman say "I never had to unlatch a sealtbelt off a corpse" As for me, law or not, I wear it.
w.

[cleoeo]

I know wearing seatbelts is a good idea; I wear mine. It's the law here in WI REQUIRING me to wear them that I object to. Bike helmets prevent head injurys; why not make them mandatory for all bicyclists on city streets? High heels make you a clumsy driver - require all drivers to wear flat shoes. Loud radios prevent you from hearing emergency vehicle sirens - ban 'em! Convertibles are very unsafe in rollovers; make them illegal! Everyone should be forced to drive reinforced Volvos with bumper-car siding while wearing full body armor.

[Serendipity]

Cleoeoeoeoeo:-
See aforementioned thin-end-of-the-wedgery.

Adult's are able to make thiere own disions .m why don't we let them?!

[paulgro]

This might be a little off topic, but I'm gonna say it here anyway! The U.S. is becoming a police state slowly but surely. When someone in DC has nothing else to do or has a person gripe about something the try and get a law passed. They feel we were smart enough to put them in office, but not smart enough to run our own lives! That's why this board exists because of all the dumb laws that have been passed in the U.S. and elsewhere!

------------------
The Tired Coffee Man

[Serendipity]

And furthermore... Seatbelts have been compulsory in the UK since 1990, I think (that's including back seats. Front seats since the 80's). I've not heard of the gov't trying to foist all these other laws on us in the last 10 years (however they are putting in more speed cameras, etc, though they're just to help enforce laws that already exist). Don't get paranoid now folks. CareBear, if you're in the front seat of a car, not wearing a seatbelt, and it has a head-on collision, it's not your *decision* to put your head through the windshield, is it? I mean, you don't have much choice there. Paul, I'll say it again, don'cha go gittin' all paranoid on me man, willya? 'Course, just because they say you're paranoid, don't mean you're not being followed... http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

[paulgro]

I knew there was somebody following me!!!!!! http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
The Tired Coffee Man

Originally posted by Carebear:
Adult's are able to make thiere own disions .m why don't we let them?!
Im pretty much undecided abot the seatbelt thing...sure it could stop you from kissing the windshield....but what if you crash your car...and the car is on fire and....****!...the seatbelts jammed...i cant get out! Im from ny, so im used to wearing mine...we have seat belt checks for crying out loud....GEORGE ORWELL WAS RIGHT....(just a little early though)...1984...check it out

[wendy66]

The fire issue, or the crashing into a body of water, etc..., has always come up when seltbelt regulations come up. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised it took so long here. The reality is that with no seatbelt, you could very easily be knocked unconscious (or have substantial injuries), hence unable to remove yourself from the car or help yourself. As far as the law goes, hey... use your own judgement, there are speed limits and that hasn't exactly stopped the majority of us from exceeding them.

[Serendipity]

As I said, the gov't has to use statistics to decide whether or not to implement a law. Sure, there are scenarios in which not wearing a seatbelt is safer, but for the vast majority of road accidents wearing them reduces the risk of serious injury. No amount of legislation will eliminate death on the road. And if your car's on fire, if you're not wearing a belt then the chances are you're already dead. Erich, I read Orwell's 1984 about 25 years ago, I prefer Huxley's Brave New World which shows us that the real controlling force is not the police state, but the multinationals. If you want to worry about people having too much power then they're definitely the boys to watch.

[Serendipity]

Sorry, Wendy, I just agreed with you there and didn't acknowledge it.
http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/cool.gif http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/eek.gif

[wendy66]

No need at all,Dippy http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif
w

Well, my take on the seatbelt law is this...

If you don't want to wear one, fine, but when you get in an accident, and you fly through the windshield, you better make **** sure that the paramedics leave your beaten-broken-bruised sorry ass right where it is, because it's not wise to spend tax money on something that COULD have been prevented.



------------------
James
PhysicsDesign Studios (http://www.physicsdesign.com)

[Serendipity]

Welcome to Dumblaws, James! Yepo, that's about right.

[cleoeo]

**** straight. No medicare for smokers who develop lung cancer either - could've been prevented. No paramedics for overweight heart attack victims. Accidental gunshot victims? Let'em lie - shouldn't have been fooling around with something so dangerous anyway. And I don't want my tax dollars spent on prescription drug/alcohol rehab, lost mountain climbers, skiers with broken legs, or anything else that could've been prevented. Why aren't there laws against such dangerous things?

[~wildangel~]

Jamez, the way you put that Is exactly how I feel, If your dumb enough to not wear one It's your own **** fault when your head goes flying against the windsheild.(even though not wearing a helmet saved my hubbys life, It usually saves lives to wear a seatbelt or a helmet)

Dipy, what you said about a loose body flying around in the back seat of the car during an accident is Right On,I have thought about this same thing as I have driven and Nobody sits in our car without wearing a seatbelt.
People have gotten in our car and refused to wear one and my husband or I told them to "put It on or get out!" Incase there loose body was to hit one of our kids!*horrible thought* http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif

HELLO EVERYONE. PLEASE BARE WITH ME I AM NEW ON THE BOARD. THE SEATBELT TOPIC IS A CONTROVERSIAL ONE. RECENTLY I RECIEVED A TICKET FOR DRIVING MY PICKUP WITHOUT A SEATBELT ON. THERE ARE TWO REASONS FOR THIS. ONE, MY SEATBELT WAS BROKE FOR I HAVE AN OLD CHEVY PICKUP, AND HONESTLY ONLY USE IT FOR LOCAL WORK THAT I HAVE. SECONDLY, QUITE FRANKLY I NEVER EVEN THINK ABOUT IT WHEN I'M IN MY TRUCK. ALTHOUGH WHEN I DRIVE MY VOLVO I ALWAYS WARE ONE. THE LAW IS FAR TO OFTEN INCONSISTENT IN IT'S APPLICATION. MOST POLICE I DRIVE BYE ON DAY TO DAY BASIS LOOK RIGHT AT ME WHEN I'M IN MY PICKUP AND DON'T BLINK AN EYE AT THE FACT THAT I'M NOT WARING A SEATBELT. NO, I DON'T KNOW ANY OF THEM BY NAME SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A DISMISSAL ON THEIR PART FOR THE MERE REASON THAT I AM LOCAL. ITHACA POLICE ARE STICKLERS FOR EVRYDAY PADANTICS. DO SEATBELTS SAVE LIVES? YES! COULD THEY TAKE A LIFE? YES! WHICH OF THE TWO OUT WAYS THE OTHER? WITHOUT LOOKING INTO STATISTICS AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF TEST DUMMY RUN RESULTS THAT I'M SURE THEY HAVE DONE I WILL PUT MY MONEY ON SAVES LIVES. EVEN THOUGH MY INITIAL REACTION TO THE TICKET WAS FRUSTRATION AND A BIT OF ANGER I DO BELIVE THESE STRAPS DO SAVE LIVES AND FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS WE SHOULD WARE THEM WHEN EVER POSSIBLE. AS FOR CHILDREN I DEFINATELY FEEL THESE KIDS SHOULD BE STRAPPED IN AND WHAT'S THE MESAGE WE ARE SENDING OUR KIDS BY NOT WARING THEM IN THEIR PRESENCE? NOT A GOOD ONE. IF THIS LAW WERE ENFORCED ON A REGULAR BASIS COMPARED TO DRIVING WITHOUT LIGHTS IN THE DARK IT MAY BECOME SECOND NATURE TO BUCKLE UP AND IT WOULDN'T HURT IF CAR MAKERS CAME UP WITH SOMETHING A LITTLE LESS RESTRICTIVE AND A BIT MORE COMFORTABLE. DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN? OF COURSE YOU DO AND THATS WHAT MAKES THIS CRAZY COUNTRY A GREAT PLACE TO BE.

