Do you believe the gov. should have the right to impose seat belt laws?

[Rob Roy]

They gave you a ticket too?
I backed out of my parking spot at the mall, excited about the items that i just bought. Moving the selector into drive and placing my body restraint in its home all in one fluid motion, yielding the pavement to other cars trying to make their way out of the parking lot.
4 Blocks away,( a full 10 min. later) I get pulled over, the officer says I'm pulling you over for operating a motor vehicle without a seat belt.
I didn't know what to say, other then in my shiftiest voice "I smoked a joint in High School.....do I get a ticket for that too."

Time and reason for all things. Assholes make it unpopular.

I liked the part about the shifty voice.

 

[OddBall1st]

Not true. Motorcycles are far more likely to be in an accident than a pickup truck, and far more deadly. Minivans and sports cars see the most accidents overall. Women drivers aren't as awesome as the televisions claim.

"Buses are in a lot more accidents than are reported." -- And you know this because you witnessed them all I suppose?

While you make good points, a motorcycle has a different license,..as do ATV`s ,if at all. The fact that seat straps keep the driver in position to continue control of the car, is reason enough to get a secondary penalty fine for the driver.

 

[OddBall1st]

A spin out as slow as 40mph can put a driver in the passengers side or back seat, and vice versa, the passenger in your lap ect. ect.

 

[NLXSK1]

no, I do not believe it is the government's job to create laws against people doing stupid things. It is government's job to educate people about the dangers of issues and let them decide for themselves.

I put my seat belt on the first thing I do when I get in the car and have been doing so before it was required by law. Other people can choose not to do that if they want.

 

[spandy]

no, I do not believe it is the government's job to create laws against people doing stupid things. It is government's job to educate people about the dangers of issues and let them decide for themselves.

I put my seat belt on the first thing I do when I get in the car and have been doing so before it was required by law. Other people can choose not to do that if they want.

I figured if a person didn't give a fuck enough to put it on, let them fly through the windshield.

Stop saving stupid people, its crowded enough without keeping them all breathing.

 

[OddBall1st]

no, I do not believe it is the government's job to create laws against people doing stupid things. It is government's job to educate people about the dangers of issues and let them decide for themselves.

I put my seat belt on the first thing I do when I get in the car and have been doing so before it was required by law. Other people can choose not to do that if they want.

Exactly,..and if the RMV that let`s you drive says 10 extra $$ for being stupid,...don`t bitch about it.......

 

[see4]

So if it's ok for motorcycle rider to travel without a seat belt because it's safer for them to be able to jump or be thrown off than does that mean that if you were to sit on the roof of your car it's safer than inside. Both modes of travel happen on the same roads doing the same speeds.
And about the bus accidents
I know this because I have a family member that drives a bus and 3/4 of the accidents are suicide related and they aren't reported on to keep copy cats down.

Either make everyone wear a seatbelt or no one. Obviously this day and age I agree not wearing one is stupid but choice is touchy when it comes to laws versus certain freedoms.

Nope. Even with the law, which serves to protect not only yourself but others around as well, you still have the choice to no wear your seat belt. Just be mindful you may or may not, suffer the consequences of such actions.

 

[see4]

While you make good points, a motorcycle has a different license,..as do ATV`s ,if at all. The fact that seat straps keep the driver in position to continue control of the car, is reason enough to get a secondary penalty fine for the driver.

I think we are in agreement. Not necessarily the law itself, but rather the idea that it protects people, who otherwise might not be inclined. (Thinking twice before not buckling up)

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Using a cost/benefit analysis, if it costs more to clean you up off the road after an accident without a helmet than it would benefit the society and taxpayers for you to wear one, how would letting people ride motorcycles without helmets and possibly be subject to the taxpayers expense be morally justifiable? You want to ride without a helmet because it makes you, personally, happy. But if you crash and die and have to be scooped up off the road, that's coming out of my pocket, so using a libertarian viewpoint that the government should be involved as least as possible, how do you reconcile those seemingly opposing viewpoints?

