Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 02/17/2005 10:28:42 AM PST by freepatriot32
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- A Senate committee advanced a bill Tuesday that would require drivers and all passengers to wear seat belts in trucks, SUVs and cars.
After hearing emotional testimony from family members of those killed in crashes, the Senate's public policy committee voted 10-0 to endorse the bill. It now moves to the full Senate, which approved similar legislation last year before it was blocked in a House committee.
The bill requires people in front and back seats to buckle up in all vehicles with seat belts, with exceptions for trucks used on farms. People who cannot wear seat belts for medical reasons are also exempt.
The bill is being dubbed "Megan's Bill" after 24-year-old Megan Minix of Kokomo, who died last year when the pickup truck she was riding in flipped over. She wasn't wearing a seat belt because she felt safer in the truck, her father said, even though she always wore one in her car.
I wonder how different our lives would be if Megan would have had her seat belt on," a tearful Darrell Minix told the committee. "She was my little girl."
A group of high school students from Evansville told senators they also supported the bill. Adrian France said teenagers like herself would start wearing seat belts in trucks and as backseat passengers if Indiana's law was changed.
"We're afraid of getting a ticket, not of dying," France said.
Bill sponsor Sen. Tom Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, said the bill would likely face opposition as it moves through the legislative process.
"It's not without controversy," he told senators. "You're going to hear from constituents talking about their freedom and liberty."
Wyss said legislators should focus on public safety, not personal rights.
"We're talking about human life and human injury," Wyss said.
Rep. Bob Alderman, R-Fort Wayne, said adults should make their own choices on whether to wear seat belts without interference from lawmakers.
"There's a group of us who still understand personal freedom," Alderman said.
Alderman said if the bill was assigned to the House public policy committee, of which he is chairman, he might give it a hearing but would not guarantee a vote on the proposal.
Rep. Cleo Duncan, a Republican from Greensburg who heads the House's transportation panel, said she was undecided on what she would do with the bill.
"We're going to have to keep an open mind," Duncan said.
Minix said he would return to the Statehouse to testify if the bill gets a hearing in the House. He said his daughter was not standing up for her personal freedoms by not wearing a seat belt - she simply knew she didn't have to wear it.
"She wasn't trying to make a statement," he said. "This could happen to anyone."
Mandatory seatbelt laws are wrong because...?
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
FWIW, are your car and health insurance premiums high enough yet? Folks who are in an accident and are unbuckled tend to sustain more severe injuries than those who are buckled. They cost more frigging money. Guess who pays for that? In any case, driving is a privilege, not a right. The state can regulate it any way it sees fit, and this is totally reasonable.
Darrell Minix couldn't tell his daughter to wear her seatbelt, so he wants the government to tell everyone else to wear theirs?
I'm sorry he lost his daughter - I cannot even imagine the pain he feels - but it's time for him to be a man and not try to blame it on anyone else except the guy he sees in the mirror.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK!
After all, we wouldn't want anyone giving consideration to personal rights would we? I mean, that's why we have the Bill of Safeties, isn't it? Oh, wait a minute..
This is probably being heavily pushed by the insurance industry. Can`t say I blame them though.
If it can save all of us some money on our insurance premiums ( auto and health care ), then I am all for it. Why should I have to pay for someone elses stupidity ( for lack of a better word )?
People here gripe because of their tax money is being given to lazy people who are unwilling to work. How is paying higher premiums because of people who refuse to wear a seat belt any different?
But if it isn`t going to lower insurance premuims, then I would say forget about it.
We will see where this one goes.
I would have no objection to not requiring seat belt use if
1. insurance rates were calculated on whether seat belts are used or not,
2. insurance coverage is limited if you say you will wear your seat belt but are in a wreck without it on,
3. government does not have to pay disability for those who are in wrecks without their seat belts on, and,
4. government doesn't pick up the tab for all of the costs listed above.
Because none of these are true, I do not object to this type law.
--wife of ZGuy
Seat belts laws are wrong because they restrict personal behavior for no good reason. The only argument for seat belt laws is that theoretically car insurance premiums could be lowered because people will be safer while driving, leading to reduced medical costs. In fantasy land, maybe, but in reality car insurance premiums are set based on what people will accept paying. Clearly car insurance companies aren't suddenly going to reduce prices that people are used to paying because a seat belt law is enacted. It's fine to use some government money to encourage people to wear seat belts, and it's okay, in my opinion, to require auto makers to install seat belts in all cars sold in the US, but making a law to force people to wear them is a step over the line, in my opinion.
Get used to it. The entire GOP has been commandeered by the monied oligarch and they only care about their profit and the power they have over the everyone else.
Oh, you're drinking that Kool Aid, too? Don't forget that if driving were a privelige, it would have to repose somewhere before the monarchy decided to give it to us. This supposes that those privelieges are naturally the property of government, to be dispensed at its pleasure.
It's thinking like that that has brought us revocation of drivers' licences over issues unrelated to the safety of other drivers on the road, like high school grades and child support enforcement.
If they can do that, if the "privelige" is their property to give or withhold as they see fit, why would it be morally objectionable for them to dispense licences on political criteria? It's already happened with concealed carry licences. I believe it's a right, subject to revocation only for behavior that endangers other drivers or pedestrians, and with the burden of proof firmly on the government (presumption for the driver).
That's a rhetorical question, right?
bodies flying from cars do endanger other drivers or pedestrians.
There are no "privileges" bestowed on us by government in a free society. We have the right to engage in any activity as long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others. We have the right to travel, to freely move about. "Driving is a privilege"??? That's nothing but leftist propaganda designed to devalue your own conception of your god-given rights and make you more succeptible to their agenda.
Seatbelt laws are immoral and unconstitutional because they are a pure example of government regulating behavior which does not hurt anyone but the actor. I am an adult and can make my own decisions about safety. If I feel that the risk of injury is outweighed by the benefit conferred by not wearing a seatbelt, that is a decision that only I, and not you can make. Under the guise of "safety", would you also give government the power to ban convertibles and compact cars, or require you to wear helmets when driving. After all, driving is a "privilege".
FYI..a friend of mine is a partner in a Volvo dealership. Volvos stress safety..seat belts, airbags, side airbags..the whole retinue. He said that Volvo is seriously considering an option on next year's top of the line models...a switch in the trunk that when turned to one position will not allow the car to start unless ALL the occupants have their seat belts on. They've had the technology for a few years, and feel they've worked out most of the glitches..
Evidence of seatbelt use or nonuse during an accident is not admissible in court when trying a case for damages sustained as a result of an auto accident. If we changed the law to let such evidence in and absolved the insurer of the added injury caused by the failure to wear a seatbelt, it would solve the insurance cost issue while, at the same time, not trampling on the rights of drivers.
Um, OK, this I gotta see. What kind of statistics can you produce on the number of people killed annually because someone else was ejected from their auto while not wearing a seat belt? I wasn't aware this was a common thing.
May I add to that....
Skyrockets: insurance premiums, company profits
By JEFF HARRINGTON, Times Staff Writer
© St. Petersburg Times
published September 23, 2002
No wonder the lefties like Volvos. Even so, this just gives the property owner (car owner) more power to enforce his decisions about how his property is used, so I don't see it as ALL bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.