Click it or ticket...

[Michele]

Should the Seat Belt Laws that are present in most (if not all) states be abolished? Do you believe we should have the right to choose whether or not we put our seatbelts on?

[Lady Adweri]

I always thought, that they abolish it for adults, but keep the laws for children, since they dont have the right to choose, or the knowledge.

[GracieMae]

That is a good law. Also, unbelted adults pose a serious hazzard to belted children as their body is thrown around in a roll over.

It has it's drawbacks in certain situations perhaps but IMO the fact that seat belts save lives is enough insentative for me to always wear mine.

[Demona]

I always thought, that they abolish it for adults, but keep the laws for children, since they dont have the right to choose, or the knowledge.

But adults still pose a risk to others in the car if they don't wear their seatbelt. This is particularly true of those sitting in the back seat, who can crush those in front when they are flung forward in a crash.

You could still argue that it is up to others in the car to insist on seatbelts if they fear for their own safety, rather than for government to legislate on.

To be honest, I'm indifferent. It is certainly best practice to always wear a seatbelt, and if a law can make people do what they wouldn't otherwise in situations where lives could be lost, it is all to the good. But laws cost money and I'm not sure it's necessary.

[bRATmom]

But laws cost money and I'm not sure it's necessary.

In this case, the law makes moeny.... 75.00 last time I got a ticket for the NOT clicket or ticket.....

I always thought, that they abolish it for adults, but keep the laws for children, since they dont have the right to choose, or the knowledge.

Now theres a big infringement upon my parental rights, dont you think.... I as the parent should be able to choose for my child.... I can for everything else... or should I let the Govt choose everything... then they should pay for everything... hell.... just take them away,.... Im to stupid to have them....if Im not allowed to make simple decisions....


However, Im strongly for the seatbelt laws now. I have seen to many instences that have affected me personally.... Instences where lives would have been saved if they would have taken 5 second to put thier seat belt on. I neighbor and friend of mine lost her live becouse she wasnt wearing her seatbelt. She left behind 6 children. Those kids will never have thier mom again. Becouse of something so stupid.... she would have survived the rollover being belted in as her three daughters in the van did... she wasnt wearing the seatbelt, was tossed from the van, and it crushed her.... she was dead at the scene.... and to make matters worse, she was on her way to her MIL house for Christmas eve dinner... and her husband was in the truck behind her with the three boys..... The roll over occured becouse she went off the edge of the road and over corrected... Not weather involved... not animal involved, not another car involved....

[Scarlet]

I posted this on an older thread...

If you are in a major accident and you are strapped in, you are more likely to be able to retain some control over your vehicle... it may not be a whole lot, but it is more than if you are in a ditch and your car is still moving towards other vehicles.

I was in a major accident when I was 38 wks pg with my first. Even though I was hit five times, I was able to get my handbrake on and steer.

If it was just your life then I would agree that it was somewhat less sensible to force you to be sensible. Its kind of like when my mum was working as a nurse she was required to have all her shots up to date. Not to protect her, but to protect the people she was working with.

You may put your seatbelt on if you have kids in the car, but there are many more who won't bother unless they are made to.

[DayDreamer]

Driving is NOT a right, it is a privilege. If you want the privilege, you follow the laws regarding that privilege. Don't like it? then make the choice not to accept the privilege and stay away from driving. Wanna drive? put the damned seat belt on and shuddup. :D

[SouthernJen]

Driving is NOT a right, it is a privilege. If you want the privilege, you follow the laws regarding that privilege. Don't like it? then make the choice not to accept the privilege and stay away from driving. Wanna drive? put the damned seat belt on and shuddup. :D


Word. :smileyhip

[Book Wizard]

The seatbelt laws are excellent. If you don't wear your seatbelt, you are an idiot.