[paulgro]

Welcome to the board and happy new year.
Please type in lower case letters, makes it easier to read.

------------------
The Tired Coffee Man

[Serendipity]

Yeah, Welcome Christopher, but as Paul says, there's no need to shout!! http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif HNY

You raised some good points there. Airbags have become standard fittings in most new cars (at least decent ones) over here, but I remember seeing some crash test dummy runs with them years ago, they're not so safe when the car rolls. In a head-on, tho', I'd much sooner bury my face in an airbag than the steering wheel!

[Idnew]

http://www.zing.com/picture/p6263e2bdd23c00a9fa7781e2e6a9b0a1/ff982e88.gif CS to Dumb Laws

Good points

------------------
The only time the world beats a path to your door is when you are in the bathroom

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

Homework Help (http://www.brainmania.com/)

[~wildangel~]

CHRISTOPHER, I fully agree with you! BUT CHILL OUT ON THE CAPS LOCK WILL YA?! LOL http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Children learn from what WE as parents do, so we should always were one in there presence! Children are taught right and wrong from the actions of there parents while growing up. http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

[artsmass]

Seat belt and helmet laws suck, period. More of the gubmints "cradle to grave, we know what's best for you" crap. Fortunately, I drive a vintage Spitfire, there were no seat belts installed on this car so seat belt laws don't apply.

I rode a bike as a kid, on the back of my helmet in big block letters it said "HELMET LAWS SUCK"

As far as seat belts for kids, there are car seat laws already in effect. If the gubmint MUST treat our kids as wards of the state that are on loan to us as parents, they could modify existing child endangerment laws to cover seat belts.

http://www.free-market.net/images/gallery/factory/gadsden.gif



------------------
"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

[Idnew]

http://www.zing.com/picture/p4631f7e83d1ff4d8076f6746f4728f7c/ff2c0eb8.gif.orig.gif artsmass hope you stick around and join us in the other forums and sorry I missed jame up there.

these seatbelt laws are really to protect the automakers. period. http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/mad.gif

Originally posted by plcpro:
these seatbelt laws are really to protect the automakers. period. http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/mad.gif

How the hell do you work that one out?



------------------
We're the Sweeny, son and we haven't had any dinner. You kept us waiting. So unless you want a kicking you'll tell us where those photographs are.

[Serendipity]

Artsmass: over here it's the gubmint's ambulances that have to come and pick up the pieces. I wouldn't want that job, and I stick to the "Don't make others do what you aren't prepared to do y'self" principle.

plcpro: ditto what Mandala said.

[Lis]

Originally posted by cleoeo:
Accidental gunshot victims? Let'em lie - shouldn't have been fooling around with something so dangerous anyway...lost mountain climbers, skiers with broken legs, or anything else that could've been prevented.

I do see your point and I agree that putting yourself in dangerous position (espscially when you KNOW **** WELL that it's a dangerous position) is you're own fault and therefore you should suffer the consequences...but c'mon, in these cases, if you were in the same possition would you lie there thinking "well it was my own fault...I guess I deserve to die" or would you want help that comes from tax payers money?

As for the seat belt law, my belief is that surely you not wearing a seat belt effects the ppl reconstructing your face (should it still be attached to your head)....sorry to be so blunt but the way I see it is simple....most the time it saves lives so why not use it?

Lots of people are killed and/or seriously injured in auto accidents. Far more than accidental gunshot wounds, failed parachutes, flag-pole sitting lightning strikes, etc. Pretend you are an actuary for an insurance company, and tell me what makes sense to you. Ever had to check the smoker/non-smoker box on a health/life insurance policy? Why do you think that's there? Statistics.

For the guy whose seatbelts in his old pickup truck don't work: Your truck should not have an inspection sticker.

Anyone watch Ally McBeal? Last night they acqitted a woman with Tourette's syndrome of killing her boyfriend when her leg twitched, hit the gas in her car, and she ran him over. What the h*** was that woman doing behind the wheel of a car?

------------------
Bill Ellis

[Lis]

Hey Bellis! *whispers to ya* ummm that's not a guy....that's our beloved Idnew (she's a she) http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

[cleoeo]

I was being facetious with my comments about denying emegency aid to accident victims who were engaged in risky behavior at the time - sorry if people took me seriously. It was an attempt to point out the absurdity of denying aid to car crash victims who weren't wearing a seatbelt because their injuries "could have been avoided".

Bellis, I agree smoking is risky behavior. Insurance companies charge higher premiums to smokers based on the actuary charts. However, the government does not pass laws making smoking illegal. The fact that smoking is legal but driving without a seatbelt is not seems curious.

"Ally MacBeal" is a television show. People with medical conditions that prevent safe driving have their license denied or revoked. The DMV has an entire "medical review" unit devoted to these situations. Of course, if no one turns in the suspect driver, they continue to legally operate until they decide to quit on their own or something bad happens. There are a lot of drivers out there with bad hearts, clogged arteries, feeble minds, dead reflexes, you name it. They're careening down the freeway smoking a cigarette with one hand and holding a cell phone in the other. They've got the radio blasting the latest shock jock talk radio show, pissing them off. They're perfectly legal AS LONG AS THEY WEAR THEIR SEATBELT! It's a dumb law.

[Serendipity]

Quote from cleoeo:
The fact that smoking is legal but driving without a seatbelt is not seems curious.

They just haven't figured out how to make a profit out of people smashing their heads through glass. Yet.

[paulgro]

I've been quiet so far, but no more. Seatbelts are both good and bad. They've save lives and also killed people. Same with airbags. Let's not try to make seatbelts the greatest invention since dirt, because they are not. If you want to wear them, wear them. If you don't want to there shouldn't be a law saying you have to. That's the point she is trying to make and I agree 100%!!

------------------
The Tired Coffee Man

[~wildangel~]

Here here!The silent man speaks! http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

Ok, new to Dumb Laws, but not to this discussion.

Here's the key behind seat-belt laws:

Wearing a seat-belt not only protects you as a driver, but keeps you in a position to quickly control your car so you do not cause any more damage to those around you.

Example...You are driving along and are hit pretty hard to the front-driver side of your vehicle. This causes the impetus of your car to drift off to the right side of the road (for the yankees here.) Without a seat-belt, you have a pretty good chance of being knocked forward and to your left in this instance. This would cause you to continue in a direction towards the pedestrian walkway. With a second or two recovery time, very possible that your choice to possibly injure yourself could very easily knock off someone walking along on the sidewalk. However, with a seat-belt, you would snap back into place (the automatic tightening of your belt when your vehicle makes a quick change in speed or direction) and be a second or two quicker to correct your course back on to the roadway and be able to collect on the other person's insurance. The righteous part of this is, if you end up hitting someone because of someone else hitting you - it is STILL your fault and your responsibility. You should have taken into consideration all possible negative outcomes for any collision.

Please, everyone get off the soapbox and think about these types of laws - not just a need for absolute freedom - which, I do believe that most of the women and children would hate anyway, nasty rapists and pedophiles would be able to roam free in our country.

Yes, I personally do believe that our country is getting a bit ridiculous with their laws. However, driving is actually a privilege and not a right. Therefore, everything surrounding driving is a privilege and not a right. Remember that.

