blacklabman
Well-Known Member
I think that motorcyclists should have to wear seatbelts.
Seatbelt laws...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I don't see the problem here. If you'all are so opposed to this law, and it's enforcement, why not get a referendum on next ballot and vote it out of existence? Oh yeah, I forgot, you guys live in Maryland not Florida. 
D
dems4me
Guest
aps45819 said:
kinds of remind me of the spoilt girl that looked and turned into a big blueberry on Willie Wonka :shrug:
I want the world! I want the whole world!RoseRed said:
D
dems4me
Guest
vraiblonde said:
Thats her!! That's her!!!! Thanks!!!!
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Then...
...we shall pass a law against NOT giving a crap.
You could hurt yourself...
Nickel said:So I don't give a crap wether there's a law or not, because either way, I won't be getting a ticket for it.
...we shall pass a law against NOT giving a crap.
You could hurt yourself...
C
czygvtwkr
Guest
Personally I'd rather see the tickets used as income than them to raise my taxes. Just call it the dumbass tax.
Triggerfish
New Member
kwillia said:
I've been thinking of this often recently and I almost agree with you. except......
If you smoke your life and health insurance is higher than people who don't. There isn't a same thing for seat belts. Only way your auto insurance company is going to know is if you get a ticket or when they scrape your body parts off the windscreen. Statistics can and often are deceiving. Those 49% that were not wearing seatbelts may have lived(or not) if they were wearing a seatbelt on the other hand the 51% of those wearing seatbelt may have been in a more serious accidents and would have died with or with out seatbelts. If you're in a mini coop going at 75 and you have a head on with a semi going 75 you're probably going to die either way.
Also most people now wear their seatbelts yet they make only 51% of the deaths while the minority do not wear their seatbelts yet make up almost half the deaths.
Last edited:
thought that was lotto tickets
Chasey_Lane
Salt Life
What happens when this Darwin candidate is on life support for the rest of his/her life and the taxpayers are the ones footing the bill? Same goes for helmet laws.kwillia said:
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
It's using a cannon to swat a fly.Chasey_Lane said:
It means you ticket and punish drivers who haven't been in an accident because of a liability they *might* present, in the future - but in all likelihood, won't - but DON'T punish the ones who actually have been in an accident.
It's a fairly transparent scheme to raise money, since traffic fatalities appear to be affected not one bit by the law. Statistically, wearing a seat belt doesn't appear to put a dent in whether or not you get killed or maimed in an accident (whereas, something as innocuous as talking on a cell phone DOES).
It's a basic principle - you should belt your children - because they are your responsibility. In an accident, their safety depends on you. Same for your guests, in your car - they depend on your safe driving, but also on the safety of your vehicle. You should also DRIVE responsibly, because drunk or unsafe driving endangers others. But you ought to be free to do what you like when it doesn't endanger anyone ELSE. In a perfect world, that schmuck on the taxpayer's dime would be on his own because he got there due to his own ineptitude. And it's dumb to say, we can't change THAT situation, so let's just punish everyone ELSE because we can. Slapping the good kid to make the bad kid settle down.
Safety is definitely a concern when YOU might pose a danger to others.
But how different is imposing a seatbelt law on people - because they might pose a burden on taxpayers, however remotely - and say, outlawing the private use of cigarettes, because they might also pose the same burden?
I don't think the law has any business telling me how to behave even if it's against my own interest. How free is a society if it goes from "you can't smoke in the theater" to "smoking is bad for you, so you can't do it at all"? Reminds me of "Demolition Man", where they outlawed salt on foods and swearing.
Otter
Nothing to see here
Triggerfish said:
Thank you, I had a problem with these stats yesterday but was too lazy to go into the explanation you gave. Seatbelts can be life savers and I don't feel comfortable without wearing them anymore. But, they shouldn't be a fine-able offense for someone over 18; children, without a doubt, but not for adults.
Was wondering if anyone else ever noticed the amount of cops that don't wear them?? Whats up with that?
Triggerfish
New Member
I think life and health insurance policies should state that if you're injured/killed in an auto accident and you did not have your seatbelt on then they don't have to pay up. Otherwise it may increase everybody else's insurance. IMHO.
Some policies probably already state that. Are there any laws concerning insurance companies and people that got injured/died because they were not wearing seatbelts?
Some policies probably already state that. Are there any laws concerning insurance companies and people that got injured/died because they were not wearing seatbelts?
sowhat
Skinny people need LESS
I believe PA law is you must have a helmet with you.aps45819 said:Looking forward to riding in PA next weekend, no helmet law
I've worn my seatbelt since I was a young un'. Dad used to race sports cars and had seatbelts installed our cars before they were mandatory equipment. A couple years ago he and mom rolled the car several times on the interstate. The cops were suprised after seeing the car that they were walking around with only minor bumps and bruises. I've even had 3" racing belts installed in some of my high performance cars. Not a PITA just get used to using them.
