Do they write DUI tickets just so they can make money? NO! It is an effort to protect the public from a careless person. To me, not wearing a seatbelt when one is available is not much different than driving drunk. It is careless and gives no consideration for other people's safety, much less one's own. Not trying to start an argument.
HOW CAN YOU COMPARE A DWI WITH NOT WEARING A SEATBELT uzzled: o No: C'MON....... THE LAND OF THE FINE :boring:
Easy. As I said: They are both careless and give no consideration for other people's safety. The comparison was used merely for illustrative purposes.
Driving while intoxicated makes your reaction times slow down and your perception suffer. For example, you may think that you're going to stop in time for that stoplight, or that you aren't too close to that other car, or that you can take a turn at a rate of speed that is too great Not wearing a seat belt doesn't alter your perception. In my opinion, it's a poor parallel to make between the two You obviously have a strong opinion on this, and that's fine. But your logic says that if I'm not wearing a seatbelt, my actions are as criminal as those of a drunk driver, which I strongly disagree with Driving drunk puts you at a greater risk of driver error and therefore a greater risk of being in an accident A seatbelt doesn't prevent or cause accidents. Wearing one never made anyone a better driver. They only come into play if there's an accident. Driving drunk plays a role in creating the accident if the federal government's sole purpose with any of these 'safety' laws was actually safety, there would be 5 point harnesses in every car, and a helmet law would be in effect. Since that isn't the Federal mandate, i have to conclude that if the technology exists to make us safer, but steps aren't being taken to go to that length, the reason is that it would cost too much money to bring those things into effect. however, since seatbelts are alraedy here, a fine can be placed on non-compliance with a law that can be argued is purely for safety Seatbelts are good and should be used. i should use one more often. if you notice, non of my arguments have been about my use or non use; I simply say they are good. But a law should not be passed to make me safe. All this effort and money is spent on 'safety' for vehicles, and for laws and fines. A lot is said about how driving is a priveldge That's true. But the governments do treat it like it's a Right, until they say it's not. For example: it's ridiculously easy to get a driver's license. Another example: folks who are guilty of certain infractions can get dispensation to drive to and from work, but no-where else. Suddenly, it's not so much of just a priveledge; now somebody can say "but I have a right to make a living" and they can still drive to work legally, which is exactly the same risk as letting them drive anywhere else. So I cannot beleive that the Federal and State government's sole concern is safety and in fact, I beleive that on the whole, as long as they don't get sued over it, they'll pass whatever law it takes to protect themselves more often than they'll pass a law to protect us, unless of course they can still say it's for our safety, but they can also make a dollar or two
I personally don't understand the resistance to wearing a seatbelt. They work, period. Sure there's that very rare case where someone being thrown from the vehicle somehow spared them, but those cases are SOOOO few and far between. But everyone against wearing a belt insists on citing those few and extremely rare cases. I personally have a difficult time driving without a belt as I prefer to stay planted in my seat, especially in an extreme situation such as a skid or hard cornering. I also ask *nicely* that everyone in my car put their belts on too. I will even dig out a buried socket from between a seat so I can wear the belt in some of my friend's cars. It's my choice, but I'm not going to force my choice on someone in their own car. I do it for me. Everyone else is on their own. With that being said, I still don't feel there should be a law enforcing wearing a belt. It's also a choice as many have said before me, but to me it's common sense to wear one.
That's a good point, Jim- Common sense shouldn't have to be a Law I think that when most people read a question like the one asked in this thread, what they see is "Are seatbelts a good idea and should we use them?" when the question wasn't that at all
I always wear my seatbelt, but I don't support the seat belt law. Since choosing not to wear a seatbelt doesn't harm anyone else, it should be the decision of the individual, not the government. Same thing with marijuana, not to get off topic or anything.
