Finally got a ticket the other day for not wearing my seatbelt.

No biggie in the greater scheme of things, just a $70 fine.

I believe in seatbelts, always buckle up in an aircraft (though have to assume it ensures my odds of survivability in an aircraft crash about like skipping over cracks in the sidewalk ensures my mom's back health) use my seatbelts often when traveling the highway or bad road conditions.

But honestly I'm a product of the times I grew up in I suppose, spent most of my formative youth standing on the driveline hump in the backseat of whatever car my folks had so I could see where the heck we were going.

I can see the law for kids, but as an adult aren't I only subjecting myself to risk in an accident if I go beltless in town?

In fact I got t-boned hard by a lady that ran a redlight couple of years ago, totaled my toy truck, she hit me right in the drivers side door. Hit so hard it knocked my driveline loose.

I was lucky or blessed (whatever works for you) had no injuries and actually administered first aid to her.

Witnesses to the accident thought I'd be dead. I thought I'd get a ticket when the cop asked if I was wearing my seatbelt (twas only a secondary offense then) and told him the truth "that no I wasn't wearing it"

I'm not advocating making motorbike riders wear a helmet, but it seems that's more dangerous than me not wearing a seat belt.

Is it like I told the cop, just another revenue enhancing tax?


When I was growing up, or at least trying to, it was a common refrain when someone was taking up something ill advised and being admonished over it to reply, "it's a free country, isn't it?"

It doesn't feel quite as free to me these days. YMMV

Thoughts?

my take on it would be this: it may be a good thing in that it will hopefully train the coming generation to do it automatically. My kids start screaming at me if it car is in motion even in the garage due to our and the school's admonitions. I think it is a good thing in the long run because most of the people that don't buckle up also don't buckle their kids either and that is harder to aruge against!
criticism welome...lefty

I agree with mandatory seat belt laws.

I suppose that if this were a different universe where the hospital pulled your plug and harvested your organs when your estate ran out of assets, then I could agree it was your own damned choice.

However, those of you who get whacked are not allowed to die. You raise my insurance premiums (if you are insured). You raise my out of pocket costs if you are not insured....

Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.
Your right to suck down resources ends where my pocketbook begins.

Sidebar:
I worked with a guy who was issued a pool car due to his high level in the organization. As a condition of getting the "company" car, he signed an agreement. One of the stipulations was that he, and all occupants, wear seat belts.

He was in an accident. Neither he nor his wife were wearing seat belts. The company's insurance carrier refused payment based on fraudulent charges. The company refused to cover the injuries via the healthcare plan because the were incurred as a result of A.) Illegal activity and B.) The condition of use (wearing seatbelts) was not met.

The medical bills ran to about $60K. Last I knew the guy had to pay. Business law is business law. He could contest it but it would be money out of pocket and who knows what his chances of winning were?

Just food for thought.

Yep, have to agree. If the car is dangerous without me wearing it shouldn't the feature be designed in and automatic? I have taken lately to not wearing one every now and then. It feels strangely liberating. Not advocating this you understand but I can see where you are coming from AK.

Do seat belts save lives? Absolutley

Should they be mandatory? No

Where I live, you can legaly ride a motor cycle without a helmet (if you can believe that) but not buckling your seat belt will get you a ticket.

Mandatory seat belt laws are about the insurance companys saving money, though they are pushed through under the guise of saving lives.

Free country or not? I know the answer..

(I am not for mandatory helmet laws either )

Wow, thats a big fine for that. Here in AL the fine is $10.00 and no court costs are paid. So its a true $10.00 fine.

As far as agreeing...well...sort of. People should have the right to splatter their brains and guts all over the highways if they choose to, BUT the costs to others in the form of higher insurance rates gets in to my wallet. So, since the true intent of the law, and it really is the true intent, is to protect you so you wont have extra bills for the insurance company to pay, thus saving me money, I agree with it because its in place to protect my interests, not really the driver's. Make sense?

I think that the insurance premium issue is a valid point for the mandatory use of seat belts and helmets. What about the people who use charity hospitals and government-provided health care? Should our tax dollars pay for the medical care of someone who could afford a motorcycle or a car, but no insurance. I can't recall the minumum coverage standards for auto insurance in LA but they are somewhere in the neighborhood of $20K in damages. That won't cover anything on a collision. If you total out someone's car and put them in the hospital for a few broken bones or the like, that $20K is long gone. But a lot of people here just carry the minimum required by the state.

Seat belts save lives and everyone should wear one when in a moving vehicle. I always wear mine and insist anyone in my vehicle wear one.

The gummint has no business requiring the wearing of a belt.

JoeMama makes a good point, however as much of this is driven by hospitalization costs that are unrecovered from uninsured persons.

Yes I agree with this law. I have been in a couple of serious collisions over the years and can say absolutely that they prevent or reduce injuries.
My line of work for about 35 years was in the traffic engineering field. In the course of this work I have read thousands of collision reports. I can't tell you how many times the use of seat belts have benefited the occupants of vehicles. I first used them in my first new car in 1966 and have been a faithful user ever since. Have a h-ll of a time with my son in law about using his. Basically when we are using my truck to go hunting, etc., he is expected to use the belt.
With regard to motor cycle helmets I have mixed feelings. A friend who is an orthopaedic surgeon tells me the helmets save the lives of many motorcyclists but in many cases the result is a living head and not much else. I doubt there is an active motorcyclist who can honestly say they have never put a bike over. In my opinion it is only a matter of time for a motor cycle rider before he dumps a bike to the point where he will be seriously hurt.

If you start down this slope of regulating conduct of others to save one's insurance premiums (socialized medicine through private insurance) you get into big problems real fast. Any one claim is minscule compared to the cost of regulating conduct which otherwise is none of one's business.
(And is another insurance company fraud perpetrated on its policy holders.)
As far as wearing seat belts, I'm a sometimes hypocrit. I think they should be worn, but don't always do it, unless I have kids along.
$70 is way too high.
Shouldn't we wear helmets when riding in a car? It might save death or medical expense.How 'bout those NASCAR devices to keep your head in place? Shouldn't we be as safe as possible?
T

I�m all for them. When I was a paramedic I treated who knows how many people who were ejected through the windshield. With an accident at a speed of say 50mph, not having your seatbelt on is the difference between walking away sore, bruised and pissed. To fighting for your life, being on perpetual life support, or just becoming an organ donor. It�s good public policy and it encourages good behavior. I think anyone who doesn�t car-seat or seatbelt their children should get mandatory jail time�Pisses me off because I�ve had to clean up the mess caused by stupid parents. My son is 3 years old and will give me hell if I somehow forget to buckle him up. That�s the way it should be. There should never be a time where the parent buckles the kids up but then doesn�t buckle themselves up. Think of the example: �Man, when I get older like dad, I won�t have to wear this stupid seatbelt.�

I've been feeling that way ever since we were hit with the 55MPH speed limit. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Every law passed is a little bite on your freedom....

Seatbelt laws,helmet laws,smoking bans and on and on should
never had been brought up, much less voted on.

Congress shall make no law.....yeah right.

Yes and No.Passenger cars, suv's and pick-up sure.I drive a logging truck for a living and i never wear it.The reason for that is if a head on occurs if possible you have a better chance bailing than riding it out.

Lost a couple of friends over the years were the logs pushed through the headache rack and into the cab.Killed instantly.

My 17 yr old granddaughter was killed in April driving her mothers van. Accident reconstruction said the airbags, side and front, deployed as they should have. The vehicle rolled and she was ejected. She would probably have survived if she had worn the belt. I hit a patch of black ice a few years ago, went across the interstate, over the snowbank, and believe I would have squeezed over the steering wheel and out the windshield if I had not had the seat belt on. This was doing about 50-55. Road conditions were so-so. Some years before that, while driving my Volvo as it should be driven, I T-boned a guy who went through a stop sign. This was before seat belts were required, but I always drove that car wearing them. Good thing, Bent the steering wheel, bent the car, bent him. I got out & went to help the other driver, who wasn't wearing a belt. I can still see him bouncing around in his car like a pea in a pod. Do They work?? You Bet!!! Should they be mandated? Against my personal feelings? Yes in both cases. I ride a two wheeled device, NY says it's mandatory to have a bucket on, would I wear one in NH? Yep. Stupid is as stupid does. Nothing personal towards those who don't.

Like I said, I don't think the gov't has any business protecting me from me...they do have business protecting me from you or you from me...LIMITED business. This is one area in which I can't protect myself from you. However, like you said it seems a slippery slope, Im just not one that is smart enough to figure out a better solution. I am certainly open to ideas.

I did once have the idea that rather than mandating personal use of seatbelts...regulate how the insurance companies can pay for injuries and damages sustained as a result of not wearing seatbelts? I never ran it to any logical conclusions, and Im sure that idea is filled with pitfalls, namely increased litigation for starters.

