Seatbelt Law
- Thread starter Dymphna
- Start date
K
Kain99
Guest
Simple! People don't like being told what to do. I imagine they lean heavily on the "If I want to be ejected from my vehicle at 60 miles and hour...what do you care?" line of thinking.
This is of course, a selfish and ignorant position. Obviously, they have absolutely no idea what it costs to clean up scenes where the occupants of vehicles have refused to buckle up. I won't get into the hours of biological hazard clean up involved but I will say that it ain't pretty.
This is of course, a selfish and ignorant position. Obviously, they have absolutely no idea what it costs to clean up scenes where the occupants of vehicles have refused to buckle up. I won't get into the hours of biological hazard clean up involved but I will say that it ain't pretty.
I'm against it because I keep getting friggin' tickets! 
I just think it's a stupid law. Any law that prevents you from doing something that doesn't hurt anyone but yourself is stupid. Sure, you can make the argument that you could "get in an accident and fly out of your car, injuring others" or some such nonsense but are there any documented cases of that happening?
All this is is a way for Maryland to increase its revenue. If they REALLY wanted you to wear your seatbelt, there would be jail time or something more serious than a $25 fine.
I just think it's a stupid law. Any law that prevents you from doing something that doesn't hurt anyone but yourself is stupid. Sure, you can make the argument that you could "get in an accident and fly out of your car, injuring others" or some such nonsense but are there any documented cases of that happening?
All this is is a way for Maryland to increase its revenue. If they REALLY wanted you to wear your seatbelt, there would be jail time or something more serious than a $25 fine.
As opposed to, say, scenes where the occupant was buckled in tight and got mangled anyway?
K
Kain99
Guest
Originally posted by vraiblonde
As opposed to, say, scenes where the occupant was buckled in tight and got mangled anyway?
Yep! Incidents that involve miscellaneous body parts and fluids restricted to a vehicle are much easier and less expensive to clean up than wider scenes including 100 to 200 feet of highway, woodlands or front yards.
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
I have insurance, if I want to take my chances that is my choice. Kind of like helmet laws for motorcycles and bicycles, smoking laws, gun laws, etc. The government cannot legislate morality or common sense and should devote its resources elsewhere rather than playing big brother and "taking care of me." The laws go contrary to the ideals of personal freedom that are near and dear to most Americans.
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
Imagine this: Your 16 yr old just got his license, for all practical purposes, you no longer have control over what he does in the car. As a protective parent, of course you want him to wear his seatbelt, but as a rebellious teenager, he doesn't want to. Just let him get pulled over a couple of times for it and see if he doesn't start to wear it.
The argument that the government shouldn't tell you what to do is lame because the government tells you not to commit murder, not to steal, not to beat your children, to pay taxes, and lots of other things that you may or may not want to do. To say the government shouldn't tell you what to do is to advocate anarchy. Which most people don't really advocate because they want the government to control everyone else.
To say that not wearing your seatbelt doesn't hurt anyone but you is also lame. Ask your family about that when you get killed. But besides the emotional aspect of that, what about the expense involved if you don't die but you are critically injured instead? Besides the possibility of bankrupting yourself and your family, the insurance company has to pay so everyone's rates go up. If you don't have insurance or money, the state usually ends up paying the medical bills, so taxes go up.
Even if you are a wonderful driver, the other guy out there isn't. Tell me, do you play Russian roulette, too?
The argument that the government shouldn't tell you what to do is lame because the government tells you not to commit murder, not to steal, not to beat your children, to pay taxes, and lots of other things that you may or may not want to do. To say the government shouldn't tell you what to do is to advocate anarchy. Which most people don't really advocate because they want the government to control everyone else.
To say that not wearing your seatbelt doesn't hurt anyone but you is also lame. Ask your family about that when you get killed. But besides the emotional aspect of that, what about the expense involved if you don't die but you are critically injured instead? Besides the possibility of bankrupting yourself and your family, the insurance company has to pay so everyone's rates go up. If you don't have insurance or money, the state usually ends up paying the medical bills, so taxes go up.
Even if you are a wonderful driver, the other guy out there isn't. Tell me, do you play Russian roulette, too?