I never made mention of the criminality of either offense, just that they are both careless and give no reguard for other's safety. SEATBELTS CAN AND DO PREVENT ACCIDENTS. PERIOD. They can keep a person in control of a vehicle in an emergency situation by keeping them behind the steering wheel and possibly avoiding a collision. Thereby, making them a BETTER DRIVER. Afterall, a person is a much better driver when they are actually in the driver's seat....right?
Apparently, nobody saw this post cause it was the last post on the previous page, so I am reposting it. And I will rest my case. ( I don't like to argue )
Adam, you are misunderstanding me. If your logic says that not using a seatbelt is the similar to driving drunk, then your logic also must go on to say that both are criminal. that's just logical extension. I disagree with it. That's OK. We can agree to disagree Simply clicking a seatbelt will not prevent an accident. now, if you swerve to avoid something and the seatbelt keeps you in the seat, then yes, it can prevent a loss of control. but the seatbelt didn't keep you from swerving in the first place. And that doesn't addrress the driver who is sitting at a red light who is hit by another driver who is drunk. Neither seatbelt has any impact (no pun intended) on whether or not the accident occured from the point of view of the driver who was sitting at the light. However, that seatbelt could save either driver's life In essence, what i am saying is this: A seatbelt is by nature a Passive force Drunk Driving is an Active force seatbelts are passive because they only effect certain situations. Drunk driving is Active because it effects each and every situation for these reasons I disgree with your assement. We're just discussing here, there's no argument
Ok, how about this one? This varies by state, I know. But children are required by law to be properly strapped in under a certain age. Since you are the parent or guardian, you are responsible to make sure this is taken care of. Can you still argue that it's your right as the parent or guardian "not" to strap a child in? I'm not even necessarily talking about a toddler, whom of course wouldn't even know any better, but an older child that is still required by law to be strapped in. What's the difference between "your" right to be un-buckled and your right to decide whether your children remains un-buckled. Yet nobody complains about that law. I think every passenger should be buckled. What's good for the children is good for the adults. I don't doubt that it's a money making opportunity for local police forces. But it's also common sense. Yes, common sense can be enforced. It's common sense to use your directional to make a left turn to be courteous to the driver behind you, and that's a law. I don't necessarily buy the fact that because a person is insured, it has no impact on anybody financially if they become road pie for not being buckled. It's all connected. If everybody went un-buckled, the hospitals would be that much fuller and use that many more resources to treat more people, which would require more funding to these hospitals and maybe higher insurance prices due to more injuries. It's all connected.
Funny story regarding seat belts....a couple of years ago I was out in the convert for a pleasure cruise. I got pulled over by a local cop (young, ignorant and probably new to the force). I never let my hands leave the steering wheel. He approached the car. He ask if I knew why he stopped me. I said no. He said for not wearing a seat belt. I looked at him, hands still on the wheel and said "look down". Of course I had on my LAP belt (no shoulder belts in the convert). :laugh: He asked where the shoulder belt was. I just looked at him like :eek2: I said shoulder belts were not available in 1975 for convertibles !! Didn't believe me. He had a 1986 convert with shoulder belts so of course all converts needed shoulder belts. Short story long, he had to let me go, but was he ticked off. Maybe he learned something that day? By the way, I have always used belts, will always use belts, and even my kids get upset if I forget to buckle up before starting the car. We also have the click it or ticket campaign here.
I said it before, and I will say it again- I think some folks are seeing a different question than the one that was asked This is not about your Right to not wear a seat belt. It's about whether or not a seat belt Law is something that should even exist The issue is being confused as far as I can tell. this has nothing to do with what Right you have to put others at risk. It's about whether or not a Law should exist that forces you to be safe. It's not the same thing Should a Law exist that keeps you from improperly jump starting your car? A battery explosion can kill. Why don't they make us safer by passing that Law? Should a Law exist that keeps you from buying a hunting Knife? Those things can be used in murders the question isn't "Should I be concerned with safety" the question is "is it right to force people into using seat belts with a Law" I know everyone is concerned with kids, property, etc, but that safety of children is not the point. of course that is a real concern. But child safety is not the point- it is an argument that supports the point. You're missing the point if you think this is about child safety or your personal safety or the protection of property It's about what Laws should do and not do- safety is not the issue. you can't argue against safety. Divorce yourself from seeing this as a question of "Is it proper to be safe" and begin to consider what the Lawmakers are doing to restrict what you do and how you do it. nothing to do with safety, it has to do with Freedom, and by that I most certainly do not mean the Freedom to put anyone at risk. I mean Freedom from Oppresion. if you think that's far fetched, well, right now we are free to criticize the way the governemnt works. If everything the government says you should do because it's good for you was a Law, you might not be able to do that. We cherish freedom but abuse the Laws that provide us with that all the time. The litigiousness of US society is alarming. Nobody takes responsibility for anything anymore. We want to be told what to do and how to do it. Thomas Jefferson would weep and then leave the country. You don't need and shouldn't have a Law that tells you to protect your kids, your life, and the lives of others. that should be what you do as a responsible adult but there's such a shortage of those people that we all seem to get into the mindset of just blindly letting the 'Government' take all the responsibilty and do all the thinking I want your kids to be safe and free, and not the type of freedom I have today, the freedom I had twenty years ago because it's not the same now, don't fool yourself. "Freedom" is not the ability to make bad choices. You don't have to sacrifice freedom for safety, it's completely untrue. That's a facist ideal. I'm not calling anyone a fascist, but think about what this really means at it's core: the Government does all the thinking and decides what's "safe" and "best" for you, and if you disagree, you are now breaking the Law :shock: That scares hell out of me if this angers anyone, you don't understand what I'm saying. Just ask me to clarify :TU:
I totally understand what you are saying here Chris. I guess it all boils down to the fine line between safety and freedom of choice. The hypocricy is truly amazing. We let people drive (in most states) while blabbing on cell phones, which impacts the safety of others, but make the drivers of vehicles use seatbelts, which affects nobody but them selves. I totally see your point. It really is quite a misfire, that's for sure. :error:
I think wahat scares me the most is how obviously careless most people are behind the wheel while on their cell phones, and then they are always the ones who say "I pay just as much attention as when I'm not on my phone!" YIKES
The only reason that they can make it a National Law is because it is a PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. Not for you as a DRIVER, but for those around you. The Government has a responsiblity to PROTECT the citizens, not from themselves but from others. A person's RIGHTS and FREEDOMS only extend until they infringe on someone else's RIGHTS and FREEDOMS. This is where the Seatbelt Law comes in: My right to travel a roadway with reasonable expectation of safety from other motorists possibly loosing control of their vehicles outweighs someone else's desire to drive without a seatbelt (which increases the chances that they could loose control in an emergency situation). Seatbelts can and do help prevent collisions by keeping a person in the driver's seat, so YES everyone SHOULD be REQUIRED to wear one when a vehicle is so equipped. It is not about restricting personal freedoms, IT IS ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY. I want to be protected from that driver that is in an "emergency situation", but doesn't like to wear his seatbelt, and was flung out from behind the wheel, lost control, crossed into an oncoming lane of traffic just as I was coming the other direction, and hits me head on. *hypothetical* This is the reason they have a seatbelt law, and why it is a good idea. BTW--- Chris, I hope we get to meet sometime soon. I think we could have some interesting conversations.
BTW In Oklahoma at least, a person can be ticketed for "Distracted Driving". This can include a multitude of things: Eating, Drinking (pop), reading, doing make-up, etc...and, of course, talking on a cell phone.
