FARK.com: (7096431) Leftists' oppressive seatbelt laws must end now

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Leftists' oppressive seatbelt laws must end now ( wnd.com)		214
		More: Hero, Patrick Henry, second mortgages, seat belts, mandates, moral hazard, free country, Occupational Safety and Health, Association of American Physicians

• • •

3027 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 May 2012 at 7:44 PM (5 years ago) | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

https://fark.com/go/7096431

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

214 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

Aarontology

2012-05-09 04:16:49 PM

I'm fine with that.

Just deny medical treatment for anyone whose injuries would have been prevented by wearing a seat belt.

FREEDOM!

downstairs

2012-05-09 04:18:11 PM

John Stossel- king of fake outrage. Really? Seat belts?

Sock Ruh Tease

2012-05-09 04:19:56 PM

Yes please.

Then tell idiots that read WND that Fartbongo is about to ban people from parking on highways with the driver door facing fast moving traffic.

Rapmaster2000

2012-05-09 04:20:12 PM

As I document in my new book, "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails - but Individuals Succeed,"

Hmmm. I get the feeling that all of these platitudes about government failure are just providing excuses to nobodies so that their failure to reach their goal is because no one respects them as individuals. If only government would get out of the way then I would be highly successful. It sounds like repackaged Ayn Rand for frustrated middle-aged men.

It sells though. Pandering works.

Sgt Otter

2012-05-09 04:20:59 PM

downstairs: John Stossel- king of fake outrage. Really? Seat belts?

...and controls on prescribing Oxy. WTF, dude.

Rapmaster2000

2012-05-09 04:22:22 PM

Aarontology: I'm fine with that.

Just deny medical treatment for anyone whose injuries would have been prevented by wearing a seat belt.

FREEDOM!

Oh, and I'm 100% fine with that.

I'm opposed to seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws. Just understand that when you become a vegetable, we're pulling the plug. Your personal freedom over your body doesn't extend to my wallet.

FirstNationalBastard

2012-05-09 04:24:44 PM

Rapmaster2000: Aarontology: I'm fine with that.

Just deny medical treatment for anyone whose injuries would have been prevented by wearing a seat belt.

FREEDOM!

Oh, and I'm 100% fine with that.

I'm opposed to seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws. Just understand that when you become a vegetable, we're pulling the plug. Your personal freedom over your body doesn't extend to my wallet.

Those laws aren't about safety... they're about revenue. If the government couldn't make money off ticketing you for not wearing a seatbelt, do you think they would give a fark if you wore a seatbelt?

Charlie Freak

2012-05-09 04:26:48 PM

Hah, what does he think this is, the 70's? Companies haven't been willingly doing things that increase consumer safety in decades. Bean-counter mentality all but killed that off as they ever-futilely race toward zero.

Sock Ruh Tease

2012-05-09 04:27:23 PM

Sgt Otter: downstairs: John Stossel- king of fake outrage. Really? Seat belts?

...and controls on prescribing Oxy. WTF, dude.

DADDY NEEDS HIS MEDICINE

GAT_00

2012-05-09 04:27:56 PM

Rapmaster2000: As I document in my new book, "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails - but Individuals Succeed,"

[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x300]

Hmmm. I get the feeling that all of these platitudes about government failure are just providing excuses to nobodies so that their failure to reach their goal is because no one respects them as individuals. If only government would get out of the way then I would be highly successful. It sounds like repackaged Ayn Rand for frustrated middle-aged men.

It sells though. Pandering works.

Not to mention he's writing this outrage on the government-created Internet.

gameshowhost

2012-05-09 04:29:25 PM

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke

2012-05-09 04:29:52 PM

What about bootstraps? Are they still mandatory?

Bunnyhat

2012-05-09 04:29:58 PM

I like the comment that says making him wear seatbelts is the same thing has making him a slave.
Some people have no farking clue. They really do think they are being treated like slaves of old.

The problem with not making people wear seatbelts is multi-fold. First is medical concerns and ER treatments.

Second is insurance. If a bunch of 'rugged real Americans' stop wearing seat belts and get in accidents, my insurance will go up in order for the insurance company to pay the increased bills because of it. I have zero desire to pay higher bills because idiots who receive the chain email about how not wearing a seatbelt saved some drivers life.

