What a coincidence. I'm alive today because I REFUSED to wear a seat belt when I was younger. Six of one, half-dozen of another. I agree, however...keep the government OUT of it...and the insurance companies, as well.
Posted on 12/28/2002 9:05:12 AM PST by Ape_Man_Jack
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
In case you are interested, there is now a web site dedicated to seat belt law opposition which was created by someone in the Chicago area. The web site address is:
www.seatbeltchoice.com
In Washington state there is a group working to repeal their seat belt law. The web site address is:
www.clickitstickit.com
Another web site worth viewing (still in the composition stage) is:
www.sukkahs.com/seatbelt
www.sukkahs.com/seatbelt/ticket.htm
20 years ago Washington State DOT had signs everywhere saying "Buckle Up -- We Love You" (yeah, sure). A few years later a mandatory seat-belt law was passed, but the politicians promised us (yeah, sure) that we could never be pulled over and ticketed for failing to wear our seatbelts.
Now the DOT signs say "Buckle Up -- It's The Law" (Yeah, well, at least that's honest) and we can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing seatbelts. So much for politicians' promises.
(I'm alive today because I installed and wore a seatbelt decades ago. But keep the government out of it.)
Unfortunately, the taxpayers are the ones who end up paying for the "independence" of those who refuse to buckle up. Until they enact a rule saying Medicare and Medicaid won't pay for any medical treatment/rehab required by a person because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, I think the law is fair. The military does it with motorcycles - if a soldier is injured when not wearing the appropriate gear (helmet, long sleeves, long pants, etc.) he's responsible for his own medical bills.
What a coincidence. I'm alive today because I REFUSED to wear a seat belt when I was younger. Six of one, half-dozen of another. I agree, however...keep the government OUT of it...and the insurance companies, as well.
Here in Massachusetts, Mike Dukakis (remember him?) was big on seat-belt laws and got one passed in the 1980s when he was governor here. The citizens of Massachusetts, spurred on by local talk radio host Jerry Williams, got the law repealed in 1986! This made Mike Dukakis very angry and embarrassed him just as his presidential campaign was getting off the ground. Eventually, Massachusetts lawmakers went against the wish of the voters and sneaked the bill back into law when nobody was looking. When the law went back into place, the politicians made it clear that the law would not be pro-actively enforced. That is, police officers would not be able to stop a car just to check for seat belts. But of course, that would not be the case. A few years went by and that directive was quietly overturned as well. Now we are beginning to see actual roadblocks with cops checking for seat belts. All under the guise of "public safety" of course. This is what is coming to the rest of America, if you let it.
If they were serious about this for the sake of safety they wouldn't make it a law to wear seat belts, but rather they would allow insurance companies to offer seatbelt-only coverage.
No, this whole thing is about CONTROL.
Here in Florida they have this laughable poster of an African American, female state trooper brandishing a seatbelt like a club with the title "It's the Law." Every time I see this I find myself wondering exactly what percentage of the troopers are actually African American AND female.
I could do no better job ridiculing the government than it does on its own (well, ok, I guess I could have put her in a wheel chair!)
I would happily wear a seat belt if I entered into a mutual contract with an insurance agency under these conditions.
But when the Nanny State says I have to: All the more beligerent I get.
Give me freedom, and I'll take care of my own safety.
I'm the same way. After years of wearing a seat belt, I have recently quit wearing it. I won't use a 'hands free' phone either if it becomes mandatory.
Of course not. Sometimes seat belts save you, sometimes they kill you...luck of the draw. The FACT is; if I had been wearing a seat belt back in 1970, I would have been DEAD the last thirty -two years. If I am killed today for not wearing a seat belt, I am still up 32 years...I can live with that.
Seat belts are of no use unless you wreck your car.
Keep in mind that the average person also has one testicle, one breast capable (or formerly so) of lactation, one ovary, etc.
Statistics only show trends, and individuals are specific cases, which do not necessarily fit the trend.
So, for those of us whose physical parameters are a couple of standard deviations from the mean, or whose driving situations do not fit the freeway norm, let us make up our own mind what is or is not safe. I have been in situations where the use of a seat belt was appropriate, and have used one. In other cases, it was not. The day that North Dakota's first seat belt law went into effect, I was driving my wife home from the hospital with a row of staples in her tummy from the navel downward. The law dictated that she was to wear a lap belt and shoulder harness, common sense dictated otherwise.
Aside from one more reason to pull you over and meddle in your business, when all else you you were doing was right,(Mind if we search the vehicle, sir?--(A question with as many correct answers as 'Have you quit beating your wife?'), this is just another money maker. It doesn't matter that you have 10 years of accident-free driving, and no personal injury accidents in nearly 30 years, after, all, Ve haff vays of making you vear zis strap!
In reality, the Government really doesn't give a diddley squat whether you or I are safe, so much as alleviating the perception that it is 'losing' revenue. (Although a corpse costs $10-15,000 to take care of, a trauma unit patient 10+ times that.)
The same 'public cost' hype is waved around in regards to motorcycle helmet laws, with the flawed assumptions that the public picks up the cost, that helmets make you safe, and that crashes are inevitable, so let's make it safe to have a wreck, whether or not the 'safety' devices may be contributing factors in the accident.
Instead, the focus of studies should be on the root causes of traffic accidents, and how to prevent them entirely (no injuries, no property damage).
Then, maybe, we can get away from putting devices in automobiles which distract the driver from safely operating the vehicle and concentrate on the main mission, getting from point A to point B without being involved in an accident. DVD Players, Cell Phones, elaborate stereo systems, make-up mirrors, would all go the way of the dinosaur.
'Driving' in a sound proofed, insular world, only removes the operator from the reality outside which can kill you, or get someone else killed.
Instead people are burdened with just another invasive law on the way to the 'final solution' for common sense.
Oddly enough, the more safe people percieve themselves to be, the greater risks they take. I doubt you will find a decrease in accidents.
One last thing, the ability to duck might be the controlling factor in surviving a rear-ender with a semi going 65 miles per hour slower. Getting in that situation is another story, and I don't claim to know the details.
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.