Click It or Ticket
- Thread starter DJ Erock
- Start date
I'd rather have a 5 point seat belt system, like they have in racing cars, instead of the 3 point which is in most cars. I know that seat belts work for I was involved in a accident, I wasn't at fault, and they saved my life! I wear it even if I'm sitting still listening to the radio. People are stupid not to wear them for they are the BEST way to prevent serious injury if you'r in a crash.
In Florida we have had mandatory seat belt laws for over 20 years now so this isn't a new law only enforcing laws that were already on the books.
In Florida we have had mandatory seat belt laws for over 20 years now so this isn't a new law only enforcing laws that were already on the books.
Also, don't think of it as only protecting yourself - "I will take responsibility for my own safety, thankyouverymuch...." Consider yourself being in a near-fatal car crash, not wearing a seatbelt, and coming out a complete invalid. Now you're wheelchair-bound and have to be fed baby food through a straw and have become a burden on your family for the rest of your life. Not to mention a burden on the social security system and every other insurance policy holder who will, over time, end up paying more in premiums, because SOMEone has to pay for your ignorant, self-righteous, retarded ass.
There was a news story about a local cop in Tennessee who was killed when his cruiser stalled on a train track and he was hit by a train. A caller to a local radio show wanted to take issue with the fact that the news report never mentioned whether or not he was wearing a seatbelt, because the ALWAYS mention whether a seatbelt was worn if there is a fatal accident. "What are they hiding? Why won't they say whether he was wearing a seatbelt?" He failed to grasp the notion that if you are hit head on by a train, whether you had a seatbelt on or not is hardly an issue.
There was a news story about a local cop in Tennessee who was killed when his cruiser stalled on a train track and he was hit by a train. A caller to a local radio show wanted to take issue with the fact that the news report never mentioned whether or not he was wearing a seatbelt, because the ALWAYS mention whether a seatbelt was worn if there is a fatal accident. "What are they hiding? Why won't they say whether he was wearing a seatbelt?" He failed to grasp the notion that if you are hit head on by a train, whether you had a seatbelt on or not is hardly an issue.
Here in Seattle the click-it or ticket law is being considered in the state supreme court for it's constitutionality. The issue of whether a cop can pull you over solely for not having one on is the primary bone of contention.
I agree that its about the money. I heard our city councilman speak at length on the importance of added revenue from citations and his desire to expand the 'cost effective' departments.
There are a great many issues this law brings up regarding civil liberties. Everytime the police have increased powers the more likely abuse occurs. Surely even the most ardent of the polyanna's would agree that police have been shown to abuse their powers.
Let that guy in the Lexxus go(he can get a lawyer and cost the state money) let's get that black/mexican/poor fellow instead.
What about people with lap belts being pulled over illeagally
What about 1966 and older cars that dont have seatbelts
What about clausterphobic people who can't stand the restraint
These citizens were protected from the hassle of having to explain themselves.
What of the secondary charges that might stem from being pulled over:
Ever forget your wallet? Speak subversively to a policeman? Not carring a trash bag? Stop for the cop in an unauthorized way(not on the shoulder, in an intersection etc.)? All are actionable by the cop with additional fines or JAIL. At the cops whim.
I have had more money stolen by the state in B.S. fines and tickets than any robber. And I've known racist cops, crooked cops and sons of same. I could fill up a book of second-hand stories and a chapter of first-hand stories of abuse. There is next to no oversight, and absolute power corrupts...
Anyway I've always considered myself a good citizen. I was recruited right out of highschool into the Nevada highway patrol(left after 6 months) I served in 2 foriegn wars(panama and Iraq-1) And I say its not unpatriotic to question authority, its unpatriotic not to.
I agree that its about the money. I heard our city councilman speak at length on the importance of added revenue from citations and his desire to expand the 'cost effective' departments.
There are a great many issues this law brings up regarding civil liberties. Everytime the police have increased powers the more likely abuse occurs. Surely even the most ardent of the polyanna's would agree that police have been shown to abuse their powers.
Let that guy in the Lexxus go(he can get a lawyer and cost the state money) let's get that black/mexican/poor fellow instead.
What about people with lap belts being pulled over illeagally
What about 1966 and older cars that dont have seatbelts
What about clausterphobic people who can't stand the restraint
These citizens were protected from the hassle of having to explain themselves.
What of the secondary charges that might stem from being pulled over:
Ever forget your wallet? Speak subversively to a policeman? Not carring a trash bag? Stop for the cop in an unauthorized way(not on the shoulder, in an intersection etc.)? All are actionable by the cop with additional fines or JAIL. At the cops whim.
I have had more money stolen by the state in B.S. fines and tickets than any robber. And I've known racist cops, crooked cops and sons of same. I could fill up a book of second-hand stories and a chapter of first-hand stories of abuse. There is next to no oversight, and absolute power corrupts...
