Topic: Seatbelt laws
started by: MrTarzan
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 14 2004,11:51 am
With all the seatbelt discussion going on in the supersize thread, I felt this could use a new start. I think seatbelt laws should only pertain to underage passengers. What do you think? I do wear mine, and think it is foolish for people not to, but I don't think it should be a law for which we are fined and stopped. 
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 14 2004,12:20 pm
I agree completely Tarzan, good idea starting a new thread for it. I also think its foolish for people to not wear seatbelts, but I don't see giving out tickets as doing much good. It's bringing in more revenue from people paying the fines, thats for sure. I realize, as truth pointed out, that people not wearing seatbelts causes increased premiums for the insurance coverage of others. Some companies offer a discounted premium if you have a car that has automatic seatbelts, this seems like a good way to help keep costs down. I hope that more people use seatbelts, but I don't like the idea of having an OSHA type organization patroling our neighborhoods to accomplish that.
Posted by Spidey on Mar. 14 2004,12:52 pm
| Quote |
| I realize, as truth pointed out, that people not wearing seatbelts causes increased premiums for the insurance coverage of others. |
Insurance companies will jump on any band wagon to up their prices. If it's politically correct the public will except the insurance hikes. As far as I'm concerned, it's bogus.
I wouldn't call anyone stupid for not wearing a seat belt ... I would call it their "right". Under aged people are different and I think we all agree on that.
If you would just think about how un-American this is and how stupid it is to pass a law on seat belts when there are motorcycle drivers with NO seatbelts, NO helmets and many of them are wearing NO protective clothing. Why is it OK for them to drive the same MPH .. the same roads ... with very liberal rules as apposed to car drivers. That's discriminatory plain and simple.
Posted by rosebudinal on Mar. 14 2004,5:24 pm
What always puzzled me is if it is against the law not to have your child seatbelted, then why when you send them on the school bus are there no belts? Yes, I do realize that they haven't invented a safe effective one yet...............but, why are there seatbelts on airplanes and not buses??? Just a few things to ponder. 
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 14 2004,5:50 pm
Good point, Rosebudinal. Why not BOATS? Every year, you hear about people that fall out of boats and drown. While we're at it, how about tractors and lawn tractors?
Finally, "You may be a redneck if....you've ever been so drunk you've fallen off the couch". Why not seatbelts for COUCHES?
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 14 2004,6:22 pm
LOL jimhanson, I guess I am a redneck because I know in my younger days I slipped off the couch in a stupor. 
I agree with spidey that it is quite the contradiction with no helmet laws versus seatbelts. Pretty stupid stuff. I don't need the govenment to regulate me not breaking my own neck. If I want to high dive off a cliff, risking my life, what business is it of anyones to stop me? Now, if it was over a highway where I could cause an accident, o.k. That affects others. Making someone else wear a seatbelt is not my concern. It won't stop them from running into me, only from flying through the windshield when they do. As far as I am concerned, let em fly, it is natural selection, survival of the fittest and smartest. Those not smart enough to buckle in will naturally get wiped out more often leading to a ever increasing intellegence amongst the survivors. Culling out the gene pool as it were. 
To me if we keep regulating and mandating more and more things, the only ones that will have freedom to do anything and make any choices will be the regulators. Was'nt it Thomas Paine that wrote about we would never let anyone take away our liberty, but we might give it away under the guise of safety? (paraphased of course)
Posted by Truth on Mar. 14 2004,9:54 pm
Those are all good points. I think a helmet law is good idea.Yet, I question the sanity of strapping people to small two wheeled vehicles. How would you ditch a bike or lay it down or lean hard to maneuver quickly if you were locked to the seat.
Cars are a little different from motorcycles.
Posted by Spidey on Mar. 15 2004,2:01 am
| Quote |
| Those are all good points. I think a helmet law is good idea. |
I think your missing the point.
| Quote |
| Cars are a little different from motorcycles. |
Yes they are. You are more protected in a car then you are in a motorcycle. Yet, here we have a stupid law telling us to "buckle up" for our own good ... but go ahead and expose yourself on a motorcycle.