I_Am_Weasel

2012-05-09 04:31:48 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Rapmaster2000: Aarontology: I'm fine with that.

Just deny medical treatment for anyone whose injuries would have been prevented by wearing a seat belt.

FREEDOM!

Oh, and I'm 100% fine with that.

I'm opposed to seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws. Just understand that when you become a vegetable, we're pulling the plug. Your personal freedom over your body doesn't extend to my wallet.

Those laws aren't about safety... they're about revenue. If the government couldn't make money off ticketing you for not wearing a seatbelt, do you think they would give a fark if you wore a seatbelt?

They make more money off living seatbelt wearers than dead non-seatbelt wearers.

Less money spent scraping body parts off the road.

Less money spent on repairing decapitations in the ER.

Rapmaster2000

2012-05-09 04:31:58 PM

Jesus, John. This is such GD claptrap:

Here's my reasoning: The first government mandate created a standard for seat belts. That relieved auto companies of the need to compete on seat belt safety and comfort. Drivers and passengers haven't benefitted from improvements competitive carmakers might have made.

Yes, because auto safety and seat belt technology advanced so quickly before mandates. Why is your memory so soft here?

University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman argues that increased safety features on cars have the ironic effect of encouraging people to drive more recklessly. It's called the Peltzman Effect - a variation on what insurance experts call "moral hazard." Studies show that people drive faster when they are snugly enclosed in seat belts.

And many economists argue that this is flawed. It's only a hypothesis. That's why it's called an "effect" and not a "theory". To go further, this is all related to the reason why the Nobel Prize for Economics is worthless.

Through the Food and Drug Administration, the government claims to protect us. But some people suffer because of that protection: Some die waiting for drugs to be approved.

So approve Thalidomide.

This article is a fantasy. It's all "I think I think" over and over again masquerading as a theory. We know it doesn't work, John. We already did it your way.

Libertarianism: as unrealistic as communism, but at least the communist on your dorm floor had weed to share and not to mooch.

AdolfOliverPanties

2012-05-09 04:34:28 PM

gameshowhost: [www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com image 327x240]

Came for the slap. Thank you sir.

scottydoesntknow

2012-05-09 04:34:41 PM

Wear your seatbelt or don't, I don't really care. What I am tired of is car companies feeling the need to install alerts for when you aren't wearing your seatbelt. I know I'm not wearing my seatbelt, I don't need a constant beeping noise every 3 seconds reminding me of that fact. Even worse when you're on rural roads or on a lease/ranch where seatbelts are completely unnecesary.

Jubeebee

2012-05-09 04:37:18 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Those laws aren't about safety... they're about revenue. If the government couldn't make money off ticketing you for not wearing a seatbelt, do you think they would give a fark if you wore a seatbelt?

This right here.

The police used to run a seatbelt checkpoint on the corner of my old place. They'd have officers standing at the intersection, shining flashlights into peoples cars at a 4 way stop. Both streets were 25mph limits, in a quiet suburban neighborhood.

That's not safety, that's a cash grab. If you want to give someone an extra ticket for not having a seatbelt on when you pull them over for speeding on the highway, fine. But peering into people's cars in a residential neighborhood has nothing to do with safety.

cretinbob

2012-05-09 04:38:14 PM

I've only unbuckled one corpse and he was wrapped around the tree so tight it took over an hour to extricate him.
I've seen a lot more who would have walked away if they had been belted in.

Rapmaster2000

2012-05-09 04:40:39 PM

And when Billy Bob gets ejected in a rollover and he's stuck on life support for months, I have to pay for it out of my taxes once his insurance runs out which steals money from more responsible citizens for medicaid and from SS and food stamps to pay for his kids because the kinds of people who are too irresponsible to wear a seat belt to be their for their children aren't generally the kinds of people responsible enough to get life insurance.

I elected this government and I want the government to force irresponsible people to be responsible as long as I have to pay for irresponsibility.

Let's have an opt out policy. I'll let people sign away the regulations that require them to wear a seatbelt. They tattoo "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" on their chests. Everybody wins.

El_Perro

2012-05-09 04:47:15 PM

If every auto company were trying to invent a better belt, today, instead of one seat belt, I bet there'd be six, and all would be better and more comfortable than today's standard.

That's sort of the point. There is value to standardization of safety devices. They're compatible with other devices (e.g., infant/child seats), there's no learning curve, emergency responders know what they're dealing with, etc. So, without a single standard, there may well be six different seat belts, but that would not necessarily be a good thing.

cmunic8r99

2012-05-09 04:49:37 PM

Aarontology: I'm fine with that.

Just deny medical treatment for anyone whose injuries would have been prevented by wearing a seat belt.

FREEDOM!

I'm ok with them getting treated. As long as the insurance companies or government don't have to shell out for it. If they want to pay it out-of-pocket, hold a ~~bake~~ fruit basket sale, or otherwise rely on the charity of other people, more power to them.

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier

2012-05-09 04:51:12 PM

Rapmaster2000: FirstNationalBastard: Those laws aren't about safety... they're about revenue. If the government couldn't make money off ticketing you for not wearing a seatbelt, do you think they would give a fark if you wore a seatbelt?

And when Billy Bob gets ejected in a rollover and he's stuck on life support for months, I have to pay for it out of my taxes once his insurance runs out which steals money from more responsible citizens for medicaid and from SS and food stamps to pay for his kids because the kinds of people who are too irresponsible to wear a seat belt to be their for their children aren't generally the kinds of people responsible enough to get life insurance.

I elected this government and I want the government to force irresponsible people to be responsible as long as I have to pay for irresponsibility.

Let's have an opt out policy. I'll let people sign away the regulations that require them to wear a seatbelt. They tattoo "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" on their chests. Everybody wins.

Nice try commie. Like I'll support paying for someone else's tattoo! Let the market determine how many idiots get branded with the stupid.

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke

2012-05-09 04:59:37 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Rapmaster2000: FirstNationalBastard: Those laws aren't about safety... they're about revenue. If the government couldn't make money off ticketing you for not wearing a seatbelt, do you think they would give a fark if you wore a seatbelt?

And when Billy Bob gets ejected in a rollover and he's stuck on life support for months, I have to pay for it out of my taxes once his insurance runs out which steals money from more responsible citizens for medicaid and from SS and food stamps to pay for his kids because the kinds of people who are too irresponsible to wear a seat belt to be their for their children aren't generally the kinds of people responsible enough to get life insurance.

I elected this government and I want the government to force irresponsible people to be responsible as long as I have to pay for irresponsibility.

Let's have an opt out policy. I'll let people sign away the regulations that require them to wear a seatbelt. They tattoo "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" on their chests. Everybody wins.

Nice try commie. Like I'll support paying for someone else's tattoo! Let the market determine how many idiots get branded with the stupid.

Next, they'll be requiring us to pay for those annoying roadside crosses with their teddy bears and plastic flowers!

Ed Finnerty

2012-05-09 05:18:10 PM

AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THOSE LIBTARDS' PROPERLY INFLATED TIRES!!1!

Marcus Aurelius

2012-05-09 05:19:30 PM

I'm being oppressed by my anti-lock brakes.

TsarTom

2012-05-09 05:20:55 PM

eet's a good book.

kbronsito

2012-05-09 05:21:49 PM

Aarontology: I'm fine with that.

Just deny medical treatment for anyone whose injuries would have been prevented by wearing a seat belt.

FREEDOM!

Can we also stop paying for medical treatment for health problems that could have been prevented by diet and exercise?

Diogenes

2012-05-09 05:22:52 PM

Patrick Henry was an abrasive asshole who actively tried to prevent the creation and ratification of the Constitution.

violentsalvation

2012-05-09 05:41:19 PM

Works for me.

Winning

2012-05-09 05:43:08 PM

I had a friend die after getting in a head-on collision and being thrown threw the windshield, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke

2012-05-09 06:41:00 PM

Diogenes: Patrick Henry was an abrasive asshole who actively tried to prevent the creation and ratification of the Constitution.

Pfft! Patrick Henry was always frontin' for The Man.

Thomas Paine was the real shizz.

gameshowhost

2012-05-09 06:47:19 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: gameshowhost: [www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com image 327x240]

Came for the slap. Thank you sir.

