Seat belts optional for adults over 18.....

[wolfdiver52]

Who thinks they should have a choice if over 18 to wear or not wear a seat belt? I think its bull and just another way to make money. It is fine for kids and under 18 y/o but when you can serve your country you should be able to decide for yourself if you want to be strapped in or not? Anyone know how to start a movement to repeal this stupid money making law and give police a chance to do a more important work. There must be something else they can do?

 

[superlittlegirl]

clickme

 

[Killswitch]

Anyone who doesnt wear a seatbelt in a car or a full face helmet riding a bike is nuts.

I voted No.

 

[SpiceCake]

I always wear a seatbelt, but not because I HAVE to. I don't think we should HAVE to wear them. I'm inside my car and I should be able t make that choice myself. I voted YES!

 

[Killswitch]

I took the following quote from Surerlittlegirl on 1/22/03...hope you dont mind sweetie....I never even really thought about this angle, and I wonder if it is even considered in vehicular death charges.

SLG said.....And what if you get into a wreck and die (instead of just getting injured) because you're not wearing your seatbelt? It would make the other driver a perpetrator of vehicular homicide, instead of just a participant in a fender-bender.

......Interesting......

 

[Lost Cause]

A Libertarian belief...

Educate not legislate. I want the same law for motorcycle helmets as I don't believe in another making protectorate decisions for me, on the assumption that I'm too stupid to make decisions for myself. It's purely revenue and a grey area to pull you over for more advanced probing on your privacy. I am appalled at the amount of people that like to be managed by their insurance/government complex.

 

[lobito]

If you're not wearing a seatbelt, you're a fucking idiot!

 

[Killswitch]

I worked at a Hospital for five years.....the things I saw there and the damage that was done to the human body to people who didnt wear seat belts was "appauling."

A friend of mine who was a senior in high school with a full scholorship to the University of Michigan to play quarterback was struck in his vehichle by a police car no less as he returned from taking some drunk kids home one night....he flew out of the car and hit a street sign severing his arm and paralyzing him.....that is " Appauling"

And I dont understand the hypocrisy involved when people can say its cool for people under 18 to be forced to wear a belt......what difference does age make?

I cant even drive my car to the corner without putting a seatbelt on......and my car doesnt move until all my passengers are buckled up........

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: A Libertarian belief...

Educate not legislate. I want the same law for motorcycle helmets as I don't believe in another making protectorate decisions for me, on the assumption that I'm too stupid to make decisions for myself. It's purely revenue and a grey area to pull you over for more advanced probing on your privacy. I am appalled at the amount of people that like to be managed by their insurance/government complex.

I'm in favor of requiring the driver to be secured so they can maintain control if they hit an unexpected bump or have to deal with the g-forces of a sudden swerve.

Other drivers who don't wear seatbelts are a hazard to me, I could not care less about the effects on their safety or whether their adult passengers wear seatbelts but driver's should be required to do everything possible to insure they can maintain control of their vehicle and that should include belting their ass down.

 

[curious2c]

Seat belt laws are more government making laws where education would have sufficed. Do I think that a law should force me to wear a seatbelt....HELL NO. government should keep their collective noses out of my private life. That said...do I wear a seatbelt? YES. I love my life and want to see my family protected as much as possible. Those who won't wear seatbelts are not going to wear them no matter what kind of law there is, just like alcohol abuse, drug abuse, speed limit abuse, so on and so forth. Education is the key, not more laws. There are already so many laws on the books that I think one could concieviably argue that ignorance of the law is entirely possible now days. (Even though the courts will say otherwise) It is impossible for one person who is not involved in the court system to know all the laws as it is...IMPOSSIBLE. So...we need fewer laws and far more education.

 

[wolfdiver52]

I respect everyone's opinion.

