No, it's intrusion
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
"Click it or ticket"
- Thread starter Bloodshot Scott
- Start date
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Oh Dirk...you make me so sad when you talk that helmet crap. The only person that suffers from not wearing one, is the rider...it should be his/her choice. It's not like a car seat for a child, THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT
Yes, I drive a truck, and yeah, I've seen it all...but that's not my reasoning.
The only reason I see for any of this nonsense is, the insurance companies are putting big, fat campaign contributions on the tables of their favorite politicians, and using it not for safety, but as an out to not pay, when someone doesn't obey. Same reason pot isn't legal...big pharmaceutical won't allow it. How many ex executives from the pharmi companies have worked for the FDA, and vise a versa. Same principle.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
Laws are not just for criminals and to protect people from harm. To put it in simple terms, laws act as a type of protection that keeps normal people from doing things that are detrimental to others or themselves. Perhaps I chose the wrong word when I said the government's roads; I should have said the state's roads. This is basic political philosophy: you are a part of the greater whole that is the state. The state's only reason to exist is to protect you from harm, even if that harm comes about due to your own stupidty. Clearly the strongest opinion is that seatbelts save lives and so the state requires you to wear a seatbelt if you want to to benefit from it's infrastructure. If you don't like obeying what essentially is the majority opinion in the United States then, really, pack up and move to a country in Africa that does not enforce seatbelt laws and does not have the same high level infrastructure that the States does. This is no different than the state reserving the right to have a depressed/suicidal person's freedoms violated because they might harm themselves; both apparently have no reprecussions to anyone but that one person, so the government should not be involved? Ridiculous. A logical person would say that seatbelts save lives and know that, despite that, they might not always wear it, and so they give the state the right to dictate that anyone who drives has to wear it in order to make sure they don't make a mistake that will end up killing them.
Does this mean I agree with the methods in which these laws are enforced? Not necessarily. But I think being forced to wear a seatbelt is a much better alternative than choosing not to wear it and ending up in a hospital where you will bitch about how unfortunate you are and how the state didn't do enough to protect you. The state really can't be violating your freedoms by keeping you alive (the lives lost according to revidffum are a small minority of cases and are insignificant compared to the lives saved), and honestly if you really think the government is being intrusive by forcing you to wear a harness when you are sitting in a still position and driving 100 km/h, you're going to be horrified when you realize how "intrusive" the government is when you're outside of the car.
The rider. And his family. And the State when he has to have expensive medical procedures that he and his family can't afford. The the other people involved in the accident, with their psychological trauma because he died when a helmet would have saved his life.
You are traveling down the road at high speeds, trusting other drivers to drive well. Why the hell should you not have to put a helmet on? It is not an infringement on your rights. They aren't taking your property, removing civil liberties, or segregating anyone by race, creed, or socio-economic status. They're saying there are rules on the roads that help keep you, and everyone else, safe. Follow them, or you're breaking the rules.
Sorry. Small (but related) derail. I think Plasma's post is just spot on.
:thumbsup:
That wouldn't happen. Only a retard would do that.
Should they be this worried about people wearing a seat-belt? No. However, if you're fucking stupid enough to not wear a seat-belt, then evolution dictates that you should die in a car accident.
larss
I'm watching some specialist videos
Seatbelts protect others as well. As shown in the old Jimmy Saville "Clunk Click" video posted by Red, without a seatbelt you are a lose object and are a danger to anyone else in the car. Even when there is no one else in the car, without a belt to keep you in, you and the car can easily part company. This could mean that you are thrown into the pathway of cars on the other side of the road, causing a danger to them.
Keep 'em strapped in - it is not just you that you are protecting.
And if you think that seatbelts are not needed for low speed driving - see what happens when you drive into a wall at 30mph!
Keep 'em strapped in - it is not just you that you are protecting.
And if you think that seatbelts are not needed for low speed driving - see what happens when you drive into a wall at 30mph!
So is this a law in most European countries as well?
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
This is the modern day first world, Scott. It's 80% retard.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
I don't think the seat belt thing is so intrusive, just a pain in the ass. It saves lives, keeps injuries to a minimum and saves on insurance. Nothing to get my panties up in a bunch about. What I don't like are the laws that ban eating or drinking while driving. Cops can ticket you in California and other places for sipping your coffee at a light on the way to work. They say,"It has been studied by valid researchers that eating while driving constitutes for 80% of accidents." That sounds like horse shit to me. $90 first time, $240 second time for eating a fucking Snickers bar in my car.
bobjustbob
*funny name, plus has good points*
*funny name, plus has good points*
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I can understand the points made by those who feel that they shouldn't be forced to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets. And I suppose if there was some way to exclude those who don't want to wear either from receiving government disability or publicly subsidized medical care, if their injuries were related to not wearing a belt or helmet... then I could go libertarian on this issue. But with that said, when I see people who don't wear belts or helmets, I figure Mr. Darwin is just waiting to apply his theory of natural selection. The problem is, when people get banged up and its permanent, they might be libertarians before the accident, but they become full bore socialists afterward. We end up taking care of them and/or their families through lifetime disability payments, medical bills and higher insurance costs.
