Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Seatbelt Laws: A violation?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    Seatbelt Laws: A violation?

    I'm quoting someone else's view here...
    I'm not sure how it is in other countries, but here in the states you have to, by law, wear your seatbelt (provided the vehicles have them) while driving or riding in a motor vehicle. Should this law be legal? How can they force a law like this upon us? Doesn't it violate the 1st Amendment?...

    The ONLY people making any choices for anyone is the government and the individuals. The government is making us wear them. The people in the vehicles decide to wear them or to not wear them. It's as simple as that. A person may be driving the car and not wearing the seatbelt, but if he has a passenger it doesn't mean the passenger will follow suit. The same with the other car in the accident. You can't make people's choices for them based on possible harm. You can make a law saying it's illegal to kill someone because you will be harming another. You cannot make a law saying it's illegal to not wear a seatbelt because of possible harm. There is no victim in not wearing a seatbelt. There is in killing another human being. A person can still die pretty easily while wearing a seatbelt. The risk is greater if they don't wear one. It's still a choice though. Making that law is robbing the individual of their freedoms. Gonna get a little weird here but, there is no law that requires people to use soft-bristled tooth brushes, but yet a person with sensitive gums can bleed easily with a medium-bristled toothbrush. Why not make a law against that? Harm is being done. You can't because it's all about freedom of choice. So why does the government feel they have the right to tell us what we can and cannot do in this case when there is no victim and no harm being caused in the act of wearing or not wearing a seatbelt?
    What do you guys think about this guy's opinion? What's yours?
    [COLOR=#4b0082][B][SIZE=4][FONT=trebuchet ms]“If you think you can, or you can’t, you’re right.”
    -Henry Ford[/FONT][/SIZE][/B][/COLOR]
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Violate the 1st Amendment? No... Having to wear seat belt doesn't violate the freedom of speech or religion. It doesn't violate anything from Amendment I.

    The city will obviously be better off with less amount of people killed and injured in car accidents, and seatbelt laws make a huge difference. Therefore, it's not only about the person that dies or gets injured, but the city as well. As far as using facilities- hospitals, ambulances, etc. to do something that could have been prevented by simply wearing the seatbelt.
    Also, lets say two cars are involved. How about the other car's driver? If lets say the person not wearing his seatbelt dies, the other driver will face charges that again could have been prevented by wearing the seat belt. So actually, it does affect others.

    Comment

    • #3
      Funny thing is I've talked to a couple people who say their accidents were such that having a seatbelt on would've killed them. Now when you talk to police and stuff they say that is very rare cases, but it's true.
      This one girl I knew hit 2 cows in the freeway and she woudl've been dead if she had her belt on.

      Comment

      • #4
        Originally posted by Thai-Samurai
        Funny thing is I've talked to a couple people who say their accidents were such that having a seatbelt on would've killed them. Now when you talk to police and stuff they say that is very rare cases, but it's true.
        This one girl I knew hit 2 cows in the freeway and she woudl've been dead if she had her belt on.
        such cases are very rare...

        Comment

        • #5
          I do understand that wearing the seatbelt can help you in many cases and can hurt you in rare cases. I personally think that I'd have to go with the "many cases" situation as oppose to "rare cases". Basically what I'm saying is that if wearing a seatbelt helps you 90 percent of the time and might kill you 10 percent of the time, I'd definitely take the 90 percent, but I don't agree with a government law giving the police the freedom to write a citation if someone's not wearing a seatbelt. That should be a personal choice.

          Now in relation with what I said in the above paragraph, if there's an accident and driver #1 dies or gets hurt because they weren't wearing their seatbelt, driver #2 shouldn't be prosecuted because #1 chose not to wear his seatbelt.

          Comment

          • #6
            That guy is a dumb arse ... if he wants to not wear a seatbelt, then he better damn well sign away any legal claim on any injuries he gets in an accident. I don't want my already high insurance premiums to go even astronomically higher because of idiots like him demand their god given rights to be idiots.

