Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Skeptics on seat-belt laws dig their heels in for free choice
San Jose Mercury News ^ | July 16, 2005 | Gary Richards

Posted on 07/17/2005 10:17:40 AM PDT by Technoman

… Having a license to drive means signing a contract to follow the rules of the road. Wearing your seat belt is one of them. If you die because you stubbornly don't buckle up, your death will affect family and friends. I doubt if they are OK with that…

(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: nannystate; seatbeltlaw; seatbelts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last
The question I have for Gary Richards, the Roadshow man --beside if there isn't any nanny law he doesn't like--is whether we rather our police bust seatbelt violators all day or focus on real road hazards.

Having a license to drive means signing a contract to follow the rules of the road.

True, we sign a contract with the state to drive a motor vehicle. But who is the state? Bingo! You and me--the tax payers who pay those in law enforcement--who have signed a contract with us to keep our roads safe.

The California Highway Patrol recently received a 1.5 million grant, which was used to promote their Click-it campaign, which included billboard advertising and radio and cable television commercials in English and Spanish. Encouraging drivers to buckle up, they claim many lives were saved.

But I argue: what were the cause of most of those accidents? If the money instead was used to target the unsafe drivers who caused those accidents, more lives would be saved. But the California Highway Patrol insists on enforcing this ridiculous law to keep the flow of federal grant money coming in.

Those of you who believe in personal responsibility without "nannys", would like the Highway Patrols to begin to fulfilling their contract with us, write your legislator today! Demand that these silly seatbelt laws are removed from the books so our law enforcement--that we pay for--can once again move their scares resources to make our roads safe from traffic scofflaws. In California, you can click here.

You can write to Mr. Roadshow, Gary Richards, here.

1 posted on 07/17/2005 10:17:40 AM PDT by Technoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Technoman
No doubt the fundamental problem with seat-belts is they are a gol-darned new-fangled gadget that no responsible driver ever needs.

It's time to roll time back to the happy days of the 1950s where we can once again experience the thrill of launching ourselves out through the windshield of a Studebaker!

Neat scar tissue helps a fellow get the neatest dates.

2 posted on 07/17/2005 10:24:46 AM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Seat belts can help in an accident, true enough. HOWEVER, the point is that using them is a PERSONAL CHOICE and NOT one that should be made by legislators or enforced by police officers. ESPECIALLY when there are many, many better uses for scarce dollars, like removing red light runners from this world. But I notice that there is virtually NO nanny-state law you don't like. Why is that?


3 posted on 07/17/2005 10:30:23 AM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I have the answer to seat belt law. This will make them completed useless as well as airbags and speed limits.

All cars should have 10 large spikes installed in the baseboard. People will drive very carefully with those staring you in the face.


4 posted on 07/17/2005 10:31:36 AM PDT by Fzob (Why does this tag line keep showing up?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Technoman
Old Ben has to review numerous traffic collision reports in the course of his work. I also have to review the photos if any were taken. And driving as I do about three hours each day on L.A. freeways, I've also personally seen a number mild, moderate, and severe traffic collisions.

People underestimate the energies involved in auto accidents. We don't sense how much velocity we have in our vehicles until they spin, roll over or come to a sudden stop.

There are too many pictures of the dead and horribly injured drivers and passengers who are ejected during an accident. Death and injury will always accompany collisions, but seatbelts do indeed save lives.
5 posted on 07/17/2005 10:32:09 AM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Let's get rid of collapsible steering columns while we're at it. Bring back harpooning!
6 posted on 07/17/2005 10:35:43 AM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken (Seldom right, but never in doubt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

If seat belts or so good why arn't they put in school busses.


7 posted on 07/17/2005 10:37:03 AM PDT by Judge Roy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Technoman
Some people refuse to wear seatbelts because they are "too confining."

Not as confining as one of these, however:


8 posted on 07/17/2005 10:38:07 AM PDT by southernnorthcarolina (I support tax cuts for the rich -- and I vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Technoman

Seat belt laws are cleary unconstitutional. The word "liberty" must be expunged from the federal and state constitutions. The fact that the public pays for injuries to the unbelted is a problem with socialism, not liberty...and our government is socialist, more's the pity.


9 posted on 07/17/2005 10:40:06 AM PDT by gorush (Exterminate the Moops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Technoman
If you die because you stubbornly don't buckle up, your death will affect family and friends. I doubt if they are OK with that…

They may be family, but they sure aren't your friends.
Friends support you in your choices.