It should however be a choice if over 18. Different for kids as like every thing else they learn in life growing up is fine but at 18 they can decide for themselves or should be able too. I can tell as many stories about peoplle being trapped and burned to death because they couldn't get out of a seatbelt. It's an opinion and just that, grow up and live with it too many stupid laws being shoved down our throats daily who do they really help? My opinion and I stand by it. Sorry if you don't agree thats your opinion and you're entitled to it. Have a great day and buckle up if you want too not because you have too.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Re: A Libertarian belief...

I'm in favor of requiring the driver to be secured so they can maintain control if they hit an unexpected bump or have to deal with the g-forces of a sudden swerve.

Other drivers who don't wear seatbelts are a hazard to me, I could not care less about the effects on their safety or whether their adult passengers wear seatbelts but driver's should be required to do everything possible to insure they can maintain control of their vehicle and that should include belting their ass down.

I agree completely...the driver should be strapped in for MY safety!

 

[ithaqua]

Nope

I respect all the angles.

Make the other person a murderer - not good.
Endanger other drivers due to hazards - not good.

But I still believe these laws are bunk.

 

[Lost Cause]

For MY safety...

Using this sheep analogy, for MY safety, not only should you be forced to strap yourself in, but vehicles should be devoid of radios, drinking bottles and cups, cellphones, children under 6, and you should be ticketed for all of those including turning your head around to look in your back seat, and not having both hands properly on the steering wheel. Those are examples of activities of people that have crossed over the double yellow line and almost hit me in the past. If you really believe in controlling the other person, and them you, then all is lost...bah...baaahhh!

 

[Thrillhouse]

Anyone who doesn't wear a seatbelt or a helmet on a motorcycle is an idiot. I like Darwinism, so I voted Yes.

 

[curious2c]

So, being seatbelted makes everyone safe? Ummm...what about those intoxicated drivers...if they are belted in they make you safe? Cell phone talking drivers...belted in make you safe? Seat belt use is and should be a personal choice only.

I, like Thrillhouse, believe in darwinism...the only way to get rid of stupid people is to let them kill themselves.

edited to correct my poor retention of names today.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: For MY safety...

...but vehicles should be devoid of radios, drinking bottles and cups, cellphones, children under 6, and you should be ticketed for all of those including turning your head around to look in your back seat, and not having both hands properly on the steering wheel. ...

Most of those are covered under laws against "Distracted driving."

 

[The Heretic]

Anyone who doesnt wear a seatbelt in a car or a full face helmet riding a bike is nuts.

Agreed. I do both, and I wear more than just a helmet when riding a bike.

I voted No.

Disagreed. People should be allowed to make decisions for themselves with regards to risky behavior, especially if they are the only ones at risk.

I don't really care to hear any bovine fecal matter about the "burden on society", protecting people from themselves or other Pollyanna BS. We've gone over this so many times before I bet just about anybody here can quote how I would respond before I respond. If not then all they need to do is go back and look at my past posts on the subject.

 

[Touch1]

Unfortunately, there are some people out there who just don't understand physics. Worse, is the assumption that if you are injured in an accident (if you're dead then the problem is solved), that it only effects you. What happens if you are paralyzed. Your loved ones get to be the ones to look after you, society pays for you, and everyone's life who loves is for effected. Choosing not to wear seatbelts, helments, etc. is a selfish act of stupidity. Take your loved ones to a Rehab center, let them look at the results of your choice, then ask them what they think you should do. I used to be a Physical Therapist so I understand the consiquenses of low impact trauma. Here's what I used to tell my kids. Imagine how fast you can run at full speed. Now run into the side of the house at full speed without putting out your arms. Think that might hurt? A human can only run about 14 mph. Good luck with your argument not to wear seatbelts, etc. but it's a losing position for all concerned.

 

[Lost Cause]

BTW-False security...

Studies have found that people that are strapped in/on, or wear a full faced helmet, or have airbags, drive more recklessly because of the false security of the safety devices. Only by riding a motorcycle naked could you understand the meaning of this fact. Airbags have killed more kids than all the school shootings combined. Again, educate...not legislate.
Pro-choice or not?

