Posted on 07/17/2005 10:17:40 AM PDT by Technoman
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Public roads are unconstitutional as well.
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.
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.
Insurance companies all make money on their investments. None of them make any money writing policy. It's pretty generally a cost passthrough situation.
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.
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)
There's no advantage to having belts in a bus.
Nanny state laws only place is on publicly owned right of way. They should not apply on private property.
Ben Franklin was not a Socialist!
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?
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.