Seatbelt law?

ahh yea true, and I thought about using "off topic" and it didn't really make sense there but I guess I see what you are getting at.
 
125504316720050201_45513_AUTO_CARE_page001img001_size2.jpg
 
why is it the governments job to protect me from myself?

hey, drinking soda has adverse health effects on your body, lets all ban soda shall we?

thread creator, dont be surprised, you live in MN, we love to make laws just to make laws. take for example the no smoking laws. the seatbelt laws. we have so many laws. ugh.
 
i think its pretty stupid to just not wear one, i have a habit of just putting in on in the car without even noticing it now
 
ok no smoking laws definitely make total sense. it has been scientifically proven that second hand smoke has adverse effects. you have the right to kill your own body, but you dont have the right to kill mine. seatbelt laws i think make sense, but at least they for the most part only harm you yourself. although i suppose your projectile body could hurt someone else.
 
personally the problem i have with smoking laws is this. they are legislating what i can do on my own property ie a bar, restaurant. if i am willing to take the chance with my health by allowing people to smoke around me, than thats a risk i am willing to take. and if the employees dont like having second hand smoke than they can go and get a job elsewhere.

i really think the market could have easily solved this. i personally love the fact taht i no longer have to ask for a table in a no smoking zone. but i realize that if a bar owner wants to allow smoking in his establishment i think he should be able to. hes not forcing me to enter and breath all the toxins. if the public demanded smoke free restaurants, then it would be profitable for owners to have smoke free restaurants. there were smoke free restaurants before it was legislated that they be.

BTW ben, im relatively sure the sun rises in the west :) hahahahah although i do think we do agree on about as much as we disagree on. it just doesnt always come out. haha
 
yeah i suppose i can see it in bars where its only legal adults. but in restaurants and stuff where theres kids who arent making that decision, its their parents, i feel like its still ok. and if you think about it, buisnesses arent allowed to spew OTHER toxins, why is smoke any different, its more local, but its the same basic thought, a biproduct of your business (or rather its customers) could be harming others.
 
Your lack of intelligence makes your point much less powerful. People would take you more seriously if you took the time to create a quality thread. With that being said, I will critique your post sentence by sentence.

So 49 states have a law or some sort of fine that tells you that you

are required to wear a seatbelt. - Ok cool not horrible, could have picked a more interesting first line, but it starts out ok.



I personally dont agree with it

because i dont think that the government has to tell us if we are

wearing are seatbelt or not. - This is where you shit the bed. First off, you need an apostrophe in don't. Don't be lazy. Second, the way you word it makes absolutely no sense, I get what you're trying to get at, but the way you wrote it sounds like some government official is going to come up to us and say "You are wearing you seat belt!" I don't need the government to tell me, I know myself. Read your post for clarity before you click the "create thread" button. Also, it's actually our not are, they aren't even supposed to be pronounced the same, I'm sure you do because you seem like an illiterate waste of life, but honestly... are you that stupid? ARE?



It kinda violates are freedom of are

property haha.- Fragment. Again, its not are, Its our. And what is funny about "freedom of are property"



I am just wondering what other people think about it.- meh, not horible.



If

its a good law or a stupid law.- read this sentence on it's own without any context. Does it make sense? No, because its another fucking fragment.

If you dont want to wear a seatbelt, go ahead, you will be fine 99% of the time. And then you die. The law is there for a reason. It protects us. When I wear my seatbelt its like a big hug from the car.
 
the only reason i can see not wearing a seatbelt is when im riding or driving in my bros jeep w/o his doors or top. I would rather be flung from it than have it crush me. but any other time i always have mine on
 
i think its kind of stupid...why should they care if you go flying out the window? really? its the same with the bicylce helmet thing thats a law here in N seattle but its a loose one and most places its the motorcylce helmet one too. I mean i guess tax payers would have to pay for someone if they werent covered but the overall picture is not that why should the government care? I would never not wear a seatbelt its just stupid not to but why should they ticket me if im not wearing one? Just another way for them to get money?
 
someone else up there mentioned it but it costs us money too. insurance premiums go up, or if you are uninsured im paying for it out of my tax dollars.
 
there is no good fucking counter argument posted here. just wear the god damn seatbelt ok?
 
wow this is stupid...seatbelts are to protect you...if you dont where one just to be then thats fucked...it is your life so if you really find it necessary not to wear your seatbelt then be my guest but i think ill be wearing mine
 
Wow I hope that everyone on here saying the seatbelt law is nesascary also wears a helmet everytime they go skiing. How would you feel if resorts made helmets manditory for everyone? As other people have stated this law protects me from myself. I do not harm anyone else by not wearing my seatbelt(yes taxes in an indirect way) By bringing up the whole tax issue you are opening a whole different can of worms. This reminds me of the whole national healthcare, and soda tax and fast food tax. Lets not get into that. But i do have a couple questions though. Why are there no seatbelts on school buses? Certainly children should be safe on the way to school. Why not make all convertiable drivers where helmets? They would be a lot safer with helmets on.
 