 

[Lost Cause]

The full monty...

From www.motorists.org

seatbelt laws, helmet laws -- and nattering busybodies
By Eric Peters


Whether it's prudent to wear a seatbelt, or put on a helmet, if you ride motorcycles, is entirely beside the point -- at least as regards laws that make the use of these things compulsory.

Of course wearing a seatbelt or a helmet is "safer." But so is maintaining ideal body weight -- or exercising regularly. Yet there are no laws (as yet) requiring you to eat your broccoli -- or do sit-ups every other day. The police do not carry pincers to measure your body fat ratio -- and have no authority (yet) to give you tickets for exceeding the "healthful" poundage.

Why is that? After all, if the justification for seatbelt laws and so on is that they're for your own good, the same argument can be made about such things as dietary habits and exercise. Ditto other personal choices, such as the type of recreational sports or other activities you may be involved in -- many of which, like rock-climbing, motocrossing, or skiing, for example, are arguably "risky," or at least more "dangerous" than sitting at home reading a book. How come there are no government busybodies issuing tickets to people for doing such things as jogging when it's "too cold" -- or without the "proper" (according to whom?) equipment? Where do we draw the line -- and on what basis?

These examples will hopefully illustrate an important point -- maybe even several. The first is that things like seatbelt laws and helmet laws are, in the first place, entirely arbitrary interferences with personal choices (as distinct from behaviors, actions or conduct that might affect others, which is another matter. For example: It is entirely legitimate for an airline to require seat belt use on a commercial flight; you are, after all, riding on their airplane -- and if you get bounced out of your seat, you might cause injury to others, or endanger the aircraft. But such considerations do not apply to the private individual operating his privately owned automobile -- or on his motorcycle. If he gets hurt, only he gets hurt. Others are not affected. Ergo, the state has no justification to intervene).

If we're going to accept as the basis for public policy the idea that it is the duty of government to involve itself in our private choices on the basis of compelling us all to do what's "good" for us (however that's defined), then it's pretty hard to see how to draw any line at all beyond which the self-appointed busybodies and do-gooders who use the force of government as their cudgel may not transgress.

That prospect ought to frighten thinking people who value freedom -- but so far, most Americans are indifferent; they think seatbelt laws and the like "make sense." Well, so does a low-fat diet. The broader principle -- and potential threat -- escapes them. They don't see that laws without clear justifications based on legitimate public interests -- and with clearly defined boundaries -- are the hallmark not of free societies with limited governments, but of societies in which the government can be both arbitrary and omnipotent. The eventual tendency is a slow slide toward totalitarianism. But to point this out is derided as "alarmist."

I oppose seatbelt laws and helmet laws not because I won't admit it's safer to wear a seat belt or a helmet when riding a bike -- that would be idiotic. Rather, I oppose such laws because a very important principle is at stake: That entirely personal choice is none of the government's business -- just as my diet, exercise habits, and other personal choices that may somewhat increase (or decrease) my exposure to risk/danger are likewise none of the government's business, either.

Or yours, for that matter.

Remember that what we call "the government" is just us, collectively. We elect representatives. They pass laws. But ultimately, "the government" is no wiser or more righteous than each of us individually. It's just a reflecting pool of sorts -- with all the distortions and flaws that implies. If we start using the weight of the state to force our neighbors to conform to our own ideas of "smart" personal conduct (again, as distinct from conduct that clearly affects others), then we will have become little more than a collection of back-biting harpies and nattering busybodies, using the power of the state to oppress one another in unimaginably petty (and perhaps not so petty) ways. This is why the founders of the American state set forth strict limits on government -- precisely enumerating what it could and could not do, and why.