~RTG

------------------
Common sense and thinking outside of the box are extremely uncommon.

[paulgro]

Welcome to the board! That all sounds good, but this isn't a perfect world. When in an accident you don't know what you might do!

------------------
The Tired Coffee Man

The question still remains, can the government take control of certain issues we consider personal freedoms, such as the right to endanger ourselves?

------------------
Co-Owner
Bueno Technologies

[paulgro]

The question isn't can, they already do. The question is should. My answer is no!

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

[Serendipity]

Then I *should* dig up my old argument: not wearing a belt in the back seat of a car endangers those in the front. If those in the front are happy with this, then fair enough. Over here, we have state-funded health service, or rather taxpayer-funded. I don't want my taxes to pay for treating a preventable injury, the world is dangerous enough as it is.

[Midnight77]

Dipy, I think in a round-about way, you have hit the point. Here in the US (which is what the original was about), we do not have a national health care system. For the most part, only those that can pay for healthcare have access to it. The taxpayers here are not footing the bill for accident victims that were not wearing seatbelts. If, however, the US did have a national healthcare system, I (as well as many others) would have little to no problem with seatbelt laws. However, since the government does not provide healthcare to all, then they should not be regulating such things as seatbelt laws. (with the sole exception of young children who can not decide such things for themselves.)

[artsmass]

>Please, everyone get off the soapbox and think about these types of laws - not just a need for absolute freedom - which, I do believe that most of the women and children would hate anyway, nasty rapists and pedophiles would be able to roam free in our country.<

Try to visualize this, my rights end at your nose. I should be able to do anything I want to do, as long as it only affects ME. If I violate your rights, which I would venture to say includes rape and pedophilia, I am a criminal and should be dealt with accordingly.

Try as I might, I have never been able to comprehend why a rational person would voluntarily give up any of their rights and freedoms. Millions of people flock to this country trying to get away from the opressive Governments of their native countries, while our Government is working overtime to become just that.

People in general are gullible, they swallow hook, line and sinker the propaganda fed to them by their Government. "If this infringment on my rights will make me safer, then it's OK" Or worse yet is the apathetic viewpoint, "it won't affect me, so why should I care?" Anything that people are led to believe that will only affect criminals they will usually swallow. What people don't realize is the fact that the Government *WILL* get around to incrementally making criminals out of increasingly large percentages of the population in general. Look at what is being done to (formally) legal gun owners, and that IS a right that is part of our Constitution.

It has already started with seat belt and mandatory insurance laws. Next we will have a national ID card/drivers license (which will have your medical, criminal, employment, banking and driving record embedded in a ~smart~ chip) that you will have to pass through the slot on your car before you can start it. Pre start breathylizers on every car. GPS sensors on all cars. Roadblocks to assure compliance (wait, we already have those! Your paperz pleaze?) Am I the only one that can see where this is going?

Your anology on driving and control after a wreck is flawed. Most people can't even recover from a simple oversteer resulting from snow covered roads, but you contend that the average driver will have the composure and skills to maintain control of their car after an impact hard enough to knock them over a full lane of traffic? By your logic airbags should be illegal, a driver can't react to any situation if they have an airbag deployed in their face.

I'm not trying to start a flame war here, I'd sincerely like to know if people really consider the consequences of their actions as they allow the Government to usurp their rights and liberties.



------------------
http://www.free-market.net/images/gallery/factory/gadsden.gif

"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

[Serendipity]

Cah. Don't wear a seatbelt if you don't want to, then. But if you break both your legs, don't come running to me. Road traffic is one of the most highly-regulated things going, you have to keep within speed limits, on the correct side of the road, with due consideration for other roadusers, obeying signs, in a car that is roadworthy, giving clear and correct signals, blablabla, but when it all goes tits up, you don't mind sticking your noddle through the glass because that hasn't been legislated against. Fine.

[Lis]

Such a way with words http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/eek.gif

[paulgro]

My last word on this subject because it's starting to get old!
Most accidents, with or without seatbelts doesn't send you through the windshield. Like I said before they can help you or kill you.

1- If you're knocked out and your car is on fire they can't get you out.
2- The shoulder harness has been known to break your ribs and puncture your lungs.
3- People have been decapitated because they couldn't drop to the seat when something was coming through the windshield.

It seems people forget about these things when they're for seatbelts, but these things do happen because of the belts. That's why I say it should be up to the person not the government.

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

[artsmass]

If I break both of my legs, I won't be running to anyone http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

But seriously, I pay highly inflated extortion......I mean insurance premiums to take care of me if I have an accident.

Yes, there are many laws that regulate driving, but those laws should not impose on what I choose as safety measures within my own car if those measures affect only me. 24 hour surveillance cameras in every home would also save lives, I guess it all depends on much freedom and privacy you're willing to sacrifice in the name of safety.

[Idnew]

Like I said earlier if I had of had my seat belt on when I hydroplanned I couldn't have layed over in the seat when I saw a tree coming at me because there would have been no way in hell for me to get it un-done in time. If I'm in your vehicle and you ask me to put a seat belt on then I would abide by your wishes. As long as I'm in my vehicle it should be my choice.

------------------
The only time the world beats a path to your door is when you are in the bathroom

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

Homework Help (http://www.brainmania.com/)

[wendy66]

To tell the truth, I began to wear a seltbelt in my car when I had my first child. It seemed to be a bit hypocritical to tell my kids that they had to wear one for safety if I wasn't going to follow suit. It has become a habit for me and the law has very little to do w/ it. All of the other rules of the road I, like most of you, have broken repeatedly. I am glad that it is a habit for my kids and I do believe that 9 chances out of 10 it will prolly save them rather than hurt them. We all have the choice to obey or break this law, if you feel so strongly that this should be changed, well go lobby for it. But do plenty of research first because there are alot of statistics, whether you believe them or not, stacked against the argument. We could have the same argument about drinking and driving. Some people don't have much trouble handling there car drunk.

[Lis]

Yeah but drink driving doesn't make them BETTER drivers so it's a bit different...I do agree with ya though. I just think the odds of survivng a crash with a seatbelt are greater then that of not (then again I could be making that up?) so I'll take the better odds thankya http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

[Serendipity]

Wendy, there are plenty of drivers who can handle their car drunk, I agree (tho' I in no way condone DUI), but it's their ability to deal with emergency situations like a kid stepping into the road that they can't deal with.

I've said all I have to say on the subject of seatbelts.

[wendy66]

OOps! I didn't clarify myself when I last posted! When I was talking about drinking and driving I was refering to the discussion of how much it costs us (as taxpayers) to pay for accidents or situations that are "avoidable". I don't condone or think that people are better drivers drunk, but there are people who say they drive as well. I completely disagree. I was hoping to convey that it is really easy to say how you think you would do in a circumstance beforehand, yet it is really stupid to take the chance.

[Idnew]

I'm not arguing that seat belts save or don't save lives. They do. I'm arguing that it should be our choice to live or die and not a law. When I have children in my car I make them buckle up and so do I. I also don't feel it's right for me to tell them to and I don't, but when I'm alone that's another story. As for as the cost for the ambulance you can bet you get billed for it and if you die then your family gets the bill.