All teenagers go through a phase where they think they are invincible. Their brains are developing and they discover that they have control of thier thoughts and actions. Unfortunately, they think they have more control over their life and surroundings than they actually do.

It is this mentality that makes them think its a good idea to do stupid things and to take unnecessary and non calculated risks. Not wearing a seatbelt is a great example. It never occurs to these kids that if they get into an accident, that it may not be because of anything they did. In fact, its more dangerous to be hit by someone else than it is for you to hit something.

The difference between a mature mind and an adolescent one is that the mature mind can distinguish between a calculated risk and a flagrantly stupid decision.

With that being said, there literally no good reason to not wear a seatbelt, and therefore is a a flagrantly stupid decision to not where one. The statistics showing the seatbelt's effect on serious injury and fatalities is quite compelling.
 
Not wearing a seatbelt also endangers other passnegers as well. People wearing their seatbelts have been killed by other people in the car who weren't because when the crash happened, their body flailed around and crushed another passenger. If you don't wear a seatbelt, then you're completely retarded.
 
Just because its a stupid decision not to wear one does not me it should be a crime punishable of a $100 fine. Unless that money goes towards seatbelts on school buses.

I know i am the only one on this side of the fight and im not trying to be a dick but this is one thing that erks me.
 
Getting TEN of those $100 fines is still going to be cheaper than ONE trip to the hospital. Also, I'd rather not have the hospitals clogged up with a bunch of idiots that need surgery because they didn't wear seatbelts. I'd prefer they bother themselves we people who need treatment because their ailments were NOT preventable.

Not to mention that regardless on any seatbelt laws, your insurance company is still going to charge you more if you don't wear a seatbelt.
 
So all injuries cost the same to fix? nice logic.

Picture this... A car hits another car into concrete barrier. Their are two people in the car that hits the barrier, one with a seat bet and one without. the one with the seatbelt suffers neck trauma. The other goes through the wind shield and is thrown from the vehicle. An ambulance is called and both people are taken to the hospital.

What is going to cost more?

1) Getting x-rays and a neck-brace for whiplash.

2) Having your face reconstructed, mending broken ribs, fixing and a collapsed lung, getting pins placed in your hip, and being paralyzed from the waist down?

Hell, lets just forget the high-speed stuff. Not wearing a seatbelt also increases the risk of severe injury in low-speed accidents...which are far more common than high-speed ones.
 
Then lets make it even and fine everyone that "puts a strain on tax payers" Certainly diabeties is one of the many strains on health care.

Most Americans who are diagnosed with diabetes have type 2 diabetes. Many people destined to develop type 2 diabetes spend many years in a state of Pre-diabetes: Termed "America's largest healthcare epidemic," pre-diabetes indicates a condition that occurs when a person's blood glucose levels are higher than normal but not high enough for a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. As of 2009 there are 57 million Americans who have pre-diabetes. There are numerous theories as to the exact cause and mechanism in type 2 diabetes. Central obesity (fat concentrated around the waist in relation to abdominal organs, but not subcutaneous fat) is known to predispose individuals to insulin resistance. Abdominal fat is especially active hormonally, secreting a group of hormones called adipokines that may possibly impair glucose tolerance. Obesity is found in approximately 55% of patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes

So dont play the "medical bills" card. And still no one has told me why school buses don't have seatbelts.
 
for broken arms, collar bones, whip lash...

If you don't wear a seatbelt, if you survive, you are looking at long term brain damage, ruptured organs and a much, much longer recovery time. and much much more money.

So I don't care if you don't want to wear a seatbelt but it would probably be a good idea.
 
A lot of people can't help that they have diabetes, yet every single car on the road today comes with seatbelts.

As for school buses, I actually agree that they need seatbelts.
 
No it wasn't.

It'd take a doctor maybe half-an-hour tops to treat for whiplash and send someone home. Whereas its takes multiple doctors alt the very least several hours to take care of someone that needs surgery.
 
no but 55% of 57million is 31,350,000. Still a very large number of people that have diabietes BECAUSE they are overwheight. Doesnt that make them a danger to themselves? i think if a cop sees and overweight person in the drive-thru at mcdonalds(because they are too lazy to walk inside) he should write them a ticket for endangering themselves.

Now obviously this would never happen but how can you say that the state is responsible for my safty and health?
 
They're not, and they shouldn't be. However, they should be responsible if it has an effect on other people (an example I mention is hospitals in my earlier posts).

I'd also like to point out that "clicking" a safety belt is much easier than changing your dietary habits.
 
what am i reading here? "Why would not simply making use of the lands of a country (i.e. for traveling) make you subject to that country's laws because of the implicit benefits you gain (i.e. safe passage, an efficient road, etc.)?" I understand i am under the subject of the law. My problem is that the law is not needed. Yes cars are dangerous, yes seatbelts limit that danger. Now.....