Well, people traveling in a bus are less likely to be involved in a traffic collision statistically, but what would your argument be if people were required to wear seat belts on bus' too?

How is it morally justifiable to allow anyone to do anything dangerous ever in your hypothetical where other people are responsible for all potential costs when accidents inevitably happen?

This is why I'll never support taking from Peter to pay Paul. Implementation of such policy leads to the justification of absolute authoritarianism. And that isn't a "slippery slope" argument. That's just reality.

This argument could be used against any laws;

"We don't need a law making it illegal to murder people. We just need to educate people that murder is wrong."

"We don't need a law making it illegal to steal things. We just need to educate people that stealing things is wrong."

...

Seeing that the collective well being is ultimately a more efficient way of achieving the goal, the utilitarians argument for wearing seatbelts seems to hold.

Criminologists will tell you those laws have 0 impact on crime rates, so yeah, practically speaking they make absolutely not a lick of difference. People on the anti personality disorder spectrum will continue to be sub human for as long as we allow to them to live and no law will change them.

Where the law comes in is as a path to justice for those unable to get it for themselves. At least hypothetically in lala land that's what it's supposed to be for.

Did you know the Inuit used to just push sociopaths into the ocean and no one would say a thing about it or even talk about it after the fact? Probably the smart move. They called em Kunlangeta. Interesting subject...

 

[Rob Roy]

Nope. Even with the law, which serves to protect not only yourself but others around as well, you still have the choice to no wear your seat belt. Just be mindful you may or may not, suffer the consequences of such actions.

You have presented the same kind of argument a Prohibitionist makes when they rationalize why they know what's best for you and criminalize playing with naturally occurring plants....why am I not surprised.

 

[londonfog]

That's interesting. I think I'm pretty consistent. Please support your claim with a list of contradictions orange thief.

1. You bitch and complain about public education whilst you and your family enjoy the benefits of having a public education.
2. You complain about the government, but still signed your sons up to receive a SS# from the government.
3. You say you are not racists but support racist believes.

is three enough or do I need to continue.

 

[Rob Roy]

1. You bitch and complain about public education whilst you and your family enjoy the benefits of having a public education.
2. You complain about the government, but still signed your sons up to receive a SS# from the government.
3. You say you are not racists but support racist believe

is three enough or do I need to continue.

1) A benefit to a person should be something which that person has a real choice of participating in or not, government schools do not meet that qualification. When a person is force fed something and their consent is removed from the equation, I think the force goes a long way in negating any real or perceived benefit.

2) I did not sign them up, their mother did. Even if I had, is it not possible over the last 25 odd years I've come to realize that much of what people exist in, in the "normal" world is in reality a kind of forced indoctrination ? I imagine when you were a little boy you believed in Santa Claus and likely now, no longer do. View points change as we examine reality...if we dare to examine it that is.

3) *belief No, I do not support racism. I think it's stupid. I support every person having the ability to willing participate in, or decline human interactions based on that individuals choice. I support the right of every individual to run their own life, you do not.


So, I guess you struck out, slugger. Hit the showers.

 

[londonfog]

1) A benefit to a person should be something which that person has a real choice of participating in or not, government schools do not meet that qualification. When a person is force fed something and their consent is removed from the equation, I think the force goes a long way in negating any real or perceived benefit.

2) I did not sign them up, their mother did. Even if I had, is it not possible over the last 25 odd years I've come to realize that much of what people exist in, in the "normal" world is in reality a kind of forced indoctrination ? I imagine when you were a little boy you believed in Santa Claus and likely now, no longer do. View points change as we examine reality...if we dare to examine it that is.

3) *belief No, I do not support racism. I think it's stupid. I support every person having the ability to willing participate in, or decline human interactions based on that individuals choice. I support the right of every individual to run their own life, you do not.


So, I guess you struck out, slugger. Hit the showers.

like I said you are a walking breathing contradiction. No one forced you to go to public schools. No one force you to obtain ss# numbers for your kids. You support a racist kicking people out of his/her store just based on the color of ones skin.