[Opus]

Should the Seat Belt Laws that are present in most (if not all) states be abolished? Do you believe we should have the right to choose whether or not we put our seatbelts on?
The two major reasons for all legislatures when they enact laws such as this is

1) Less deaths
2) Lower Insurance Costs

well, #2 NEVER happens so any politician that crafts such a law with the insurance lobby's telling them this, should enact in the law a mandatory 10% lowering of auto insurance costs just to put their money where their mouths are

and lower deaths might be a good reason, but not good enough to take away more of our individual rights and freedoms

whatever we do in our car should be out of the venue of legislature except when it impares other's driving, and wearing seat belts and requiring motorcycle drivers to wear helmuts also come under this, should be up to us, alone

if the saving lives criteria/reason was enough to enact such laws than it we would have to favor lower speed limits (which few do), Denying kids drivers licenses till they are 18 (which they dont)

saving lives is like when Clinton used to justify everything with "It's for the children", notable goal but meaningless

[Mabel]

Click it or Ticket. I say if you are too stupid to not see the benefit of a seatbelt, ESPECIALLY ON YOUR CHILD, you are too stupid to drive.

[Demona]

whatever we do in our car should be out of the venue of legislature except when it impares other's driving, and wearing seat belts and requiring motorcycle drivers to wear helmuts also come under this, should be up to us, alone

Motorcyclists are a different issue.

1) They do not pose a risk to anyone else if they do not wear their helmuts.

2) It has been suggested that while helmuts will save the biker's life is some circumstances, it will also cause them to crash more often because of impaired senses.

[Opus]

Click it or Ticket. I say if you are too stupid to not see the benefit of a seatbelt, ESPECIALLY ON YOUR CHILD, you are too stupid to drive.


I hope your not calling people who disagree with the seat-belt wearing being a law are stupid because that would be a stupid statement

we can agree something is a good idea without making a law forcing everyone to comply and forcing them to pay hundreds of dollars, now thats stupid

Again, the question was NOT whether or not you agreed wearing seat belts was a good idea, perhaps you should reread the question next time before getting so emotional and calling people stupid that disagree with the question as asked

Everyone agrees Seatbelts are necessary, but not everyone believes you have the right to force people to pay hundreds of dollars when they dont do what you demand of them....

[Mabel]

No worries Opus, I don't feel emotional ;)

[Mabel]

Again, the question was NOT whether or not you agreed wearing seat belts was a good idea, perhaps you should reread the question next time before getting so emotional and calling people stupid that disagree with the question as asked

Everyone agrees Seatbelts are necessary, but not everyone believes you have the right to force people to pay hundreds of dollars when they dont do what you demand of them....

The original question was whether or not we should have the right to choose whether or not to wear a seatbelt. I stand by my opinion :) I do not feel that one has the RIGHT to put others lives at risk, and not wearing a seatbelt does NOT just put your own life at risk. It puts others lives at risk as well.

[Opus]

The original question was whether or not we should have the right to choose whether or not to wear a seatbelt. I stand by my opinion :) I do not feel that one has the RIGHT to put others lives at risk, and not wearing a seatbelt does NOT just put your own life at risk. It puts others lives at risk as well.
so your saying you have the right (from which source are you getting this right?) to decide what I do in my car and what others do in their car?

amazing, and wrong!!!!

I stand by my opinion, I should have the right to do in my car whatever i want and my not wearing a belt (which i do) does NOT threaten you at all

show me an example of a lot of accidents where someone not wearing a belt hurt someone else

[Madelyn2]

Ok.

Here goes:

Miranda doesn't wear a seat belt. Miranda drives to work, gets in a terrible accident and is seriously injured, head injury being the most serious. Miranda is rushed to the hospital.

Qualified and prestigious experts and accident scene investigators study the scene, the vehicles, the witness statements, combined with careful research and knowledge of biodynamics, orthopedics, etc, and conclude that Miranda's injuries would have been minor had she been wearing a seatbelt.

Miranda is in a coma.

Miranda is poor and single. She has no health insurance, no family, no assets.

She is in county hospital. She has been there for months now. The cost of her care is ....well, $1000 a day? Maybe more, maybe less. But it is not cheap.

Now, tell me: Who do you think pays the bill? The hospital charges somebody. Who do you think it is?

[Mabel]

I posted this on an older thread...

If you are in a major accident and you are strapped in, you are more likely to be able to retain some control over your vehicle... it may not be a whole lot, but it is more than if you are in a ditch and your car is still moving towards other vehicles.

I was in a major accident when I was 38 wks pg with my first. Even though I was hit five times, I was able to get my handbrake on and steer.