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
Sorry, nothing you can say will convince me that the government knows what is right for me. As far as my kids go, I am still responsible for them until they turn 18 so I will do my best to raise them to do the right thing, not count on my uncle sam to do so.
I'm against government infringement on my life as much as possible, guess that makes me libertarian. When I lived in the midwest and west helmet laws were a big thing, now most east coast states have mandatory helmet laws while midwest and western states to not. Same with bicycle helmets. I guess it is something ingrained in midwesterners and westerners who must make do and take care of themselves that gives them a mistrust of somebody knocking on the door and saying "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
I'm against government infringement on my life as much as possible, guess that makes me libertarian. When I lived in the midwest and west helmet laws were a big thing, now most east coast states have mandatory helmet laws while midwest and western states to not. Same with bicycle helmets. I guess it is something ingrained in midwesterners and westerners who must make do and take care of themselves that gives them a mistrust of somebody knocking on the door and saying "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
K
Kain99
Guest
See what I'm talking about? Forget the laws of physics, state deficits, emotional turmoil, Insurance rates......
"It's my right to die an atrocious bloody death and nobody can stop me!"
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
Originally posted by kwillia
I need to find a way to buckle my mini-schnauzer in... I worry about her...
They make harnesses for dogs that work with seatbelts to buckle the dogs in. I've never used one because on the rare occasions I have a dog in the car, I make him lay on the floor, but I've seen them and I'm sure they come in all sizes
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
Originally posted by Kain99
See what I'm talking about? Forget the laws of physics, state deficits, emotional turmoil, Insurance rates......
"It's my right to die an atrocious bloody death and nobody can stop me!"
I don't think you can relate state deficits or insurance rates to seatbelt use. The state deficit has many more underlying factors than me not buckling up, i.e. overextension of services, politicians loathe to raise taxes or seek alternate sources of income. Insurance rates are more closely linked to tort settlements than seatbelt compliance. Emotional turmoil is my own bidness thankyouverymuch. If I want to be a crumudgeon that is my right, last I checked.
I'm glad you agree with everything our government does, I'm sure everyone here agrees with smoking and gun laws.-NOT. I just don't happen to agree with the seat-belt law.
K
Kain99
Guest
JL your entire argument consists of three things - Me, Myself and I. Maybe you should do a little investigation on exactly how much it costs Maryland each year to support Fire and Rescue. Your a smart man... I'm certain you do not think all of that money goes to band-aids!
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
I used to work for the state processing applications for state medical assistance. About 20 or so years ago, a man in St. Mary's County was in an accident, while working. He was not wearing a seatbelt, it wasn't required. The vehicle insurance said it was a workman's comp issue. Workman's Comp refused to pay because they said drugs were involved in the accident. He disputed that, but couldn't afford a lawyer. It was a small company which didn't offer health insurance. The injured man made little money and saved none of it. He was in his early 20's and spent more than a year in the hospital. The initial hospital bill, which I saw, was about $200K. The state had to pick up the tab. He is now confined to a wheelchair and requires in-home nursing care. He receives SSI (supplimental security income) which is basically a type of federal welfare. The state of Maryland and the Federal government will pay for all of his medical expenses for the rest of his life.
I'm not saying a law would've made him wear his seatbelt but it does make some people do it. It's been the law for about 18 years now and everyone I know who starting driving since then is in the habit of buckling up.
I'm not saying a law would've made him wear his seatbelt but it does make some people do it. It's been the law for about 18 years now and everyone I know who starting driving since then is in the habit of buckling up.
Frank
Chairman of the Board
I do buckle up - but I am against any law that tries to tell me what I can do for myself. This is a law that ONLY affects *me*. Why should I have to follow a law which has a justification like "it causes our insurance rates to go up"? Really? Ok, outlaw fast food, on the grounds that it is unhealthy and raises medical costs for *everyone ELSE*.
I don't buy it. If I want to be unsafe BUT - it affects NO one else - I should be allowed to do it.
Remember that movie, "Demolition Man"? *Everything* that was deemed "bad for you" was outlawed - red meat, swearing, salt - even SEX (they did it all in the lab). Some shmuck somewhere decides something is BAD for you, and they make a law about it. Sooner or later, someone will decide what you should not read - and so on. It is the same principle.
That being said - I *do* buckle up, for safety's sake, but I'll be damned if I am forced to do something because it is good for me.
