Personal choice would be OK for not using a seatbelt if it only involved the driver and his or her passengers, but it does not. When a driver has to make an evasive maneuver, hits a curb, gets hit by another vehicle, the driver has the very real possibility of being dislodged from behind the steering wheel and allowing the vehicle to get out of control. If I’m not involved in the initial accident, I am at risk of being hurt or injured by a vehicle without it’s driver behind the wheel or the driver stuck through the windshield.
It’s not so much about the choice the driver makes for their own personal safety, it’s about keeping the driver behind the wheel where they have a better chance of keeping the vehicle under control.
Again, that is a stretch. I could argue that if you felt this way, then you should make a personal choice not to get in the car with someone who refuses to wear a seat belt. There are plenty of behaviors that society can enforce without writing a law...
If this is the case, then I want to see the statistics that back up a claim like this. I want to know the percentage of accidents where it was determined that someone could have maintained control of the car if they had a seatbelt on. I think it’s low… And, I want to see how the seatbelt law actually improved this number. If it didn’t make any marked improvement, then rip it out…
In my mind, if I am going to give up the right to choose, then you had better prove to me that it was worth it.
don’t you get why a society who wants the government to give everyone everything they need would be the same society who wants government to dictate personal choices as well? The two kinda have to go with one another- or else we have a bunch of reckless spoiled brats running around…
Can you imagine the TRILLIONS of dollars that would be saved if we got rid of Amendments 1-7?
It could be argued that every freedom comes at a cost to society in one form or another. That is not a reason to give it up.
Dude, you are arguing with the boogieman.
I’m not him.
I’m only telling you why laws are passed, historically and currently.
If they’re arbitrary, they get struck down by courts. If there’s a legitimate basis, they’re upheld- unless they involved a protected class or liberty or property interest.
No court has found that your decision regarding wearing a seatbelt or not had any relation to your protected liberty interests…
I know you want to tear it all down, but that’s just the way it is in 2014 in the United States.
I’m only telling you why laws are passed, historically and currently.
If they’re arbitrary, they get struck down by courts. If there’s a legitimate basis, they’re upheld- unless they involved a protected class or liberty or property interest.
No court has found that your decision regarding wearing a seatbelt or not had any relation to your protected liberty interests…
I know you want to tear it all down, but that’s just the way it is in 2014 in the United States.
Sorry, I thought you were trying to justify the decision. I just get a little upset when I see people buying into those arguments. 100 years from now, we won't be able to take a dump on our own toilet without a government issued permit.
Personal choice would be OK for not using a seatbelt if it only involved the driver and his or her passengers, but it does not. When a driver has to make an evasive maneuver, hits a curb, gets hit by another vehicle, the driver has the very real possibility of being dislodged from behind the steering wheel and allowing the vehicle to get out of control. If I’m not involved in the initial accident, I am at risk of being hurt or injured by a vehicle without it’s driver behind the wheel or the driver stuck through the windshield.
It’s not so much about the choice the driver makes for their own personal safety, it’s about keeping the driver behind the wheel where they have a better chance of keeping the vehicle under control.
Again, that is a stretch. I could argue that if you felt this way, then you should make a personal choice not to get in the car with someone who refuses to wear a seat belt. There are plenty of behaviors that society can enforce without writing a law...
If this is the case, then I want to see the statistics that back up a claim like this. I want to know the percentage of accidents where it was determined that someone could have maintained control of the car if they had a seatbelt on. I think it’s low… And, I want to see how the seatbelt law actually improved this number. If it didn’t make any marked improvement, then rip it out…
In my mind, if I am going to give up the right to choose, then you had better prove to me that it was worth it.
Empirically, it makes sense, anecdotally, I can give yo
Skinnee is so tall that the roll cages of cars or trucks do not protect him. He must remain unrestrained so that he can jump in the event of a roll over.
Skinnee is so tall that the roll cages of cars or trucks do not protect him. He must remain unrestrained so that he can jump in the event of a roll over.