If it was just your life then I would agree that it was somewhat less sensible to force you to be sensible. Its kind of like when my mum was working as a nurse she was required to have all her shots up to date. Not to protect her, but to protect the people she was working with.

You may put your seatbelt on if you have kids in the car, but there are many more who won't bother unless they are made to.
Opus, this post is a reason why YOU not wearing your seatbelt could affect ME on the road. If you get hit, and you are wearing your belt, you have a better change of retaining some control of your car, and bypassing mine.

[Mabel]

Ok.

Here goes:

Miranda doesn't wear a seat belt. Miranda drives to work, gets in a terrible accident and is seriously injured, head injury being the most serious. Miranda is rushed to the hospital.

Qualified and prestigious experts and accident scene investigators study the scene, the vehicles, the witness statements, combined with careful research and knowledge of biodynamics, orthopedics, etc, and conclude that Miranda's injuries would have been minor had she been wearing a seatbelt.

Miranda is in a coma.

Miranda is poor and single. She has no health insurance, no family, no assets.

She is in county hospital. She has been there for months now. The cost of her care is ....well, $1000 a day? Maybe more, maybe less. But it is not cheap.

Now, tell me: Who do you think pays the bill? The hospital charges somebody. Who do you think it is?

Another good point.

[Opus]

while I agree with all your points, those exact same things happen every day with people that ARE WEARING THEIR SEAT BELTS also...

it's a proven fact that some accidents people die in, they might not have if they hadnt been wearing their belts

you will recall I said that I wear my belts, thats not the point we are discussing,

the point I was discussing was the fact of government interference in our lives so much that they feel they have to make laws to protect us from ourselves and thats wrong

and I sttill stand by my poiint that the idea of the seat belt law is unconstitutional and if you cant see my poiint then we will just have to agree to disagree because I see our freedoms being taken away slowly but surely and with every single step taken, there is always a good reason, but that doesnt make it right

[Madelyn2]

while I agree with all your points, those exact same things happen every day with people that ARE WEARING THEIR SEAT BELTS also...

Yes but it is more likely to happen to someone who is not wearing a seatbelt. Statistics prove this.


the point I was discussing was the fact of government interference in our lives so much that they feel they have to make laws to protect us from ourselves and thats wrong

and I sttill stand by my poiint that the idea of the seat belt law is unconstitutional and if you cant see my poiint then we will just have to agree to disagree because I see our freedoms being taken away slowly but surely and with every single step taken, there is always a good reason, but that doesnt make it right

There are many people that agree with you. But courts have held that seatbelt laws are not unconstitutional. Many laws are intrusive to a certain extent. But if the government has a good reason, a substantial interest in enforcing the law, then they are usually held not unconstitutional.

The government has a substantial interest in enforcing seat belt laws --- protecting citizens, protecting the healthcare industry, Medicaid, etc from the financial burden of caring for those who opt to drive without a seatbelt and incur serious, expensive injuries that are otherwise preventable had the person worn a seatbelt. It is a balancing act -- a minor intrusion, just wear a belt, relative to the potential intrusive nature of the exorbitant cost and burden to society that could result without the intrusive law.

[Opus]

Yes but it is more likely to happen to someone who is not wearing a seatbelt. Statistics prove this.
(actually Statistics can prove anything you want no matter what side you represent, so going by stats alone in any debate is a mistake)

But if the government has a good reason, a substantial interest in enforcing the law, then they are usually held not unconstitutional.

(Thats the problem, they always have what they consider a "Good Reason")

The government has a substantial interest in enforcing seat belt laws --- protecting citizens, protecting the healthcare industry, Medicaid, etc from the financial burden of caring for those who opt to drive without a seatbelt and incur serious, expensive injuries that are otherwise preventable had the person worn a seatbelt. It is a balancing act -- a minor intrusion, just wear a belt, relative to the potential intrusive nature of the exorbitant cost and burden to society that could result without the intrusive law.

(sorry, I disagree, it's not the government's job,duty or right to care about ANY particular industry, The free market should decide what industries make it or not and I dont want the government deciding which ones pass or fail)
(minor intrusion? the government butting in anywhere is never minor)

and if what you think is true, why do they use spurious arguments that are proven to be wrong to make their point?

