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.
It is not a "RINO" to demand seat belt usage. We should have laws with penalties for misuse of antibotics also. imo.
Sounds like something that Stalin or Mao would have said...
It would have taken a law for his daughter to wear a seatbelt? Wow. We are becoming a nation of sheep.
Yes, I found that attitude strikingly apalling (but honest) too.
Good point.
I like it..it's a good idea..because it can be reversed with a simple switch. Volvo has gotten away from their GREEN image..with the big muscular SUVs and now a V-8..the new ads stres power, performance..so I think they delayed this feature, becuase it woudl obviously attract a lot of attention, and thus detract from the new image they're cultivating..
I do know of a case years ago where teen-age driver lost control and went flying off into a field. Driver's door opens and driver falls out. He's injured and unconscious but survives. The driverless car then continues on and hits big rock or tree -- I forget which. Passenger is ejected through the windshield, lands in a creek unconscious, and drowns.
That's not an argument for mandatory seatbelts, but it is an argument for anybody with brains to always use seatbelts.
Indiana Constitution
Bill of Rights. (not to be confused with a bill of privileges)
Section 1.
WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the people;
What part of LIBERTY do you not understand?
And if there is federal constitution has jurisdiction within the boundaries of Indiana, then:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people.
Surely the decision to wear a seat belt or not is a right "retained by the people."
They never saw a bad idea they didn't want to give the force of law.
Word to that. I still don't think any insurance companies would actually reduce premiums if it happened, but at least it would take out the only legs that this silly mandatory seat-belt nonsense has to stand on.
BTW, I drive a Volvo. I always wear my seatbelt. If someone wants to risk having themselves lauched through the windshield, fine by me. My insurer doesn't cut my rate for seatbelt wearing.
The switch is necessary...Too many problems otherwise..IT's triggered byu a pressure sensor in the seat..to tell if it's occupied..but a heavy package, or a large dog, or a baby seat would throw it off..you must have a way of disabling it..the queston Volvo initially dealt with was if the switch should be INSIDE the passenger compartment..say, in the glove compartment..or outside...so that it wasn't quite that easy to reach..it' s being described as a "convenience" switch, rather than a dissabling device..
Repubs are still statists. This is statism. Liberalism is our Republican governor raising taxes on the "rich." That's why I don't vote for Redemopublicrats anymore.
I am for seat belts being used however you shoudl do some research on the car seat companies lobbying these senators.
So, if we submit to this further creeping of big brother statism, then we can expect insurance premiums to go down, correct? I will keep a close eye on this if the bill passes. And when health and auto insurance premiums do not go down, I will ping you for an explaination. See you in two years.
That will be a hard question for him to answer because he uses the Constitution, but his class doesn't believe that's for all us serfs, so he may be stymied as to what to recommend.
Yes thats the argument the Insurance lobby used when they passed their seat belt bill. Funny though I am still waiting for my refund from all the money seat belts have saved. I do know seat belts and air bags have raised the price of automobiles, I wonder what the difference would be between money paid out by insurance companies and money paid out by auto buyers who have to pay more for cars so equipped.
Didn't some US products have this feature in the seventies, and it went away because it had the grocery bag problem then too? Besides, who are you to say that the life of a large dog is worth less than that of a human? After all "a pig is a dog is a rat is a boy"! ;-)
—nanny-car adj.
Example Citations:
The legacy of the witless 60 Minutes investigation into runaway Audis almost two decades ago is that soon nobody will be allowed to start a car, raise or lower a convertible top, or so much as open the gas cap without flooring the clutch, putting on the parking brake and then putting both feet out the window.Nanny-car syndrome will get worse, as traffic density and automotive performance increase; as manufacturers turn cars into rolling offices, restaurants, I'm-so-wired communicators and DVD entertainment centers; and as driver competence plummets.
—Stephan Wilkinson, "Man & Machine," Popular Science, December, 2003
Your car soon may be more than just transportation. It could become your nanny.Federal regulators are urging automakers to install devices that chime, buzz, beep, blink and otherwise nag you until you fasten your seatbelt. Ford uses such gadgets, and others may follow.
Seatbelts save lives. They would save a lot more if we could get our usage up from the current 73 percent of motorists.
The feds also are about to require sensors that will warn the driver of underinflated tires. If tire pressure is low, warning lights will come on until the tires are properly filled. That's going to require a lot of badgering, because only about 11 percent of motorists properly check their tires.
Down the road, perhaps, the nanny car will have devices that monitor body fat and cholesterol. If they're too high, the car won't start.
Instead a flashing display on the dashboard will say: "You're too fat. Get out and walk."
—"Coming soon: nagmobile," The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN), October 15, 2002
Do you need the government as a mommy? Most adults don't so I would guess that neither do you.
You must be joking when you make such a remark.
Do you know you are at a forum called Freerepublic.com?
Indiana Constitution
Bill of Rights. (not to be confused with a bill of privileges)
Section 1.
WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the people;
What part of LIBERTY do you not understand?
How did the right to travel by horse or wagon, before the invention of the automobile, constitutionally become a privilege, granted by the state, after the invention of the automobile, without a constitutional amendment?
When did a "law or regulation" have the constitutional hierarchy to circumvent, deny, dismiss, diminish, and disparage rigths enumerated in an Article of a Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights?
The only reason citizens injured in an automobile collision from not wearing a seatbelt "cost...frigging money..." and "guess who pays for that?" is because the citizens, through their representatives were dumb enough to enact legislation for that purpose.
Repeal such laws and it will not cost you a dime whether someone wears a seatbelt or not, from the public treasury.
If it costs the insurance company money, they will eventually write policies that are two tiered: seatbelt use, a low premium. No seatbelt use, a higher premium.
If found not wearing a seatbelt with a seatbelt use policy, that policy is now void, the insurance company does not have to pay.
And your state government cannot do anything about such contracts.
Indiana Constitution
Section 24.
No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed.
What part of "shall ever be passed" do the Indiana citizens and legislators not understand?
By the way, my suggestion on how to handle the issue of "public safety" and seat belt use is how free people act in a free capitalistic economy with constitutionally protected, inalienable rights.
Hippie. =P
Are you running for any public office? I'd like to vote for you.
"Funny though I am still waiting for my refund from all the money seat belts have saved."
I know that my rates ARE lower because I have full airbags and ABS. And my auto insurance rates have indeed gone down in recent years, more than one would expect just because the cars are a year older. In fact, they're down a huge amount. I have no idea why, though. We didn't have wrecks or tickets that have moved off our records and we haven't moved into a statistically safer driving age. But my premium is hundreds of dollars lower than it was three years ago.
"Wyss said legislators should focus on public safety, not personal rights."
that is rino talk by definition.Infringing on personal freedom for the common good is what dems and rinos do.If you cant see how that is rino I feel sorry for you please let me know how the koolaid tastes.
Because none of these are true, I do not object to this type law."
Just because the citizens of a state, through their elected legislators, are dumb enough to enact such payment laws, does not mean that the "rights" of the citizens are now deniable or can be disparaged or diminished.
Repeal the stupid laws, but do not deny and disparage rights, that is what free people do, living in a capitalistic economy, in a constitutional republic.
Very true. Montag may want to work on his understanding of English sentence structure as well.
I propose seat belt laws on motorcycles, bicycles, skate boards, snow skiis, water skiis, roller skates and ice skates. Also, movie theater seats, baby strollers, beds, and sleeping bags. Warning lables on knives, forks, spoons, hammers, bricks, rock, and limitations on pencil sharpeners....
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.