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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: flashbunny

The problem is what one person thinks is "dumbass" behavior may not be to someone else. You could probably find something risky that I do that I don't consider unsafe. I could probably do the same for you. Seems to me that insurance companies would love this and not have to pay for much anymore. JMO


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

To: Plant7Pugsley
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.

Your statement is pure BS.

Am I to infer from your insight here that people who are shot by criminals should no longer be covered because they are not wearing a bullet proof vest? That the victim is the responsible party and the perp is free to walk simply because the injured party had no vest on?

The same reasoning applies to that senario as does to your no seat belt senario making the injured is the party responsible simply because they were not wearing a belt.

If I did not cause the accident I am not responsible, seat belt or no.The person causing the accident and injuries is responsible. Maybe we should have a law that requires us all to wrap up in foam rubber everyday, put on bullet proof vests etc.

I wear seat belts, but I should not be forced to wear them. It is a violation of my rights and also is disrespectful to me as a responsible citizen. I can make my own choices and I am the one who will suffer. Using the excuse that insurance costs will go up or that somehow you are paying the other persons cost of insurance is, as I have said, pure unadulterated BS and is the same argument used against smokers.

62 posted on 07/17/2005 12:01:17 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
No number of laws aimed at the least common denominator will ever be as effective.

I might agree with you about laws requiring use of seatbelts, but wide availability of cars with seatbelts installed as standard equipment didn't occur till government regulations required them.

Here's a picture of my dad's car after the accident. He would have probably been seriously injured or killed if he hadn't worn his seatbelt.


63 posted on 07/17/2005 12:15:16 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The State, and by extension the Federal government, as defined in its conception and constitution, has no lawful power to make arbitrary or capricious laws intended to dictate to we the people how to live our lives. It was created for the sole purpose of performing those functions that we as individuals were unable to perform, such as provide for the common defence, undertake and complete projects for the common good (such as land conservatorship and management, and road projects), representation of we the people to the federal branches of government in whatever form required, and authority to enforce the just laws the people have agreed to abide by with the creation of said State. It was authorized to expend on its behalf the finances necessary to perform said functions by a system of fines and levies that were determined to be that which was specifically only that needed to accomplish said goals, and had no other powers other than that specifically given to it by the people, all others belonging solely to the people that the free will thereof not be infringed in any way.

The State has absolutely no right to dictate to the people how they should or should not live their lives, nor interfere in any way the freedoms and liberties enjoyed by all, with the exception being where the actions of one is detrimental to the life and liberties of another.

The government in any form has no right to dictate to a lawful adult whether or not to wear any item, be that a helmet, seatbelt, or other item it deems to be 'protective' or in any manner preferable to the government or any other agency, the people having the wit and intelligence to create the government in the first place, by default also having the clarity of thought to determine for themselves what is best for them in any area of their personal lives, and pursuance of their liberties and happiness in whatever form they choose that to be.

If the government has the authority to mandate that you must wear a seatbelt while in an automobile, it also has the authority to dictate the wearing of that or any other protective device in any other area of life, whether that be a motorcycle, bicycle, or even walking down a supermarket aisle with a shopping-basket.

If the government has the authority to mandate that you must wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, it also has the authority to dictate the wearing of that or any other protective device in any other area of life, whether that be an automobile, walking in a park, or while bathing, the locality being unimportant, and the necessity of 'protection' being the overriding consideration.

When we accept the government's authority to dictate to we the people what we can and cannot do in the interests of our own safety, it will not be long before even the smallest of actions must be tempered by the premise of 'protection uber alles', whether that be the mandatory wearing of seatbelts and helmets, mandatory airbags (which just happen to decapitate small children), outlawing certain automobiles because they are 'so big they are a danger to smaller vehicles', outlawing certain makes, models, and calibres of firearms because 'the public has no foreseeable need for such a weapon'... or even mandating the constant wearing of prophylactic devices during any form of intimate contact, that the danger of transmitted diseases be minimized.

Still, the illegality of some laws are ignored when convenient to some even now, an example being the taxes already paid on gasoline. There is one tax added to the price at the pump before you even pump it, and then there is a sales tax added as well, although double-taxation is already defined as illegal.