Could be Adam, I get around sometimes I agree 100% about the National Safety Issue- but I also think it's a conveniently easy issue to raise and get support for, and it's also easy to get people to admit they 'need it' when you tell them it's for safety This is why (I touched on this a little earlier)- There are way to make you even MORE safe, and the Laws for that are non-existent. So, for instance- why aren't child sized 5 point harnesses mandated? Or adult ones for that matter? No helmets? I'm sure a study could be made that says that helmet use would reduce injuries by a huge margin Another point about that is trains. Well, there's no seatbelts on trains, and they crash into each other on occasion, and folks get really hurt. Strap-hangers fly about, I'll bet. But the 'gov't' won't fight that battle. I have to ask myself why And the why, to me, is money. They will lose X amount of money implementing the seatbelts because of a million reasons, like the down time for the trains, the need for upgrading saftey standards (man hours for procedures), or even replacing trains. But in a car, the seatbelt is well recognised, understood, has been around for a few generations as standard, and the reasoning is so obvious: "Why don't you want to be safe and let others be safe?" By coincidence Many many people own cars. Many many people don't buckle up. Fines are an institution for traffic violations already. Dollars are made Buses, even School Buses don't have seatbelts for passengers. Why on earth don't our School Sytems promote child safety?? No money in it, maybe? That's a insidious thought but it's one that I can't help think. The Law enforcement policy makers are not fools; they know how to pick their battles, and they do it well. The Clickit-or-ticket thing is dead easy to make money on 9again no pun intended) But at it's core, I always go back to this concerning safety: Why is it so easy to get a driver's license, a Priveledge bestowed by the State or Commonwealth? And why don't they pass a Law to make better drivers? because it costs too much to that? It's "too hard" to implement? Saftery shouldn't depend on ease of use would be the argument they use for the seatbelt, when you don't use one because you say you don't like to be restrained. Well, then produce better drivers, i don't want to hear it's "too hard", safety shouldn't depend on the ease of making good, safe drivers, either! but that's complete fantasy, because if they did make it harder to get a lciense, commerce would simply stop. Prices would skyrocket becuase of good old supply and demand. And why bother, when you can avoid spending money on making safer drivers, when you can fine the poor ones all the time and actually make money off of it? And then there's the whole stinking pit of Big Brother says, which I already mentioned It's a huge problem, Adam, I won't argue that, and it's bigger than most folks realise. I do however find it at it's most innocent very peculiar that coincidentally the 'government' can save money on making things less safe than they might, while at the same time also fining me, because they say I'm unsafe if I don't do certain things. Politicians and lawmakers aren't stupid, they know a thing or two about money and human nature, and also about how to get folks to agree with them- it's how they got their jobs :TU: My essential disagreement is why I must be forced to be safe- I couldn't come to that conclusion on my own? That couldn't be taught? The problem is, as far as I am concerned personally, that by making a Law that says I must do a thing such as putting on a seatbelt, that, money issues aside, I am the safety problem, and I must be the one who would otherwise blindly endanger other people because I don't know better? that I'm so bad at doing a dangerous thing that Laws must be passed to make me conform? If I'm that bad a driver, why do i still have a licence to operate a deadly weapon like a two ton car? I guess you could say that I'm one of the folks who think that if there weren't so many accidents, much fewer people would die in accidents :TU: (I said that last part like this very much on purpose- it's a trick, and it's not fair- if you don't agree, you must be against safety-which of course isn't true, but I load the question the way I want it to read to get the answer I want- standard politico trick, I've learned a lot from them. You can safely disregard that last sentence)
Here's one for ya: Common sense isn't all that common Interesting reading here. Whether the use of seat belts should be mandated by Government or not is an age old dilemna. Facts are that since around 1966 or so, seat belt use has helped cause a steady downward trend in motor vehicle fatalities every year, except for a couple of years in the mid 70's. I used to be on the non Gov't interference side, then I became a Driving Instructor, now that was a wake up alarm. :grin: We can debate this one forever, but seat belt laws really do have the public safety in their best interest. (in my opinion :grin: ) As for cash grabs by governments, there is a simple answer, obey the law!!! If you wish to not wear your belt because you harbor resentment for some politico telling you so, fine, just tell your friends and family that you may not come home one night, they're sure to understand. I have a little video I'll post later, if I can figure out how to post a wmv file. o No:
