Zair and I agree that it should be enforced in minors up to a certain age, (I think we agreed that 16 was a good age for it) but in the case of motorcyclers using helmets and the like, is it Uncle Sam's job to tell us what precautions to take to protect only ourselves?
Pretty soon, we won't be able to go outdoors at night.
And then they'll take over the world.
...or something. Gadani fucked around with this message on 07-21-2004 at 01:47 AM.
quote:
So quoth nem-x:
Why wouldn't you wear a seatbelt?
Some people just don't, this guy didn't want to. But is it constitutional to make us wear them?
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Rodent King wrote:
But is it constitutional to make us wear them?
There's nothing in the constitution that says we have a right to drive.
quote:
Rodent King's account was hax0red to write:
Some people just don't, this guy didn't want to. But is it constitutional to make us wear them?
It's not a matter of constitutional right or wrong... It's a matter of safety. IIRC the first ones came in around thew 1950's. Why? to allow the public to choose whether or not they want to slide around their car, now it's in the executive branch power of the state via the DMV/Vehicle Codes, that are passed yearly. Seat belts are enforced because it's a matter of public safety, which has been given to the state to deal with.
Honestly. It DOES keep insurance rates down. Seatbelts (And their respective laws) save so many lives, it's not even funny. I cannot imagine a situation in which the driver of a vehicle shouldn't be wearing his/her seatbelt.
Passengers, perhaps, since they aren't actually driving.. but shit, the driver, man! wtf!
Helmets for motorcycles? Motorcycles are dangerous because other drivers often don't see them. I figure helmets are kinda like the bumpers on cars. They won't save you in a really bad crash, but they can save you sometimes. So, they're required. It's a good idea.
quote:
Rodent King attempted to be funny by writing:
Am I the only one that thinks it's not the government's job to force us to use safety devices for our own good?
Driving is not a right, it is a priveledge. One that the Government licenses you to do. This means that if they want to require that everyone who sits behind the wheel of a car wear orange over-alls, they can.
If you don't like the laws regulating driving, don't drive. It's that simple.
It has nothing to do with the government FORCING you to do anything. It's something that you agree to do by partaking of the PRIVILEDGE of driving.
Not to mention that seat belts do more than protect YOU. What if a man is driving a car not wearing his seatbelt. He gets in a wreck and is thrown throguh the windshield, dying almost instantly. Let's say he was the only provider for a couple of children. Now those children are put into the custody of child services, costing tax-payer money. THe kids get to be put in foster omes, changing their whole lives.
How does that affect you? Things like this, the clean-up crew to scrape the guy's remains off of the pavement, all stuff like that costs tax-payer dollars. So if you're a tax-payer, people not wearing their seatbelts costs you money. If you're not a tax-payer, you don't have the right to complain anyway.
I can't remember which state had this roadsign, but this should be everywhere, "Click-it, or ticket!"
No seatbelts, no problem.
No catalytic converter? Hell, don't let those ecoterrorists tell you what to do.
Driving without headlights at night? The Man's impeding on your right to drive how you want.
quote:
Vorbis Model 2000 was programmed to say:
I, and all red-blooded Americans, have the right to drive under whatever conditions we want!No seatbelts, no problem.
No catalytic converter? Hell, don't let those ecoterrorists tell you what to do.
Driving without headlights at night? The Man's impeding on your right to drive how you want.
The second two things you mentioned are detremental to others and society at large. Not wearing a seatbelt is only detrimental to onesself, like eating unhealthy foods or bungie jumping.
quote:
Vorbis had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
I, and all red-blooded Americans, have the right to drive under whatever conditions we want!No seatbelts, no problem.
No catalytic converter? Hell, don't let those ecoterrorists tell you what to do.
Driving without headlights at night? The Man's impeding on your right to drive how you want.
Yes! May I suggest changing the name of seatbelts to FREEDOMbelts! 