 

[Rob Roy]

like I said you are a walking breathing contradiction. No one forced you to go to public schools. No one force you to obtain ss# numbers for your kids. You support a racist kicking people out of his/her store just based on the color of ones skin.

Nope. I'm pretty consistent in my defense of individual rights and the idea that human interactions should be on a voluntary, peaceful and consensual basis, you are not.

Also, I don't mean to insult you, but I'm not sure if you're really unable to discern the difference between supporting another persons right to self determine their own property and their body and the actions they may take in doing so. All people have the right to reject an interaction with another person, no people have the right to initiate an unwanted interaction with another person in a non defensive way.

My endorsing your right to self determine isn't necessarily an endorsement of HOW you exercise that right or an admission that I would do the same things under similar circumstances. So if you're fucking with me, that's fine. If you really don't comprehend what I just said...I'll type s-l-o-w-e-r.

 

[londonfog]

Nope. I'm pretty consistent in my defense of individual rights and the idea that human interactions should be on a voluntary, peaceful and consensual basis, you are not.

Also, I don't mean to insult you, but I'm not sure if you're really unable to discern the difference between supporting another persons right to self determine their own property and their body and the actions they may take in doing so. All people have the right to reject an interaction with another person, no people have the right to initiate an unwanted interaction with another person in a non defensive way.

My endorsing your right to self determine isn't necessarily an endorsement of HOW you exercise that right or an admission that I would do the same things under similar circumstances. So if you're fucking with me, that's fine. If you really don't comprehend what I just said...I'll type s-l-o-w-e-r.

So you saying a pharmacist has the right to refuse to give life saving medicine to an individual based on skin color. You support that believe ?

 

[ChesusRice]

1. You bitch and complain about public education whilst you and your family enjoy the benefits of having a public education.
2. You complain about the government, but still signed your sons up to receive a SS# from the government.
3. You say you are not racists but support racist believes.

is three enough or do I need to continue.

You forgot about his consensual pedophilia beliefs

 

[see4]

You have presented the same kind of argument a Prohibitionist makes when they rationalize why they know what's best for you and criminalize playing with naturally occurring plants....why am I not surprised.

As I am not surprised you are unable to rationalize why the law is there in the first place. And unsurprisingly you group together disparate ideas to try and establish a basis for an argument. Prohibition of marijuana and enacting laws that protects lives and save money are not even remotely the same concept. But thanks for playing.

 

[NoDrama]

Why are you against seat belt laws or am I misreading you there too?

I'm not against wearing seat belts, I am against government telling us that we must wear one "Just in case" something bad happens.

If government can make a law that forces your behavior to change in the mere sense of a possibility of an accident happening, then they can make a law forcing you to do ANYTHING. They can make a law saying you can no longer climb trees for fear of falling out or a law that says you can't walk barefoot in your own home for fear of stubbing your toe. At what point do people start taking responsibility for themselves and their choices? When laws are made in the face of only possibilities and not facts, then we are doomed to be coddled to death.

 

[NoDrama]

So you are saying electrical products don't need to meet any code?

Code? No, code is DIFFERENT than safety testing, don't you know the difference? Electricians have to install according to CODE, but no items are written into the electrical CODE.

As far as regulations requiring testing?

There is no legislation mandating certification by UL or any other agency, public or private, prior to sale of consumer electrical goods in the US. PERIOD.

The rub comes when one wants to buy product liability insurance and finds that it's unavailable without certification by, say, UL, the reason being that the insurance underwriters are simply unwilling to take the risk of being sued because someone's house burned down because of a rogue widget.

Where is your god now?

 

[NoDrama]

As I am not surprised you are unable to rationalize why the law is there in the first place. And unsurprisingly you group together disparate ideas to try and establish a basis for an argument. Prohibition of marijuana and enacting laws that protects lives and save money are not even remotely the same concept. But thanks for playing.

If not for public safety then why is MJ illegal, Oh wait, its for people's safety.

Whoops you got that one wrong.