I've spent a LOT of time at race tracks over the years (I'd spend even more time there if I didn't have to have a job). And if you said to any race car driver (from an SCCA amateur to an ALMS pro) that you don't wear seat belts, don't wear a helmet or you don't wear the belt properly for reasons of comfort, they'd laugh in your face. People who say things like they might get thrown clear in a crash or they might pass out in a crash and the car might catch fire, so they want to be able to get out, are just spreading old wives' tales.
I have a race car that is a (technically) street legal. Not all harnesses are DOT approved/street legal. But since I have to have an inspection sticker on this car, everything on it has to pass state inspection. And this is what I have in it:
Schrothe Rallye 4 harness
It's a great harness. It's not very comfortable (though not as bad as the ones with crotch belts!), but if I could make it work in my daily driver/street cars, I'd probably use it in them too. Why? I do like things with wheels. But I don't think I'd look very cool in a wheelchair.
I've spent a LOT of time at race tracks over the years (I'd spend even more time there if I didn't have to have a job). And if you said to any race car driver (from an SCCA amateur to an ALMS pro) that you don't wear seat belts, don't wear a helmet or you don't wear the belt properly for reasons of comfort, they'd laugh in your face. People who say things like they might get thrown clear in a crash or they might pass out in a crash and the car might catch fire, so they want to be able to get out, are just spreading old wives' tales.
I have a race car that is a (technically) street legal. Not all harnesses are DOT approved/street legal. But since I have to have an inspection sticker on this car, everything on it has to pass state inspection. And this is what I have in it:
Schrothe Rallye 4 harness
It's a great harness. It's not very comfortable (though not as bad as the ones with crotch belts!), but if I could make it work in my daily driver/street cars, I'd probably use it in them too. Why? I do like things with wheels. But I don't think I'd look very cool in a wheelchair.
REPPED! FUCK YEAH SISTER, we don't need any fucking gubmint granny nannies! DOWN WITH THE NANNY STATE! (edited to add that I need to spread some rep around before I come back to you, but you're gonna get some...)
Mandy Flores
Official Checked Star Member
Where you got the idea that governments are there to protect us from ourselves is beyond me. I think perhaps you should research that. But you're right, there needs to be laws to keep us from killing ourselves so let's start with the that list, by order of number of fatalities.....
#1. HYPERTENSION/OBESITY/HIGH CHOLESTEROL= 12.2 MILLION annual preventable deaths------Oh yes, it's VERY preventable. Mcdonalds, KFC, Carls Jr.-----ALL should be illegal! How could the government continue to not protect it's people from such obvious stupidity!
#2. TOBACCO=5 Million annual preventble deaths---Please oh please...government that exists to protect us from our own stupidity...please help us help ourselves!!
#3 PHYSICAL INACTIVITY=2 million annual preventable deaths---How can this senselessness continue?
#4 ALCOHOL=1.9 million annual preventable deaths---Oh they tried in the US, but we're way too stuipid to know what's good for us and demanded to be allowed to risk our lives!
So Car death accidents....42,000+ in 2009 55% were NOT wearing seatbelts but.....5,000 of those were PEDESTRIANS/BICYCLES involved, and 20,000 died simply from driving a car, even WITH a seatbelt. Perhaps we should have a law that you can't drive, it's incredibly dangerous. In fact the same article states that it is the number one cause of accidental deaths of children, so really, parents who would risk their childs life in such an irresponsible fashion need to wake up! Oh, no, nevermind, the government is responsible to make them stop risking their childs lives.
THE POINT IS THAT IF IT IS THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY MORE PRESSING AND SERIOUS THING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT, AND WHO IS IT THAT DECIDES WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO THAT MAY BE UNSAFE? SKYDIVING, RIDING A MOTORCYCLE, SKIING, HANG GLIDING, HIKING, ......IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO FORCE US TO DO WHAT IS GOOD FOR US, IF IT WAS, THEN MAKING MCDONALDS AND MARLBORO, AND JACK DANIELS ILLEGAL WOULD HAVE 50X THE PRIORITY... SHOULDN'T IT?