After reading all of these posts from everyone .... why aren't you getting it? At least try to understand that many of us in the USA would like to keep our freedom along with our dignity.
Posted by minnow on Mar. 15 2004,9:46 am
We need to jail, fine and inarcerate people for thier own good. The fellow who doesn't wear a seatbelt has possibly endangered his own life. For that we must charge him with a crime against society. People will make the choices we want them to make or we will fine and /or incarcerate them. This is the new America. The ruling class will make your decisions for you thankyou.OK, you can go now.
Posted by Spidey on Mar. 15 2004,6:18 pm
| Quote |
| Bill would allow police to stop drivers for not wearing seat belts Publishing date: 03-15-2004 4:39 PM (St. Paul-AP) -- Buckle up Minnesota. A bill that passed the Senate crime committee today allows police to stop drivers if they or their passengers aren't wearing their seat belts. It would also hike the fine from 25 dollars to as much as 300 dollars. Currently, police need to catch drivers committing another moving violation before they can ticket them for not wearing a seat belt. Today's vote marks a continuation of a long-running debate over the idea. So far, the bill hasn't gained any traction in the House this session. But several senators who have long opposed the idea reversed themselves this year, giving backers hope that opposition is fading. Governor Pawlenty did not take a position on the idea when it reached the Senate floor last session. |
Isn't this nice ... we are watching first hand our great political figures become communists.
Good god, what's next?! I think we all better take a look around ... what I'm seeing is very scary stuff. Look at the hefty fine ... and it's all for our own goods. I'm so glad we have such smart educated fat lined pocketed hot shots to tell us what's best for us.
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 15 2004,7:17 pm
I think I understood Truths point. A seatbelt law would of course be ridiculous for a motorcycle. I think in a car someone should wear one, but it should not be law.
Posted by Truth on Mar. 15 2004,10:03 pm
Ok fine. I'm tired. AHAHAH the cars are a privilege can we just agree on that as well. Please?
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 15 2004,10:49 pm
No. Why are they a privilege? I mean I can even understand having normal requirements for driving cars in the interest of public safety (which is the only reason the laws were developed), like you cannot be blind, but if I prove that I can see, and that I am sober, and that I know how to operate a vehicle, who has the right to deny me? Every time that we invent something to advance civilization, we regulate it and regulate it and regulate it, until it is completely controlled by the government. At what point do you cross the line from giving me a privilege to denying me my rights? If you make rules, and I can pass them, then when you deny me the privilege, you are denying me equal rights. So then we get the argument back to real basic legal arguments of when are regulations to give me the "privilege" of driving too invasive and excessive and truly denying me my civil rights? This is the argument, not as easily dismissed with the statement it is a privilege. Remember "the pursuit of happiness" is in the Constitution too. Not just life and liberty, though this argument would be argued in a law class under liberty also. Driving is a great leveler where all people, short, tall, fat, skinny, beautiful, ugly, and even disabled, are able to move freely on highways paid for by all of us, so is it a "privilege" more than my right to be happy and travel as long as I do it without harming others? Sure in the traffic code, but so what, that is written by legislatures and can be changed, so the debate is once again back to which rules are too much? I think a seatbelt law, (again remember I always wear mine and say that it is stupid not too), is crossing the line except in the case of minors.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 15 2004,11:40 pm
I watched/listened to the senate coverage today and there was very little discussion of whether or not it was right or wrong to give it primary law status. The only thing they seemed to care about is where the money for the fine was going to go. I think they said they wanted to fund detox centers with 75% of the money collected from the increased fine.
Posted by Frustrated on Mar. 16 2004,9:56 am
It's Minnesota - what else would you expect!
Posted by GEOKARJO on Mar. 16 2004,11:57 am
Driving Is a Privialge.......Property Rights are still Property Rights...In the First election, only property owners could vote and you had to be a man........Lord help us that changed. We gave women the damn vote and look where we are now. Fighting for our rights......and begging for piece.