What made the United States so unique in world history was that it enshrined in its governing principles the idea that individuals should be left free to live their own lives as they saw fit, free of interference from those who thought they "knew better." Taking risks (or not) was part of that philosophy. We were a live and let live people -- for awhile. Only when an individual's conduct or actions clearly threatened the safety or well-being of others -- and thus became a public matter -- did the state have cause to interfere. That distinction is what we're losing -- and it may cost us dearly.

To those who counter that it's a matter of public concern -- and therefore the legitimate busness of government -- whether a person buckles up or wears a helmet, because if he is injured "society" will have to pay in the form of his medical bills and so on, the reply is simple: By any quantifiable measure, obesity and sedentary living (to cite just one example) "cost society" far more, in terms of health care and other related costs, than the relative handful of deaths and serious injuries caused or made worse by the failure of some people to buckle up or wear a helmet.

Fundamentally, though, the premise that "society" is responsible for the costs of each individual's personal choices is socialistic. If we go that way, there will be no limit to the Nanny State. Do we want government officials inspecting our cupboards and refrigerators for "dangerous" foods? Or checking our cholesterol and waistlines? No? Then seat belt laws, mandatory helmet regulations and the like must be rescinded -- no matter how much we may instinctively wish to promote our neighbor's well-being. That's his business -- not yours. Not the governments. Leave him alone. And hopefully, he'll return the favor.

Wouldn't that be nice?

 

[peachykeen]

Unfortunately, there are some people out there who just don't understand physics. Worse, is the assumption that if you are injured in an accident (if you're dead then the problem is solved), that it only effects you. What happens if you are paralyzed. Your loved ones get to be the ones to look after you, society pays for you, and everyone's life who loves is for effected. Choosing not to wear seatbelts, helments, etc. is a selfish act of stupidity. Take your loved ones to a Rehab center, let them look at the results of your choice, then ask them what they think you should do. I used to be a Physical Therapist so I understand the consiquenses of low impact trauma. Here's what I used to tell my kids. Imagine how fast you can run at full speed. Now run into the side of the house at full speed without putting out your arms. Think that might hurt? A human can only run about 14 mph. Good luck with your argument not to wear seatbelts, etc. but it's a losing position for all concerned.

EXACTLY.

 

[MissTaken]

I have had two seat belt tickets and yes, feel they were justified. On both occasions, I was late for a meeting and driving too fast to begin with....without a seatbelt...well, putting two and two together =dumbass

I voted that seatbelts should not be voluntary for adults. Perhaps it is a bit of legislation that can save me from myself, save my children from losing a parent or having to care for an invalid.

As for children, they sould be in the back seat and belted. Mine will be until they are tall enough to see over the dashboard.

People don't use common sense and a seatbelt is such an easy piece of common sense that I say legislate it and enforce it.

The benefits will visit us threefold.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: The full monty...

From www.motorists.org

seatbelt laws, helmet laws -- and nattering busybodies

For example: It is entirely legitimate for an airline to require seat belt use on a commercial flight; you are, after all, riding on their airplane -- and if you get bounced out of your seat, you might cause injury to others, or endanger the aircraft. But such considerations do not apply to the private individual operating his privately owned automobile -- or on his motorcycle. If he gets hurt, only he gets hurt. Others are not affected. Ergo, the state has no justification to intervene).

If you lose control of your vehicle, you're a danger to everyone on the public highway -- being peeled off your bike by a large bug or rock thrown up by another vehicle endangers everyone who swerves to avoid you and loses control becuse they weren't wearing their seatbelt to keep them under the wheel.

Seatbelt laws, like driver's license laws only apply on public highways where your actions affect everyone else using the public highways.

If you don't want to wear your seatbelt or ride without a helmet, please do it on private property where the law doesn't apply and your "freedom" doesn't endanger the public.

 

[A Desert Rose]

I have not lived in Wyoming for quite sometime but the law used to be proactive. If you were stopped for speeding and you were wearing your seatbelt, your ticket was reduced by a certain dollar amount. I have always liked that type of law. A person is rewarded for doing the right thing.