'Cause I don't need your stupid flying ass to hit my truck and scratch my freakin' paint. Your ass better be dead before I stop and get out to see if you're still alive, 'cause I'll freakin' kill you myself.
Now read that again, but read it with Carl's voice in your head.
If you are in my car, your seatbelt is on. If it is not on, you either get out and walk, or put it on pronto, cause otherwise we aint moving.
It pisses my sister off to no end, seeing as she's mooching rides off of me almost every day (not something I mind, but as I live in Norfolk, she is in Hampton, about 25 minutes away when traffic is fair) but if she has the gall to be pissy when I make her put on her seatbelt, she can go back to catching the bus. I dont drive up there every day for me own health.
Another thing. In the Navy, if you dont have your seatbelt on, and you get in an accident, military medical insurance wont cover you. You gget to pay for your medical bills yourself.
Seriously, you're a fucking idiot if you don't wear your seatbelt. There is no excuse.
quote:
Blindy enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
...
Seriously, you're a fucking idiot if you don't wear your seatbelt. There is no excuse.
My seat belt is broken, I can't even tie it in a knot.
---BTW, in a 1989 F-150, It's a royal pain in the ass to even move the seat belts (The lower patch with the latch) because you have to pull the whole danm seat out of the truck. Fucking Ford. Peter fucked around with this message on 07-21-2004 at 10:42 AM.
As for whether they should force...I was under the impression that states with the seatbelt laws get additional financial assistance from the federal government for enforcement, etc. Could be wrong; that might've been the incentive to get all the states to agree. I do know that it was a state choice when I was younger. Massachusetts: Seat belt yes. New York: Seat belt no. Indiana: Seat belt no. North Carolina: Seat belt no. Now they're all seat belt yes, but it's been more than a decade since I was a kid.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
As for whether the law is valid, it's partly about safety, and, yes, the government has a certain legitimate interest in the safety of its citizens. It's also about insurance rates, which affect everyone. It's also about government services, like emergency care.
As a safe, taxpaying citizen, why should any of my tax dollars go toward scraping stupid people off the pavement and treating them?
While you have a constitutional right to be stupid, you don't always have a constitutional right to act that way.
Frankly, I'd support immediate lethal injection for anyone too stupid to wear a seat belt or motorcycle helmet.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Peter said:
My seat belt is broken, I can't even tie it in a knot.---BTW, in a 1989 F-150, It's a royal pain in the ass to even move the seat belts (The lower patch with the latch) because you have to pull the whole danm seat out of the truck. Fucking Ford.
Then you should have it replaced.
Duh.
What a stupid reason to go flying through your windshield.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Oh and you do NOT have a right to Drive. You have a right to freedom of movement but not the right to a car or license.
quote:
Azizza isn't in Kansas anymore:
But once a person is considered an adult get the government nose out of their life when they are not harming others.
Your taxes, health and car insurance money go to treat dumbasses that weren't wearing their seatbelt and got into an accident. You may not be physically harming others but you are financially harming others.
A couple weeks back, I was driving home from work, on the freeway. Traffic was somewhat bad, all the lanes were fairly packed. We were still moving at a fairly fast pace, but it was still very, very heavy traffic. What made that day special, was that day I witnessed probably the pinnacle of stupidity. What it was was a motorcycle rider, behind me. He, apparently didn't like that I wasn't going faster, since he was about 5 feet from my bumper, tailgating me at 70 MPH. He wasn't wearing a helmet, and what really got me, was that he was TALKING ON A CELLULAR PHONE. Talking on a cell phone while tailgating me at 70 MPH, on a motorcycle, with no helmet.
What's the life expectancy for something like that? 30 minutes?
I think the reason we have to have the government making laws to protect us is because the general public is too damn stupid to be able to protect themselves. Sure, there's some intelligent people out there, but on the whole, people just keep getting dumber and dumber every year...
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Azizza booooze lime pole over bench lick:
Oh and you do NOT have a right to Drive. You have a right to freedom of movement but not the right to a car or license.
Actually that's not entirely true. Driving is not a revokable privilege. You do have a right to drive, even without seatbelts, even without a liscense. These things only come into play if you plan to drive on a public road, because doing so without a desgree of competence is unduely hazardous to everyone else on the road. This is why things that are not street legal like dirtbikes and ATV's don't require a liscense.
That said, everyone here seems to be focusing on whether or not it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt. It's kinda pointless to debate their value in a car, it's the sort of thing that's been drilled into our collective subconscious since gradeschool. It's irrelevant whether or not it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt, the question at hand is, when driving on a public road, does the government have a right to pass legislation forcing you to take safety measures to prevent injury to yourself as well?
From one vantage point, any legislation passed that forces a person to do something against their will for their own good, regardless of merit, is an infringement on personal freedom. Any infringement on personal freedom that does not involve harm to other human beings is a very very bad thing, this fact is beyond question. It would violate everything America stands for to, for instance, pass a law that forced people to adhere to a certain diet, or to get so many hours of sleep every night.
However the issue of seatbelts is slightly different. As I mentioned above, these laws only apply to people who want to drive on a public road. Public roads are owned and maintained by the government, a public road is functionally equivalent to the private property of the public. Just like an amusement park can force you to wear the harness on their roller coaster, the government can force you to wear a seatbelt while you ride their roads.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Blindy booooze lime pole over bench lick:
Your taxes, health and car insurance money go to treat dumbasses that weren't wearing their seatbelt and got into an accident. You may not be physically harming others but you are financially harming others.
A good point, but completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. (I find myself saying that a lot. Such a functional phrase)
Taxes and health insurance go toward morbidly obese people as well, does this mean it would be a good idea to have federally enforced diet plans for everyone?
quote:
Delphi Aegising:
A little government never hurt anyone.
Actually, "a little government" has hurt, oppressed, and destroyed countless populations over the course of human history.
quote:
Check out the big brains on Maradon!:
Taxes and health insurance go toward morbidly obese people as well, does this mean it would be a good idea to have federally enforced diet plans for everyone?
If federally enforced diet plans were as easy as putting on a seat belt? Hell yes. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 07-21-2004 at 12:40 PM.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Blindy. said:
If federally enforced diet plans were as easy as putting on a seat belt? Hell yes.
Damn that is about as Authoritarian as you can get. We should impose on people rights as long as it is easy to get away with.
My father is 55 years old, was a Marine in Vietnam for two tours at the tender age of 19, was a biker when he came home as a man, and a laborer as a family man. He's been in a few car accidents earlier in his life, none with a seat belt. He grew up without seeing them in all cars and it's his choice not to wear one. He never wore a helmet when he was riding his chopper cross country after Nam and it bothered him that he had to wear one now that he's riding again. So he bought a small half-helmet skullcap to compromise with "the man". If it hurts no one else, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to do what he wants.
If law enforcement_really_wanted to help lower the cost of insurance, they wouldn't write tickets; They'd sell you traffic school admission and bypass the legal system altogether. My uncle was in the NYPD, and they certainly do have better things to do than write tickets for seat belts. The only sure way to stop road fatalities is to stop everyone from speeding, driving recklessly, drinking, or turning the ignition key. Not going to happen. Law enforcement officers are the ones who investigate all of the road fatalities, so reckless speeding pisses them off to no end. (Rightfully so.) However, our insurance rates would be a lot lower if we took all of the gas guzzling battering ram SUVs, Hummers, and monstrously raised pickups off the road. I sure would feel safer in my little car without them, but who's going to stand for it? (Seriously though, the Hummer needs to go.) 
http://www.flipoffahummer.com
It wouldn't surprise me if 50 years done the line I'm telling my grandkids about how back in the "old days" we never wore helmets or 6 point harnesses in passenger cars, and they'll look at me like a moron for not wearing them...
Sorry for the rant, I got carried away. Ian Benjamin fucked around with this message on 07-21-2004 at 01:08 PM.
Bottomline: I wear seat belts/helmets, but I think it makes a poor law.
Everything ever taught to you by Jim Bob of Billy Bob's Black Belt Emporium is a lie. Now, tie your obi UNDER the hakama and try again.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Blindy. who doth quote:
If federally enforced diet plans were as easy as putting on a seat belt? Hell yes.
Maybe you should go find a nice totalitarian or communist country to live in, since you obviously place no value on personal freedom. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 07-21-2004 at 01:12 PM.
quote:
Blah blah blah Azizza blah blah blah...
Damn that is about as Authoritarian as you can get. We should impose on people rights as long as it is easy to get away with.
I think he meant it as a federal diet plan were to be as widely accepted as wearing a seatbelt. As in, there'd be support from voters to make a national diet plan law. There indirectly IS, you know, all that food info on the box, but nobody's going to arrest you for eating twinkies day and night.
quote:
Azizza stopped lurking long enough to say:
Damn that is about as Authoritarian as you can get. We should impose on people rights as long as it is easy to get away with.
You're misinterprieting what i said.
It takes literally 1 second to buckle your seatbelt, and the direct effect is that it saves your life and saves me money. Eating right or whatever the hell maradon is taking about requires a lot more effort on the part of the person, and for some people who don't have the money nor the time to get to a grocery store or eat at the more expensive resturants that don't serve grease fried grease for dinner, it might not even be possible. If eating right were as effortless and universally achievable as buckling your seatbelt, and people were just not doing it because they wanted to be a fucking retard about it, then I would support a law regulating it. Blindy fucked around with this message on 07-21-2004 at 01:39 PM.
quote:
x--BlindyO-('-'Q) :
You're misinterprieting what i said.
No, not really.
What you're saying is that it's ok to violate personal freedom so long as the violation is easy to tolerate. Any violation of personal freedom is fundamentally opposed to the founding principles of this country, regardless of how easy it is for the public to tolerate, how little time it consumes, or how great it's benefit.
If falling off a log once a day had a massive health benefit, it would still be unconstitutional for the government to legislate that everyone had to fall of a log once a day. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 07-21-2004 at 01:49 PM.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Khyron said:
You know, I have to wonder about something.A couple weeks back, I was driving home from work, on the freeway. Traffic was somewhat bad, all the lanes were fairly packed. We were still moving at a fairly fast pace, but it was still very, very heavy traffic. What made that day special, was that day I witnessed probably the pinnacle of stupidity. What it was was a motorcycle rider, behind me. He, apparently didn't like that I wasn't going faster, since he was about 5 feet from my bumper, tailgating me at 70 MPH. He wasn't wearing a helmet, and what really got me, was that he was TALKING ON A CELLULAR PHONE. Talking on a cell phone while tailgating me at 70 MPH, on a motorcycle, with no helmet.
What's the life expectancy for something like that? 30 minutes?
I think the reason we have to have the government making laws to protect us is because the general public is too damn stupid to be able to protect themselves. Sure, there's some intelligent people out there, but on the whole, people just keep getting dumber and dumber every year...
It's enough to make me wonder if Darwin didn't get it all backwards or something.
quote:
From the book of Azizza, chapter 3, verse 16:
Damn that is about as Authoritarian as you can get. We should impose on people rights as long as it is easy to get away with.
Why is it not imposing on my rights that my taxes have to go toward financing or repairing the damage from their stupidity? Why is it somehow their right that I pay a share of the consequences of their actions?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
How.... Maradon!.... uughhhhhh:
No, not really.What you're saying is that it's ok to violate personal freedom so long as the violation is easy to tolerate. Any violation of personal freedom is fundamentally opposed to the founding principles of this country, regardless of how easy it is for the public to tolerate, how little time it consumes, or how great it's benefit.
If falling off a log once a day had a massive health benefit, it would still be unconstitutional for the government to legislate that everyone had to fall of a log once a day.
You're operating under the mistaken (or at least arguable) assumption that requiring seatbelts violates rights.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