Anyway I've always considered myself a good citizen. I was recruited right out of highschool into the Nevada highway patrol(left after 6 months) I served in 2 foriegn wars(panama and Iraq-1) And I say its not unpatriotic to question authority, its unpatriotic not to.
alain said:
If the "disease" is unnecessarily risky behavior, and the "cure" are laws to prevent you from engaging in it, then no, I would not.
Most cases of AIDS are from unnecessarily risky behavior. Should the state take an active role in reducing unsafe sex?
Since when does the state have the right to decide? It is your body, you have the right to decide if you will wear sunscreen, smoke cigarettes, eat unhealthy foods, wear a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet (or not), or engage in risky sex practices. Our bodies belong to us, they are not property of the state.
The decision to not wear a seatbelt fail miserably in any reasonable risk/benefit analysis. But it is still the individuals right to decide. Laws that say otherwise are wrong.
aw3524, you may be a careful driver but there are a lot of idiots out there. It's not wise for you to do that.
Anybody remember NoSkill? Probably the greatest DooM player that ever lived. He died last year in a car accident and he would have lived if he was wearing his seatbelt.
Anybody remember NoSkill? Probably the greatest DooM player that ever lived. He died last year in a car accident and he would have lived if he was wearing his seatbelt.
Wearing seat belts has been the law here in the UK since about 1980. There was a study that basiclly said that some people who were wearing seatbelts, tend to drive in a more reckless fashion, because they feel that the belt will totally protect them when they have a crash. It does`nt . I work in a trauma unit, and 50% our work is trying to put somebody back together after a crash. Its really is horrific what damage a smash does to a body, but the injuries tend to be less severe when a belt is worn. So belt up and be safe.
"Let that guy in the Lexxus go(he can get a lawyer and cost the state money) let's get that black/mexican/poor fellow instead."
that doesn't make sense... blacks and mexicans can actually drive lexxus's you know... they have hands, they have feet, they have money. Stop being so damm paranoid, cops are out to help you, not to discriminate, ok??? pay less attention to movies and more attention to real life
"What about clausterphobic people who can't stand the restraint"
then they shouldn't be in a car - people with weak hearts aren't allowed to go sky-diving, its the same deal
"But it is still the individuals right to decide. Laws that say otherwise are wrong."
not wearing a seatbelt can harm others, in a head on collision, you can fly through the windscreen and hit the person in the other car, say that you have a right not to wear a seatbelt is like saying you have a right to shoot other people and youself at the same time
that doesn't make sense... blacks and mexicans can actually drive lexxus's you know... they have hands, they have feet, they have money. Stop being so damm paranoid, cops are out to help you, not to discriminate, ok??? pay less attention to movies and more attention to real life
"What about clausterphobic people who can't stand the restraint"
then they shouldn't be in a car - people with weak hearts aren't allowed to go sky-diving, its the same deal
"But it is still the individuals right to decide. Laws that say otherwise are wrong."
not wearing a seatbelt can harm others, in a head on collision, you can fly through the windscreen and hit the person in the other car, say that you have a right not to wear a seatbelt is like saying you have a right to shoot other people and youself at the same time
Keeping flying bodies to a minimum has never been a justification for seatbelt laws. And it is not a significant risk factor in an accident (you being harmed by a body flying out of another car). The rationale is forcing people to do the commonsense thing to reduce the risk to themselves.
The point I keep making that so many don't seem to understand is, once the state begins to protect people from themselves, where does it end? I can see it now, public service announcement "Don't forget to brush your teeth before you go to bed tonight. It's not just a good idea, it's the law!"
In this case, since it is such a commonsense thing, and in many cases it has been a law for many years, it doesn't seem to generate any outrage. But it is a classic case of the Camel getting its nose under the tent. Soon you've got the whole damn thing in there. The precedent has been established. The state has the right to prevent you from taking risks to your life that, in its infinite wisdom, it has deemed unnecessary. So what's next?
Motorcycle helmet laws are another example. Though wearing them is a good idea, that doesn't mean it should be the law. And if the rationale is saving the state money, how many millions of dollars could be saved if all automobile drivers had to wear a helmet? Ever see a race car driver without one? Even as much safer as cars have gotten with airbags etc., many lives could be saved if everyone donned a helmet before driving anywhere. Hey, lets make it a law!
Here in California, I can't legally ride a motorcycle 20 MPH without a helmet. But I can fly down a local mountain pass on my bicycle at over 50 MPH without one.
Laws are to protect people from each other, not to protect people from themselves.
The point I keep making that so many don't seem to understand is, once the state begins to protect people from themselves, where does it end? I can see it now, public service announcement "Don't forget to brush your teeth before you go to bed tonight. It's not just a good idea, it's the law!"
In this case, since it is such a commonsense thing, and in many cases it has been a law for many years, it doesn't seem to generate any outrage. But it is a classic case of the Camel getting its nose under the tent. Soon you've got the whole damn thing in there. The precedent has been established. The state has the right to prevent you from taking risks to your life that, in its infinite wisdom, it has deemed unnecessary. So what's next?