Insurance rates NEVER go down even though there are tons of laws on the books that they promised would do just that

[George1]

I agree with Opus.
Not everything that is a good idea should be the law.
If we are grown-ups, the government should not be our parent.

Miranda doesn't wear a seat belt. Miranda drives to work, gets in a terrible accident and is seriously injured
...
Qualified and prestigious experts and accident scene investigators study the scene, the vehicles, the witness statements, combined with careful research and knowledge of biodynamics, orthopedics, etc, and conclude that Miranda's injuries would have been minor had she been wearing a seatbelt.
...
Miranda is poor and single. She has no health insurance, no family, no assets.
...
Now, tell me: Who do you think pays the bill? The hospital charges somebody. Who do you think it is?

Oh, "Society", meaning a combination of people who donate to the hospital, other users of the hospital that do get charged, lower salaries and/or profits for employees or stockholders of the hospital, and/or any government support for the hospital, meaning taxes.

Natural conclusion is that these laws should only affect people without enough money or health insurance. The best of both worlds!

But let me tell you about Miranda's sister Mandy. (Yes, I know, no family ... let's say they're estranged.) Anyway, Mandy doesn't have any more cash than Miranda. One day she goes outside, walking, and is hit by a bus, suffers the same injuries, and taken to the same hospital, which shafts Society similarly. Qualified and prestigious investigators determine that if she had been handcuffed to a wall and fed pablum through a tube, she would not have been outside and hit by a bus, thereby saving Society a pretty penny. The natural conclusion is that people who do not have health insurance should be in prison for our own good. That way we would save on auto accidents. Oh, and reduced crime, let's not forget crime, after all poor people commit way more muggings and petty thefts. And the streets would be prettier without all those poor people blocking our view of the changing foliage.

So, the more laws we can make that restrict people's freedom, especially poor people's freedom, the better! Hurrah!

[Madelyn2]

I agree with Opus.
Not everything that is a good idea should be the law.
If we are grown-ups, the government should not be our parent.



Oh, "Society", meaning a combination of people who donate to the hospital, other users of the hospital that do get charged, lower salaries and/or profits for employees or stockholders of the hospital, and/or any government support for the hospital, meaning taxes.

Natural conclusion is that these laws should only affect people without enough money or health insurance. The best of both worlds!

But let me tell you about Miranda's sister Mandy. (Yes, I know, no family ... let's say they're estranged.) Anyway, Mandy doesn't have any more cash than Miranda. One day she goes outside, walking, and is hit by a bus, suffers the same injuries, and taken to the same hospital, which shafts Society similarly. Qualified and prestigious investigators determine that if she had been handcuffed to a wall and fed pablum through a tube, she would not have been outside and hit by a bus, thereby saving Society a pretty penny. The natural conclusion is that people who do not have health insurance should be in prison for our own good. That way we would save on auto accidents. Oh, and reduced crime, let's not forget crime, after all poor people commit way more muggings and petty thefts. And the streets would be prettier without all those poor people blocking our view of the changing foliage.

So, the more laws we can make that restrict people's freedom, especially poor people's freedom, the better! Hurrah!

Miranda had a choice. Her failure to wear a seat belt was a proximate cause of her injuries.

Mandy's injuries did not result from any failure on her part. She did not make an active choice to endanger her life.

A person who chooses to not wear a seatbelt is a different story.

This law is not about restricting people's freedom. It is about saving lives.

These laws do not target any one class of people. Equal protection is not an issue. Everyone, rich, poor, middle class, must wear a seat belt. Thus the laws do not restrict "especially poor people's freedom."

Everyone, including poor people, pay for those that do not wear their seat belts, are injured, indigent, and get either free or government funded health care. The cost of services and hospitals is outrageous enough as it is. And it only compounds this problem when hospitals and doctors have to provide virtually free services to uninsured indigents. Why? Because they pass along the expenses to others, rich, poor, middle class. The costs trickle down to everyone.

And frankly, I think it is the working poor that pay the most for this. They are the one's that are more likely to be working their butts off, without health insurance. Ever had to undergo a medical treatment without health insurance? I have. The costs are astounding! We can blame the health care industry, yes. But also blame people who risk their lives for the sake of "personal freedom" and in the process end up placing added financial burden on the health care system, raising costs for everyone.