Personal choice would be OK for not using a seatbelt if it only involved the driver and his or her passengers, but it does not. When a driver has to make an evasive maneuver, hits a curb, gets hit by another vehicle, the driver has the very real possibility of being dislodged from behind the steering wheel and allowing the vehicle to get out of control. If I’m not involved in the initial accident, I am at risk of being hurt or injured by a vehicle without it’s driver behind the wheel or the driver stuck through the windshield.
It’s not so much about the choice the driver makes for their own personal safety, it’s about keeping the driver behind the wheel where they have a better chance of keeping the vehicle under control.
Again, that is a stretch. I could argue that if you felt this way, then you should make a personal choice not to get in the car with someone who refuses to wear a seat belt. There are plenty of behaviors that society can enforce without writing a law...
If this is the case, then I want to see the statistics that back up a claim like this. I want to know the percentage of accidents where it was determined that someone could have maintained control of the car if they had a seatbelt on. I think it’s low… And, I want to see how the seatbelt law actually improved this number. If it didn’t make any marked improvement, then rip it out…
In my mind, if I am going to give up the right to choose, then you had better prove t
Skinnee is so tall that the roll cages of cars or trucks do not protect him. He must remain unrestrained so that he can jump in the event of a roll over.
You jest, but oddly enough, there are cars that are small enough to where my knees are actually above the passenger side air bag and I sometimes wonder that if we got into a wreck, what would happen.
I think it’s hilarious, and the cop is obviously a super trooper, but you’re screwed. I’d walk in with a smile, wave at the officer, maybe fake blow the horn at him while waving, and pay the ticket.
I swear I just choked on my coffee as I could definitely picture this scenario in my mind:smiley:…thanks for the chuckle to start my day.
I have a question to ponder…why does the school bus driver get a seat belt and not the children.? Not only would it protect them…but then the bus driver wouldn’t have to yell. “STAY IN YOUR SEATS,”. Just a thought
Pay the seatbelt ticket then No matter what go to court, if the officer fails to show up then your ticket will be dropped. Your choice words after the fact make no difference what-so-ever besides pissing him off. If i were you and you wont apologize you can see how the judge is feeling that day based on the fines he issues and decide whether you feel like paying up. but i personally would plead not guilty, he is a supertrooper as previously said and needs a lesson just like he tried to give to you but your lesson will be dealing with all this but worst case scenario you’ll have to pay the fine. Ask for a jury trial, extend everything you can… To avoid all the cost they will try to offer you a plea bargain and drop the fine considerably. In the mean time you can fill out a request for the Motion Discovery which will give you all case notes and the dash cameras of both officers. Keep in mind they have to prove that you are GUILTY even though it may seem like you dont have a choice. Now my personal opinion, He pulled you out of spite and anger and let his emotions get the best of him, i believe that is one thing our law enforcement should not do. In all honesty you were not the bigger man by honking at him it was completely wrong which is why you were asked your age. On another note neither was he as a grown man and protector of our community should of brushed it off even if he did pull you he could of taught you a better lesson by giving you some rational but choice words.
Don’t pass (farm equipment) on a double yellow even if the coast is clear. I don’t care if you are just following the officer in front of you.
The first car that passed got a verbal warning and I got a $150 ticket because I should have “known better”. It didn’t help things when the officer asked if I knew why the first car got a verbal warning and I suggested it was because he knew them(this was after the ticket was issued)
Turns out the officer didn’t know the law any better either because the ticket he wrote me was for passing a stopped school bus. I called to talk to the sheriff and he thought I was a jack a too, but they agreed to drop the ticket.
In the end, had I been smart enough to not pass a tractor on a double yellow, I wouldn’t have had any problems. Had you been wearing your seatbelt, you more than likely wouldn’t have had any problems either.
quote:Originally posted by skinneejDisagree with that statement. An adult should not be forced by law to wear a seat belt. Wearing a seat belt should be a matter of a personal choice. Do I think it's a fantastic idea to wear a seat belt? YES! I would wear mine legal or not. But I don't like a government that starts making personal choices for me. That's a precedence that I don't want to be set... Next thing, they are going to outlaw oreo cookies because they make people have an increased risk for diabetes.
What do you mean “next thing they will outlaw Oreos”? Next thing? A court had to strike down the law in New York that illegalized large sodas. that’s already here bro.