On a side note....... for all you gun control advocates, accidental gun deaths (642 deaths in 2009)don't even make the CDC's top 100 list of causes, even though OVER 50% OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS HAVE A GUN. You are 39 (yikes) times more likely to fall and die (Aprx. 25,000 deaths in 2009) (
AND WITH ALL THAT SAID, I BELIEVE IT IS A GOOD THING TO MAKE PEOPLE WEAR THEIR SEATBELTS, I JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE THE GOVERNMENTS DECISION
"Click it or Ticket" has been law in California for almost 10 years now. I wear my seat belt at all times when I drive, not because I care about a seat belt ticket so much, but because, as BS stated earlier, I really, really don't want to be paralyzed because some shitcanned-drunk dumbass plowed their Escalade into me at 90 mph. It would be a mess, and I'm not sure I have the type of friendship with anyone who would honor my requests of smothering me to death with a pillow after all that went down, because there's no way in hell I could live that way.
That aside, I do think it should be mandatory for everyone to wear their seat belts, and to wear helmets when riding motorcycles. Not because I care about people personally, because I don't, (to be honest, I think most people should fuck off and die anyhow) but rather, because these types of injuries are preventable, and the more idiots that refuse to wear seat belts, or motorcycle helmets that become paralyzed, or are afflicted with an incurable TBI or something similar are going to raise my car insurance rates, as well as my health insurance rates, all because they didn't feel like taking the proper precautions while operating a motor vehicle. Do you have any idea what the healthcare costs are to keep someone alive with a TBI or paralytic injury? These people, usually, are on 24 hour care, ventilators, all kinds of medicines and surgeries for the rest of their lives, that makes my cost go up, because you were an irresponsible asshole.
I don't really consider it to be government intrusion, for the simple fact that if the government is complacent with these things, their lack of action is an intrusion into my pocketbook because people can't be trusted to live responsible lifestyles.
That aside, I do think it should be mandatory for everyone to wear their seat belts, and to wear helmets when riding motorcycles. Not because I care about people personally, because I don't, (to be honest, I think most people should fuck off and die anyhow) but rather, because these types of injuries are preventable, and the more idiots that refuse to wear seat belts, or motorcycle helmets that become paralyzed, or are afflicted with an incurable TBI or something similar are going to raise my car insurance rates, as well as my health insurance rates, all because they didn't feel like taking the proper precautions while operating a motor vehicle. Do you have any idea what the healthcare costs are to keep someone alive with a TBI or paralytic injury? These people, usually, are on 24 hour care, ventilators, all kinds of medicines and surgeries for the rest of their lives, that makes my cost go up, because you were an irresponsible asshole.
I don't really consider it to be government intrusion, for the simple fact that if the government is complacent with these things, their lack of action is an intrusion into my pocketbook because people can't be trusted to live responsible lifestyles.
Where you got the idea that governments are there to protect us from ourselves is beyond me. I think perhaps you should research that. But you're right, there needs to be laws to keep us from killing ourselves so let's start with the that list, by order of number of fatalities.....
#1. HYPERTENSION/OBESITY/HIGH CHOLESTEROL= 12.2 MILLION annual preventable deaths------Oh yes, it's VERY preventable. Mcdonalds, KFC, Carls Jr.-----ALL should be illegal! How could the government continue to not protect it's people from such obvious stupidity!
#2. TOBACCO=5 Million annual preventble deaths---Please oh please...government that exists to protect us from our own stupidity...please help us help ourselves!!
#3 PHYSICAL INACTIVITY=2 million annual preventable deaths---How can this senselessness continue?
#4 ALCOHOL=1.9 million annual preventable deaths---Oh they tried in the US, but we're way too stuipid to know what's good for us and demanded to be allowed to risk our lives!
So Car death accidents....42,000+ in 2009 55% were NOT wearing seatbelts but.....5,000 of those were PEDESTRIANS/BICYCLES involved, and 20,000 died simply from driving a car, even WITH a seatbelt. Perhaps we should have a law that you can't drive, it's incredibly dangerous. In fact the same article states that it is the number one cause of accidental deaths of children, so really, parents who would risk their childs life in such an irresponsible fashion need to wake up! Oh, no, nevermind, the government is responsible to make them stop risking their childs lives.
THE POINT IS THAT IF IT IS THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY MORE PRESSING AND SERIOUS THING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT, AND WHO IS IT THAT DECIDES WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO THAT MAY BE UNSAFE? SKYDIVING, RIDING A MOTORCYCLE, SKIING, HANG GLIDING, HIKING, ......IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO FORCE US TO DO WHAT IS GOOD FOR US, IF IT WAS, THEN MAKING MCDONALDS AND MARLBORO, AND JACK DANIELS ILLEGAL WOULD HAVE 50X THE PRIORITY... SHOULDN'T IT?