MORONS!! All of you. As much as I want to say that it is your right to kill yourself, that is ridicullous. Everybody agrees that children should be required to wear seatbelts, but you say adults should not? Do you think children are not affected by the actions of their parents? Do you think children would wear seatbelts if thier parents don't? If seatbelts are to be required for children, they MUST also be required for adults.
And really, why would you want to not wear a seatbelt? I've heard that seatbelts cause more accidents than they prevent. Duh. Seatbelt's aren't supposed to prevent accidents, they make them survivable. As for thr man who rear-ended a semi-truck, who testifies that not wearing a seatbelt saved his life, watching the road would have saved your car too. There is no reason NOT to wear a seatbelt. They are not uncomfortable, they do not negatively affect your driving, why would anybody complain about the government encouraging you o do something you should be doing anyway?
You people are just looking for something to complain about. You need to rebel against something, anything. Why not find something worth rebelling against? Protest the clearly unequal treatment of minorities by the Highway Patrol. Protest the abuse of natural resources by the Bush administration. Protest the Department of Energy forcing Oregon to sell power to California. Please, stop wasting time and energy for a cause that will not change and does not matter.

[wendy66]

Excuse me, but I will spend my time as I want, you are not required to read any of this or respond. This is a discussion group, not your tax dollars at work.

[~wildangel~]

Originally posted by voiceofreason:
MORONS!! All of you. As much as I want to say that it is your right to kill yourself, that is ridicullous. Everybody agrees that children should be required to wear seatbelts, but you say adults should not? Do you think children are not affected by the actions of their parents? Do you think children would wear seatbelts if thier parents don't? If seatbelts are to be required for children, they MUST also be required for adults.
And really, why would you want to not wear a seatbelt? I've heard that seatbelts cause more accidents than they prevent. Duh. Seatbelt's aren't supposed to prevent accidents, they make them survivable. As for thr man who rear-ended a semi-truck, who testifies that not wearing a seatbelt saved his life, watching the road would have saved your car too. There is no reason NOT to wear a seatbelt. They are not uncomfortable, they do not negatively affect your driving, why would anybody complain about the government encouraging you o do something you should be doing anyway?
You people are just looking for something to complain about. You need to rebel against something, anything. Why not find something worth rebelling against? Protest the clearly unequal treatment of minorities by the Highway Patrol. Protest the abuse of natural resources by the Bush administration. Protest the Department of Energy forcing Oregon to sell power to California. Please, stop wasting time and energy for a cause that will not change and does not matter.
...........................................
OK look here, voiceofStupidity...or ummm i mean reason....
do you always call ppl names when you come to a discussion board or is that just the way you introduce yourself"Hi my name is moron".For you to call all of us morons makes yourself look pretty moronic due to the fact that you obviously did not read the posts clearly because there are quite a few ppl (like serendipity infact)that strongly stated that everyone wear seatbelts!
Oh and another small idiosyncratic(not thinking just jumping to conclusions move you made)That the "MAN" that was in the truck...Is infact a woman!
Do'nt feel all stupid yet cause i am not done with you!Where I live,I am the God ****ed minority and I'm WHITE so you can take your "feel sorry for the poor minority)CRAP, quit whining and get on with your life!I'm sick and tired("and tired' always follows sick)of ppl always worried about the minority's anyways!When I was in high school instead of learning how to read and write i was busy learning how to watch my back walking home from school because of all your "poor minority's"! As far as i'm concerned the subject of seatbelt wearing Is much more important than worrying about who the police are picking on!Take that minority crap and shove it up your ass!
Well have a nice day and hopefully we wont have to be pestered or mentally abused by your rude ass again!

[paulgro]

You forgot to say welcome to the board!! http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

[Serendipity]

I see where Wild's coming from, but LOL @ Paul!! http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

[LawEn4cer]

I don't see why anyone would object to a law that was made soley to save your life...just compare the number of deaths before and after enforcing the seatbelt law!
and Cleoeo--about your freedom of choice--
what about the law pertaining to drinking and driving? I suppose you'd rather have some drunk still have the freedom to decide if they should drive home that night of drinking...taking the chance of crashing and killing some innocent motorist?...as long as you have the "freedom of choice" right?...so what of the consequences?!
Certain laws are made to protect not to strip away freedom.

[LawEn4cer]

by the way...HI!
I just wanted to express my opinion, that I agree with the law pertaining to seatbelts.
have a nice day http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Midnight77]

Welcome to the boards LawEn4cer.

No one here has ever claimed that wearing seatbelts does not save lives, because in fact they do save lives. However, I really hate when people use the drinking and driving laws to try to prove their point. Peolple, that's like trying to compare apples and oranges; it just doesn't work. DUI clearly affects people other than just the person who chose to drink and drive, while choosing to not wear a seatbelt only affects the one not wearing the seatbelt. Laws that protect people from other people, such as the DUI laws, are quite appropriate, but laws that try to protect people from themselves are way out of line.

[Lis]

MORONS!! All of you. As much as I want to say that it is your right to kill yourself, that is ridicullous. Everybody agrees that children should be required to wear seatbelts, but you say adults should not? Do you think children are not affected by the actions of their parents? Do you think children would wear seatbelts if thier parents don't? If seatbelts are to be required for children, they MUST also be required for adults.
And really, why would you want to not wear a seatbelt? I've heard that seatbelts cause more accidents than they prevent. Duh. Seatbelt's aren't supposed to prevent accidents, they make them survivable. As for thr man who rear-ended a semi-truck, who testifies that not wearing a seatbelt saved his life, watching the road would have saved your car too. There is no reason NOT to wear a seatbelt. They are not uncomfortable, they do not negatively affect your driving, why would anybody complain about the government encouraging you o do something you should be doing anyway?
You people are just looking for something to complain about. You need to rebel against something, anything. Why not find something worth rebelling against? Protest the clearly unequal treatment of minorities by the Highway Patrol. Protest the abuse of natural resources by the Bush administration. Protest the Department of Energy forcing Oregon to sell power to California. Please, stop wasting time and energy for a cause that will not change and does not matter. [/QUOTE]
...........................................

Geeez where do I start??? Firstly, whilst we love the way you just pop up out of nowhere and abuse us for having an opinion that's different to yours (even though, as Wild said, some of them weren't) I doubt it's really appropriate and perhaps were you as wise as you seem to think you are you'd realise that NO ONE will really take you seriously but see you plainly as arrogant and rude.....which is fine because you are.

Secondly, this issue may be of real importance to some of the people in here...perhaps it's a subject that really has them up at night....who the hell are you to tell them what's worth "wasting time over" and what's not....

I'd be careful making such harsh statements to,....you came dangerously close to whinging there.

[paulgro]

What everyone is trying to say is, talk though your mouth instead of your ass...
Have a nice day!!!

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

[wendy66]

Jeez, I hope that person didn't visit Id's "New Topic" in EE. We would really be taking a beating on that... http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif It's interesting that anyone new that comes to the board w/ an attitude that we are "wasting" our time discussing issues that they don't agree w/ or have a problem w/, seem to spend a lot of time typing a long-winded dialogue.....Maybe Dippy or Midnight could enlighten us w/ their expertise in the area of psychological analysis? http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

[artsmass]

>I don't see why anyone would object to a law that was made soley to save your life...<

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Ben Franklin

`Nuff said.

[Idnew]

WOW I won't even bother with a welcome on that one.

I think the ladies did a fine job.

Yes I hate when someone always drags a totally different subject to try and prove a point on another one. DUI is totally different from having to wear a seatbelt.

What's your name please don't come back with your name calling. We do not do that except to the ones we are acquinted with on here. You know like we have some blondes on here we pick on all the time. In this case I think our blondes make more sense than you do.