SO9

10 posted on 07/17/2005 10:40:57 AM PDT by Servant of the 9 (Trust Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Technoman; gorush

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm


11 posted on 07/17/2005 10:42:52 AM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Technoman
I am not signing up with any stupid newspaper to see the rest of this loser article. I can already see where it is headed; it is not necessary to read more.

… Having a license to drive means signing a contract to follow the rules of the road.
It does not mean following stupid rules of the road. The only lawful rules are those aimed at protecting others from my lapses in judgement.

Wearing your seat belt is one of them.
A stupid rule? definitely.

... If you die because you stubbornly don't buckle up, your death will affect family and friends. I doubt if they are OK with that…
This goes to the heart of the matter. So what?
There are lots of things that family and friends might not approve of: joining the marines; skydiving; spelunking, scuba diving; sky diving, rock climbing; bungee-jumping; becoming an astronaut...
The world is replete with risky choices none of which are the nanny state's business, and all of which most normal families suck up.

Go back in your cave and come up with a more cogent argument. Having a drivers license is quite close to the age where no one else has (or should have)control over your life activities. Just ask the perverts.

One last thought: when seat belts were being "argued", we were reassured repeatedly that they would forever be voluntary. Read the Congressional speeches and news reports of the time, you bleepin' idiot!

12 posted on 07/17/2005 10:43:12 AM PDT by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
>>>"There are too many pictures of the dead and horribly injured drivers and passengers who are ejected during an accident. Death and injury will always accompany collisions, but seatbelts do indeed save lives"<<<

Make you a deal, you post all the pictures of people that did/didn't wear seatbelts, I will post pictures of Partial Birth Abortions, One is a Choice and the other is against the Law, one has a near 100% fatality rate (Very rare that there is a surviving fetus, but it does happen) and the other is just slightly safer than not wearing seatbelts.

Click-it or Ticket is a Stealth Tax pure and simple, it is and an invasion of your privacy among other things. Bow to the Police State but just remember even if the Law is repealed, unless a law is passed to remove all seatbelts from all vehicles, you can still smugly buckle up any time you want.

TT
13 posted on 07/17/2005 10:45:13 AM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
A specious argument. If all those macabre images cause you to use seat belt religiously, you get a gold star and also will live forever.

It does not give you the right to force me to care behind the force of law.

14 posted on 07/17/2005 10:46:22 AM PDT by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant

I'm guessing you don't favor the helmet law either.


15 posted on 07/17/2005 10:46:57 AM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

Not smoking is better for you but we have not outlawed it yet.

If children don't play baseball they will never be hit in the head by an errant baseball.

Don't eat red meat scream the vegitarians.


There is a difference between EDUCATING people to do "good" and forcing via legislation because "YOU" (figurativly) want people to do some percieved good.

Why not make community service hours part of income tax? Make it THE LAW that 100% of all residents must do 20 hours of community service per year.

If cars are so dangerous that we have to be regulated INSIDE our vehicles, how long before the Nany-nazis just demand private vehicles be outlawed.


16 posted on 07/17/2005 10:47:21 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Judge Roy

Good point.


17 posted on 07/17/2005 10:48:56 AM PDT by sfimom ('Mommy why did they kill her cause she couldn't talk?' (my daughter age8))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

helmets are not part of the vehicle, helmets are attire to be worn.

Legally speaking a seperate set of legal dynamics.

IF that is the case, per NHTSA there are more head injuries in automobiles. Along the nanny-nazi reasoning, people in automobiles must wear helmets too.


18 posted on 07/17/2005 10:49:44 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I won't wear one and they can't ticket me either!

I drive a 65 Chev PU and they weren't even an option when we bought them and i'm exempt!


19 posted on 07/17/2005 10:52:17 AM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Technoman
This is about the insurance companies' profits, like most of the laws that have been passed in the last fifty years. Whether or not seat belts reduce death rates, they definitely reduce injuries, which saves the insurance companies money. And that, my friend, is more important that any delusions you may have about freedom.

On another note, my mechanic refuses to ever wear a seat belt, and law enforcement be damned. He got trapped in a burning car once, and couldn't get out because the seat belt jammed. Kind of hard to argue with him about that.

20 posted on 07/17/2005 10:52:40 AM PDT by Hardastarboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The arguments for justifying the nanny state just get sillier and sillier...

By the way, cigarettes have been effectively outlawed. Remember the old line about "...the power to tax is the power to destroy"? Well, we are seeing a textbook example. The only reason it has not been officially killed is the income they keep getting from the diehard smokers (or the stupid ones who fail to discover how to "deal" with the taxes).