Motorcycle helmet laws are another example. Though wearing them is a good idea, that doesn't mean it should be the law. And if the rationale is saving the state money, how many millions of dollars could be saved if all automobile drivers had to wear a helmet? Ever see a race car driver without one? Even as much safer as cars have gotten with airbags etc., many lives could be saved if everyone donned a helmet before driving anywhere. Hey, lets make it a law!
Here in California, I can't legally ride a motorcycle 20 MPH without a helmet. But I can fly down a local mountain pass on my bicycle at over 50 MPH without one.
Laws are to protect people from each other, not to protect people from themselves.
This is the point. It is one thing to protect citizens from external harm and each other. It is quite another to try and 'protect' someone from themselves by giving them a fine.
"Hey, you did something stupid. You didn't put anybody besides yourself at risk, but now you owe us money."
That's not the governements place, and shouldn't be. Something about liberty rings i my head.
L
laughing weasel
Guest
A republican is a democrat who has been mugged and a liberal is a republican that has been arrested. Which is more important your safety or your freedom? How much is an acceptable price to pay for your freedom? If twenty percent of your taxes were to go for the cost of the absence of these governmental interference laws would that be to much how much is too much. The government is always seeking power if it is not opposed then it will end up with total power. I am a white male and even I have suffered from profiling back in college when I looked like a thug. I do not like any one who takes a job where parts of your duties are to inspire fear. I respect police but I detest traffic cops. It seems like more and more police are taking on the traffic cop mentality and wondering why their profession is losing its popularity.
Public safety is about money. If my state did not have a seatbelt law, my liability risk would be much higher. If I rear-ended someone there’d be a greater chance that I’d lose my house to pay for their greater injuries or for a death claim. I’d have to mitigate that risk by buying extra insurance, which might cost me $100 a month.
Also my taxes pay for public education. Why would I pay a lot for that, only to have some 18-year old kid fresh from graduation fly through his windshield? How is he going to reimburse me through social security if he’s dead?
These are amongst the reasons why the public chooses to have seatbelt laws. The government is the public.
Also my taxes pay for public education. Why would I pay a lot for that, only to have some 18-year old kid fresh from graduation fly through his windshield? How is he going to reimburse me through social security if he’s dead?
These are amongst the reasons why the public chooses to have seatbelt laws. The government is the public.
Not exactly, but our health and wellbeing is (or should be) important for the government. And if laws have to be created to insure the wellbeing, than I don´t have a problem with that.
As the pro-choice feminists like to say, "keep your laws off of my body".
Your obligatory return on investment idea has no end of intrusive possiblities. As I said before, if the state can say that we don't have the right to ride in a car without a seatbelt because it is too risky, where does it end? Imagine if this were consistently applied (give them time). You could quite easily use that rationale to ban cigarette smoking, hang gliding, rock climbing (insert extreme sport here) the list is endless.
It is my life, and I have the right to waste it if I so choose. It is none of the states business if I use drugs, have unsafe sex, engage in risky sports, or become a burden to society by graduating from lawschool.
Suggested reading: Ain't Nobodies Business If You Do, by Peter McWilliams
Your obligatory return on investment idea has no end of intrusive possiblities. As I said before, if the state can say that we don't have the right to ride in a car without a seatbelt because it is too risky, where does it end? Imagine if this were consistently applied (give them time). You could quite easily use that rationale to ban cigarette smoking, hang gliding, rock climbing (insert extreme sport here) the list is endless.
It is my life, and I have the right to waste it if I so choose. It is none of the states business if I use drugs, have unsafe sex, engage in risky sports, or become a burden to society by graduating from lawschool.
Suggested reading: Ain't Nobodies Business If You Do, by Peter McWilliams
That's just silly.zanket said:
You do something wrong (rearend someone) and want them to pay ahead of time just in case you mess up? You should have fire insurance, just in case I come over and burn your house down.
I'm sorry, but someones liberties trump your 'I want to be protected when I mess up'
Repo Man said:
It ends where society says it does. The public has no incentive to ban walking or reading, for example, so it will end before that. The public allows freedom to a fault where I live. People can climb the nearby mountain and when they get stuck the taxpayer foots their rescue. I think that’s ridiculous. Climbers should have to buy rescue insurance and be fined heavily if they climb without it. In my country the public also allows smoking even though it has been well determined that smoking costs non-smokers hundreds of billions of dollars per decade. If smokers paid for the full cost of their habit a pack of cigarettes would cost something like $10.
It is also my life, and your risky behavior costs me money or risks my life. In a society, my life is affected by your actions. If you were publicly educated, I paid for it and I expect you to take reasonable steps to protect my investment. I expect you to give me a return on my investment in you by paying taxes. If you use drugs I pay for the mess you almost certainly leave behind. If you have unsafe sex you risk increasing my taxes (for AIDS research & clinics & whatnot and because you killed other taxpayers). You can do whatever you choose but I & the rest of society may impose reasonable consequences upon you to mitigate the risks & expenses that you put upon us.