------------------
The only time the world beats a path to your door is when you are in the bathroom

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

Homework Help (http://www.brainmania.com/)

[Serendipity]

Originally posted by artsmass:
>I don't see why anyone would object to a law that was made soley to save your life...<

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Ben Franklin

`Nuff said.

Arts, what does not wearing a seatbelt have to do with 'essential' liberty? Is it essential that you don't wear one? If so, why? I'm curious.

[Serendipity]

Also, Voiceofreason made some good points, but expressed them badly, and s/he needs to learn tact and good manners. Voice, don't call me a moron, I haven't called you anything, nor has anybody else here.

[artsmass]

Originally posted by Serendipity:
Arts, what does not wearing a seatbelt have to do with 'essential' liberty? Is it essential that you don't wear one? If so, why? I'm curious.

Serendipity,

I consider any and all of my liberties essential.... and any attempt to limit them tryanny.

[Serendipity]

I asked why?

[Serendipity]

Sorry, I'll elaborate. 'Any and all of your liberties are essential'? I don't believe you. You are free to stand in your garden juggling 15 oranges wearing a T-shirt that says "Roanald Reagan has Black Hair", but I doubt if you consider this an essential liberty. It is possible that you want to kill someone much more than you want to do this juggling, but you aren't at liberty to do so, there's a law against it. It's extremely selfish to say that any impingement on your liberty is tyrranny. Do you know what tyrranny is? I do, I've seen it at work firsthand in fascist east European states. If you don't like tyrranny there, do you think the tyrant cares if you die in a road accident? I think you're quoting Franklin out of context.

[wendy66]

Have we forgotten that driving isn't a constitutional right, it's a privilege. Because you are "licensed" to have the privilege, you can lose it by not obeying the laws (most of which are set up for safety) The only person cited for lack of seatbelt use in a car is the license holder. They don't put you in jail for it so it's really not tyranny. I don't really agree w/ the speed limit laws, and I get a fine if I'm caught exceeding them (I stress IF I'm caught http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif)

[artsmass]

I'm sorry you don't believe me. I guess it depends on how you define 'essential' I don't need liberty to live, but I do in order to be happy.

>You are free to stand in your garden juggling 15 oranges wearing a T-shirt that says "Roanald Reagan has Black Hair", but I doubt if you consider this an essential liberty.

It's a liberty to be able to do whatever I want to do if I'm not infringing on another's rights. Which includes juggling, but not killing somebody. It's simple really. Once we let beaurocrats start regulating what we do, when our actions DO NOT affect others, we start down a slippery slope. Look at the "war on drugs" (which is a farce)

-illegal searches
-property forfeiture
-guilt being found without a trial

At one time, simple posession was just a small fine (like seat belt violations are now) now you get tossed in the can. And it's all "for your own safety"

While I've never experienced tryanny of the magnitude that you have, I'd like to do my best to make sure that it never comes to that in this country. Each little right and liberty lost is a step closer, even though you personally don't see it that way.

As far as taking Franklin out of context, I guess it depends on how you look at it. Franklin and the rest of our Founding Fathers would no doubt be spinning in their graves if they could see how corrupt politicians have perverted their beliefs and the country that they worked so hard to create. They understood just how important freedom is and they were willing to die for it. Not just selected or Government approved freedoms.

No, a tyrant wouldn't care if I survived a car crash, nor would they care if I died (with the possible exception of missed tax revenue) Part of any Government propaganda campaign is making the target group believe "we care for you and are only looking out for your best interests." Sound familiar?

Idnew,
Do you agree with the practice of road blocks so the local Barney Fife can make sure that you are wearing your seat belt? I don't, and in my opinion, that smacks of tyranny even if there's no jail time involved (yet)

[LawEn4cer]

I wasn't trying to compare seatbelt use and DUI...I know they're two completely different laws in practice for two completely different reasons. I was just trying to point out that there are certains laws enacted for safety, whether it be for your safety or other people's safety. I'm sure the lawmaker's weren't sitting around thinking "hhmmm, what other law can we bring in to control these Americans...?" http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif Seatbelt use came around to save our lives.

[LawEn4cer]

Artsmass--I agree with you about putting up roadblocks to see if you're wearing a seatbelt...that's a step too far. http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

Quote---
"Once we let beaurocrats start regulating what we do, when our actions DO NOT affect others, we start down a slippery slope. Look at the "war on drugs" (which is a farce)

-illegal searches
-property forfeiture
-guilt being found without a trial

At one time, simple posession was just a small fine (like seat belt violations are now) now you get tossed in the can. And it's all "for your own safety""

This I don't agree with...some things going on with the "war on drugs"...yes it's stupid.
But your simple "possession"...who's to say that possession isn't going to end up in another's? Drugs aren't just for personal pleasure anymore when you add in murder, gangs, theft, prositution...you're going to get a response from police and the government. Kids are being murdered everyday over this stupidity. Personally I'm against drugs--I have nothing to do with them. However if a person wants to slowly kill themself, poison their mind, and chance ruining thier life for the sole reason of a "high", more power to them, what am I to say? but when that person starts to steal or abuse another for money to get that drug; or that person kills another so they don't have to pay or they were dealt the wrong ****...that's when I agree that the law should step in. Who's to say that simple possession isn't a connection to a bigger picture. And if one arrest can roller coaster to more arrests and bring us one step closer to ending a "drugged america"--more power to the law.

[artsmass]

LawEn4cer

Thanks for the rationality in your reply, kinda hard to come by in some forums.

While I agree that drugs do indeed have a detrimental effect on society, I don't think that simple posession should be a crime. Being under the influence while endangering another's safety? I Do have a problem with that. Doped up and in posession of a gun? See ya in 5 to 10. For the record, I'm not a drug user myself.

Drugs are associated with other criminal activities without a doubt, but to assume that because somebody had a small amount of pot on them that they are a gang member is kinda pushing things. What we should be concentrating is the other crimes, the ones that DO violate other people's rights. People busted for posession under mandatory sentencing laws are crammed into jails, and violent offenders are being turned out in droves. Being a LEO, I'd hope you agree with this to one point or another?

Apparently, the prohibition experiment taught us nothing. The choice to or not to do drugs is a moral issue, and you can't legislate morality.

We may never agree on the drug issue, and I'm afraid I won't make a very good opponent on the topic. I just don't care about drugs that much as long as the people doing them are otherwise law abiding. If they ain't, lock `em up. What I do care about is all of the periphreal legislation that surrounds the issue and the continued degradation of our rights. If I get pulled over and I have more cash on me than some Government figurehead thinks I should, that cash is gone. Even if I am never charged with a crime, that money is "assumed" to be drug related. My son gets caught growing pot behind the barn, I loose my home, land and all of my bank accounts, without a trial. A passenger in my car has a joint on her, bye-bye car.

The scary part is that next there's going to be a "war on ________" (fill in the blank)

[~wildangel~]

Wow, dont mind me i'm not getting involved just enjoying listening to you men talk thats all http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif
blah...blah...blah..... http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Serendipity]

Arts, my post was rational, it was hypothetical too. We aren't discussing the slippery slope you warn of, we're discussing compulsory seatbelt wearing. Over here (UK) we've had compulsory seatbelt law for 20-odd years and there's no sign of the slippery slope you're so worried about.