21 posted on 07/17/2005 10:53:13 AM PDT by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

>>>"I'm guessing you don't favor the helmet law either"<<<

Nope, we need Organ Donors and we need to keep the Gene Pool naturally weeded.

I don't like any "nanny" law


22 posted on 07/17/2005 10:54:05 AM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Technoman
There are many nanny laws I don't like and with which I disagree, but in the absence of good universal judgement, I think there is a balance to be found between law and choice. Looking at it another way...if I turn out to be one of those reckless drivers and I cause an accident, the personal losses to ME, both financially and emotionally, will be much less if the other driver's life is saved by their seatbelt. I might still get sued, but it won't be for causing a death.

1.5 million grant in the State of California? A drop in the budget bucket, really...much less than is wasted every year to other political causes. For example, the current immigration and environmental laws might actually be much more ridiculous...and expensive.

23 posted on 07/17/2005 10:54:20 AM PDT by lsee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
It's time to roll time back to the happy days of the 1950s where we can once again experience the thrill of launching ourselves out through the windshield of a Studebaker!

I appreciate the irony here, which has a lot to do with my take on the smoking issue. In that, as in the seatbelt issue, two separate arguments are involved, namely, (1) whether the activity is good for you; and (2) whether the state ought to be involved in the regulation of said activity. It's not only possible, but logical, to take different sides of each question.

24 posted on 07/17/2005 10:56:39 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Judge Roy
Or passnger vans:


25 posted on 07/17/2005 10:58:52 AM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
I drive a 65 Chev PU and they weren't even an option when we bought them and i'm exempt!

You're lucky. I drive a '65 TR-4 and seat belts were standard equipment.

My newest cars have explosives staring me in the face constantly. Now that makes me constantly nervous!

26 posted on 07/17/2005 11:02:28 AM PDT by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"No doubt the fundamental problem with seat-belts is they are a gol-darned new-fangled gadget that no responsible driver ever needs.

It's time to roll time back to the happy days of the 1950s where we can once again experience the thrill of launching ourselves out through the windshield of a Studebaker! "

My parents owned a 1956 Ford which came equipped with seat belts. Lap belt only, but still was more than prior vehicles. These were available on the '55 for (I think) the first time; they were an extra cost option. Ford dropped the option for a few years because so few were willing to pay the extra dollars for the belts. I bought and installed them on my own '50 two door in '58.
So, I don't think that I have a lot of resistance to using them.

On the other hand, I definitely have a problem with the omnipotent government decreeing what I shall do for my own good. "It's for your own good" is what they told the Tom Cat just before his operation.

27 posted on 07/17/2005 11:02:49 AM PDT by AntiBurr ("Ceterum censeo Islam esse delendam " with apologies to Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I always found it facinating that you are required to wear a seat belt on an airplane, but not on a bus.

Although I understand 'turbulence' on a plane is a problem,how about 'turbulence'(road hazard) on a bus?


28 posted on 07/17/2005 11:04:20 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Technoman
Seat belts have saved my father's life twice. First back in the 1966, and more recently two and a half weeks ago. Unfortunately back in 1966 his Olsmobile only had lap belts so he ate some plastic from the steering wheel. He's needed lots of dental work due to molars that were cracked.

His more recent accident which was caused by the other driver running a red light, caused extensive damage to the front end of his SUV. The airbags did not deploy, because he swerved to avoid hitting the passenger compartment of the pickup that had acclerated through the red light. If he had not swerved, he would have hit the pickup straight on and deployed the airbags but would have killed the other driver's mother.

29 posted on 07/17/2005 11:06:45 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lsee

Nice post. Not a fan of 'nanny laws' but there is a balance that needs to be struck. As a post above noted....I hope those who do not wear seat belts or helmets on motorcycles at least sign their organ donor cards.
If interested, here are some stats from the NHTSA



Abstract



The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated in 1984 that manual 3-point safety belts reduce the fatality risk of front-seat occupants of passenger cars by 45 percent relative to the unrestrained occupant. The agency still relies on that estimate. Shortly after 1985, the prime analysis technique for Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data, double-pair comparison, began producing inflated, unreliable results. This report develops an empirical tool to adjust double-pair comparison analyses of 1986-99 FARS data. It validates the adjustments by comparing the belt use of fatally injured people in certain types of crashes to belt use observed on the road in State and national surveys. These methods reconfirm the agency=s earlier estimates of fatality reduction by manual 3-point belts: 45 percent in passenger cars and 60 percent in light trucks. Furthermore, they open the abundant 1986-99 FARS data to additional analyses, permitting point-estimation of belt effectiveness by crash type, occupant age and gender, belt type, vehicle type, etc:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.ceb14f2494cdd3dd304a4c4446108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a_viewID=detail_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID=da63fd08cccaff00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard




30 posted on 07/17/2005 11:07:12 AM PDT by flixxx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Interesting you choose to sidestep the point. Mandatory seatbelt laws are illegal -but I gather you have no problem with that. You do, instead, seem quite pleased with the prospect of forcing others to do what you feel is best for them. Speaking of helmets and the wearing thererof; I notice with no little amusement that whether or not anyone chooses to wear a helmet, I have yet to see any seatbelts installed in any make or model of motorcycles manufactured, past or present. So, motoring about in a cage surrounded by glass and steel is so dangereous that everyone should be forced at gunpoint to wear a seatbelt -but no helmet- to save them from harm, but riding My scoot with only the clothes I freely choose to wear is so much safer that I should be forced at gunpoint for My own protection to wear a brainbucket (helmet) -but no seatbelt. Quite sensible, yes.

Incidentally, I rode a bicycle for over thirty-five years without a helmet of any kind (unlike the feel-good laws of today), and I am still alive. Although I gather from the likes of you that since I did so I am now deceased.

Not Bloody Likely.

31 posted on 07/17/2005 11:08:10 AM PDT by Utilizer (What does not kill you... - can sometimes damage you QUITE severely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
"Seat belt laws are clearly unconstitutional. The word "liberty" must be expunged from the federal and state constitutions. The fact that the public pays for injuries to the unbelted is a problem with socialism, not liberty...and our government is socialist, more's the pity. " Agreed. though I wear the darn things to protect my own ass, I do believe the law is unconstitutional as are helmet laws for motorcycle riders. We are fast becoming a 'State as Nanny' country.
32 posted on 07/17/2005 11:08:29 AM PDT by Vaquero (I am a red stater trapped in the body of a blue state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Technoman

It's just another pocket. I wear mine but it should be my choice and I shouldn't get ticketed if I forget. Make a law that no one can get pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt and only a free educated warning can be given with other violations.


33 posted on 07/17/2005 11:09:00 AM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
The best safety device ever is a competent, aware and alert defensive driver. Period.

No number of laws aimed at the least common denominator will ever be as effective.

34 posted on 07/17/2005 11:10:37 AM PDT by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Don't give them any ideas . . . I've seen bio-kinetic reports where the cause of death or injury was the impact of the heads of two occupants striking each other.


On a related note:

"Unbelted riders can turn into deadly bullets"

"Hundreds of Americans are killed and thousands injured each year because unbelted back-seat passengers become human projectiles in frontal collisions, a study by the University of Buffalo and the Center for Transportation Injury Research says.

"An unbelted passenger seated behind the driver turns into a "backseat bullet" that increases death risks for the driver and passenger, Dietrich Jehle, an emergency medicine professor at the university and a researcher for the study says.

"The odds of death were almost three times higher for the unbelted passenger and two times higher for the driver under those circumstances," Jehle said.

"The study concludes that more than 800 lives could be saved annually and 65,000 injuries prevented if 95 percent of rear-seat occupants used belts.


"In analyzing 300,000 fatal crashes from seven years, researchers found that 33 percent of rear-seat occupants older than 16 and 62 percent younger than 16 were belted.


"Crash tests conducted with instrumented dummies at the center’s Buffalo, N.Y., research facility showed that, when a frontal crash propels an unbelted rear passenger into the driver, the forces on the driver’s head and chest increase four times.


"Our hope is to get all people to wear seat belts in the rear seat," Jehle said. "If people start to get a mind-set that the unbelted person behind me is trying to kill me, they would have a different perspective."


"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says 79 percent of front-seat occupants buckle up, but the agency does not measure rear-seat restraint use among all motorists, only in fatal accidents.


"NHTSA data from 2002 show that 63 percent of rear-seat passengers killed in cars were unbelted, versus 47 percent of front-seat occupants, indicating fewer rear-seat occupants use belts.

"NHTSA is pushing states to adopt strong seat-belt laws that cover all occupants, but Washington is the only one that requires everyone be belted regardless of age or where they’re seated."

http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=23117
35 posted on 07/17/2005 11:11:46 AM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

I don't like seatbelt laws, however, I like having my tax dollars and insurance dollars pay for idiots who refuse to wear seatbelts.