On a side note....... for all you gun control advocates, accidental gun deaths (642 deaths in 2009)don't even make the CDC's top 100 list of causes, even though OVER 50% OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS HAVE A GUN. You are 39 (yikes) times more likely to fall and die (Aprx. 25,000 deaths in 2009) (
AND WITH ALL THAT SAID, I BELIEVE IT IS A GOOD THING TO MAKE PEOPLE WEAR THEIR SEATBELTS, I JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE THE GOVERNMENTS DECISION
May I ask where you stand on universal healthcare? Serious question...
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Mandy Flores
"#3 PHYSICAL INACTIVITY=2 million annual preventable deaths---How can this senselessness continue? "
Post of the week.
Bob
"#3 PHYSICAL INACTIVITY=2 million annual preventable deaths---How can this senselessness continue? "
Post of the week.
Bob
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
Where you got the idea that governments are there to protect us from ourselves is beyond me. I think perhaps you should research that. But you're right, there needs to be laws to keep us from killing ourselves so let's start with the that list, by order of number of fatalities.....
#1. HYPERTENSION/OBESITY/HIGH CHOLESTEROL= 12.2 MILLION annual preventable deaths------Oh yes, it's VERY preventable. Mcdonalds, KFC, Carls Jr.-----ALL should be illegal! How could the government continue to not protect it's people from such obvious stupidity!
#2. TOBACCO=5 Million annual preventble deaths---Please oh please...government that exists to protect us from our own stupidity...please help us help ourselves!!
#3 PHYSICAL INACTIVITY=2 million annual preventable deaths---How can this senselessness continue?
#4 ALCOHOL=1.9 million annual preventable deaths---Oh they tried in the US, but we're way too stuipid to know what's good for us and demanded to be allowed to risk our lives!
So Car death accidents....42,000+ in 2009 55% were NOT wearing seatbelts but.....5,000 of those were PEDESTRIANS/BICYCLES involved, and 20,000 died simply from driving a car, even WITH a seatbelt. Perhaps we should have a law that you can't drive, it's incredibly dangerous. In fact the same article states that it is the number one cause of accidental deaths of children, so really, parents who would risk their childs life in such an irresponsible fashion need to wake up! Oh, no, nevermind, the government is responsible to make them stop risking their childs lives.
I think you should go read what I wrote again. I made a distinction when I said the state has a right to force you to do something when you use their resources that you seem to have ignored. You're trying to say that the state should protect you from everything bad in the world, which isn't what I said at all. From the four items you mentioned:
Obesity: this comes about based on an individual's own poor choices over several years, which usually occur when they are not taking advantage of the benefits of the state, i.e. using the roads which the state has had built. It's not the state's fault people are becoming fatter and fatter, and I'd say the state does a much better job of attempting to solve this problem than the parents who keep giving their kids suger and Big Macs and set them up for a lifetime of health problems.
Tobacco: same as the above, although obviously there have been steps taken to lessen the impact of second-hand smoke. Though I suppose you're in favour of that.
Physical inactivity: the exact same as the above two points, although this is stupid to bring up because the state has been organising programs at all levels to make people aware of the dangers of physical inactivity and to get up and become active for years.
Alcohol: same as the above three. I'd bring up drunk driving laws, but those are invasive.
Perhaps I'm mixing Locke and Mill here inappropriately, but it isn't the state's job to hold your hand throughout life; I never said that and coming to that conclusion is a gross missunderstanding of what I was saying. Those are all personal choices - made within your own home/workplace/etc - that you can avoid, but chose not to. Wearing a seatbelt (and drunk driving) are things you do that take place in public and in areas where other people (and yourself, although you don't care about that) can get hurt and a place where you would not be if not for the state. This isn't a case of YOU making a private choice, it is a case of YOU making use of a public resource that has been gifted to you pending that you follow certain rules. If you cannot follow those rules, you don't get to use those resources. You complain about having to pay fines for not following those rules, but would you rather just get your licence taken away? Using them isn't your right.
And with your statistics on the number of car fatalities, you're missing the point once more. The point is not to prevent people from driving (that's unrealistic, obviously), but to make them do it safely; deaths from wearing seatbelts are inevitable since the majority of those accidents are high speed collisions where not even wearing a seatbelt can save your life. Your logic is that since not all car accidents can be prevented, we shouldn't make an effort to prevent any of them, which is just wrong. It's the state's duty to make the roads safe and prevent deaths as realistically as they can.