[Madelyn2]

actually Statistics can prove anything you want no matter what side you represent, so going by stats alone in any debate is a mistake.

So are you saying that there are studies peformed by reputable, objective professionals that indicate that not wearing a seat belt is just as safe or safer than wearing one? And I don't rely on stats alone. I rely on legal reasoning and years of analysis of USSC and federal case law.

OH, that and a little thing called common sense. lol

I don't need stats. All I have to do is drive home from work and see one wreck with a person who didn't wear a seatbelt. Pick up the paper and read some awful story about a person thrown from a car b/c they weren't wearing a seatbelt.


(sorry, I disagree, it's not the government's job,duty or right to care about ANY particular industry, The free market should decide what industries make it or not and I dont want the government deciding which ones pass or fail)

Industry? The government cares about people, citizens. The interest is in the public, not in an entity.

They don't want responsible people to pay higher health care costs b/c some people choose to defy common sense and not wear a seat belt.


and if what you think is true, why do they use spurious arguments that are proven to be wrong to make their point?

Who is the "they" you speak of. I am referring to case law. USSC, constutional scholars, and federal opinions interpretting constitutionality. My reasoning is based soley on this legal analysis.

Insurance rates NEVER go down even though there are tons of laws on the books that they promised would do just that

You can blame the insurance industry for that. Just b/c they haven't reduced premiums does not mean that they haven't had to pay less money out on claims since the onset of these laws. The ivory towers like to make money.

[Opus]

So are you saying that there are studies peformed by reputable, objective professionals that indicate that not wearing a seat belt is just as safe or safer than wearing one? And I don't rely on stats alone. I rely on legal reasoning and years of analysis of USSC and federal case law.

this discussion isnt about whether or not your safer with or without the seat belts, maybe you shoud reread the discussio, the subject now is about whether or not the LAW is a good law, and my entire discussion has been that the government is taking away too many rights in the name of "it will save lives", like I could say that if there were no cars at all, thre would be absolutely no automobile deaths and millions of lives would be saved per year

now that statement would be completely true but would you put up with it? no, because the government would be taking too much, well the government is doing exactly that but not all at once where you would complain about it, they are just nickel and diming you so you will not notice and thats wrong

no matter how you feel about actually wearing seat belts

and if what you think is true, why do they use spurious arguments that are proven to be wrong to make their point?

(because the insurance lobby, knowing it will make billions from just such a law, pay millions to reps to create the law, thats why)

Who is the "they" you speak of. I am referring to case law. USSC, constutional scholars, and federal opinions interpretting constitutionality. My reasoning is based soley on this legal analysis.

(what opinion would that be? you havent based any opinion of the values of the law on anything, all you have talked about is "its a good thing to wear seat belts" and as such, that opinion has nothing to do with what we are talking about since all of us agree its a good thing to wear them)

Insurance rates NEVER go down even though there are tons of laws on the books that they promised would do just that

You can blame the insurance industry for that. Just b/c they haven't reduced premiums does not mean that they haven't had to pay less money out on claims since the onset of these laws. The ivory towers like to make money.

(exactly, I blame the insurance companies and the reps that told us the cock-n-bull story that our rates would go down when we all know its just so they can feel good about making a law and they make millions of funds to do it
IMO

[Madelyn2]

Opus, I don't need to re-read anything.

I am quite familiar with how these debates go. I have followed along quite well. My reference to safety was in response to a point raised in your post.

You said: "you havent based any opinion of the values of the law on anything, all you have talked about is "its a good thing to wear seat belts" and as such, that opinion has nothing to do with what we are talking about since all of us agree its a good thing to wear them)"

Wrong. I guess you have misunderstood my posts. I thought I was clear. And I never was so trite.

I am basing my opinion, that these laws are sound and reasonable, based on constitutional law and principles enunciated by numerous courts all over the country. As I said earlier, when can the government interfere with personal freedoms? When the government has a substantial interest.. I have explained what that interest is with regard to seat belt laws.

But you reget this logic. And now, you say I never even explained it? That I have stated no opinion other that "it is a good thing to wear seat belts."

Ok, Opus, you are right. That's my opinion. :rolleyes: