FTFA:It is ridiculous for me to be fined for something that endangers no one but myself. I have been aware of this law for quite some time, yet it never occurred to me that such an absurd law was for real.

What about that 3 year old son you have gone to the effort of strapping in? You may not be endangering him in the literal sense, but if you die, half of his family income is gone, as well as the influence of his father figure for the rest of his life.

I'll not argue that the law may be unconstitutional. I think it is, along with motorcycle helmet laws. If you want to take your life into your own hands, fine, but don't be a doofus and ruin anyone else's in the process.

amo:as well as the influence of his father mother figure for the rest of his life.

FTFM.

Yeah, I'll remember that the next time I'm scraping some off the road who didn't wear one.

if we aren't free to be stupid, then we aren't free.

I've always worn a seat belt since my brother's life was saved by wearing one.

Lo and behold, years later my life was saved by a safety belt.

Of course, it didn't help any that I was immediately run over as soon as I was removed from my wrecked car ;)

You're stupid if you believe that seat belt laws exist to protect human life. They were supported and lobbied by insurance companies.

Like many laws, protecting human life is just a happy side-effect.

Durrrrrrr

cretinbob:Yeah, I'll remember that the next time I'm scraping some off the road who didn't wear one.

Their choice.

she could move to new hampshire. of course, then she'd have to live in new hampshire...

jaylectricity:You're stupid if you believe that seat belt laws exist to protect human life. They were supported and lobbied by insurance companies.

Like many laws, protecting human life is just a happy side-effect.

Yeah, like air bags, safety glass, anti-lock brakes, and all those other goofy and unnecessary things ;)

amo:What about that 3 year old son you have gone to the effort of strapping in? You may not be endangering him in the literal sense, but if you die, half of his family income is gone, as well as the influence of his father figure for the rest of his life.

True enough, but I don't think that's a compelling enough argument for legislation. If you start down that road, you think about outlawing everything that could be dangerous. I don't want the government to tell me I can't install a dimmer switch in my own bedroom.

And yes, I agree with a law that says you have to strap the three-year-old in because he's not old enough to make the decision for himself.

jaylectricity:You're stupid if you believe that seat belt laws exist to protect human life. They were supported and lobbied by insurance companies.

Like many laws, protecting human life is just a happy side-effect.

No, this is one of the effects of government intrusion.

1) Government argues they have a good reason to reduce road deaths.
2) They can't legislate a reduction of road deaths, but they can force people to wear seatbelts.
3) Insurance companies save money from this reduction of freedom, so it slowly goes nationwide.

In this way, our freedoms are bought and sold to the highest bidder, which would not happen if we stopped the government from taking them in the first place.

Whenever a rich person takes advantage of a poor person, not selling him something he wants, but forcing him to buy or do something he does not want, you can trace the roots of the injury back to "government took away someone's freedom."

A lot of you commie liberal smelly hippes hate CEOs, but let me tell you something, tator tot: No CEO can take away my freedom. No CEO can make me buy one damn thing I don't want. No CEO can take my home of my kids or my freedom.

It takes a farking gubmint to do that, brother.

What is gubmint's "reason" for forcing seatbelts? Well, we live in a nanny state, don't we? If you jack your body or your brain up, not only do we get to pay your medical bills, but we get to send your kids to college, don't we? Guess what? We have no business doing that, either.

Seat belts and motorcycle helmets = Good.
Seat belt and motorcycle helmet LAWS = Ridiculous.

bigstoopidbruce:
1) Government argues they have a good reason to reduce road deaths.
2) They can't legislate a reduction of road deaths, but they can force people to wear seatbelts.
3) Insurance companies save money from this reduction of freedom, so it slowly goes nationwide.
4) Local police departments, realizing that they now have another source of income, promptly start slapping a 'no seatbelt' charge on everyone they pull over, regardless if the occupant actually was wearing their seatbelt or not.
5) Contempt for government and law enforcement rises incrementally across the nation.

Maybe we don't want to pay for your braindead ass in higher insurance rates and hospital care if you're not insured.

Is it really that hard to fasten your seat belt before you drive anywhere? Really? I mean come on, it takes 2 seconds and you don't even know it's there. And don't give me that shiat about it's just more government intrusion to your lives and it's your choice bullshiat. You waste more time posting in this thread than you'd waste putting on your seatbelt every day for a week.

amo:If you want to take your life into your own hands, fine, but don't be a doofus and ruin anyone else's in the process.

True, but seat belt laws protect from stupid law suits too. If someone isn't wearing one and gets hurt in an accident; it's harder to pull of a law suit because the injury was a result from "breaking the law" by not wearing one.

I'm all for getting rid of seat belt laws if they throw in a clause stating that those hurt in an accident and not wearing a seat belt, can never sue. Never, even if the accident is 100% the other person's fault.

beerrun:Is it really that hard to fasten your seat belt before you drive anywhere? Really? I mean come on, it takes 2 seconds and you don't even know it's there. And don't give me that shiat about it's just more government intrusion to your lives and it's your choice bullshiat. You waste more time posting in this thread than you'd waste putting on your seatbelt every day for a week.

Please explain how the amount of time it takes or does not take to buckle up in any way affects whether or not seatbelt laws represent government intrusion. I'm in the middle of re-evaluating my stance on seatbelt laws, atm, so I'm not sure where I stand, but I know that this argument is bullshiat.

never odd or even:True, but seat belt laws protect from stupid law suits too. If someone isn't wearing one and gets hurt in an accident; it's harder to pull of a law suit because the injury was a result from "breaking the law" by not wearing one.

This.
That's one argument that asshat Nick Hogan is using to argue that he wasn't responsible for his friends current vegetative condition resulting from Hogan's reckless driving accident.

Mugato:Maybe we don't want to pay for your braindead ass in higher insurance rates and hospital care if you're not insured.

Maybe we shouldn't allow anyone to own a car worth more than a certain dollar amount for the same reason? Why should my insurance rates be higher because some people choose to drive very expensive cars?

mcwebe0:Please explain how the amount of time it takes or does not take to buckle up in any way affects whether or not seatbelt laws represent government intrusion. I'm in the middle of re-evaluating my stance on seatbelt laws, atm, so I'm not sure where I stand, but I know that this argument is bullshiat.

That's right, first they made me wear a seatbelt, then a crash helmet and now they want me to wear a full fire suit. Damn government always farking with us! You don't want to buckle up? Fine. I won't cry at your funeral and don't biatch when you get a ticket.

NickelP:Maybe we shouldn't allow anyone to own a car worth more than a certain dollar amount for the same reason? Why should my insurance rates be higher because some people choose to drive very expensive cars?

I'm all for that, too.

Do you think the same conversations about our rights as citizens came up when the idea of having to have a license to drive took place?

I really don't see how having a seatbelt law is unconstitutional.

I say remove all safety codes. People live too damn long anyway.

ExJerseyGirl:I really don't see how having a seatbelt law is unconstitutional.

I don't recall seeing anything in the Constitution about seat belts.

Driving is a privilage not a right.

bmr68:Driving is a privilage not a right.

And if you prove you can handle a car and drive responsibly, you get to drive. As long as you don't speed, swerve at people or drive drunk then there should be no laws on what you do to yourself in your car.

This, and especially helmet laws, are the same as having a government dress code. They can't tell me what i can and can't wear damnit.

bigstoopidbruce:It takes a farking gubmint to do that, brother.

Which has been bought and paid for by the aforementioned CEOs.

} far from a hippie

adamgreeney:This, and especially helmet laws, are the same as having a government dress code. They can't tell me what i can and can't wear damnit.

Not at all. It is an issue of safety and the costs when people act like idiots on public land (like roadways). There are some reservoirs you are not allowed to swim in because people keep drowning in them; there are parks you can't cross country ski in at times because of avalanche danger. How is having safety rules in place for driving any different?

It is ridiculous for me to be fined for something that endangers no one but myself.

I guess she's never heard of the drug laws.

DRTFA, but you're a danger to everyone else in your car (and possibly outside of it) if you're thrown in an accident.

Have we all seen this commercial?

ExJerseyGirl:Do you think the same conversations about our rights as citizens came up when the idea of having to have a license to drive took place?

I really don't see how having a seatbelt law is unconstitutional.

Requiring a license is a means of trying to make sure you're a good enough driver not to endanger other people when you're out on the road. It's very far from a perfect way to to that, but I don't know how to do it better. Therefore, you can look at it as the government protecting you from other people. That's fine, as far as I'm concerned.

Seat belt laws are a way for the government to protect you from yourself. That's where I object.

Weaver95:Local police departments, realizing that they now have another source of income, promptly start slapping a 'no seatbelt' charge on everyone they pull over, regardless if the occupant actually was wearing their seatbelt or not.

Hahaha, got any proof of that being common?

I should have figured that Weaver was in the tinfoil hat LP gang.

McCainDemocrat:Hahaha, got any proof of that being common?

Got any proof it isn't?

I should have figured that McCainDemocrat was in the 'government is always right' gang.

Secret Agent X23:Seat belt laws are a way for the government to protect you from yourself. That's where I object.

Understood. I have a hard time with this one. When the law was first proposed I actively fought against it. But I haven't seen it become a slippery slope that continues to erode our basic freedoms. Like helmet laws, seatbelt laws reduces costs on our public services.

When we bought a new house last fall, we had to have a fire inspector make sure we had a carbon monoxide detector. Should that law also be struck down if we don't have kids?

Unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution? No. I can't speak as to the various state constitutions, but people (including state legislators) forgot about those a long time ago.

I think a seatbelt requirement would be perfectly reasonable as part of a terms of use agreement for the roads. But we stupidly don't treat road safety/regulation as a matter of terms of use, but rather as a law enforcement matter. And under no circumstances should not wearing a seatbelt be a crime. Neither should anything else that doesn't harm an unconsenting person or their property.

Weaver95:I should have figured that McCainDemocrat was in the 'government is always right' gang.

Please let it be known that even if I don't object to the seat belt law I am not in "the government is always right" gang. And I certainly don't ever want to be considered to be aligned with McCainDanlpoon

behold the power of insurance company lobbyists

they know what's good for you.

Churchill2004:I think a seatbelt requirement would be perfectly reasonable as part of a terms of use agreement for the roads. But we stupidly don't treat road safety/regulation as a matter of terms of use, but rather as a law enforcement matter.

Interesting. How do you propose we enforce "terms of use" agreements for drivers?

ExJerseyGirl:Weaver95:I should have figured that McCainDemocrat was in the 'government is always right' gang.

Please let it be known that even if I don't object to the seat belt law I am not in "the government is always right" gang. And I certainly don't ever want to be considered to be aligned with McCainDanlpoon

That's who mostly populate that side of the aisle tho.

ExJerseyGirl:adamgreeney:This, and especially helmet laws, are the same as having a government dress code. They can't tell me what i can and can't wear damnit.

Not at all. It is an issue of safety and the costs when people act like idiots on public land (like roadways). There are some reservoirs you are not allowed to swim in because people keep drowning in them; there are parks you can't cross country ski in at times because of avalanche danger. How is having safety rules in place for driving any different?

If someone dives into a reservoir and dies that can impact the health of hundreds or thousands of people. If someone is skiing or hiking and causes an avalanche or forest fire, thousands can die.

If i'm driving down the road and i get into and accident only i die if i don't have a seat belt on.

I do agree with laws in place for children regarding seat belts, but when i'm old enough to make my own decisions, i want to be able to do just that.

Hobodeluxe:behold the power of insurance company lobbyists

they know what's good for you.

In a way they do. It is in their best interests to minimize overall deaths and personal injuries in car accidents.

But for you personally? They don't give a shiat.

ExJerseyGirl:In a way they do. It is in their best interests to minimize overall deaths and personal injuries in car accidents.

But for you personally? They don't give a shiat.

no actually it keeps stupid people in the gene pool so as a species it makes us weaker

ExJerseyGirl:Interesting. How do you propose we enforce "terms of use" agreements for drivers?

Same as terms of use for any other service- agree and follow them or lose your ability to use the roads. But you shouldn't face any further legal penalties. That also gets rid of the Constitution-killing idea of the roads as a 4th Amendment "gray area".

Also, get rid of having LEOs, instead of regular gov't employees, enforce traffic rules. That's just begging for problems. Simple traffic violations shouldn't even require pulling some one over- just note the license plate and send the fee in the mail along with a brief written description of where/what/when. That doesn't work if you're talking about law enforcement, because the person driving the car might not be the owner and you can't punish some one for another person's crime, but under a terms-of-use it's perfectly reasonable to hold people accountable for who they let drive their vehicle.

People who are so adamantly against seatbelt laws... Are you pro-suicide (for people who want it)? Do you think that suicidally depressed individuals should have the right to kill themselves without anybody interfering, no matter what their current life situation is?

What if they're a parent?

Hobodeluxe:ExJerseyGirl:In a way they do. It is in their best interests to minimize overall deaths and personal injuries in car accidents.

But for you personally? They don't give a shiat.

no actually it keeps stupid people in the gene pool so as a species it makes us weaker

THIS.

I suck at expressing my points in text form. I feel that if I am dumb enough to not wear a helmet/seat belt, i should not be in the gene pool. Same with anyone else. You want to play stupid with your life fine, i hope you suffer the consequences.

Raiden333:Do you think that suicidally depressed individuals should have the right to kill themselves without anybody interfering, no matter what their current life situation is?

Yes.

Next question.

Raiden333:People who are so adamantly against seatbelt laws... Are you pro-suicide (for people who want it)? Do you think that suicidally depressed individuals should have the right to kill themselves without anybody interfering, no matter what their current life situation is?

What if they're a parent?

What if it's none of our business? Look - it's a fact of life that bad things happen to good people and that stupidity is among the leading causes of death in the world. But to try to legislate a solution to either of those 'problems' is not only arrogant, but it's doomed to fail. I'm willing to allow stupid people to die from the results of their actions if the greater good of a free society is the result. THAT is the price of freedom.

Raiden333:People who are so adamantly against seatbelt laws... Are you pro-suicide (for people who want it)? Do you think that suicidally depressed individuals should have the right to kill themselves without anybody interfering, no matter what their current life situation is?

What if they're a parent?

some people don't deserve to be parents. sometimes no parent is better than a bad parent.

Weaver95:Raiden333:People who are so adamantly against seatbelt laws... Are you pro-suicide (for people who want it)? Do you think that suicidally depressed individuals should have the right to kill themselves without anybody interfering, no matter what their current life situation is?

What if they're a parent?

What if it's none of our business? Look - it's a fact of life that bad things happen to good people and that stupidity is among the leading causes of death in the world. But to try to legislate a solution to either of those 'problems' is not only arrogant, but it's doomed to fail. I'm willing to allow stupid people to die from the results of their actions if the greater good of a free society is the result. THAT is the price of freedom.

Yeah, I suppose I see your point. This is one of those issues where my gung-ho pro-individual-freedoms side starts to question itself, just because it's such a simple thing to do, it's undeniable that more people buckle up with the law than without it, and it's also undeniable that more people wearing seatbelts = less horrible bloody messes for paramedics to clean up.