| Author |
Message |
    
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 1116
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 2:46 pm: | 
|
Actually, Michael, the reason that others can be affected by not wearing a motorcycle helnet is this:
A car in front of you kicks up a rock. If you're wearing a helmet, you're less liklely to be knocked off the bike (or knocked out). I'm not saying it's THE reason for helmet laws, but you can stretch a helmet law to show that others could be affected. I just don't see how others can be affected by not wearing a seatbelt (unless they talk about the potential danger of a body being launched through a windshield...) |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 1117
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 2:53 pm: |
|
Brett,
I'm all for making parents buckle up their kids. Heck, if you want to have a law to make parents buckle up when their kids are in the car so that they are getting a good lesson, I'd agree that that is a good idea. And I also said, I do always wear my seatbelt.
It's having a law forcing adults to wear one (and spending the money enforcing it) that I take issue with. |
Old and Gray
Citizen
Username: Pastmyprime
Post Number: 122
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
For each Motor Vehicle accident with injuries there is a direct cost to the health care regardless of if someone is insured or not...We all know the uninsured are subsidized various means and especially by those of us who are insured. My basic point is wear the seat belt, it could save your life or reduce the possibility of injury.
RASTRO remember the head on collision by suicide that killed the family from Sussex County not too long ago. The other driver wasn't wearing his seatbelt and was ejected through his front window into the families front window, you can injure or kill others by not wearing your seatbelt(not that it happens often, but like everyone likes to pick out on this site, it is possible).
HUMAN MISSL |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 1195
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
As an adult, if you choose to not wear a seatbelt, helmet, etc. you should have the right -- and pay correespondingly higher auto and health insurance premiums, at minimum.
It may be arguable, however, that an individual has no right to put at additional risk EMT's, or increase the need for hospitals, docotors, etc, and so on to deal with the added injuries from an accident without protective gear.
Personally, I seeth when I see an adult holding a baby in a moving car. Use a miniature poodle as a living "air bag" -- but not a child!
/p |
bets
Supporter
Username: Bets
Post Number: 1705
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 9:13 pm: |
|
quote:Personally, I seeth when I see an adult holding a baby in a moving car. Use a miniature poodle as a living "air bag" -- but not a child!
I so agree with you Pete. This is one of the very few sights that will spur me to ask the adult why the child is not in a carseat in the back. I usually get pretty nasty answers and burned rubber as my reward.
There is a daycare center on my street, and back when Maxie (my dog) was still with me and I walked him after work, I always saw this woman in a huge SUV picking up her toddler. Who would invariably be STANDING UP in the front passenger seat holding onto the strap or whatever it is above the window. Needless to say, she & I developed a healthy dislike for each other and, in hindsight, I should've called the cops on her. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
O&G, in that case we should outlaw almost every activity that carries any risk. Driving a car in the rain should be outlawed.
Again, I'm not advocating adults not wearing a seatbelt. Just that having a law (particularly an acive enforcement law) is just plain silly. |
Old and Gray
Citizen
Username: Pastmyprime
Post Number: 124
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Rastro...what about specifically enforcing it in cases of accidents...or in my opinion giving the Insurance carrier (health and auto) the option to not cover injuries due to failing to wear a seatbelt. I think this should also go for those who run from the police and cause damage by crashing or to those convicted of specically dangerous acts such as DWI, reckless driving, racing?
I am trying to recover from everyone's want to have the right to choose on this issue, I am really not seeing it because its such a minor thing to do...Its like wearing a bike helmet. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 1120
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
O&G, I would be ok with limiting the liability of insurance carriers if the injured party was not wearing a seatbelt. Not sure how I feel about completely not covering costs, since we do cover other self-inflicted health problems. But absolutely, if you're not wearing your seatbelt, a resonable cap for the insurer.
I'd also be ok with something like what is done for smoking. Higher premiums for people that do not wear their seatbelts (with or without the coverage limit above). The insurance companies trust people to tell them whether or not they are smokers. Same should hold true of seat belts.