I'm not a fan of "Momma Laws" period.

If you are old enough to be in the army & go get your ass shot at, you ought to be able to decide whether to put a seatbelt on.

Too many times has the Govt. gotten into our homes, our cars, and our schools.

Too many lawsuits. Too many new laws.

I can't describe the amount of freedom we have lost since I was a kid.....Are we going to condition our kids to letting the govt. tell them how to run every facet of THEIR lives as well?

I wear a seat belt on the highway. Since I travel a lot of dirt roads, most of them county, or forest roads, then it would be breaking the law not to wear it. But, something about the way the law is written in lots of cases doesn't allow for common sense.

Are they going to make it mandatory to wear steel toe boots to mow the lawn?
Or, dress your kids up in a full-pad football uniform to ride their bike, lest they fall off?

The dictation of laws like this are strictly intended for Democrats with no common sense.......Perhaps they are the ones that should adhere to them, and a republican voting card should be a "get out of jail free card".

Sorry to rant, but we ought to draw the line somewhere....

Barry

I don't believe in seat belt laws, scooter helment laws, anti prostitution laws, or most drug laws. I just don't like the government telling folks what to do, when it clearly is NOT any of the government's biz. There is a very long list these days, of things that they have no legitimate interest in, but are messing with folks about.

Barry +1

I'm totally against the mandatory seatbelt law. The same rational that justifies it, justifies that motorcycles should be outlawed, too dangerous, cost too much, guns should be outlawed, etc, etc.

Personal responsability dictates that you choose how you want to live your life, and you'll live with the consequences. Personal irresponsibility dictates the guvment tells you whats best and you have no responsibilty over what happens.

I consider it prudent to wear a seatbelt, and manage that all without a law that dictates that I do.

.280... You should know this one. One of the biggest problems concerns medical ethics. Is it ethical to not act when you've taken an oath to act? It would be similar to you not doing your best on a case because you personally think the guy's guilty. As a medical professional, you have a duty to respond when on duty. If you're suddenly presented with a patient in extremis, you can't ask about the seatbelt/helmet question. What if the guy was wearing a helmet with a faulty chin strap that came off during the accident. What if the last act of consciousnesss of a driver was to unbuckle his seatbelt? (can't make assumptions, most belted drivers in a significant speed accident without airbags will still star the windshield with their heads...it's the nature of 3 point belts) This opens up a huge can of worms medico-legally and even bigger problems ethically.

It's the curse of that imperfect, but it works, system we live under.

I believe the fine in Texas is $135. for not wearing the seatbelt. I don't like do gooders telling others how to live. If you want not wear the belt it's not my business. Count the number of autos registered and the number of serious accidents and the % is quite low. How old are you? How many times has the seat belt saved you or your parents. How old is your house and how many times has it burnt down over the years? In most towns the houses are approaching 100 YO and still standing. Insurance lives on fear factor, what if, and they find every way to keep from paying. Figure up how much you pay out for all insurance over the last few years. Could pay your own accidents and damages except for the major ones. A friend was paying $700 a month for health insurance, WOW. -- Back to basic freedoms, tell me what is free anymore? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />-- no

I think you misread...I didn't say medical personnel shouldn't treat them...I suggested we might enact laws prohibiting insurance companies from paying for injuries sustained due to not wearing a seat belt.

Fine in Oregon is $170. I am in favor of the law.

BTW-If you live but can no longer work, should you get disability, worker's comp, SSD, etc. if you did not wear a blet?

No matter how you slice it, most of the folks who favored their "freedom" and lost, ended up limiting everyone else's.

Just my 2 cents,

BMT

I don't give a rip for mandatory seat belt laws for adults, except for the fine (twenty bucks in South Dakota). Particularly since it is for all practical purposes a federal law. South Dakota avoided the law as long as possible but couldn't afford the loss of highway funds. I don't see it as any of the state's business, much less the ginks in DC. It's another matter for kids who can't make an informed decision.

That said, I always wear a seat belt. On several occasions (ice) being anchored behind the wheel has allowed me to control the vehicle and continue on my merry way. An incident a couple years ago made the point on crashes. We were on our way out on opening day of duck season and had to detour around a crash scene. Two kids died from a low speed rollover when they missed a curve on a gravel road. The passenger compartment was completely intact and the damage was surprisingly minor. Had they not been ejected they would've walked away from it.

BTW, SD has no motorcycle helmet law but does require eye protection. Philosophy is that you can acess the risks for yourself, but don't risk other people should something land in your eye.

The womb to tomb protection our government is instituting is pure BS, if somebody wants to be responsible for themselves they have been criminalized. Think about it, how about we just outlaw motorized transport of all kinds, they kill & maim more people than firearms do.

Nibble, nibble, nibble at our freedoms and program our kids, sounds like something out of George Orwell!

I would agree with all these macho guys who say,"I'll decide whats best for me" ----If they can guarantee me that should they have a bad collision, they will die and not run up hundres of thousands of dollars in hospital and re-hab bills that they can't pay.

m

Actually, I'm pretty sure the fine in Texas is now $200.00. I fall in the camp of it should be my choice. I do believe in manditory car seats and children below a certain age being required, but seems like just another revenue generator to me...

.280,

I was taking it to it's logical conclusion. If someone's on life support or in need of life saving procedures, it's a medical problem regardless of who's paying (or not paying) the bill. If the insurance is pulled, then what does the hospital do with the victim? Throw him out in the street to die? Where does that leave medical personnel ethically?

On the other side of the coin, if insurance doesn't pay, then you know the State will, which will result in higher taxes.

And what about the guy mentioned before who took his seatbelt off after the accident. Give insurance companies half a chance and the checks stop.

I guess what I'm getting at is... If insurance companies stop paying, then what?

Here...an auto insurance claim will not be paid if you answer no to an inquiry of whether or not you were belted in. A loop hole that allows insurance companies to avoid payment.

Have worked wrecks on a substantial part of I-81 in Virginia for the better part of 7 years as a VF...during that time I saw my share of dead bodies and serious injuries. Some would have survived without the seat belt...some would have survived with one...

It's a crap shoot whether or not your survivability would increase or decrease. Depends on the conditions of the wreck and most certainly the speed at impact. Since most death and serious injury occurs at higher speed it is only common sense to wear a seatbelt and not temp fate.

Should it be mandatory IMO..? Well it's the same thing as gun control...the nut behind the trigger is who decides to commit a crime or not. Mandatory seat belt laws are just a ban-aid stuck on a problem by the goverment because fixing the real problem is just too hard. The real problem being creating a public more responsible for their actions...most wrecks are not accidents...they could have been prevented in the first place if someone was just paying attention to what they were doing. I was told by a Training Officer one time that there are no such things as accidents, everything considered as such is preventable.

I think rational people will use belts, I don't think it's proper for governments to involve themselves in the matter. Insurance is a better leverage, and those companies have a legitimate interest. It's easy enought to determine if somebody is wearing a belt at the time of impact.

about 99 % of the auto related deaths in this area is people that are thrown from their auto during a wreck. I was raised up when there were no seat belts. but I use mine ALWAYS. If an accident is so violent that the seat belt caused a death by holding the person down. I doubt they would of survived anyway. try driving a SUV over rough terrain and try to control it while bouncing around inside .it gives you better control of the vehicle and could prevent an accident. JMO

Governed by insurance companies? I don't know if that's an improvement on being governed by a government.

My personal belief is that I don't think I should be required by law to wear a seatbelt.

But I'm very glad the law requires it of my wife and kid.

- TJM

I like seatbelts; like them much better than airbags.

Screw mandatory seatbelt laws--and mandatory airbag laws and mandatory helmet laws and pretty much mandatory everything laws. It's a mark of a bad law that it compels you to do something, rather than prohibiting you from doing something. (There are plenty of bad prohibitory laws, too...but I can't think of a single good one that goes the other way.)

There's a business opportunity for insurance companies to offer special Belt-Wearer's policies: get a cheaper rate by promising to wear your seat belt, but insurance doesn't pay a dime unless you do. I'd buy insurance like that. If it's not being offered, then there has to be a coercive government reason it's not being offered...which coercive government reason is, ipso facto, a stupid idea.

Not a complicated issue; a simple question of liberty.

In the three accidents I have been in during my limited lifespan Only ONCE was I not wearing a seatbelt, and only ONCE did I get F*$&%D up.

One - Fender bender in an intersection. No biggie , moved the car around and chattered some teeth.

Two - Accident involving a lady that decided not to look both ways before crossing an intersection into a McDonalds. Hit her at 35mph with seatbelts. Totaled the car, blew out the washer fluid bottle. Shifter the FRAME about a foot to the right, and blew the radiator to pieces. I was signing a check on the dash at the time and without the seatbelt would have probably ended up with a writing utencil in my brain somewhere.