I don't buy it. If I want to be unsafe BUT - it affects NO one else - I should be allowed to do it.
Remember that movie, "Demolition Man"? *Everything* that was deemed "bad for you" was outlawed - red meat, swearing, salt - even SEX (they did it all in the lab). Some shmuck somewhere decides something is BAD for you, and they make a law about it. Sooner or later, someone will decide what you should not read - and so on. It is the same principle.
That being said - I *do* buckle up, for safety's sake, but I'll be damned if I am forced to do something because it is good for me.
Frank
Chairman of the Board
Actually, I am MORE surprised there is ANYONE *for* it. It's arbitrary, and enforcement of such a law is idiotic - it wastes valuable police time, unless the point of it all is to raise money in fines. Police man-hours would be better spent pulling over people who ARE *actually* engaged in dangerous driving, than pulling over unbelted drivers who are otherwise obeying the traffic laws and are endangering no one.
I've been in one or two accidents - without a belt on. I was fine, and none of them were my fault, I was driving safely. But a guy driving drunk, or speeding or reckless driving - they WILL cause an accident.
Enforcing the belt law seems to me to be an idiotic ploy to raise cash. What POSSIBLE public danger do I pose, driving safely, without a belt on?
I've been in one or two accidents - without a belt on. I was fine, and none of them were my fault, I was driving safely. But a guy driving drunk, or speeding or reckless driving - they WILL cause an accident.
Enforcing the belt law seems to me to be an idiotic ploy to raise cash. What POSSIBLE public danger do I pose, driving safely, without a belt on?
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
I agree that the idea of seatbelt laws and helmet laws raises some civil-liberties hackles. Does the government really have a compelling interest in making people wear these things?
Here's an idea--if you're at fault in an accident and you weren't wearing your safety belt, then the insurance company shouldn't cover any of your damages. I believe this happens already, but should it be policy?
Here's an idea--if you're at fault in an accident and you weren't wearing your safety belt, then the insurance company shouldn't cover any of your damages. I believe this happens already, but should it be policy?
K
Kain99
Guest
Sorry Frank it does affect others. Me for example, who was reduced to tagging and bagging "detached" bio hazards for 8 greuling years as a Paramedic. Not to mention those affected when we missed a part or two.
Christy
b*tch rocket
I think they should just make a law banning driving. Just think of all the lives it would save. And while we're at it, bicycles and roller skates need to go too! I'm absolutely stunned that our government would permit such hazardous activity to go on in this country. They obviously don't care about human life. C'mon folks, whattaya say, lets band together and get these laws passed, shouldn't take much. It is after all Maryland! We as parents can't possibly instill common sense into our children. WE NEED HELP!! We all know "it takes a village"! 
And while we're at it, bicycles and roller skates need to go too! I'm absolutely stunned that our government would permit such hazardous activity to go on in this country. They obviously don't care about human life. C'mon folks, whattaya say, lets band together and get these laws passed, shouldn't take much. It is after all Maryland! We as parents can't possibly instill common sense into our children. WE NEED HELP!! We all know "it takes a village"!
Frank
Chairman of the Board
Originally posted by Kain99
Sorry Frank it does affect others. Me for example, who was reduced to tagging and bagging "detached" bio hazards for 8 greuling years as a Paramedic. Not to mention those affected when we missed a part or two.
So would crossing the street. So would riding a bike, even WITH a helmet. So would doing ANYTHING that is dangerous. It's not just the slippery slope of "if they do this, they can do THIS" - it's just the SAME principle. Can the government require people to take safety precautions that affect only themselves? For example, can they force people to wear condoms? (Ok, that's an extreme example - but that is the point). Can they force an overweight person not to eat harmful foods? Am I one day going to have to wear protective body armor while crossing a street, because I might get hit by a nutcase driver, not paying attention to what he is doing? So the person NOT taking safety precautions is the guilty one - NOT the one who smacked into him?
If your reasoning is, I MUST do something, so that a paramedic will have less mess to deal with, it's not good enough. You do not force behavior on someone else, to make life more convenient for yourself. It crosses into my civil liberties. I submit to you, that it is selfish, and a bit fascist, to require behavior in order to suit other people whom are otherwise not being harmed.