Again, my issue has nothing to do with wearing a seatbelt. It's with having a law about it. What happned to personal responsibility? Do we need all common sense choices legislated for us? |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 653
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
Rastro- Apparently we do, because people still drive without seatbelts, drive drunk, pack multiple children into cars with no carseats and do just about anything else stupid or reckless unless they are staring at a uniform cop with a ticket book. I like the way every motorist too lazy or stupid to safeguard their own personal safety suddenly becomes Jack Kerouac when a statute governing motoring safety is enforced. Perhaps you forgot your driver's education class when the first thing taught was that driving is a privilege, not a right. The State extends that privilege with conditions and they can revoke it if you fail to abide. Nobody says you have to drive; the State gets to say "if" and "how" you do it. So do the other 49, as well as the Federal Government.
If putting on a seatbelt is such a compromise of anyone's personal liberty, they can walk to their heart's content. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 1124
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Brett,
I've said it before, I'll say it again now, and will likely have to repeat myself many times over. I am not against wearing a seatbelt. I think everyone should. I do every time I get into my car. I teach my children the importance of it. I also think that there should be a law requiring a parent to buckle up their child.
I just don't see the reason to have a law requiring a compentent adult to wear a seatbelt, just as there is no law preventing a compentent adult from smoking. Everyone is aware fo the dangers of both. if someone chooses to take their life in their hands and drive without a seatbelt, so be it.
The purpose of the law is to save lives? There are lots of other things we willingly do to ourselves that put us at risk. Do we need laws about them as well? The number one killer in this country is (or used to be) heart disease. Should we make a set of laws that will reduce heart disease?
Once again, since some people are missing this. I am not saying people should not wear their seatbelts. I am only saying I don't understand why we need to legislate it. |
Sheena Collum SHU
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum
Post Number: 153
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Rastro,
You make good points. Did you like Michael Badnarik for Prez? He said "government does not grant rights it acknowledges them"... If your view on seatbelts is expanded to other policies, you'd like this guy.
Just for the record, I don't like this guy, lol  |
Meandtheboys
Citizen
Username: Meandtheboys
Post Number: 1082
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
So Rastro, how would you suggest they word and enforce a law requiring that only children be buckled up. It would be even more impossible and ridiculous than the one we already have. Good for you that you always wear your seatbelt, as, it seems, do most other intelligent adults. However, I am all for any law that will protect and potentially save the life of even one small child who is unfortunate enough to have complete idiots as parents. And it's for these idiots, the lowest common denominator in our society, that it needs to be legislated. And if it means I have to sit in a little traffic and have a brief but pleasant chat with an officer of the law, than so be it. It's about the children for me, and that's really all I care about. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Sheena,
I did not like Badnarik for a few reasons, first I don't agree with many Libertarian positions - I think they go a bit too far to get gov't out of our lives where it does quite a bit of good. Also, he was completely unelectable. Unfortunately, a third party candidate is not going to win in the US any time soon.
Me,
While I agree in prinicple with what you say, I think it would be easy to word the law about children being buckled up. In fact, there is already a separate law that states that children under a ceratin age must be in a child seat, and under a certain age must have a booster seat. So the wording is trivial.
The problem is that people stupid enough to not buckle up their kids are not going to suddenly start doing so becayuse there is a law. "People are stupid" (as a friend likes to say). Laws do not make people smarter.
Me - do you advocate limiting how many times a person can feed their child McDonalds in a week? I don't mean to be a wiseass, I just want to point out that there are many hazards every day that we take for granted, yet this one we legislate. |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 919
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 3:06 pm: |
|
We legislate this one because we easily can, and there is an absolute cause and effect relationship (people in accidents who wear seatbelts are by and large far safer than those in accidents who don't). McDonald's may give some people a heart attack, but not everyone, and it doesn't in and of itself cause obesity.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 1127
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 3:48 pm: |
|
cmonty,
I can always count on you to make a reasonable argument. However... you knew there had to be one..
We allow people to jump out of perfectly good airplanes by choice. We allow people to do all kinds of things that can directly cause death due to accidents. By and large, people who don't jump out of perfectly good airplanes are safer than those that do (though the death rate among skydivers is surprisingly low).
I realize I'm using extreme examples, but hopefully people understand my point (even if they disagree with it) - which is not that you shouldn't wear a seatbelt.