            Driving is a priviledge and not a right ... thus, constitutional ammendments are completely irrelevant ... you want to drive, you better abide by the safety rules for yourself and others. You don't like it, tough luck ... then don't drive.

            Same thing applies with airline flights ... I don't want to pay 3 times the amount for a ticket because some right-demanding hippie wants to sit without a seat belt and then smashes his head against the top when the plane hits sudden turbulance and then requires immediate medical attention.
            Last edited by Sip; 02-16-2005, 01:22 PM.
            this post = teh win.

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by Siggie
              I'm quoting someone else's view here...
              What do you guys think about this guy's opinion? What's yours?
              I don't understand what is suuuuuch a big deal about clicking that darn seatbelt into place and not complaining about having to wear it. I for one feel like something is off when I am not wearing a seatbelt in the car.. like something is missing... Just put on the darn thing and stop complaining!

              read this...

              Individual rights buckle under seat belt laws

              Daily Nebraskan
              September 17, 2004
              by Derek Kieper

              EXCERPT:

              I’m from the school of thought where everyone should have the right to do as they please as long as they are not infringing on the rights of other people. This comes from the political philosophy that inspired our founders and freedoms.

              The duty of government is nothing more than to make sure everyone’s rights are protected and not infringed upon. Uncle Sam is not here to regulate every facet of life no matter the consequences.

              No law, or set of laws, has made the government more intrusive and ridiculous than seat belt legislation. Nothing is a bigger affront to the ideas of freedom, liberty, yada, yada, yada. Whether you are a pinko liberal or a right-wing whack job, there are plenty of reasons for just saying to hell with seat belt laws.

              (full article)
              Then read this:

              I-80 crash claims UNL student's life

              Lincoln Journal Star
              January 21, 2005
              by Butch Mabin

              EXCERPT:

              Derek Kieper was a smart, funny, intense young man who relished a good debate and would do anything for his friends.

              Kieper, a 21-year-old senior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, died early Tuesday morning when the Ford Explorer he was a passenger in travelled off an icy section of Interstate 80 and rolled several times in a ditch. Kieper, who was riding in the back seat of the Explorer, was ejected from the vehicle.

              Two others in the vehicle, including the driver, Luke Havermann of Ogallala, and the front-seat passenger, Nick Uphoff of Randolph Air Force Base in Texas, sustained non-life threatening injuries. Havermann and Uphoff, both 21, were being treated at BryanLGH Medical Center West.

              ..................

              Derek, who was thrown from the vehicle, was not wearing a seat belt, Lefler said. He said Havermann and Uphoff were wearing seat belts at the time.

              (full story)
              The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald

              Comment

              • #8
                There are no seat belt laws offroad but let's just say I was very glad I was wearing mine here ...


                (click for bigger)
                this post = teh win.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Tougher Seat Belt Laws

                  This is an older article but the point hammers home so bear with me.

                  -----------------------------------------------------

                  Tougher Seat Belt Laws

                  by Brad Edmonds
                  November 18, 2003

                  The National Safety Council (NSC) is a private, non-profit nanny tank based in Illinois. The NSC on Monday released results of a study that shows that states enjoy fewer traffic accident deaths after enacting laws that require motorists to use seatbelts. The Council’s alarmist wording is "Failure Of States To Enact Primary Enforcement Seat Belt Laws Has Resulted In Thousands Of Needless Deaths." A little background: Many states have laws that allow enforcement officers to ticket motorists for failure to use seat belts only if the officers have already stopped the drivers for something else; these are called "secondary" laws. The NSC wants all states to have primary laws, which would allow officers to stop motorists merely for observed non-use of seatbelts.

                  The NSC uses federal highway department data to back up their claims, but the only data that could support the Council’s conclusion would fit this pattern: States that enact primary seat-belt laws show fewer traffic deaths after enacting; those states show a greater reduction in fatalities than states than enact secondary laws; and the latter states show greater reductions than states that do not enact any seatbelt laws.