Convertibles=dangerous Helmets limit danger why no law?

Skiing=dangerous Helmets limit danger still no laws

Every child entering kindergarden should wear a mouth gaurd because it will make them safer.(sarcasm) Where do you draw the line with personal saftey?
 
It is the idea of a social contract. Someone told me not to bring it up but I am tried of seeing people (not you) saying the government shouldn't tell them what to do. The idea is that you tell the government you will listen to their laws in exchange for being allowed to stay in the country and be protected.
 
I was told that the law was created only because of people getting hurt while trying to help people that fly out the windsheild onto the road. I dont think anyone cares if people just want to be stupid and hurt themsleves.
 
Yeah i get the social contract idea and i do abide by most of the laws. However laws that i disagree with i break. Yep, sometimes i dont wear my seatbelt. However i have written more then one letter to my governor in hopes to change this law. And my main point is school buses. Now if the state of Vermont were to tell me, "Tim, all that money we take in from writing these tickets for seatbelt infractions, well we're going to put it into this account that will be in charge if installing seatbelts into all school, AND CITY buses." Then i would say "Awesome! At least i know you are trying to make vermont's children safer." But they dont do that, and the response i always get to the school bus seatbelts is "It cost too much"

Now I think NH has the law correct when the set an age limit of 18. If you are a minor then buckle that shit up and live to be 18 so you can someday enroll in the military. IF you are over 18 then fuck it, its your life "live free or die" or die by living seatbelt free.

Again im not trying to be an ass, i like to think of myself as a libertarian and any personal saftey law to me is suspect
 
Granted, the school bus thing I also don't understand. But, that doesn't mean I won't wear mine cause I feel, honestly, uncomfortable not wearing my seatbelt when I am in my car.
 
Isn't there two sides to a contract?

Fuck this is the longest Friday ever that I am trolling on NS.
 
We covered Locke and Hobbs last week in my Government 100 class and basically according to both of them, the common citizen gives up their right to defend and police themselves and give that job to the country (which means follow the laws) in exchange for being protected and not living in a constant state of fear of death. It was really barebones because we have a shit ton of stuff to cover in one quarter but I think that kinda entails most of it.
 
First, a business owner does not have the freedom to choose how dangerous a workplace he wants

see http://www.osha.gov

for example: I bet you're glad that a restaurant owner can't decide he wants to save money by not providing soap for his employees to wash their hands after using the bathroom

Moving to the topic, when you impose the risks on the employees, by say having a smoking environment, and say that it's up to the employees to decide whether they want to risk it for the paycheck, it's a coercive situation for the employee, who might be forced to take the job despite the health risks. Furthermore, recent studies have shown significant reductions in cases of health deterioration after smoking bans were implemented. A quick google search will show you a 17% reduction in hospital admissions for heat attacks a year after the bans were implemented, i recall another article where the numbers were up more around 25 -30% reductions. There's no denying that those subjected to the smoke environment are experiencing improved health.

Second, this goes back to an earlier post where you say it's not the governments job to tell you how to be safe, however, it is the governments job to employ an ambulance crew to take care of you, if you do have an accident. If you're going to be putting your self at greater risk for trauma, why do you want the doctors to have to use all the extra resources to keep you alive, when it's just easier to wear a seat belt.

This point isnt' hitting on a single payer health system, but it is leaning towards the fact that the government has made quite an investment in, a. providing the network of roads and transportation standards to allow for you to have the freedom of driving a car, as well as providing the resources that first respond, should something go wrong.
 
oh and on this, we don't need to ban things that are bad for us, but we shouldn't on the other hand provide subsidies that make the things that are bad for us, even easier to get. A simple soda tax will do fine :)
 
or a weed tax.

Its funny every one of skiminnesota's post talk about the free market like it is some type of deity. Regan did a number on America.
 
I am back to my original argument. Not wearing your seatbelt is like a cop not wearing his bullet proof vest, a member of the military not wearing a flak vest in a warzone, or a firefighter not wearing his gear because they don't think they are comfortable. Who gives a fuck? It is there to protect you.
 
And a mcdonalds tax, and a dunkaroo's tax. This when people talk about the slippery slope. Yes it is a good thing to wear a seatbelt but lets let the insurance companies figure out how to take money from us if we dont wear one, not the government.

I still have 40 mins at work to troll NS, i think this is the most pleasant and thought provoking thread here right now
 
Problem is, insurance companies don't have a police force to enforce this. If it was up to insurance companies how would this get enforced?
 
New Page!!

The difference being everything you named is a job. I dont get paid to drive to work. I do not get a pension if i die on my way to work. And it has nothing to do with comfort at all. I think anybody that says they are uncomforable is ruining my argument. Sometimes i dont buckle it i know people say its second nature for them but i really never got into the habit, now i dont think i should have to pay $100 because i am unsafe to myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top