But regarding the seatbelt, I get pulled in both directions here. I’m typically in favor of LESS law and the Gov’t staying the heck out of my business, and the seatbelt thing seems to be on the edge of this. I’ll respond to your comment below.
quote:Originally posted by skinneejYeah, I am with you. My freedom ends where it impacts someone else's. But how does me choosing not to wear a seat belt affect your freedom?
The difficulty here is that we (meaning, most of us right-winger types such as myself) tend to have an unbiblical, and thus ungodly, notion that our personal choice are simply our business and nobody else’s. That’s a lie, both biblically and philosophically. There is no such thing as a “no consequence sin”, nor a “victimless crime”. Every decision we make will leave a ripple, one way or the other.
In terms of the seatbelt thing. Like I said, it sorta grates me the wrong way like it does you, so I can’t really criti
quote:Originally posted by skinneejDisagree with that statement. An adult should not be forced by law to wear a seat belt. Wearing a seat belt should be a matter of a personal choice. Do I think it's a fantastic idea to wear a seat belt? YES! I would wear mine legal or not. But I don't like a government that starts making personal choices for me. That's a precedence that I don't want to be set... Next thing, they are going to outlaw oreo cookies because they make people have an increased risk for diabetes.
What do you mean “next thing they will outlaw Oreos”? Next thing? A court had to strike down the law in New York that illegalized large sodas. that’s already here bro.
But regarding the seatbelt, I get pulled in both directions here. I’m typically in favor of LESS law and the Gov’t staying the heck out of my business, and the seatbelt thing seems to be on the edge of this. I’ll respond to your comment below.
quote:Originally posted by skinneejYeah, I am with you. My freedom ends where it impacts someone else's. But how does me choosing not to wear a seat belt affect your freedom?
The difficulty here is that we (meaning, most of us right-winger types such as myself) tend to have an unbiblical, and thus ungodly, notion that our personal choice are simply our business and nobody else’s. That’s a lie, both biblically and philosophically. There is no such thing as a “no consequence sin”, nor a “victimless crime”. Every decision we m
People waffle on this idea all the time. Take “Freedom of Religion” as we understand it. If we ran a poll right now and said, “Would it be okay to revoke the freedom of religion?”, I would be willing to bet that the overall response would be a resounding “NO WAY!!!”. But then, the next poll, we could ask, “Should the practice of Islam be outlawed in the USA as long as terrorist attacks continue?” I would be willing to be the percentages would change. Why? It’s because “freedom” and “personal choice” are EASY to accept when the scale tilts in your favor, but as soon as a freedom seems to have some unfavorable consequence, people quickly bail out. It’s extremely difficult for most people to stay objective on issues of personal freedom.
I basically agree with what you said Skinnee, although I fail to see how anything you said invalidates my point that your personal safety is not merely a personal matter. It is most definitely a public matter. The problem is that we struggle at where to draw the line, to which I agree with you, we can lose our rights, one little bite at a time.
That’s why it’s our responsibility to try to vote the mosquitoes and gnats out of office, but good luck with Graham (er, ahem, good luck with THAT).
… The Cross of Christ is the anvil upon which the hammer of evil wore itself out.
I basically agree with what you said Skinnee, although I fail to see how anything you said invalidates my point that your personal safety is not merely a personal matter. It is most definitely a public matter. The problem is that we struggle at where to draw the line, to which I agree with you, we can lose our rights, one little bite at a time.
That’s why it’s our responsibility to try to vote the mosquitoes and gnats out of office, but good luck with Graham (er, ahem, good luck with THAT).
… The Cross of Christ is the anvil upon which the hammer of evil wore itself out.
Sorry, I don't mean that your point isn't logically valid. I'm just suggesting I can't accept it as a valid argument to give up a freedom to make a personal choice. It's not a good enough reason to me, because the same argument could be used for any personal choice (i.e. we aren't responsible enough to make the right one so we need to let the government decide for us).
In other words, once we decide the bar to freedom is “we shouldn’t have this choice because it may affect someone else”, we are already half way down a very slippery slope…