To get onto the slippery slope discussion: the fact that there IS a serious discussion to be had about drugs is a good reason for folks not to be too concerned about its prominence. After all, now a lot more people know a lot more about specific drugs and their effects than they did 20 years ago (I'm an ex-drug user. I've tried most things, but not heroin, crack cocaine, or stuff like that. I have no sympathy for irresponsible drug-users) and we're in a position to have a sensible debate. To fill in the blank on the "War on __________"? How about mugging, rape, corporate extortion, wife-beating, child abuse, etc. Would you complain about any of these? Of course nobody with any sense wants a police state, but an unpoliced state is a far more dangerous proposition.

[artsmass]

Serendipity

I didn't mean to imply that your, or anybody elses' postings here were irrational. I usually run into those people in more topic specific forums. We might not agree on some issues, but that doesn't mean we can't have civilized discourse http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

>Over here (UK) we've had compulsory seatbelt law for 20-odd years and there's no sign of the slippery slope you're so worried about.

Over here, it has already started. Roadblocks. Mandatory insurance. And a failed attempt at the nation wide smart chip ID card/drivers license. (The latter, incidentally, was tacked on to a bill that was supposed to curb illegal immigration?)

I don't have a real heart felt sympathy for drug abusers either, but then again, I'm not the one breaking up families and throwing people in jail because they were caught smoking a joint. If the Government really cared about the effects of drugs on society, they would offer some kind of rehab to these casual abusers and addicts as opposed to just tossing them in the can. On the other end of the absurdity scale, we have needle exchange programs to help them keep doing drugs?

>To fill in the blank on the "War on __________"? How about mugging, rape, corporate extortion, wife-beating, child abuse, etc. Would you complain about any of these? Of course nobody with any sense wants a police state, but an unpoliced state is a far more dangerous proposition.

There are already laws against all of those crimes and I don't have a problem with them being enforced. What I do have a problem with is the Govt. making an end run around our Constitution and flushing people's rights in order to raise their arrest rates. The ways don't always justify the means, so to say. When the Government fears the people, you have a Republic. When the people fear the Government, you have tyranny. I'd prefer the former personally, wouldn't you?

[Idnew]

Idnew,
Do you agree with the practice of road blocks so the local Barney Fife can make sure that you are
wearing your seat belt? I don't, and in my opinion, that smacks of tyranny even if there's no jail time
involved (yet)


Well the local yokels(also known as our protection) don't set up road blocks just to check seat belt usage. They do set them up to check your license, reg. tag etc. If I'm not wearing a seat belt it only takes a sec to put it on, same if one stops me for speeding. Now with a new law they can also search your vehicle just because they want to. This also sucks. I'm even afraid to go to the store and purchase beer at times and have it in my vehicle even with it not opened, our law is such jerks around here. The older ones aren't so bad but those new spring chickens just want to make a name for themselves. Had one deputy around here that was planting dope in people's cars just so he could arrest them. Guess somebody finally complained enough because he suddenly is low profile.

I think a lot of our laws suck, like the one I posted under LSE, just like the new Domestic Violence laws, it's good but being abused by our local law enforcement. The only thing we could do would be to flood our legislators with mail if we don't like what their doing, again this would take a majority and not a minority to do any good. JMO


------------------
(ö¿ö)The only time the world beats a path to your door is when you are in the bathroom(ô¿ô)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm) Homework Help (http://www.brainmania.com/)

[~wildangel~]

Here in southern California the cops usually dont even notice if someone isnt buckled up or has a couple kegs in there truck because there is so many other things for them to worry about.But then again alot of stuff goes on around here too, and our police dont just tell you to get on the ground..they yell"Get your mother fu**** A** on the F****** ground now"WITH a gun pointed at your head!
One time my husband protected our house with a shovel from this guy that was married to his mom and this guy had pinned me down roughly on the living room floor when jesse wasnt around and I screamed and jesse punched him a couple times and chased him off the property then the guy came coming after him with a hammer,we were on our own property and when the cops pulled up jesse had the shovel up in the air,not swinging it or anything,just holding it rested on his shoulder so that A**Hole would stay away, and the cops pulled up jumped out of the car,pulled the gun out on him,arrested MY husband and they were so disrespectfull about it, they cussed him out,told me to shut the F*** up (it was bad..even worse was the guy through the hammer right when the cops started coming around the corner!)
So my husband had to lay on the pavement,go to jail for a night(was released the next morning)!(I guess the cops assumed Jesse had done the abusing because he LOOKED meaner and was more pissed than the other guy,I had to repeatedly tell the officer that he is my husband and was protecting me,they took him anyways because he was holding a "weapon" and would have charged him with assault with a deadly weapon if I pressed charges on the other guy for hurting me!Talk about dumb!
Cops suck!I have lost respect for most of them!

sorry its so long and I dont think all cops are bad but when Id was talking about police It struck a nerve...sorry http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif Maybe I should have posted this in a special folder named "why cops can really tick you off"

[This message has been edited by ~wildangel~ (edited January 25, 2001).]

[LawEn4cer]

Now with a new law they can also search your vehicle just because they want to. This also sucks. I'm even afraid to go to the store and purchase beer at times and have it in my vehicle even with it not opened, our law is such jerks around here. The older ones aren't so bad but those new spring chickens just want to make a name for themselves. Had one deputy around here that was planting dope in people's cars just so he could arrest them. Guess somebody finally complained enough because he suddenly is low profile.

[/B][/QUOTE]
(Put the beer in your trunk)
I don't know where you live...but the law is you can't search a vehicle without probable cause. No if ands or buts. However, personally, if a cop wanted to search my vehicle...they can but they're just gonna have to wait for the dog, because you never know if the cop you meet is honest...i.e. that one deputy you were talking about. Did these people not know you can refuse a search?!?! http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/confused.gif


Wildangel....i'm not a man, i'm a woman http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif
no hard feelings though http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

About the drug issue...i know around here it's just a misdemeanor...well depending on how much in possession you have...I agree though we should be consentrating more on bigger and more fatal issues than mere drug possession. If they aren't hurting anyone but themselves, why bother? Except maybe help them out instead of jailing them, commit them to drug rehab. I was just trying to point out the point of view of law enforcement. Police are just trying to do their jobs..just like any hard working individual. It's the crooked cops that get my goat...giving a bad name for other cops. There are many officers out there who respect the badge and would die for the people they honor to protect.

Don't you just love a good discussion?!? http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

[~wildangel~]

you sound like a very good officer...but we know your female so ofcourse you would be http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

I know exactly what you mean about certain cops make other very good ones look bad,I have also met some really good ones!
Mostly woman officers and woman doctors...make me feel more comfortable! http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/fk/fairy.gif


------------------
My wedding and Family Pic's (http://community.webshots.com/user/_sunkist25_)

[Serendipity]

Problem with rehab and jail, Law, is that when folks get out they've still got to go back home. That's why people get into these things, it was the same with lynching in the south way back (not that everybody's attitude there has changed... BTAS), it's just what the social environment is like. It's easier to get out of that kind of situation if you're intelligent, but an awful lot of people are not.

[LawEn4cer]

I think they should DA Drug-addicts Anomynus, at least there'd be some group or person the addict could go to when in need for a "fix". Like how AA helps alcoholics. Or do they have this already??? Of course you can't help someone that's not willing to help themself.....

------------------
"...civility, character, compassion, and courage..." -George W. Bush

[This message has been edited by LawEn4cer (edited January 25, 2001).]

[Serendipity]

Law, I live in the UK, I don't know what agencies/organisations there are in the US. In Holland the gov't has an enlightened view, they acknowledge that there's a drug problem and do a lot to help users there, including accept the fact that drug users are not about to stop just because the moral majority says that they should.