                  The problem with any traffic-death-reduction data, even if all the data fit the pattern required, would be separating the results of the new legislation from the results of improvements in roads, vehicles, and drivers. All states, as is the case for most of the civilized world, have enjoyed a steady 30-year trend of reductions in deaths per vehicle mile driven – for many states, this included the years immediately after states raised speed limits. Statistically separating the effect of a new law, and being sure the new law accounts for a particular reduction in deaths, would be ding-nigh impossible.

                  But let’s assume we can know for sure that seat belt laws save lives. Does the government have the legal prerogative to make such laws (as though the government has a record of making only those laws it has the legal prerogative to make)? Unfortunately, yes; as long as the government owns the roads, it can make us behave in certain ways while we’re on them, just as a restaurant owner can make you wear a coat and tie. The government already avails itself of the prerogative to inspect vehicles and require smog equipment, bumpers, and doors and roofs that have certain characteristics. Your alternative is not to go to that restaurant, or drive on those roads. Even more unfortunate is that few of us can get to work or buy food without driving on government roads.

                  So should we oppose seat belt laws, even if we could know the laws save lives and the government has the legal prerogative to make those laws? Of course we should. I intend to keep wearing seatbelts and abstaining from marijuana and cocaine, but laws against those things always produce unintended consequences. The War on Drugs has produced laws that significantly curtail freedoms for all of us, partly in that the laws have been used against people who don’t have anything to do with drugs. Further, allowing more government laws regarding the use of government things will only make it more difficult in the future to get the government to give up those government things.

                  Most of the problems with government roads stem from the fact that the government owns them: Long, slow commutes and overcrowding; (sometimes) high accident rates; high costs; all of us paying for roads we never use; bad customer service (unreasonable traffic delays during road repairs); and unreasonable restrictions on use (seat belt laws, artificially low speed limits) all would be less significant problems with 100% non-government road ownership.

                  Who would pay for the roads? Entrepreneurs would buy them, and each would learn in a short time what his market is and what fees that market is willing to pay. Neighborhoods and small communities would maintain and restrict access to their own roads, either by owning them or by contracting as a neighborhood association with the owners. Business-district road owners would contract with the businesses located along the roads. Most business districts would give the public free access to the roads, to bring customers in. Owners of high-speed, long-distance highways would contract with individual drivers. In each case, the road owners would contract with whoever gets the most benefit from the road. As a result, road owners would have to answer to customers for unsafe conditions, inconvenient delays, bumpy surfaces, and so on. Entrepreneurs doing a bad job would lose profits, and be bought out by better operators. More reasonable speed limits would be set, and road owners could prohibit dilapidated vehicles that belch vision-obscuring clouds of smoke. (Some states do this already, but they make you pay for it.) And finally, you wouldn’t be paying for roads you don’t use.

                  Would this work? Of course it would. People and markets can make anything work. You cannot find an example of a "market failure" that doesn’t have its roots in government intervention. The market for roads would work just as well as (or, if it’s truly a free market, better than) today’s markets for the use of existing shopping malls, for new residential developments, and so on.

                  Any piling-up of new laws on top of old ones will only make it more difficult in the future as we try to return our resources to the public – the market. If you get a chance to vote against a proposed seat belt law, or any new law for that matter, do so, even if you’re in the habit of choosing not to vote to elect people to office.
                  Achkerov kute.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by CatWoman
                    Violate the 1st Amendment? No... Having to wear seat belt doesn't violate the freedom of speech or religion. It doesn't violate anything from Amendment I.

                    The city will obviously be better off with less amount of people killed and injured in car accidents, and seatbelt laws make a huge difference. Therefore, it's not only about the person that dies or gets injured, but the city as well. As far as using facilities- hospitals, ambulances, etc. to do something that could have been prevented by simply wearing the seatbelt.
                    Also, lets say two cars are involved. How about the other car's driver? If lets say the person not wearing his seatbelt dies, the other driver will face charges that again could have been prevented by wearing the seat belt. So actually, it does affect others.
                    It is coercive as such it violates nothing more than your individual liberty and property, such as your body and your car. The choice should be to the individual not the coercive enforcing power of the government.
                    Achkerov kute.

                    Comment

                    Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                    Working...
                    X