So by all means, let us allow illegal laws to prosper. I realize full well that some persons are quite happy and content in chains.

64 posted on 07/17/2005 12:22:28 PM PDT by Utilizer (What does not kill you... - can sometimes damage you QUITE severely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
One last thought: when seat belts were being "argued", we were reassured repeatedly that they would forever be voluntary.

Specifically, that this would never be a primary reason for a traffic violation stop. But some people here just can't realize that the government pretty much never passes a law merely for our benefit these days but to advance their control agenda. Seat belt laws today are a government license to go on a fishing expedition.

65 posted on 07/17/2005 12:29:49 PM PDT by Axenolith (Got Au? Ag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg

As a person who pays for premiums, I'd certainly 'love it' if I didn't have to pay for idiots who think not wearing seatbelts is a good idea.


66 posted on 07/17/2005 12:41:17 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

How about just passing a law that says insurance companies charge you a rate based upon you individual driving record rather than a statistical abstract of your age and gender cohort? I sure as hell wasn't to keen on shucking rates that included the aggregate of 16-25 year old males when I had a perfect driving record for that age span...


67 posted on 07/17/2005 12:41:30 PM PDT by Axenolith (Got Au? Ag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
I never said seat belts were not a good idea. There are lots of good ideas out there but people should be allowed to make informed decisions IMO. Have your premiums gone down as seat belt usage went up? My policies only increase.
68 posted on 07/17/2005 12:46:27 PM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg

that would be a valid question IF policies allowed insurance payments to be denied to people who didn't wear seatbelts. As such, there's no reason to even bother asking, unless it's a typing exercise.


69 posted on 07/17/2005 1:03:41 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken

Yes~!~absolutely ~ nothing like those bodies pinned to the steering column ~ enters the gut, shows up in the neck. Makes the head throw back while the blood pumps.


70 posted on 07/17/2005 1:11:10 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gorush

Public roads are unconstitutional as well.


71 posted on 07/17/2005 1:11:41 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

Next time your head comes flying out of your car and smacking into my windshield I am going to sue the heck out of your estate and leave your widow and orphans destitute and living in cardboard boxes in an alley.


72 posted on 07/17/2005 1:13:20 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

According to Chrysler engineers, air bags are useful in only 1% of accidents, if a seat belt is worn.
That still doesn't mean they should be mandatory and/or a profit center in law enforcement.
Speaking as one who uses a seat belt all the time and would advise others to do so as well.


73 posted on 07/17/2005 1:14:05 PM PDT by henderson field
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard

Insurance companies all make money on their investments. None of them make any money writing policy. It's pretty generally a cost passthrough situation.


74 posted on 07/17/2005 1:14:41 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

The difference is this ~ when you ride in an automobile you are much nearer the ground than you would be in a bus. Most of the force of collisions occurs down towards the ground. Bus passengers are above the fray.


75 posted on 07/17/2005 1:17:08 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"Public roads are unconstitutional as well."

As a federal issue, you are exactly right. Of course they have bought themselves in with funding (and the withholding thereof)and requiremnts that the federal interstates must provide landing availabilities for wartime use.The fact that I may not be wearing a seat belt in no way endangers my neighbor (other than the aforementioned socialistically acceptable and inspired medical costs)

76 posted on 07/17/2005 1:18:43 PM PDT by gorush (Exterminate the Moops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2
Hmmmm ~ just posted a response to the question, but it keeps getting asked. The reason seatbelts work in cars but not in buses is simply the fact that most of the force of most highway collisions occurs down in the first 3 or 4 feet above the highway. Buses raise their passengers much higher, and they therefore become safer.

There's no advantage to having belts in a bus.

77 posted on 07/17/2005 1:20:14 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: calex59

Nanny state laws only place is on publicly owned right of way. They should not apply on private property.


78 posted on 07/17/2005 1:23:33 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: gorush

Ben Franklin was not a Socialist!


79 posted on 07/17/2005 1:25:45 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Technoman

These same government types are all for "personal choice"
when it comes to exterminating an unwanted fetus.
But you better be buckled into that killer SUV or you are
breaking the Law. Which is worse in your book?


80 posted on 07/17/2005 1:35:21 PM PDT by claptrap (optional tagline under re-consideration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 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