Three - Riding in a 1978 Chevrolet pickup. Driver took a turn from asphalt to gravel at 40mph blowing the stop sign. Fishtailed twice and hit a cherry tree about 3'-4' in diameter. I slammed my head, broke my jar, and nose, bruised my chest, and bit my tounge nearly in half. lost 3+ quarts of blood at the scene, and had to stay in el-hospital for 3 days.

Yeah. I like the law, and I follow it 100% now. I was lucky that much head trauma didn't mess up my eyes anymore than they already are, as well as my brain, however little information it contains <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Andrew

Barak:

I don't have a quarrel with anyone who doesn't trust government. But some people are just kidding themselves if they think insurance companies are more trustworthy and more interested in the welfare of the community.

I'm sure it wouldn't take much to start a LONG thread of personal horror stories about people being ripped off by their insurance companies.

And here's how it would work in your scenario: You have an accident. Your insurance rep says "The police report says your seatbelt wasn't cut by the paramedics. You must not have been wearing it." You reply: "That's ridiculous. The paramedic was able to reach the catch and he undid it." The rep says: "Send us additional information." Six months later, you call. The rep says: "I never got your additional information." You send it again. Six months later... Six months later...

- TJM

The seat belt laws, and motorcycle helmet laws, are the purest BS. You, as an American citizen, should have every right to get into an auto or motorcycle accident, have your guts strewn all over the highway, or brain damage which will leave you a vegetable for the rest of your life, on your own decision.

You should have the right to let your family visit you as a paraplegic, wheel you around like a 1 year old child, and feed you through a straw.

You should have the right to raise everyone's insurance premiums, because of the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to fix you up or rehabilitate you.

You should have the right to support our starving attorney population, by providing the raw material for major liability lawsuits. In fact, by doing so, you are probably supporting our economy.

Yes, by all means, you quivering mass of protoplasm. get out there on the highways without seat belts or helmets, and be an American!!!!!!!!!

see, whats missing here, is the fact that even those macho guys buckle up. God knows I do. I just don't feel the need for the darn GOVERNMENT to tell me to do it. I do it because its the prudent thing to do.

Not directed at GunGeek - just quoting a common theme.

Yeah, maintaining personal freedoms costs something. Always has. Tax-wise, spread over all of us, it's not much. We could save MUCH more in health costs with some sort of punitive Twinkie tax or government imposed weight standards but who's for that? I always wear a seat belt so I suppose I shouldn't complain that Uncle Sam is saving me a few cents by forcing others to do so too. But what's next once the nanny state precident is set? Twinkies? Guns?

As far as regulation by insurance company, at least that's a private contract - at least where the government doesn't set the terms of the contract. (One reason for high health insurance premiums.) Government regulation isn't all bad, but it has come to subsume personal choice.

I'm in the 'I use it, but not because you made me do it' camp.

As usual, I agree with Walter Williams on this issue.


Give me liberty, and don't use Socialism as the reason I should give it up.

You're actually arguing against the law, not for it.

First, a law that coerces you to do something is a bad idea right from the start; but it's an especially bad idea if the thing it's coercing you to do is something that you have a strong motivation to do anyway. That makes it not only a bad law, but an unnecessary bad law. (As opposed to a necessary bad law, such as a law coercing you to pay taxes--which you would have no motivation to do except for the threat of gun-toting thugs dragging you off to prison if you didn't.)

You've stated and admirably supported a very strong motivation for wearing a seat belt. How can you then advocate a law that's not only bad but also unnecessary?

Thanks for the replies guys.

It's really no biggie for me the ticket and all, just the fact that "they" can pull you over for sitting at a stoplight with no seatbelt on.

I'd be fibbing if I said it isn't a little frightening to me to hear you guys voice your opinions about this subject though.

Just surprised to hear the arguments raised, by what seems to be the majority here.

Edit the question to read gun laws and you guys would do the Brady folks proud.

In fact why should your right to own a gun to supposedly defend yourself end at your nose when that gun might be stolen from you and used against me???

I'm not trying to insult anyone, honest guys, it's just scary to me how much progress the mind police (read government) have made.

Your arguments for seat belt laws seem to be pretty interchangable to my way of seeing this with the gun control advocates.

I like antibiotics, microwave ovens, lots of food choices at the grocery store, all part of modern living, but I was born way too late for where my head is at evidently.

This was an eye opener, again thanks for the replies.

Of course insurance companies are no more altruistic than the government. But they have no monopoly. They have competitors who are eager to steal their business; therefore they have a reason to be careful not to screw over their customers.

The difference is made more difficult to see today because of the crushing burden of government regulation and subsidization that is carried by insurance companies; they're so thoroughly regulated and supported by the government that sometimes it's difficult to draw a distinction. But if they were left alone to serve the market in whatever way the market made profitable, they would be more trustworthy than government: not because they'd be staffed with better people or because they had more sunshine in their hearts, but because they would be forced to be or else go out of business. The government has no competitors; therefore it has no incentive to be trustworthy...and it isn't.


Customers would not want to go through that, and insurance companies would not want the hit that angry customers posting such stories on prominent websites would produce. If there were special Belt-Wearer's policies, there'd also be fairly fool-proof ways to tell if a seatbelt had been worn in an accident.

I can think of one right now: a little passive device a little bigger than a AA battery that the policyholder threads his seatbelt through, with a steel frame and a plastic vial of mild corrosive. If the seatbelt is jerked hard, it breaks the vial and squirts corrosive over the frame, which immediately begins to rust. When the police show up with their cameras and take a picture of it, it'll be fairly obvious whether or not the vial was broken and how long the corrosive has been working on the steel. If the vial is broken and the amount of corrosion correlates with the time since the accident, then presto--the seatbelt was being worn at the time.

It's not foolproof, but it'd work in a majority of circumstances, and that's just thirty seconds of thought. Add the profit motive, and somebody will come up with a much better design.

Don't believe one second that seatbelt laws/helmet laws are for your protection!! Its all what the insurance companies want and they are in bed with the Repulican party ... no ifs ands or buts!

Why are seatbelt laws mandatory??? Simple you have a better chance of being uninjured when wearing one. Therefore, saving insurance compainies money!

So what about helmet laws ... why don't insurance companies fight for them??? Simple, if you get in an accident without a helmet odds are you're gonna DIE!!! If you die the only thing the insurance companies have to pay is your death benifit, and I'd be willing to bet (although I'm not sure) that most death benifits are limited if you died while riding without a helmet ... more money saved by insurance companies. If you ARE wearing a helmet, your chances of dying go down dramatically, but your likelihood of being injured and requiring hospitalization are still good. BOTTOM LINE IS ... ITS CHEAPER IN MOST CASES TO PAY DEATH BENIFITS THAN FIX AND RECUPERATE YOU SORRY A$$!!!! Does the insurance companies OR your government have your best interests close to their hearts ... or their wallets??? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out!!

Am I cynical??? ... Perhaps. Am I right???? ... unfortunately, yes.

Hell, I about thought I lost my mind when I just heard that PA went helmetless!!! Never in a million years would I've of that was possible. Wonder how many lawmakers are gettin' new BMW's outta that deal??? CHACHING!

Scary indeed, but you have to realize most folks parrot others thoughts vs thinking things through themselves.

I've learned anytime a policy is proposed because something "costs too much money" or "saves the children" I'm more than a little scared where it will lead us.

If you ride with me gentlemen you'll wear your seat belt or walk! Common sense prevails for me here - not government regulations... I grew up without using them and spent a lot of time going to wakes and funerals for friends who didn't use them either! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> My office is outside the entrance to my hospital's emergency room and the number of head traumas I've seen roll past my window from helmet-less bike riders so far this season has been staggering to say the least! The ambulance drivers (a gruesome bunch!) have a pool each year to guess the number of riders that are brought in DOA, there's only two guys left in the running this year and it's not even July yet! I won't tell you what you should or shouldn't do, that's up to you but it will be your loved ones having to figure out what to do with your remains. CEJ...

Totaly agree. Its about the money.

New laws are passed all the time under the auspieces that it's "for the children, or for our own good"

People that buy that [bleep] are kidding themselves. Laws are made with 2 things in mind: Money and power. Period

Barak:

You're living in a world of political theory that doesn't bear much resemblence to the world I live and work in.



You're kidding, right?

- TJM

Do go on.

Pard of mine died in a head-on,while wearing a belt. I lived,despite not wearing same,in the passenger seat(didn't do my manly beauty much good though).

Conclusions?

[bleep] do happen and when it's time,you don't get to cast a vote........................

Personally I'm for mandatory laws, particularly for those making them.

I'm for mandatory seat belt laws for kids in a vehicle.

But not for adults. They help pollute the gene pool.

I had an uncle who was an undertaker and ran an ambulance service for quite a number of years. He commented that the chin strap on motorcycle helmets were a handy way to carry the head.

Do you believe, perhaps, that you love the kids--or maybe that the State loves the kids--more than their parents do?

Do you believe that other people--or maybe the State--love your kids more than you do?

I dont like the manditory seat belt law. I know I should wear my seatbelt and I do most of the time but I dont need the goverment makeing me. The fine here for not wearing a seatbelt is $101. and its a moveing violation so your insurence will go up.

Jamie

Guy I worked with,long ago...said it best.

"Some folks die easy".

Am thinking he was right then,and the trend remains constant.

Being tough...comes in handy......................

Ahhh. A Barak game's afoot. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Can't do any better than that tonight, huh? Bummer! Oh well. We all have those kinds of days. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Yep, my son's friend would be alive today if he had worn a seat belt.

Seat belts have saved my wife's life four times. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> By mandating seat belts, ( we have for years here, $110 and 2 demerits) we save a lot of money in health care and follow up care for folks injured. BTW, someone not buckled in becomes a projectile, which does put other folks at risk.

I was in a wreck in 1984, in a CJ5 jeep (passenger)
I was seat belted in. The jeeps breaks pulled to the left, and when the driver hit 'em hard, we went to the inside of a left hand curve. We hit a stump and did a barrel roll. The other 4 occupants including the driver were thrown out. When the Jeep came to a rest on its side, I was pinned in by a 6" thick fir tree, with the windshield folded over on me and the roll bar broke and pushed down on the back of the seat. The paramedics had to cut the tree down to git me out, and asphyxiated me with the chainsaw exhaust. Thank goodness they were able to "kick start" me and got me breathing again.
Kinda scary being "dead", even if it's only for a cupple minutes...Anyway. the others injurys were minor compared to mine. One cracked rib, and a few stiches. I've got dubble vision from level down, and the right side of my body is numb.
Do I wear a seat belt now? you betcha. Do I think it should be mandatory? HELL NO!
Virgil B.

That's an argument for being conscientious in making sure everyone in the car with you is buckled in, not for taking away other people's liberty.

Not exactly what I was referring to. If somebody chooses to not wear belts they could adjust their policy coverage IMO. Or, they could say they use them, and when it is revealed they did not in an accident the Insurance company could skate on the personal injury coverage as far as I'm concerned. Something like that. Life insurance companies give lower premiums to non-smokers, I fail to see much difference.

Hmm. On one hand, I loathe law(s)....because, ultimately, they limit freedom(s). On the other hand, and on a fiscal scale, does the ignorance of some cost the majority $$$, in terms of insurance premiums? Hate, hate, hate the thought of my insurance premium going to somone too stupid to use his seat belt, really.

Dumb is dumb....and it reminds me of that sayin' that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make her drink...lol....or something like that...

Really, what on God's green Earth ever happen to common sense....and why....oh WHY...do we need "simple" laws to tell us what should ALREADY make complete sense to us???

Crazy, I say....

Cultural evolution....in all it's speed....will be the end of us!!

HoundGirl

Sure, seat belts are the smart way to travel.

Maybe this should be another thread, but you can't legislate
intelligence
or morality (that other thread)

or....

Ah, but you can elect a bunch of shmoozers ,and out of touch freaks, that will give it a hell of try...in the name of public interests, of course!! It's all a dance.....and, ultimately, what we hap-hazardly accept as our reality. I can't see it getting any better...too many people interested in comfort....to rock the boat too much...

We are sheeple....whether we admit it or not....we are all waaaaay too comfortable in this life to make any kind of stand for change. JMHO....

HoundGirl

Certainly legislation can be passed, that does not mean morality or intelligence will be created!

"Obituary for Common Sense"
Today we mourn the passing of an old friend by the name of Common Sense. Common Sense
lived a long life but died from heart failure at the brink of the millennium. No one really
knows how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
Common Sense selflessly devoted his life to service in schools, hospitals, homes, factories and
offices, helping folks get jobs done without fanfare and foolishness.
For decades, petty rules, silly laws and frivolous lawsuits held no power over Common Sense. He
was credited with cultivating such valued lessons as to know when to come in out of the rain,
the early bird gets the worm, and life isn't always fair.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn),
reliable parenting strategies (adults are in charge, not kids), and it's okay to come in second.
A veteran of the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, and the Technological Revolution,
Common Sense survived cultural and educational trends including feminism, body piercing, whole
language and "new math."
But his health declined when he became infected with the
�If-it-only-helps-one-person-it's-worth-it" virus. In recent decades his waning strength
proved no match for the ravages of overbearing federal regulation.
He watched in pain as good people became ruled by self-seeking lawyers and enlightened
auditors. His health rapidly deteriorated when schools endlessly implemented zero tolerance
policies, reports of six year old boys charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate, a
teen suspended for taking a swig of mouth-wash after lunch, and a teacher fired for
reprimanding an unruly student. It declined even further when schools had to get parental
consent to administer aspirin to a student but cannot inform the parent when the female
student is pregnant or wants an abortion.
Finally, Common Sense lost his will to live as Lifetime Values became contraband, churches
became businesses, criminals received better treatment than victims, and federal judges stuck
their noses in everything from the Boy Scouts to professional sports.
As the end neared, Common Sense drifted in and out of logic but was kept informed of
developments, regarding questionable regulations for asbestos, low flow toilets, "smart" guns,
the nurturing of Prohibition Laws and mandatory air bags.
Finally when told that the homeowners association restricted exterior furniture only to that
which enhanced property values, he breathed his last.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his
daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by three stepbrothers: Rights,
Tolerance and Whiner.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
Remarkable Obituary

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Mr. Common Sense. Mr. Sense had been with
us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago
lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such value lessons as knowing when to come in out
of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm and that life isn't always fair. Common Sense
lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable
parenting strategies (adults, not kids, are in charge).

His health began to rapidly deteriorate when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were
set in place- Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a
classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouth-wash after lunch; and a teacher fired
for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Mr. Sense declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to
administer aspirin to a student; but, could not inform the parents when a student became
pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Finally, Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband;
churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense finally gave up the ghost after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of
coffee was hot. She spilled a bit in her lap, and was awarded a huge financial settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife Discretion; his
daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by two stepbrothers; My Rights
and Ima Whiner. Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

If you still remember him, pass this on; if not, join the majority and do nothing.

<choke>

Laws ARE about "trying" to mandate "morality" and "intelligence"....tis what makes them so offensive to the sane mind (the ones that don't need to be there...like the "law" to wear a seatbelt....good grief....are useless....other than creating an increased revenue for an already over-bulked gov't).

Sure, they don't "create" morality and intelligence....but they, hypothetically, create a template for a higher design/reality.....hence the reason the politicians can sell them to the crowd.

The problem with law(s)....is that they attempt to govern those that already move to a reality outside of mainstream reality <criminals, and the like>.....yet, in reality, they restrict/limit/tax those of us that are already doing the right/sane/reasonable/intelligent thing....

IMO...it is crazy....

HoundGirl

I have been bounced around in a vehicle when not wearing a seatbelt. Set me to wearing one permenantly.

fortunately this bouncing around was when I was muddin in my jeep.

several times the 'belt has kept me in the drivers seat and let me gain control of the vehicle to avoid more serious accidents or avoid an accident all together.

mandatory? I think it is a good idea.

A couple of things- nobody likes something like that to be mandatory but...

Bighorn said it pretty well. It's not so much what you do to yourself, but what you cause everyone else. No matter how you look at it, it's a price we pay.

As to those of you that are trying to kid yourselves into thinking that wearing them is a bad idea, or somehow safer, well being macho, doesn't make you right.

I have been investigating accidents for the past 20 years and for about 8 years, handled duties as an accident reconstructionist- fatals, multiple traumas and so forth. I have seen about everything. 99 times out of a hundred, they help.

There are times when NOT wearing a seatbelt has spared a life- I know of two incidents where it PROBABLY saved a life- I know of HUNDREDS where someone would have survived or not sustained the spinal injuries had they worn a belt.

Don't mix the two issues. Not wearing them is dumb. Period.

Mandating it is an altogether different issue. If it gets more people to wear them, then I guess it's a good thing. I'm tired of footing the bill for uninsured idiots. Any little difference helps.

I think it's because we're accustomed to the State being our mommy and protecting us from anything that might hurt us. We believe--in large numbers--that whatever is mandated must be good, proper, and safe; and whatever is prohibited must be evil, inappropriate, and dangerous. Thus we construct not only our morality but also our practicality from whatever the State says. If mommy doesn't tell us not to play with nasty old guns, we're liable to hurt ourselves. If mommy doesn't tell us to wear our seat belts, we're liable not to do so.

T LEE is very right about the demise of common sense.

Know what? I'll bet there are even people right here on this very forum who believe what the Preamble to the Constitution says about the purpose of the State being to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity" instead of being exactly the opposite...even though such a belief flies directly in the face of centuries of historical experience.

Should condoms be mandatory, it will save lives...

If the state thinks it is so important that we wear seatbelts why don't they put seat belts in school buses?

or on motorcycles.......

and boats........

$10.00 in Alabama good god that's cheap.... I wish it was $10.00 here in Washington. It's $101.00 here. It's nothing but a money maker for the state of Washington.

or snowboards

I get your point guys, but now entertain me please, take the same position on gun control that the average ER worker in the cities must have. I mean shoot (pun intended) they see lots of gun shot victims, there is no coverage by the MM on people defending themselves with guns, I can't imagine that most of the gunshot victims they treat have medical insurance so you are picking up the tab for that with your insurance as well or your tax dollars or both.

Splain to me how you folks that are pro mandatory seat belt laws can be against gun control and confiscation, is it all just a numbers game???

Appears to me the whole macho argument could be used against private firearm ownership as well, "oh you think you bad with your handgun in the bedstand but the numbers bear out (hope that's not true) that the gun is more likely to be stolen and used in a crime than for you to defend yourself from criminal activity with said piece"

From this angle it appears you are upon a slippery slope and spilling oil as you go.

How's one law good by the government to protect you from irresponsible folk and the other bad?

No mandatory seatbelt laws.
No mandatory helmet laws.

Those that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

The only thing that should require a mandatory seat belt is
a ride on Eva Longoria.......

Well said except I don't want a belt or a helmet for that ride either! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I don't agree with seat belt laws.

Since everyone is concerned about the medical costs to the taxpayer I have a suggestion. Instead of forcing me to wear a seat belt let's enforce the immigration laws. Illegal aliens tax the health care system a million times more than unbelted drivers.

M16
Don't confuse the issue with facts....

As a retired Deputy Sheriff I believe that seatbelts save lives. However I do not blieve it should be mandatory. I investigated enough serious/fatal accidents to know that they work most of the time. I did however investigate, along with another Dep. and a State Trooper; a freak fatal accident where in our opinion if the driver DIDN'T have it on he might have lived. But again that was just our opinion. The thing I don't like is how the greedy state loves the ticket money. The state doesn't really care too much whether you live or die, they just want more of your money. Fines, taxes, whatever. Their motto is "live long and pay". Little by little our rights are being stripped away, almost like wind and water eroding rock. After a while the rock is gone.
Now if the insurance company told you up front that they will not pay out for accidents where it is proven that you didn't have a belt on that would be their right to do so and your right to find a different company.


Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!
To God Alone Be The Glory!

Here seat belt tickets are so profitable that it's not uncommon to see a dozen cops set up in an area just to hand out seat belt tickets. I sure wish they would dedicate that time and effort to catching drunks, drug dealers and other criminals but I'm sure that's not nearly as profitable for the city. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Consider also cigarette taxes.Gvt makes more on a pack of
smokes than the cigarette company,and have no culpability.
What a rackett.Like Qtip said they don't give a rip about you
they love the jingle.

You are pretty smart for an ironbender. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I agree that seat belts should be manditory as well as helments! People who drive and ride without them are just stupid. The motorcycle I ride is a brutal 1600lb, 700hp and TQ monster that I always wear my helmet on. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I absolutely agree with mandatory automobile seatbelt laws as well as helmet laws for cyclists. I see no difference in this type of government safety mandates than I do in tire safety standards, automobile construction standards. Just the same as other automobile safety standards like speed limits, traffic lights, stop signs, design and safety standards for roads. The government has the right to mandate standards (safety and other) for the protection of the general public. A public when left to its own devices will have no regard for others.
Those who do not wear seatbelts or safety helmets are in the same class as those who speed, run red lights and stop signs, foolish and selfish individuals who have no regard for others, much more their own life or the lives of their children.

I don't fully agree with it being mandatory - it is YOUR life that is being protected, so it should be up to you. However, because we Canadians pay for other Canadian's health care costs, now my pocketbook is affected by somebody else's stupid decision. You will be injured more without a seatbelt, and will incur greater medical costs. Unless you die immediately, of course.

That's my only point on it. We learned right from day 1 in Driver's Ed about seat belt use, so I use a seat belt 100% of the time. If nothing else, it keeps me from sliding around on the vinyl bench in my truck.

Land of the free.....

Jeff-This is not the land of the free-Nothing in the constitution or bill of rights says that this is the "Land of the free". Nothing in those precious documents that gives you the right to endanger my life or your life or my property or the property of others. It is attitudes like yours that my country must protect me from, and the perfect reason why your senator and representative (state or Federal) supports mandantory seatbelt and helmet laws.

Dan:

I apoligize if I misunderstood.

This thing about insurance companies offering lower rates for people who buckle up and then not paying out if the driver doesn't wear them... I'm a little dubious about that because of the ambiguities that attend a lot of traffic accidents. For example, a police report that says the driver wasn't wearing a belt, and the policy holder who says the cop wasn't even there until after the paramedics got him out of the car.

The more complex the policy, the greater the potential for lies, half-truths and honest misunderstandings, I think.

- TJM

I just want to add a few additional thoughts:

Mandatory seatbelt laws apply to public roads. They do not apply (at least in Michigan) to parking lots or private property. In a sense, they are a condition that must be met prior to use.

As laird of the manor, I can tell guests that putting out their cigarettes are a condition that must be met prior to coming into my house.

Similarly, the State can tell you that you must have a licence prior to shooting at Bambi or Thumper.

How does requiring the use of a seatbelt differ? Oh! You say you already have full rights to the road because it is "public" property? Try cutting slabs out of I-75 to use for patio blocks and see if that argument flies. Similarly, the deer and rabbits are "public" property but we bow to the wisdom of licences and limited take.

Great thread.

Ed
Congress shall pass no law...........


May the gvt give you all the protection you deserve.

Ed
Further.It's attitudes like yours,accepting incrementalism, that
make revolutions necessary.

Regarding the need to retrofit a device that will signal if belts were worn during an accident.

It is not needed. The lock bar already leaves witness marks on the spool.

A quick verbal picture of a seat belt.....
-There is a spring loaded take-up spool that pulls in the extra belting
-The edges of the spool have sawteeth like a come-along
-Beneath the spool is a lock bar that normally does not engage the sawteeth
-Below the lock bar is a plumb-bob type device that cams the lock-bar up into the saw teeth when subjected to any significant sideways or fore/aft acceleration.
-Also, in many belts, the peak load is managed by stitching that is designed to tear. Torn stitching can also serve as an indicator of a violent accident

Jeff-Not being smart, but I want to understand your argument.

Please enlighten me and others on incrementalism and how it applys to the conversation.

thanks,

Why do you say that?


Why, then, don't we have concrete Jersey barriers down the centerlines of rural two-lane roads? Without them, it is simplicity itself for somebody to suddenly swerve to the left and hit somebody else head-on, probably severely injuring and possibly killing him. How is it that many of us drive such roads every day and manage to survive in large numbers without that kind of protection?

Ed
So I can give you an example I think you would most likely
get the most from.Let me ask you one question.
Is there any law gvt has passed,for your safety of course,
that you feel is superfluous,frivolous or otherwise unneccessary?

There is of course a trade-off in cost vs the benefits to be achieved concerning any safety standard, i.e., the centerline barriers. (how many lives are going to be saved for the cost) The governments cannot protect 100% of its citizens 100% of the time.
Our constitution and the individual states gives the government(s) the right to make laws that protect the welfare of the public (its citizens) in general. It is this same basic principle that the Government (s) have armies to protect us, that individual Federal, State, local, county, city governments have police (and other public safety members) who are charged with the duty to protect the public in general. Why do we have i.e., sewage laws and standards or laws and ordinances that protect our children when they are on school buses(surely you believe in stopping when a school bus stops to let children off). It is true that you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but that does not give you the right to run rampant over my or others similar rights or to endanger my life or my and others pursuit of happiness.

None-not a single one. I recognize that all duly passed and lawful laws are there for the protection of the citizenry in general. I may not like a local ordinance that puts a purifying agent in my water supply, but I recognize the necessity and duty of the city to protect my safety and the citizenry in general with clean water. And no I do not exceed any speed limits, no matter what.
? Do you think that Automobile Child safety seats are necessary. Wouldn't you want your infant son to have maximum protection in an auto crash?

Well,NOTHING I can say to you, will allow you to see my point.

I like others would rather suffer the consequences of liberty.
Sadly we are a dying breed.

Ed
May you live to see the full protection you deserve from gvt.
And I pray I do not.

Jeff-thanks, but I think that Agent Orange will get me first.
God Bless.
PEF

Okay, we'll move a step back. If the constitution and the individual states gave that right to the State, then they must have had it themselves to give, correct? Where did they get it?


Why? Because the State made such laws, obviously. My question is, where did the State get the right to make such laws? From the Constitution? Okay, fine: what gave the Constitution the right to tell the State it had such powers?

Not trying to pick on you Ed, but you seem to have picked up the torch for the pro seatbelt crowd, and have added to it.

So may I ask are you for the high capacity ban on ammo magazines? Assault weapons ban? Would you be for the registration and/or handguns from the private citizen? Maybe while we're at it better register the deer rifles (read sniper rifles) and shotguns (horrific wounding devices)?

I accept the point that me not wearing a seatbelt could have impact upon others taxes or insurance should I be injured and not have the money to pay for my own care.

But you know the welfare lady down the street is pregnant again and you and I are already feeding her kids, should they make abortion of that child mandatory? I'm thinking her right to have children ends where I have to help clothe and feed them. Is that basically the same argument?

That's my whole point on this gig, I agree seatbelts are good, so's is not having more kids than you can feed, or eating junk food.

Should the government mandate all those things?


Where's the line? Does it ever stop, or do we allow our government to help us create a master race of healthy, productive, ultra safe citizens?

Low fat/High fiber diets are good for you too.


Oh, Senator...

Guys-I Aint picking up no torches for nobody-I just might get burned. Wouldn't happen to be trollin bubba, now-wood ja?
Good Luck and God Bless

Laws? we dont need no stinking laws.

Seatbelts have saved my life, I wear them anytime I am not offroad. there is no need for Government to be soo intrusive no matter what dubious social welfare - societal cost rational they or you concoct. I work in aa socialist paradise, a California State Prison, and believe me you dont want government protection from everything.

Boy the "black helicopter", "The UN is taking over!" crowd is coming out on this one. Remember the lyric from the Kinks song��paranoia will destroy ya� give it some thought.

Boss
Name for me one country that did not repeat George Orwell's Animal Farm.

During my career I worked to many fatal automobile accidents, to not agree with mandatory seatbelt laws.
Almost all the fatalities were not useing seatbelts, many would not have been fatalities had they been wearing them.
Inertia is there no matter if you have a belt on lr not, the results of inertia are a product of, if you are wearing a seat belt or not. I am sure I have heard every excuse for not useing them but none of the excuses hold water, period! Anyone with a basic knowledge of the laws of motion would or should know that.

Liechtenstein <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

As a veteran LEO I do NOT agree with a mandatory seatbelt or motorcycle helmet laws. Intelligence can not be legislated. Anyone who choses to drive a car (chronically) without wearing their seatbelt cannot be surprised when they become a statistic of "natural selection".

I was listening to a local call-in radio show a few weeks ago where the topic was what, if any, laws should be made regarding cell-phone use in cards. My favorite call came from a guy with a very loud, very blue-collar, very down-to-earth, very no-fools-suffered-gladly kind of voice:

"Ah thank...

"They oughta be a law...

"Thetcha cain't drahv...

"If ya stupid!"

I'm not in favor of such a law, of course, but the call was hilarious.

It was instantly rewarded with a "Dingdingdingdingding!" sound effect followed by the theme song from The Price Is Right, and the caller was pronounced "Caller of the Day."

That is funny...and profound. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Nope, no sir didn't mean to troll was not my intent.

I am just an admittedly kinda a fanatic that the only thing approaching good government is the littlest possible.

Government to me is kinda like having the digital prostrate exam, it can be good for you and save you from disastrous consequences at times, but if a guy's going to the doc every week for the exam he has bigger problems than his prostrate.

Still haven't heard anyone address why your arguments for seat belts can't be easily substituted for the argument against private firearm ownership. Doesn't look like anyone is gonna attempt it either, and that's okay.

I just normally think of gun owners and hunters as "do it yourself " type of mentality, when it comes to protecting themselves.

I spend many a day wondering how this country got where it's at, this thread has helped me understand how we've gotten there.

In a place that you would expect to find conservative to independent attitudes, there's a large portion of folks that think more laws is GREAT, (as long as I like the law personally)

I'm a throwback and a redneck, the less the government does for me and to me, the better I like my odds of creating the life I want.

It's evident the mileage varies greatly around here.

But this was certainly no attempt at trolling on my part. It just let's me know that I really am a round peg trying to live in a square world. I enjoy wading through the brush where their are toothsome critters that can hurt you, it's a big reason why I live here. The more risk there is in this life, the better it suits me, doesn't make it right, just right for me.

Thanks for the replies.

I think Barak and I are agreeing with you wholeheartedly. Concerning private gun ownership, I will step out on a limb and say that a better analogy might be mandatory trigger locks. Stupid people should not drive, stupid people should not own guns. But they will...again natural selection will prevail.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution doesn't say a thing about seat belts...........

...nor did it's authors ever expect stupid people would live long enough, nor be wealthy enough to own a firearm. Hey..I think everyone should own, and carry, a gun. I also think it should be acceptable to shoot the stupid ones.

That's why Doctors spank newborns.

It knocks the dicks offa the dumb ones.......................(grin)

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The new mandatory seat belt law passed in Alaska, believe it or not, by a State Republican majority, is just another way for the State to accept another federal government handout. Nothing else, nothing more.

There are existing seat belt laws in Alaska, but now the police has another excuse to make more money. The law has nothing to do with safety, but much to do with cash.

That said, I always wear a seat belt when driving, and anybody who rides in my car or truck wears it.

You have to wonder about a Government that will pass a seatbelt law to try to keep tax payers alive while at the same time "letting mothers to be" abort future taxpayers. Put me in the camp of against and very against. Why is the Government in the business of keeping me alive anyway? I should have insurance and family for that purpose. I am my responsibility. miles

As one who was just recently in a major vehicle accident in Iraq, where the vehicle I was in flipped over several times in a ditch, I would say you are a stupid ass if you do not wear a seat belt. If me and 2 other team mates had not been wearing seat belts, none of us would be alive.

I used to work as a Firefighter, and the common denominater bewteen those who lived and those who died in about 90% of the vehicle accidents I responded to were that those who wore seat belts lived. Same with wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle.

There is a huge difference between being a stupid ass and the Government mandating what you do. The original question was if the government should have the "right", not should you wear them. miles

Itppowell, thanks I see there are others here that agree with my position, but we are certainly in the minority, even here of all places.

Ray,

Outstanding post, pretty well sums it up, I'd be happy if you gave me a ride in YOUR car for YOU to tell me to buckle up.
What rubs me wrong is the government telling ME what to do in MY car. I'm over 21 weigh over a hundred and feel pretty capable of deciding for myself what are acceptable risks I take with my own life. Well at least I've been capable enough to pay a whooooole bunch of taxes over the last 30 years or so.

What's funny or sad to me about this whole thing, is I agree seatbelts are a good practice, I just don't agree that the government mandating it is a good practice. I went and ran 4 miles last night, cause I think it's good for me, my neighbor, I never see him run. Dang I hate to think my taxes and insurance will go up cause lazy slobs like him will need medical care down the road.

Is it just a matter of time, with the current thought process that seems so prevalent, that the police will be out to give him a citation for not running and keeping my insurance and healthcare costs lower? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

AK,

Trust me, the air outside clouds one's thinking, specially the more congested the local.

It seems the true concept of freedom is very difficult for many to grasp, and certainly most don't want it, because it isn't free, and there are some downsides.

I'm more than willing to pay the price of people being free to be stupid. I bet if you crunched the #'s you'd find that folks not wearing seatbelts cost taxpayers pennies per person. Perhaps the #'s will show that the government programs associated with enforcing these laws actually cost more than the money that is saved in medical costs.

Yet the mentality associated with, government protect me from stupid people is certainly more than I'm willing to pay for.

Leave it to a fellow Alaskan to "get it"

Thanks 458 Lott

Absolutely right, Paul. The Click it or Ticket initiative the troopers and local cops are running is funded through federal grants - read: you and me.

It's part of the mentality that the gummint is making me safer. It just happens automatically and I don't even have to think about it - it's wonderful! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Unfortunately most folks are unwilling to accept that there are some absolute truths when it comes to people. It is an absolute truth that the more money and power a government has, the more it'll mess stuff up. Study any civilization and any form of government, and you'll see the truth in this.

I've also been a semi-student of many of the eastern European communist countries, and realize that the mindset of the inteligentsia and peasants is identicle to the mindset of most folks in this country, of either political party.

I've traveled the world enough to know that people is people no matter where you go. Most folks are decent, most folks don't want to think about stuff, most folks want an easy life and someone else to handle the details and the thinking.

What I find refreshing about AK, and sadly it is changing, is a large percentage of our populace did sit back and think, realized it was worth getting off their duff to move somewhere that you could be free if you were willing to work for it. But sadly life has gotten alot too easy up here, and plenty of folks are coming up that just want somebody to carry the heavy loads for them, and there are plenty of politiceans willing to coddle those suckers.

There is one point that I have probably taken for granted. Insurance companies ($$$) lobby very strongly for seat belt laws. Serious injury and deaths cut into their profits. Anybody that believes that "governments" conspire to raise revenue by writing seatbelt tickets is misinformed. You have much more faith in government than I, if you think they are organized enough to conspire. (Except for the OJ thing, of course.)

I agree. Some of the laws encroaching on personal liberties that are passed up here are nothing more than formal posturing by the State whoring for a buck from the feds.

The original seatbelt law was a secondary offense in which didn't establish PC for a stop and you couldn't be cited for it unless you were stopped for another citeable infraction.

Seatbelt laws = Insurance companies and the government in collusion to separate you from your money. Government gets a revenue generator in the form of a fineable offense. The Insurance Syndicate gets to widen their profit margins by paying less in claims and NOT lowering your premiums as promised before the laws were passed.

It'll be a cold day in the Underworld before I stop and cite under a primary seatbelt law.

Do I believe seatbelts are a good idea? Yup. I wear mine all the time on the road system.

Do I think government should have the power to decide if you should or shouldn't Darwinate yourself from the planet by not wearing one? Absolutely "effing" not.

I know some of the troops who come out this way for fisheries enforcement are a bit indignant that we "allow" folks to drive around without seatbelts.
When I voice my sentiments to them I'm told I shouldn't be so anti-government. I remind them that NH told the feds to pound sand on seatbelt extortion laws. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

You know............I only read AKHunter's first post in the thread before I posted my response then I went back and read through the whole thread.
458Lott's post about grasping the concept of freedom describe my sentiments exactly on some of the opinions expressed here.
I find it very disturbing that what appears to be the the majority of you are nothing more than sheeple bleating "freedom" and "liberty", but yet you advocate government encroachment in our personal lives on some levels without thinking of the unintended consequences on others.
This Folks, is why "Rome" is in decline and the Republic we were given by our Founders is slipping from our fingers.
Ben Franklin was right "If we could keep it"...... It appears Franklin was a bit skeptical on whether or not we could. His skepticisim seems to have been well founded.

I'm truely ashamed.

While wearing seatbelts and at least a helmet when riding a motorcycle are the "smart things to do", we really don't need "Big Brother" telling us we HAVE to do it.

Because of this "Big Brother attitude", I'm against mandatory seat belt laws.

Someone on this thread asked me what incrementalism had to do with my argument .

Force you to wear a seat belt 2006
To
Force you to wear a mask 2020
Wait for the next 14 years

Very, very bad policy to attempt to interfere with Darwin in any way. The proof is in the documented slide of average IQ over the last 40 years. If we keep legislating save the idiots, how low can the IQ go. Is there a limit to how far we can regress by people breeding vigorously who should have removed themselves from the gene pool long ago? We birth them in hospitals we pay for, we feed them, we educate (well we expose them to education) them, we send them money when they are unable to hold a job, we provide medical services, we spray Narcan up their noses. It's an endless cycle of repeating stupidity, do-gooders, lawyers, politicians are the most guilty. Mandatory seat belts? Just a symptom of the general malaise.

Seat belts have saved my life in two crashes that the accident investigators said no one should have survived.I wear one and anyone who rides with me wears one.How ever if you are really stupid,and don`t want to wear one,thats on you.

I don't agree with any such laws. I do wear a seatbelt and insist others do in my vehicles! I have seen the effects of not wearing a seatbelt, not a pretty sight!

You had ta go back 15 years, ta find a post of yours that might have been intelligent?

I do not understand how a state can mandate seatbelts but allow motor cyclist to not wear helmets?

Fifteen years later...

I’m alive today because of a seat belt. I T-boned an idiot who decided to do a U turn on an interstate in South Africa. He was hidden in my blind spot due to traffic in front of me and I had less then 20 yards reaction time at 75+mph. Pretty severe impact, When I stopped after 2 360’s, I was about 45 yards from the impact site. The seat belt latch anchor pulled the floorboard up about 4 inches, and my shoulder and chest were purple the next day from the belt. Also bruised my kidneys and was passing blood in my urine. But I lived.

It’s my choice to wear them, and I insist my passengers do, but, libertarian tendencies that I have, I’m still ambivalent about mandating their use.

The old saying applies to both helmets and seatbelts. A $10.00 helmet for a $10.00 head. What is yours worth?

In a rollover, the safest place to be is inside the car. So many are killed by being thrown out. Some years ago, I passed an accident where a dead guy was lying on the pavement. He'd turned his van over and was thrown through the windshield. The van had very little damage considering it had gone over and slid. But, a driver's safety is his own business. If he's too stupid to protect himself, that's on his own head.

I’ve read no responses to this thread.

I am against mandatory seat belt laws. It is my responsibility to take care of myself. The end.

I wear them at times. At other times I don’t. That’s on me.

I have the same views on government mandated no smoking in restaurants. It is not their business to be in. “Oh, but I don’t want to be exposed to that when I am eating”. Ok, so go to a different private business that does not allow it. Let your money dictate what a place if business should allow or not. College bar when I was in college in early 2000s, it was the only bar that did not allow smoking. It was packed every night. I don’t smoke, I hate smoking. The state now mandates it for public health. Yet the state owned casinos allow smoking. Is it about health? Or is it about revenue?

I wear mine and was raised that way but I don't think it should be an offense that they can fine you for. I think the person who resurrected this thread did it for shining light on the freedoms of personal choice we lose and have lost thanks to the gvt. At least that's how I took it as we already enough chit to argue over in this country

First car had a lap belt, don't think there were laws then.
Never wore the thing, knew what could happen with it.

The laws didn't change my opinion.
I get caught, I'll pay.
Was young, dumb, full......!

One day I spun out on cinders,
fought a couple more skids, ended up driving across a cut bank,
Could tell it would roll if I stopped, and got back down on the road.

Thing is, I was driving from the passenger side of a 67 Impala.
If I had slid anymore in the seat, I wouldn't even have been able to
steer anymore! Always wore the belt after that.

Experiences since in truck driving and working with a towing company have sealed my thought. I belt up. Seat belts absolutely do kill people.
As do operations, food, medicines, alcohol, planes......

I prefer the odds of belting.


I don't believe anyone over 18 should be criminally legally required.
However, there should be civil issues for costs incurred if not belted.

Ironic to think you are liable for the costs others incurr due to you actions.
But if you screw yourself up, others are left to pay.

Insurance companies are thieves. They should not exist.

Of course not. It's a fundamental denial and violation of individual sovereignty.

Actually I have been looking back to see how big of arss I was. More of looking back to see how I’ve grown as a person. Or regressed .

I thought it interesting how liberal incrementalism was viewed back then.

Today’s responses are interesting too

Should seat belt laws be mandatory? My answer is NO. I understand that driving is a privilege and with privileges come responsibilities. If I choose to accept the consequences of not wearing my seat belt, that is my business, not the governments.

On another note, there have been studies that prove seat belts are not that effective at preventing deaths. Some studies suggest that people that wear seat belts, drive more recklessly, because of the feeling of security. While drivers with out seat belts, drive more cautiously, because they are more conscious of the dangers. In these studies, deaths went down per accident, but because of more accidents, the number of deaths actually went up.

I personally know of 2 accidents where the only people killed were wearing seat belts. First one, 4 teenagers in a rollover. Only 1 wearing a seat belt, Jay died, the other 3 teenagers, broken collar bone was the worse injury. Last week, two trucks head-on about 10 miles from my house. The driver wearing the seat belt died, the other driver was injured, but he's alive and at home.

I know these are just two examples and the discussion can go on and on. The statement 'Seat belts save lives', I dont agree with because of the examples I gave earlier. I will agree to this, ' Your injuries are usually, but not always, less severe if you wear you seat belt, but there are no guarantees'.

Only accident I've been in since 1979. A dumbazz in front of me missed his turn and slammed on his brakes and I had to do the same. The box truck behind me was empty and couldn't stop, he got a ticket for careless driving and it was the dumbazz in front of me that caused it. I wear a seat belt sometimes and I don't need the government telling me what to do.

Seat belt laws are dog schitt ways of generating revenue...nothing more.

That's probably true to some extent.


Law or not....its much better to wear a seat belt. Like 99 percent better.

I never wear a seatbelt when driving around town I wear it when on the freeway because I see the obvious benefit of having it on in a collision at high speed. It’s none of government’s business to mandate our lives to that minute of detail. The governments job is to protect life liberty and freedom from tyranny.

I don’t buy the insurance cost argument. We’re all going to die and odds are when it happens now or in the future it will be expensive. Someone not wearing a seatbelt and severely injured in a car wreck costing insurance money could just as easily be killed instantly in the car wreck rather than dying 20 years later after spending three years in a nursing home with dementia thereby saving medical cost. Or spend the last 20 having open heart surgery, diabetes treatment, taking expensive meds ect. The it cost all of society argument is typical leftist collectivism B.S. seatbelt laws are about control, revenue for the police department, and revenue via rate increases for the insurance company.

I am not in favor, nor do I support mandatory seat belt or helmet laws. I wear one because it's the best option for me. I don't need a fugging nanny to tell me. Frankly, laws like this are a revenue enhancer for the state. That is their only real purpose.

I worked many years as a paramedic. I worked hundreds of car wrecks. Pulled plenty of dead people out of cars.
Seat belts work. You won't see a paramedic drive 1/2 mile to the corner pantry for a quart of milk, but that he wears his seat belt. As an expert on the subject, I can say you are a stupid ass if you don't wear your seat belt.

However I am against seat belt laws. I say "to each his own." I can't stand motorcycle helmet laws either.

How about this?

If you have a motorcycle endorsement, you are required to be an organ donor?


If it saves just one life right?

Being an organ donor is a death certificate. Lots of money involved on both sides.

Have always been skeptical on how the "maybe" cases are treated.
And how so many need organs, and die waiting. But our governor needed
some, and it was almost like a Domino's order. And other rich/powerful/famous people were the same.

Woman at work had her Father-in-law get a brain bleed.
She was telling how the harvesting crew circled like buzzards in a Western movie. And how badly they treasted the family, while pressuring them to jerk the plug. When she finished, another guy exclaimed "That's exactly what happened with my Dad". I have mentioned this in passing a few times, and
have heard similar stories.

Ask these people if they were donors?
"Never!

Why they never said anything, never spoke out?

"Because organ donation is such a big deal. There is so much
push, so much support. People get mad if you say something
against it."

I’m of divided mind for reasons listed above.

Mandatory seat belt wearing in my vehicles always-but MY rule.

I’m a fan of Darwinism.

WTH - you should be good with just that mask , right?

Is NH the last State standing without bullchit seatbelt laws for adults?

We have two auto parts stores about 3 blocks from each other in our small town.

about 5 years ago the first one I went to didn't have I needed, so I hopped in the car and drove to the second one, didn't put on my seat belt.

Cop met me as I was getting out of my car. $108 fine.

that said, I feel unsafe without wearing a seatbelt. All I can think about is what happens if I wreck and don't have one on. Its just part of my routine and honestly I probably wouldn't have been as dedicated to it without the law.

But just like motorcycle helmets, to each his own. We live in an over regulated society and many laws need to be repealed.

I agree with it, not perfect, but saves lives!

. In late 70’s I did a 360 rollover just south of the Montana line. Damned WY deer!

I dunno if I’d have been ejected or not as no doors came open. Rear window shattered. Came away with a bit of a back strain for a few days. But I had that belt on.

As with a very violent 180 in 3 directions a few years later in Forerunner, wife driving, black ice patch, head on into a rock wall. Fortunately everything except us and the kids went out through the back window, but some or all of us probably would have without the belts. Pre airbag days, too. Minor glass cuts and bruises all around.

I really liked that Duster and the Forerunner both!

I have a scar at the top of my nose from a latch on a sliding rear window that tagged me as my friends truck was rolling side over side down a hill.

I was 17. I didn't start wearing seatbelts after that. I was immortal.

If it was a sincere effort on behalf of the politicians, they would have mandated airline seats to face aft many years ago...no money to be made from that, hence, high fatality and injury rates.

While I think the wearing of a seatbelt or helmet is a good idea, I do not believe it should be mandated. In 57 years of driving, I have never had an accident where a seatbelt would have made any difference at all. In 57 years of motorcycle riding, I have had one incident where the helmet may have prevented a serious brain injury, at least. I usually wear a seatbelt in the car or truck and always wear a helmet on the motorcycles. I usually wear a life jacket when canoeing, especially on long bodies of water, because I don't swim as well as I used to.
Seat belt laws, helmet laws, mask laws, covid vax laws, all fit into the undesirable category, to me. GD

Too bad you weren't wearing that helmet.....

Should be illegal to smoke in a vehicle with anyone under 18 in it. I see that a lot more.

I always wear mine, but think it's BS to force People to wear them.

Seat belt rules (not laws) should be mandated by insurance companies. You get hurt not wearing your seat belt no insurance coverage, just that simple.

Good idea, but should not be a law

1akhunter: After spending 29 (twenty nine!) years in law enforcement and attending to injured and kill't people who were NOT wearing their seat belts I do, INDEED, "agree" with mandatory seat belt laws.
And the "gummint" should enforce said mandatory seat belt laws!
That enforcement WILL save incredible numbers of lives and save humans from incredible numbers of serious, long term, debilitating and painful injuries.
Been there done that - lesson learned a thousand times over.
Wear your seat belt no matter what the "gummint" says (and your motorcycle helmet as well!)!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

A doctor can give you an excuse.

I wore seat belts since I started driving in the late 1970s, before there were any seat belt laws. I did it, like you say, because it seemed the smart thing to do. Laws requiring it, though, are completely unAmerican.

I had one installed in a 58 Ford.

People looked at me funny when I buckled up.

Much like any other law. I can toe the line or not. Mostly, I do, but primarily to get that annoying ringing to stop.

Bumping a 15 year old thread has to be some sort of record....

Didn't realize this was an old thread. I don't think I participated in it the first time, but I think the topic has been discussed a few times in the past 19 years since I joined.

PS Too bad Barak never contributes anymore. He was always entertaining.

Think it should be a person's choice if your 18+, or at least a secondary law in each state.

I have to be buckled up in my 3/4 Diesel truck, but technically I can be in flip flops/shorts/shirt-less & glasses to drive 80 mph on my cycle. Yeah, makes a lot of sense.....

Fucque seat belt laws. Fucque helmet laws. Fucque the gov.

It should be person’s choice whether to wear one or not. What is more stupid then this having to wear a helmet in Arkansas while driving a motorcycle!

I think seatbelts help you survive an accident. I also like Darwin.

I think all children should be buckled up. If adults want to be stupid, they should be allowed to do so. There are too many people on this planet anyway. Why protect the dumb ones? That’s what I say anyway.

Does it make sense to potentially kill someone in order to potentially keep them from killing themselves?

Commyfornia even tried making Seat Belts for Motor Cycles Mandatory.
This was many years ago.
They show how STUPID they are every time they open their mouths.
When someone runs for office it should be Mandatory for them to pass an IQ test before they can even run. Not after
If they required this. My suspicions would be that about 80% of our Politicians would not pass the test.

I don't care for needless laws but wearing a seatbelt or a helmet is kind of like an IQ test.


mike r

Choosing to be in Arkansas?


mike r

You had long hair and heavy eyeliner In high school , right?

For all the holy rollers wanting to tell the law to ticket me for not wearing a fugking seatbelt, you ought also to support primary offense for drinking a coke, smoking a cig, or getting a handy all while driving.

Nanny bitches

More folks are probably killed by texting drivers than drunk drivers nowadays.

Not wearing seat belts, is really stupid.

The government has absolutely no business protecting me from me. I am totally against seat belt laws.

I hate it - and never wear one unless I'm pulling one of my trailers - especially the camper.. However, I have changed my mind on that when crossing the river into MN.. Drivers there are totally insane and even I use a seat belt then..

Oh, and on a related subject - some poll was done to find the rudest drivers in the US.. #1 was Cal.. No surprise.. But #47 was MN!!!!! I LMAO.. There's NO question that poll was done by some dude or outfit from MN....

Try this experiment. Find someone who has a race car - one that does autocross, rallys, or road courses, preferably. Get in, buckle up that 5-point harness and thrash the car around. You should see how much better you feel what the car is doing, and if you've thrashed it legitimately, you should understand that many of those maneuvers couldn't be done without the racing harness pulled tight. Many more couldn't be done without a regular seat belt, and even more couldn't be done without any belt at all. Those "racing" maneuvers often mimic what happens when a car on the highway gets out of control and people are maimed or killed. Whether it should be the law to use them or not is a legitimate question, but once I spent a bit of time in an SCCA Pro Rally car years ago, I've always used mine, and would regardless of the law.

I remember taking a sharp knife and cutting the seat belt out of one of my earlier cars, back in the 60s.
However I did start wearing them before the law required.
I do not agree with their being required by law.

Driving is a privilege not a right and the State can regulate it. The end.