This is off-topic, however, and I still don't know why Artsmass regards the right not to wear a seatbelt as an 'essential liberty'.

[artsmass]

I thought I already `spained this, but here goes. My not wearing a seat belt only affects me. Not you, not the Government, just me. I don't want anybody making decisions such as these for me. It's not even the seat belts that frost my weenie, it's the precident that these laws are setting.

If the government decided that you'd be safer if they put a surveilance camera in your house, would you agree with that? Or if they said you'd be safer if you wore a bulletproof vest all the time?

All of my liberties are important to me, especially the right to make decisions that only apply to me.

[Serendipity]

Originally posted by artsmass:

If the government decided that you'd be safer if they put a surveilance camera in your house, would you agree with that? Or if they said you'd be safer if you wore a bulletproof vest all the time?



The camera? Of course not, Arts, but that's because I have rights to privacy in my own home. On the road, i.e. in a public place, different laws apply, quite rightly. I don't know all of the US traffic regulations, but if they're anything like ours, you have a whole bunch of rules affecting how you behave when driving, most of which I don't have a problem with. Since these rules already affect what you do when behind the wheel, why does the wearing of a seatbelt get you so much? If I lived in the US I wouldn't own a gun to defend myself with, but I'd definitely wear a seatbelt to defend myself against drunk drivers/other idiot road users/the chance that something could go wrong. Bulletproof vest? Again, of course not, but only because even in the trigger-happy US there's much more chance of being hurt in a road accident than of being shot.

[~wildangel~]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by artsmass:
[B]I It's not even the seat belts that frost my weenie,

........................................
http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/redface.gif

In my state (Massachusetts) back in the 80's the people voted a mandatory seat belt law off the books. Then ten years later the people voted it right back on. Not foisted on us by legislators, but voted into place by the majority. Since putting the law back in place, insurance bills have gone down. So has the number of deaths by auto accidents. We asked for this law. So don't go telling me how unconstitutional it is, okay?

[paulgro]

Welcome to the board!
It's a matter of freedom of choice. We lose that everyday.

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://pub20.ezboard.com/bferretscomputerstuff)

Thanks, good to be here.

My point is, in my state at least we Freely Chose to have that law.

[artsmass]

Yea SD, there's tons of traffic laws over here as well, many of which I personally don't like. All of these laws can be associated with the safety of other drivers, so I can see why they are there. The only exception is the seat belt issue.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. But here's some food for thought: Studies have shown that people that insist on driving with a cell phone stuck to the side of their head are as impaired as drunks. Why don't we have laws against that? (a few cities do have them) Seems that safety is not always the paramount issue?

GG- Don't get yer panties in a bunch! The only time I brought Constitutionality into the discussion was in reference to the draconian practices used in the "war on drugs" These clearly ARE unconstitutional.

I never got a chance to vote on the seat belt issue, but my representitives did, and that makes it a legitimate law.

[Serendipity]

Hiya Gregory'sGirl - Welcome aboard!

Arts, Yeah, let's agree to disagree, but it's been fun debating this. Phones:- Here in Britland we have had laws against using cellphones whilst driving for years now. I remember reading in a newspaper a letter from an airline pilot saying that he had to use his communications systems whilst flying a planeful of passengers, but then couldn't use the phone in his car with just him in it! Cellphones do cause road accidents, though, and I doubt it'll be off the US statute books for much longer.

[Serendipity]

Actually, Arts, sorry but I'd like to raise one point: You argue that whether or not you wear a seatbelt affects only you. Do you think that nobody in the world cares about you? As Mandala has pointed out, if you're injured/killed in a road accident (or anywhere else), that affect those nearest you. If you're injured you could need fulltime care for months or years; that affects somebody else. Do you think that if you're involved in a road accident and you're injured but were not wearing a seatbelt, you should recieve medical assistance? If so, why?

[artsmass]

SD, I pay lots of good money to insurance companies (both health care AND car insurance) to take care of me in case I get hurt, I'll need no public assistance. The people that are close to me would respect whatever decision I made and support me without being judgemental.



------------------


"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

[LawEn4cer]

Basically I wear my seatbelt only because I was raised with it and it grew on me...now I feel totally naked without one. That's basically why I have no objection with the law. I also keep it on to influence my son. If he didn't see me wear one he'd think, mom doesn't why should I? I don't want to see him killed in a car accident one day.

------------------
"Losers always whine about doing their best...winners go home and f*ck the prom queen."

I have a solution for all of you who don't want to were seatbelts. In some states there are gradfather clauses setup for older vehicles. I drive a stock '61 chevy and it does not have seatbelts (but not for long), so I don't get in trouble for not wearing them. If ya don't like wearing seatbelts go out and buy a clunker and fix it up stock.

What I dislike about the law of having to be mandated into wearing your seat belt as an adult in New York state is...

I live in a rural area that has 8 neighboring towns/villages wrapping themselves around Utica.

On any given day, a person can be stopped by any of these 8 local law enforcement agencies, along with the County police and State police. I don't speed, drink or drive, and I try to use extreme caution at all times.

Just the thought that another human being has the right under law to stop me on a border to border basis possibly...offends the hell out of my sense of American freedom.

Sorry if I jumped in on the topic.

[Serendipity]

Welcome to Dumblaws Orcafresh! Well, as you might have guessed, I'm all for wearing seatbelts, so I don't mind there being a law about it. That is not the same as saying I approve of roadblocks or overuse/abuse of police power.

[CBranski]

My two cents worth on seat belts: Since this country does not have a national health care system, their should be no mandatory seat belt law period. Those folks however on Medicaid or Medicare who get in traffic accidents without belts should be forced to foot the bill-they make folks in the military do it.

And on the subject of road blocks: Wisconsin residents should be aware that Waukesha County is considering road blocks for DUI enforcement.

[paulgro]

We call it DWI in Jersey and they always had road blocks for that. They tried to pass the seatbelt road block law that NY has, but that failed. The point isn't so much seatbelts, I think it's more police state mentality. It started with a seatbelt, then came the shoulder harness, I suppose the next step is the criss cross 5 point belt system they wear in race cars.When that's not enough we can build a cage inside the car to and make it mandatory by law that everyone has to have one. The bottom line is it was made a law to collect fine money and no other reason!

orcafresh, welcome to the board!

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://pub20.ezboard.com/bferretscomputerstuff)

[Serendipity]

Can we take a poll here? Are you a law-abiding citizen? Roadblocks and other enforcement methods aside, if a national law were passed decreeing that you have to wear a seatbelt, would you do so?

[paulgro]

Make no difference, we have State laws that say we have to do it.

NO

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://pub20.ezboard.com/bferretscomputerstuff)

[Idnew]

NO (with the exception if I have children in the vehicle with me)

------------------
(ö¿ö)The only time the world beats a path to your door is when you are in the bathroom(ô¿ô)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm) Homework Help (http://www.brainmania.com/)

[artsmass]

Hiro-
I drive a `63 Triumph Spitfire, this gets me out of the seat belt law (when I can keep the thing running that is)

SD-
Define law abiding. I doubt that there's a person alive that has NEVER broken any laws. If choosing not to wear a seat belt makes me a criminal, then I guess I am and will always be a wanted man.

Paul-
At least here in Oklahoma, DWI and DUI are seperate offenses. Driving while impaired is a misdemeanor, and driving under the influence is a felony.