This law does not affect me much (other than these enforcement blitzes), since I do wear mine, and therefore would not be pulled over for not wearing it. I just think cops have better things to do than protect people from themselves. Like protect us from each other.  |
Ace789nj
Citizen
Username: Ace789nj
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
How about this, Driving in NJ is NOT your right, it's a privilage, so if the powers that be say you have to wear a seat belt where's the problem?
I HATE wearing my seatbelt, but in the grand scheme of things what's the big deal with just reaching over and clicking it? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
<sigh> One more time, my issue is not with wearing a seatbelt. It's with wasting resources enforcing a law about personal safety. There's no law that says I shouldn't run with scissors, but I learned that that was a bad idea a long time ago (not through direct experience ).
As I've said many times, I wear my seatbelt, and wore it all the time long before there was a law about it. I will always wear it, and will I teach my kids to wear it.
btw, I really liked your explanation of why windows crack (essentially differing coefficients of expansion) in another thread. It made much more sense to me than heat buildup inside the car... |
Quint
Citizen
Username: Shark_killer
Post Number: 3
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 1:50 am: |
|
Arrests get made from those stops. The officers who work them are all off duty and paid for by a grant as I understand, so how does that sit with your hippy butt? |
Old and Gray
Citizen
Username: Pastmyprime
Post Number: 125
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 12:14 am: |
|
Quint...I like your conservative attitude...it is finally nice to see someone who isn't afraid to butt heads with the L word...but I think the officers are on duty...they are in uniform and have patrol cars with them.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 1132
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:20 am: |
|
Hippy? ROFL. Not even close. I would think a Conservative would be all about smaller government, less intrusive government. No?
This is not about flaunting the law or rejecting authority. It's about proper allocation of resources.
Arrests get made? So you're saying that they're not just checking seatbelts, that there is an ulterior motive for pulling people over? That I actually do have a real problem with (this seatbelt thing is not a big an issue for me as these posts would have you believe).
The grant still comes from out tax dollars. So the point of your posts is... what? |
Two Sense
Citizen
Username: Twosense
Post Number: 210
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
Hypocritical, pseudo-conservatives, like Quint, favor lower taxes, less government, and states rights over the heavy hand of Federal government -- unless it's about imposing their conservative views on everyone else's lifestyle, particularly when it comes to birth, marriage, divorce, death, and privacy, and everyday lifestyle considerations. Then they rally behind the Federal government channeling tax dollars and wasting its resources on interfering with just about every aspect of our lives! |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
Neither agreeing nor disagreeing, 2 Sense. But let's not drift too much to a political discussion here. This is SO Specific, not the Soapbox. |
Ace789nj
Citizen
Username: Ace789nj
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 10:16 pm: |
|
Rastro- You raise a valid point about wasting manpower on things that are less important than other issues, i.e. the safety of the town's residents and the police officers. To clear it up, when you see those details none of those officers are pulled frm the dailt tour. It's kinda like overtime, (only the pay is usually less that a regular overtime rate) payed for by the state in the form of a grant. Resources are not wasted because manpower isn't reduced during the detail, infact one can argue that the town is safer with those guys working because if there was a serious incident (fires, shootings etc.) those guys would undoubtedly abandon passing out tickets to assist wherever needed.
As far as an ulterior motive goes, motor vehicle stops play a key role in removing criminals off the streets. You may not believe it but most of the time people are advised of what they've done and sent on their way without a ticket & if you are unlucky enough to pass through a safety checkpoint and are in violation then shame on you, but here's the thing..criminals drive too, and whether you know it or not many of them drive through SO. Not just a guy with a warrant for a ticket he got at seaside 10 years ago but real, hardened criminals. More likely than not there will be indicators and circumstances that will turn a regular stop into an arrest when these people are driving or passengers. It's just in the cards. |
Quint
Citizen
Username: Shark_killer
Post Number: 7
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 11:19 pm: |
|
Hey two sense.........make sure you put your Rainbow flag out!!!!!!!!!!! and feel free to scrape that Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker off of your Hemp mobile} |
Soda
Supporter
Username: Soda
Post Number: 3406
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:21 am: |
|
Quint: "You're gonna need a bigger brain"
-s.
BTW: Welcome to the NFL. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page