*nods in acknowledgement; walks taller than dewey cox*

gameshowhost

2012-05-09 06:52:15 PM

TsarTom: [www.lpstuff.com image 282x450]
eet's a good book.

There's nothing consensual about forcing me to share your burden of the risk while you enjoy all of the benefits.

/free riding: how the fark does it work?

dahmers love zombie

2012-05-09 06:59:09 PM

If toddlers really don't want to be raped, they can simply fight back.

Darth_Lukecash

2012-05-09 07:14:20 PM

Rapmaster2000: So approve Thalidomide.

HELL NO!

Do you realize how farking dangerous that drug is?

Jackson Herring

2012-05-09 07:20:59 PM

Isn't John Stossel the "no one in America starved during the Great Depression" guy?

Jackson Herring

2012-05-09 07:25:30 PM

Rapmaster2000: I'm opposed to seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws. Just understand that when you become a vegetable, we're pulling the plug. Your personal freedom over your body doesn't extend to my wallet.

Wrong. An unbelted driver can be thrown from the driver's seat in even a minor collision, causing them to lose control of their car and potentially worsening the accident.

Close2TheEdge

2012-05-09 07:46:54 PM

Yes, they would. Believe it or not, there are people in the government who don't want you to die because of stupidity. However for you, they might make an exception.

Lost Thought 00

2012-05-09 07:46:56 PM

Why won't the government deregulate murder already?

spiderpaz

2012-05-09 07:47:45 PM

If conservatives want to lift their trucks, then drive really really fast around turns without their seatbelts on, then I am all for it. Just please do it before November.

spiderpaz

2012-05-09 07:49:14 PM

spiderpaz: If conservatives want to lift their trucks, then drive really really fast around turns without their seatbelts on, then I am all for it. Just please do it before November.

preferably on an icy morning, far far away from the nearest hospital

Lost Thought 00

2012-05-09 07:49:36 PM

All that said, though, you could make a legit argument that airbag mandates are unnecessary, though at this point the free market pretty much makes it's own mandates, as evidenced by the new cars that have the entire passenger cabin explode with bags in a fender bender.

FlashHarry

2012-05-09 07:49:52 PM

please, please, PLEASE, conservatives - take off your oppressive liberal seatbelts!

Primum

2012-05-09 07:50:12 PM

University of Nebraska at Lincoln student pens anti-seatbelt editorial, dies in horrible crash without his seatbelt on a couple months later.

Snopes

One of my favorite true Snopes.

Kanemano

2012-05-09 07:50:13 PM

gameshowhost: [www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com image 327x240]

I do believe it drove him insane.

meat0918

2012-05-09 07:53:57 PM

Is it the 80's again?

fsbilly

2012-05-09 07:53:59 PM

Jubeebee: FirstNationalBastard: Those laws aren't about safety... they're about revenue. If the government couldn't make money off ticketing you for not wearing a seatbelt, do you think they would give a fark if you wore a seatbelt?

This right here.

The police used to run a seatbelt checkpoint on the corner of my old place. They'd have officers standing at the intersection, shining flashlights into peoples cars at a 4 way stop. Both streets were 25mph limits, in a quiet suburban neighborhood.

That's not safety, that's a cash grab. If you want to give someone an extra ticket for not having a seatbelt on when you pull them over for speeding on the highway, fine. But peering into people's cars in a residential neighborhood has nothing to do with safety.

Sounds like you lived in a neighborhood full of idiots.

Raoul Eaton

2012-05-09 07:54:29 PM

Ever hit your head against a hard object at 25 m.p.h.? Did it feel slow then?

Corvus

2012-05-09 07:55:17 PM

Rapmaster2000: Oh, and I'm 100% fine with that.

I'm opposed to seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws. Just understand that when you become a vegetable, we're pulling the plug. Your personal freedom over your body doesn't extend to my wallet.

OK lets change the 2nd part of that first then before we are only concerned about the first part. Deal?

Displayed 50 of 214 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

If you like these links, you'll love

More Fark for your buck

learn more | sign up

Report

Advertise on Fark

learn more

Like Fark!

Follow @Fark On Twitter

Headlines of the Week
Fark NotNewsletter

Report

Fark.com

Top Commented

Top Commented ▼

Top Commented
Top Clicked
Top Voted
My Recent Commented
Recent Mentions

Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.