Roadblocks suck, period. Here they have them for DUI, insurance, safety stickers and now, seat belts. I heard that in some states they throw roadblocks to hook your car up to exhaust sniffers. Roadblocks were first implemented to catch drunk drivers, so most people agreed this was a worthy cause without looking at the precident they were allowing to be set. This is exactly why seat belt laws are a bad idea.

------------------


"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

[LawEn4cer]

Yes I would. I would even if it wasn't a law. Only for the fact that I don't want to be scraped off the road one day... http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
"Losers always whine about doing their best...winners go home and f*ck the prom queen."

[~wildangel~]

YES for fear of flying through the windsheild! Think about it, broken glass shredding your face and body! *UGH* I'd rather die smashed in the car than fly through a windsheild!*ouch*

[Midnight77]

I wear a seatbelt for my safety as well as to be a positive influence on my children, who I also require to wear seatbelts. I do not wear them because it is mandatory, though it is, and frankly, I do not like the fact that it is a law. Personally, I think not wearing one is rather stupid, and if someone chooses no to wear one, then fine. They get into an accident, and get killed that was their choice.

[~wildangel~]

***SOMETHING TERRIBLE HAPPENED RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM OUR HOUSE LAST NIGHT!!!***

A toyota four runner went head first with a car and two babies were ejected out of the car and and eight year old!mother driving had the children all in carseats but the sealtbelt was not around the car seat, so that cannot be considered safe!The mother of the children is in critical condition and the children are all dead http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif My husband could'nt even get home because the ambulences and police were every were, now today there are flowers everywere on that corner.Very very sad.... http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif just thought I'd bring that up since this was about mandatory seatbelt use....(BTW the driver was 16 and we think(dont know for sure yet) had been drinking....It's so hard to believe all the children didnt make it and the mother is still alive to live with that, and live with knowing she might have prevented there deaths...

------------------
My poems! (http://www.writtenbyme.com/userprofile.php?name=firefly25)

My wedding and Family Pic's (http://community.webshots.com/user/_sunkist25_)

[Idnew]

That is so sad Wild. When my grands were in car seats I always made sure the seat belt had the car seat secure. I can't believe she didn't. Now if she lives they will probably charge her with something and that to me won't be right either as she will have to live with their deaths and that is punishment enough. http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif

let me put it like this... 2 drivers in a head-on car crash, one was wearing the seat belt because he/she chose to and substained a little bruising but lived, the other's skull was smashed, neck was broken, internal organs minced because he/she chose not to wear a seat belt. mandatory seatbelt usage is a great idea, it does save lives. its not as if putting on a seatbelt is hard to do!

(the injuries to driver #2 is NOT exagerated)

keep it safe and purple
rapier

------------------
i like purple cheese

[Ada_Doom]

I agree. I don't see there is anything offensive in being forced to wear a seatbelt, any more than it's wrong to stop you driving when you're drunk (though admittedly, the first protects you, the second protects others). And ALL children should be belted in at ALL times to prevent things like Wild's story from happening! The only thing I disagree with, is that, in the UK at least, it's the driver's responsibility to ensure that all passengers, including adults are belted up, and if they aren't, the driver can be penalised - fine if the passengers are minors, but otherwise a bit harsh.

------------------
Heaven is where the police are English, the cars are German, the chefs are French, the lovers are Italian and everything is organised by the Swiss. Hell is where the chefs are English, the police are German, the cars are Spanish, the lovers are Swiss and everything is organised by the Italians.
The man is a God (http://www.jpwsfc.org)

I am very much of the opinion that unless I am hurting somebody else in the process I should be allowed to do whatever I want. If I want to smoke some weed, so be it. If i want to snort coke, who am I hurting but myself. Likewise if I am not wearing my seatbelt, who am I hurting but myself. I say let people do those kind of stupid things and we will solve the problem of the overabondance of stupid people on earth, it would be self correcting, the people who don't wear seatbelts die and can't contaminate the gene pool with tier stupidity

[jettmotto]

Originally posted by Idnew
I had no seat belt on. All I could do was fall over in the seat. The vehicle stopped about 1 foot of that tree. If I had that seat belt on there would be no way in hell for me to lay down in the seat. Many years ago a friend of mine was heading under the rear end of a semi when he layed down on the seat. It saved his life because he wasn't wearing a seat belt.
i wanted to wait and reply to a good one but i made it to the 7th post lol oh well......

what if your car plunges into a river or pond (large body of water) the seatbelts are made with a built in locking device to stop you from flying though the windshield on impact, but if the weight of your body is still on the seatbelt its still locked hense you being stuck under water!! now i know thats a big what if but so was Idnew's case and the friend think about it. i know of 4 instinces where people have died cause they were wearing a seltbelts, and i also know that seatbelts save more lives then they take but like it was stated before, it not the goverments job watch us if we wanna be irresponible with our lifes......not like doing 150 mph in a school zone cause that endangers others as well. A seatbelt affects only the person not wearing it. blah blah blah:p

I go both ways with the seatbelt law. A while ago in a small place in Idaho a 16 year old and his 11 year old brother were speeding along on a mountain road. The 16 year old went to put his seatbelt on and he lost control of his car and they went off the road. He did get his seatbelt on though. The 11 year old did not have his seatbelt on though. The 11 year old went out the windshield and floated along ways down the river and he ended up dieing. The 16 year old how ever got his seatbelt off and climbed out of the car through the broken windshield or a window and he ended up living.
My sisters boyfriend fell alseep while he was driving. He ended up waking up and seeing a big truck crossing the road. He went right under the truck. He didnt have his seatbelt on. the whole front end of his car got ripped off. If he did have his seatbelt on however it would have snapped his neck.

[jettmotto]

i feel both ways of course i would rather not be forced to wear a seat belt. and i think that seat belt road blocks are outragous, if they do happen to catch someone not wearing one thats what, about $20 bucks, and it took 4 officers to get that! thats in indiana anyhow cos they can't obstruct the flow of traffic so they get 2 guys out of their cars to walk around curbside and 2 more officers (1 facing either way in cars ready to chase them down) for a seat belt i say go sit by the taverns and wait for the guy who had 6 pack to many to drink.......B.T.W. i think if you get pulled over and pass your sobrity tests they should say drive safe and send you on your way.....anyways it makes more sense to get violaters as you see them not at"checkpoints" and finally i don't care what the court says or the cops not wearing a seatbelt is not probable cause! (they said it is cos if you had alcohol or drugs it would impair your judgement and make you ferget to put it on):mad

In response to wendy66's inquiry about "suicide watch" I add, maybe it's the same people who are or put the "moron" in oxymoron.

[hacel]

I usually buckle up, but when I see police making seat belt inspection and creating bumper to bumper trafic as the side result, I take my belt off. Getting tickets, not guilty, always nolo! I want to take the stand in court for MY FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!

Originally posted by hacel
Getting tickets, not guilty, always nolo! I want to take the stand in court for MY FREEDOM OF CHOICE!! What exactly do you tell the judge to get a not guilty verdict? :cool

[hacel]

They do not put the case on day agenda. If they set the court day I would say they better catch terrorist istead innocent drivers and that infrigement of individual rights is not the law but lawlessness. Than I would loose but taking stand would be my speach.

[AngelLisa]

Here in Georgia....the seatbelt law is a big deal and it is promoted by the "Click It Or Ticket" signs and TV commercials and I think it should be for children but adults should have the choice(it is their life)......

and a Hello to everyone this is my first post.....:wave

[Serendipity]

Welcome to Dumb Laws, Lisa :)