I get where you are coming from, but if it wasn't for the government telling you to wear a seatbelt I don't think you can honestly say that you would constantly wear a seatbelt, even if it is a good thing. It SHOULD be that people always wear them because it is safe - the same reason people wear life jackets or something similar - but they don't and so the law is needed to keep people from doing something they may end up regretting, because "being safe from a possible crash" is not good enough for some people. Maybe you'd start off wearing it for long trips where you go on the highway, but not for trips to the store. Then you'll start to think "I'm a good driver and I won't be going on the highway, so why not across the city?" Then you'll start to think "I haven't been in an accident in my life, so why do I have to wear one when driving on the highway?" Of course, you know where this is going; you end up in an accident and your/your kid's/your husband's/someone's brains get splattered everywhere because they were not wearing a seatbelt. You might think that seatbelt laws are invasive, but they're the thing that keep people wearing them day in and day out while in a vehicle and ultimately can prevent disaster.
Mandy Flores
Official Checked Star Member
But where would it end, and who decides?
How in the hell did you equate drunk driving laws with seatbelt laws. I made it VERY clear that laws to protect the rest of us from an individuals poor choices are definitely something I believe in. On another note you also made it very clear...
"The state's only reason to exist is to protect you from harm, even if that harm comes about due to your own stupidty."
I don't see much distinction here, it is a self contained statement, perhaps YOU should re-read what you wrote, you seem to have ignored this sentence that stands on it's own. If you intended it too mean if you are using the states resources, you should have included it in this sentence. Please understand, I believe everyone should wear a seatbelt, I believe every man woman AND child should be required to wear a life jacket in not only boats of ANY type, but also in any body of water with a current. But it's not my place, nor anyone elses place, to tell other people what they should and shouldn't do for THEMSELVES. Smoking kills 50x (just threw that out there) the amount of people that not wearing a seatbelt does, INCREDIBLY taxing on our government, but that's not a good enough excuse to make that illegal...because PERSONAL FREEDOMS are exactly that....PERSONAL. What we believe is good for others is none of our damn business. It's not about the seatbelt law for me really, it's about where does it end? Who is deciding what personal choices are ok or not? You talk about being in the hospital and costing us....maybe unprotected sex should be illegal because you can damn well be sure THAT costs the social system 100 times what not wearing a seatbelt does. The cost to the government argument is weak, too many other daily activities would be illegal if that was the case.
How in the hell did you equate drunk driving laws with seatbelt laws. I made it VERY clear that laws to protect the rest of us from an individuals poor choices are definitely something I believe in. On another note you also made it very clear...
"The state's only reason to exist is to protect you from harm, even if that harm comes about due to your own stupidty."
I don't see much distinction here, it is a self contained statement, perhaps YOU should re-read what you wrote, you seem to have ignored this sentence that stands on it's own. If you intended it too mean if you are using the states resources, you should have included it in this sentence. Please understand, I believe everyone should wear a seatbelt, I believe every man woman AND child should be required to wear a life jacket in not only boats of ANY type, but also in any body of water with a current. But it's not my place, nor anyone elses place, to tell other people what they should and shouldn't do for THEMSELVES. Smoking kills 50x (just threw that out there) the amount of people that not wearing a seatbelt does, INCREDIBLY taxing on our government, but that's not a good enough excuse to make that illegal...because PERSONAL FREEDOMS are exactly that....PERSONAL. What we believe is good for others is none of our damn business. It's not about the seatbelt law for me really, it's about where does it end? Who is deciding what personal choices are ok or not? You talk about being in the hospital and costing us....maybe unprotected sex should be illegal because you can damn well be sure THAT costs the social system 100 times what not wearing a seatbelt does. The cost to the government argument is weak, too many other daily activities would be illegal if that was the case.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
In return I also made it very clear that there is a difference between "government" and "state" that you are refusing to acknowledge. In your post you said "Where you got the idea that governments are there to protect us from ourselves is beyond me" which is clearly not what I said if you have read the entirety of my posts. Saying "Where does it end and who decides where it ends?" is a horrible argument against this law. If you'd have read my posts, you'd know that I said it is the majority opinion that seatbelts should be obligated to be worn, so it's the majority that decides how far it will go and when it will end, if it gets too far. On top of that, the entire argument reeks of paranoia. If you want to believe that is is seatbelts today, computer chips that track your every movements tomorrow that's fine, but it doesn't make a case as to why you shouldn't be obligated to wear a seatbelt. This law hasn't lead to any more invasions of your privacy in a hundred years; I'd say it is working just fine and you don't have to worry about it going any farther.