Pass a law that says insurance companies can refuse to pay for injuries caused by not wearing a seatbelt, and that the government will not pick up the medical bills of those injured due to not wearing seatbelts, then it solves several problems at once.


36 posted on 07/17/2005 11:12:25 AM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: flixxx

How do you 'strike a balance' on seat belt laws when the largest of the commercial carriers does not require them?

School buses,Commerical transportation buses,Trains,AND commerical trucking.

You can apply a law haphazardly and expect people to be happy about it.

Personal choice is just that.

My NOT wearing a seatbelt has no direct effect on you wearing yours.


37 posted on 07/17/2005 11:12:31 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Nice post but show me where it states that you can't wear a seatbelt if the Seatbelt law is chunked?

TT


38 posted on 07/17/2005 11:14:20 AM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Utilizer
Actually I haven't weighed in yet with my pro or con opinion of the laws.

You are jumping the gun.

But whether I favor such laws or not, I am curious about your assertion that the laws are 'illegal'. I'd be interested in more detail on that.
39 posted on 07/17/2005 11:14:50 AM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

If you do that are you going to excempt them from paying for other high risk activities? Biking, boating, working on the house, crossing a street, running, walking...


40 posted on 07/17/2005 11:15:04 AM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

"You can apply a law haphazardly and expect people to be happy about it?"

Should have been a question mark at the end of that sentence.

Sorry!


41 posted on 07/17/2005 11:15:16 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
It does not give you the right to force me to care behind the force of law

As a conservative I dislike nanny state laws. But choosing not to wear a seat belt, as an expression of your freedom of choice, is just plain stupid.
42 posted on 07/17/2005 11:15:33 AM PDT by redheadtoo (I am alive today thanks to my seat belt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Technoman
I am perfectly fine with you not wearing a helmet or a seat belt, but I think if you get in an accident an you are not wearing a seat belt, you waive all liability. Ie you cannot sue the other car (even if they are at fault) you cannot sue the automaker, .... if you are not wearing you safety protection whose to say you wouldn't have been hurt. Its your right not to wear one, but you have to bear the complete responsibility of not wearing it.
43 posted on 07/17/2005 11:16:38 AM PDT by Plant7Pugsley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg

as long as it's in the contract, it's not a problem.

Insruance companies should be able to practice not paying out for dumbass behavior so the other people that think about what they do don't have to pay for the morons.


44 posted on 07/17/2005 11:17:50 AM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

Shouldn't need to pass that law, Insurance Companies own enough politicians already, no telling what kinda riders would be attached to a law that would simply return our Rights.

We shouldn't have to negotiate our Freedom.


45 posted on 07/17/2005 11:18:03 AM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Technoman
When our state, California first started with the seatbelt law, they swore the would NEVER stop a vehicle just for a seatbelt violation. They would only issue a ticket if it happened during a normal traffic stop.

Kind of like a temporary tax...
46 posted on 07/17/2005 11:18:24 AM PDT by Lx (Do you like it, do you like it. Scott? I call it Mr. and Mrs. Tennerman chili.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Technoman

>You might die if you don't wear it

Yup and without it I'll die too......

>Yah but it will cost society more

Nope not unless we are making the government pay for my healthcare.

Besides are our lives supposed to be lived so as to serve the state and the greater good or do we still believe in a principle called personal freedom. The freedom to take risks and live with the consequences.


47 posted on 07/17/2005 11:22:38 AM PDT by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: festus

Great Tag!


48 posted on 07/17/2005 11:25:02 AM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Technoman
People that don't wear seat belts are total morons. I think parents should be held criminally liable if they don't fasten the kids in or put them in a secure seat if too young to wear a belt. If morons want to not wear seat belts and imitate a missile when they go through the windshield, that's their fault. Frankly, though, I don't have a problem with mandatory seat belt laws. Seat belts save lives -- only someone at the OJ jury level of refusal to see the evidence would dispute that.

Surely you can find a more egregious and pointless intrusion on personal liberty than this!

49 posted on 07/17/2005 11:25:26 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (Forget Blackwell for Governor! Blackwell for Senate '06!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flixxx; Technoman

"Nice post"?

You think it is acceptable to force others to do something to protect YOURSELF if you are negligent?


50 posted on 07/17/2005 11:26:13 AM PDT by Politicalmom (Just one more reason to hate the government....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson