Phuck that. Noone should have seen with my eyes the carnage from this "sin of omission."



You'll get no argument from me on that.

If your buddy's story is true (no reason to think it's not) I [i]probably[/i] would not have written him.

P3[pyro][^][heavy]

[i]Merci beaucoup[/i]. High praise from the Wolf!

P3[pyro][:I][heavy]

I believe that the national speed limit was enacted in World War 2 due to the need to conserve supplies of rubber. The Japanese overran virtually all supplies of imported natural rubber early in the war and the race was on to develop synthetic rubber substitutes. In the interim the speed limit was enacted and a system of gasoline rationing was set up. All in the effort to make motorists realize that their existing tires had to last for the duration of the war. JarheadGunner.

I think you could have phrased it better than calling me a "whining bitch".  We're discussing a valid issue on whether or not the government should be involved in something like mandating seat belts.  If you don't agree, fine.  I can agree to disagree.  But you need to check your tone and have some class before you call people you don't know (who are fellow defenders of the second amendment) a "bitch".  I gave you no reason to call me anything like that.

The antis give us enough problems without your childish name-calling.  Surely you can think of something more thoughtful to say than to call other members "bitch" without just cause... at least I hope you can.


The solution is simple.  Don't read this thread.  Problem solved.

[(:|)]

I suppose the government could make the same argument for punishing me for leaving steak knives on my kitchen counter.  After all, I could lay my hand down and cut myself.  They should fine me $80 for putting myself at grave risk.

They should also ban ladders since people might fall from them and insurance rates might go up.

And why stop at seat-belts?  If we banned people from diving, there would be no traffic fatalities.  That should keep insurance rates at bay.

Is wearing a seat-belt an inconvenience?  No.

Is not wearing a seat-belt stupid?  Yes.

Should children be required to wear a seat-belt?  Yes.

Should the government force adults to wear seatbelts or wear helmets "for their own good"?  No.


[size=4]"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others."

--Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785)[/size=4]

[(:|)]

While I freely admit to beaking this law (although I usually wear a seat-belt), the guy really was an asshole-extraordinaire.  I have received several tickets over the years, and while I don't expect chipper customer service from the issuing officers, they are usually businesslike and appropriate for the situation.

But this punk was rude and insulting, and is what other officers often call "the bad apple".  Hence his deserved moniker.

As for the seat-belt thing, not to fear.  I usually wear it anyway; not because the government knows best and forces me to, but because it makes sense to me.

[(:|)]

The seatbelt law never was about lower insurance rates, or your safety... but that is what was said.  The true purpose was to give cops an excuse to pull you over, and once stopped, whether you are belted or not, they can find "probable cause" for a search, or bully you into saying OK.

And if you go to court to say your belt was on, no problem, the officer simply says you didn't.  You can't prove you did.  The court will take the cops word every time.

In state after state, it was quickly turned from a secondary offense into a primary reason to stop soon after initial passage.  Insurance rates did not drop.  

When this happens in your state, do not say you were not warned.

But it's OK, it's for the children.

Anyway, there's a smarter way for the cops to find an excuse to stop you, pull you over and search your vehicle.

Look at Germany (yeah, I know, duh!): The law there says you have to have a standardized  first-aid kit, complete with surgical gloves, and a collapsible, red, reflective triangle (to be placed about 50 meters behind the car in case of brake-down) in your trunk.
So a "random car safety check", with no probable cause necessary to pull you over, gives the German Polizist the right to check you for alcohol (breathalyzer and ability check while you're walking to the trunk), perform a roadside car safety check (horn, tire profile, working lights and such) and to have a more than casual glance in your trunk while your fumbling for your first-aid kit and triangle, and dig through the box to show all the required items are there. Oh, and of course to check your papers, of course...

I always kept the first-aid kit and the triangle on my passenger seat when driving there...pissed them off no end.

I wonder why they didn't come up with the idea here yet....

Is there a reasonable chance that an unseatbelted occupant could be ejected from their car in a collision?

Yes.

Is there a reasonable chance that in a head on collision Mr. NoSeatbelt would fly through his windshield and into me in my car? Yes. That sure as hell infringes on me and my insurance.
Is there a reasonable chance that Mr. NoSeatbelt would be ejected from his car and i would have to swerve to miss his body, possibly causing another accident? Yes.

So don't try and say that it only effects the decision maker. I also don't see why people don't wear their seatbelts. I have never found them uncomfortable or a hassle to put on. What is your excuse, besides it being a personal freedom issue.

Finally, ask yourself how many CART, F1, NASCAR, Rally, NHRA, SCCA, etc drivers you see without seatbelts.

PS. I also believe that helmet laws are a whole different issue.

If you that think that AFLAC niche insurance is a good deal, than maybe I can see why you could read my entire missive and miss the whole point. But first, don’t talk about egg on [i]my[/I] face until you have a third party read that AFLAC policy with it’s exclusions and limitations to you and explained in $$ and sense.

[b]Anyway[/b] The point was and still is [b]NOT[/b] that seat belts are bad, but that wearing a seat belt is just one minor decision in daily life where there are no guarantees in life. Wearing a seat belt - or not - just shuffles the cards. You live through this, but die from that.

Did Christopher Reeve wear his seat belt in the car? Bet he did. So what?!!!!!
Did the poor slobbering old lady dying of dementia next door to me wear her seat belt? So what?
Did my friend’s brother who died of pancreatic cancer at 31 wear his seat belt? Why yes, I know he did.  So what?

The point you are making Avtomat, is that IF involved in an accident that is injurious, and IF there is a [i]seat belt preventable injury[/i] and IF I do wear my belt, that will keep your insurance premiums down. WRONG Avtomat.

Because in the final analysis, as in my 3 examples above, insurance STILL PAYS medical expenses on peoople and premiums STILL GO UP!!! And people STILL DIE, just from different causes. The deaths are still as lingering, or messy or unfortunate. NO GUARANTEES.

So, what is left in our final analysis, is:
(1) Feel good legislation by nanny-state politicians.
(2) Revenue gathering by municipalities.
and worse of all
(3) The smug instance of people like you that others adjust their personal freedoms and live their lives according to your rules.

Now read that quote several replies up by Thomas Jefferson. It's Big and Bold so you can't miss it. Read it again and again until it sinks in. If you still don't get it, move to Germany and buy your red triangle and first-aid kit like Kar98 describes.


Socialist.

If you're that worried about [b]your[/b] insurance money, why not go nag the beltless drivers yourself instead of making the cops do it?  

I don't have a problem with seatbelts; I just don't like having them forced upon us with the full coercive power of the state.  It's not as if crime rates were so low that the police needed some more laws to keep them busy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By Gun Guru:
Im missing something, You break the law and the cop is a a$$hole because he cites you. Right? Its a LAW here, you from up north? Looks like you need a Wah-burger and some french-cries and wash it down with a Whinekien.


And you say "your an adult now", act like it then.
GG

It's a bullcrap law, if you are an adult you are capable of deciding for yourself what is best for you. Does anybody know of any cops that have been pulled over and given a citation for not having their seat belt on, I doubt it. They should have more important things to do than chase seatbelt criminals.

Get real.  That's possible, but extremely unlikely.  You could say there is a reasonable chance that I could be shot during a robbery or road rage or in a mishap from someone at the shooting range, but I'm not saying the government should ban guns.  It's about freedom from the government protecting you from yourself.  You've been in California a little too long.

[(:|)]

[soapbox]

1st, I agree, I do not like laws that are meant to protect ourselves from ourselves. That does not change the fact that some of them actually do save lives. I have been in a serious crash with a buddy and totaled my camaro about 5 years ago. We both had belts and we both walked away with nary a scratch, without them we would have met up with a very large oak tree. Ever since then I NEVER forget to wear it and my car will not move unitl everyone else in my car has them on. Sometimes it takes cheating death to open your eyes.

I have also damn near been run of the road on my bike but unattentive drivers. My question is "if your smart enough to wear your leathers on a bike why not the helmet?" Then their are the those who wear neither so they feel more "free" or "at one with the road".[rolleyes]

If you dont wear them, I dont care. If you get killed because of it, I dont care. If you dont die and just are severly injured dont come complaining to me, I dont care. You had the opportunity to not be so feffing lazy, if you were so inattentive as to forget, then maybe you should not even have been driving.

If you dont wear them and die or get hurt I will not feel sorry for you. I WILL mourn over the fact a nice car/bike or truck may have been damaged/destroyed.

2nd, You seem pissed that the cop did use his/her discretion and give you a warning. If everyone got a warning there would be no deterant. By you telling others you got a ticket you are acting as a deterant to not wearing them. Cops hear every sob story and are lied to constanly even by "good" people. Maybe he was acting like a jerk because he has dealt with one lieing prick after another all day and his good will ran out when he got to you. Tuff Luck, that's discretion. And no, I am not some holier than though goody two shoes who has never gotten a ticket. I used to joke that my glove box was my court date filing system. Hell I've gotten 3 in the last 18 months, and I have paid THOUSANDS in fines. I could piss and moan about it, but hey, it was MY fault. Now that my friend is taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. That's the price for breaking the rules. Dont like the rules? Then change them.[flame] away.

BrenLover

Buckle-up every time i drive

[img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/car.gif[/img]

You must rise up and overthrow the state if anything is ever to change for the better again in America.  Seatbelt laws are but the tip of a much bigger, and ever more dangerous iceberg that is going to swamp you, as though you were the Titanic.

Like I've said, if it was "the law" for the cop to bend you over and a$$-rape you on the side of the road would that be OK?  Or would it be OK to consider said cop an a-hole in that case.  Just wondering.

Fair enough.  I was in a car wreck where I totaled my convertible, and the air bags did not inflate.  I walked away from it with only a mild concusion, and I know it would have been a lot worse if I had not been wearing my seat belt.  I do not dispute that seat belts save lives.


My beef was with his attitude.  I was [u]completely[/u] polite and had all my papers when he asked for them.  I admitted that I did not have my seat belt on.  I've gotten my share of tickets, and I know when a cop is just doing his job and when he's being a jerk.  Maybe he's got something else on his mind.  That's not my problem.  If he can't control his emotions, maybe he's in the wrong business.  This guy was an asshole-extraordinaire.  No two ways about it.  If you were there, you would have agreed.

[(:|)]

Maybe I would have agreed. Alot of people say "leave your emotions at the door". For 99% of people that is impossible. I like to think I am pretty level headed, rational, open minded but even I have personal influences effect my job or vice versa.

Problem is that everyone loves to recall the negative things cops do in life but seem to forget the good they do which far outweighs it.

Peace Out,
BrenLover

Bingo. After all, you haven't lost your driving priviledges. The state engine may run on graft, greed, corruption, but worthwhile things, even if they are wrapped in money-laundering schemes, do occasionally get done. There are plenty of chronic injury cases living on permanent disability, courtesy of the taxpayer. The attempt here - even if it is wrapped in a cash cow - is to reduce this expenditure by reducing the number of these cases - a legitimate exercise.

Think of it this way: if the only gun-related law the state ever required you to follow was that you used a holster/sling when operating a handgun/rifle, or maybe, requiring use of appropriate eye & ear protection when shooting, would you really have cause to object? In fact, formal gun ranges enforce these type of rules already. Do you truly feel imposed upon by such rules?

Having to shell out $80.00 over a seemingly trivial little nylon strap is surely infuriating. Certainly, the gov't plea of, "for your safety," would probably carry a more genuine ring if it weren't being used as (another) cash cow. A no-fine, point system - rack up X points == lose license for Y time - would be more genuine than pocket pilfering practices. But, in the end, if you make it a habit to buckle, it'll never concern you. It's really a small thing to do. Practice it consistently, & you'll probably become more comfortable driving w/ it on. Same w/ mocickle helmets. Regardless of what the law says in your state.

Coincidentally, just starting today, WA State is citing non-buckling as a primary offense. But, I've been buckling for years, so it's no skin off my nose. My point isn't to sway you to agree w/ the way the gov't has implemented the law, but rather to consider the wisdom of the practice being required - that is, buckling up while you drive. It isn't the same a srestrictive gun laws. The issues are different. Doing things that are smart, regardless of the legal climate, will serve you better in the long run. Don't rail against a semi-decent idea (cash-cowness aside). Personally, I'm not against gov't, just oppressive, nanny-take-care-of-me-'till-the-day-I-die legislation. In the case of seat belts, it's about insurance [b]&[/b] taxpayer money.

Just make sure tha legislature doesn't go spend the savings on another pork-bbl. project or new agency.

YOU were the one who asked if I had such insurance. Dont poo-poo on it, you asked. As an attorney, who at one point practiced in insurance actions, I dont need someone to explain the policies to me

These specific factual situations make a general rule? I'm sure I can point to just as many cousins and neighbors and friends of friends who survived car accidents because of seat belts.
So let me get this staight, insurance rates are unaffected because (1) ppl who are in accidents but wear seat belts will be injured anyway, (2) ppl who are in accidents who wear seat belts who are uninjured will be injured some other way some other time, and (3) some ppl who never get in a car will get sick.

Well, (1): sure they may still get hurt. the seat belt, however, will significantly prevent injury, thus reducing the overall expenses.  As to (2), because they werent injured in the first accident prevents an insurance claim.  If they are subsequently injured in another accident, well, then insurance is paying for injury in one accident instead of two.  thus lower overall insurance claim. See! it cut the number of injuries in half in (2)! And (3): the ppl in (3) will cause insurance claims to go up. sure. but if before they have their accident/illness, if they are in a car accident and dont wear a seat belt, that car accident will cause more injuries than if they did wear a belt.  So-- with belt: one large insurance claim. no belt: two large claims. never in a car: one large claim.  still seeing an advantage in seat belts here!


As to this second final analysis:
Feel good legislation. to an extent, all legislation is feel good. labeling it as such doesnt convince me its not good by virture of the negative name.
Revenue gathering. not off of me.
Smugness. bad on me.
Invoking the all mighty "freedom" to not wear a seatbelt: bad on you.


Yeah, well, your mamma. Sticks and stones. Enviromentalist!
I read the jefferson quote. OK I'm convinced!

Maybe the legislature should pass a law requiring all guns kept in homes to have trigger locks installed on them at all times.  That way we would be able to prevent people from accidentally shooting themselves.

We should then have the police ticket and fine people that don't have locks on their guns.  That way we could all save a couple bucks on our insurance premiums.

The motto of this great legislation should be "The government knows what's best for you."

[(:|)]

Since you keep comparing cars and guns....

If people were absolutely unwilling to accept basic safety rules when handling and operating guns, there would be laws making your suggestions mandatory.

Safety belts for cars have been available as option since the 1950s, and are mandatory to have since when? The 1970s? So for 30 to 50 years it was tried to convince drivers to wear them. Since the carrot has apparently failed, it's now whip time.

Not every law is a socialist conspiracy to deprive you of your rights.

Unconstitutional laws. [50]

Misleading laws. [50]

Misrepresented laws. [50]

Seat belt laws. [heavy]

Just consider how the law was presented to the people, then follow where the money goes.

Vehicular law fines never go directly to the people. When a speeder is ticketed in a particular neighboorhod, none of that money goes to the people in that particular neigboorhood: it goes to the government agency which supposedly uses the fine money for all the people, even those who do not live in the particular neighboorhood where the allegedly unsafe practice was commited. I believe that this is misappropriation of govenrment funds.

When a seatbelt ticket is issued, none of the fines go to the allegedly unsafe driver (the person, himself, who is actually not wearing the seatbelt) for his financial protection. It goes for the good of "all" people not invloved in the allegedly unsafe practice sometimes (usually?) in the form of hiring more LEO's to give additional tickets! I believe that this practice of using a seatbelt violator's money for other than his personal financial protection protection is a misappropriation of government funds.

I realize that this may seeem off-the-wall, but think about it. The government has us paying to someone who is not involved in our allegedly unsafe practice and for something other than the reason we're getting fined.

How about those increased fines in work zones. Do the highway workers get the fine money for having their lives put in jeprody by speeders in that perticular construction zone? No, the government agency makes money on the highway person's increased jeprody. What a racket, making money off of someone elses hardship!

Moreover, what a travistry of justice. The system calls this justice. I call it oppression.

Maybe it's whip time to start enforcing people to lock their guns up as well.

Sure you can use the whip to get people to do just about anything, but forcing people to do something doesn't automatically make it the right thing to do.

[(:|)]

Since you pick only the parts of my posts you can bicker about, I'll do the same now.
Naw, I'll just ignore you, you lack style.

 This is to nobody in particular; it is just my opinion.  

 I do not like wearing seat belts.  I was in a major car accident.  I was hit by a 1 1/2 ton pickup truck in the driver's side of the sable I was driving.  Whenever I went to go look at the car, in a wheelchair, to see the damage done with my own eyes, I was astonished.  The driver's seat was only a few inches wide; by that I mean less than 6.  I was not wearing my seat belt and as a result I was thrown to the other side of the vehicle.  Yes, being thrown I sustained 3 broken bones which required me to learn how to walk again.  I was in a wheelchair for 2 months.  I am supposed to wear an ankle brace and use a walker.  Unforunately I had trouble finding a job after the accident because I still had to wear a "moon boot". For some reason people prefer hiring able-bodied employees.

 I went through alot after the accident.  I had two children under 2 years old.  I did not see them for 9 days while I was in the hospital in traction, having pins put in my body, and making sure I did not lose a finger.  Was I happy about any of this?  Hell NO!!!!!  But I believe it was better than being squished to death.  

  Now my opinion of seat belts is if you are under 18 years of age you should wear them.  Your parents should make sure.  If you are 18 and over you should have the right to make that choice- just be sure it is one you can live with.  Yes seat belts save lives, but they can kill too.  I know it is rarely.  I know I walk funny and even fall sometimes when it is rainy and my bones hurt but I get back up again and walk.  I would rather have pain when it is rainy than be dead.  

[}:D] [}:D] [}:D] [}:D] [}:D] [}:D] [}:D]

I guess you're the only one allowed to comment on another's post.

[(:|)]

How the hell are eyes & ears gonna protect you from being shot?

Unacceptable to whom? You? Me? Or a liberal politician, who wants to get in my back pocket? Face it man, your a tool.

So, you can carry in Texas, but ya gotta wear the seatbelt. Did it interfere with your big-ass gun? Is that why you took it off?...lol.

There sure are a lot of smug windbags on this forum that I haven't seen the likes of which in a while. :D

I don't get why you people can't understand that the beef here is that it _should not be a law_ that we must wear seatbelts?  

I live in NH, where it's not required to wear seatbelts if you're over 18, yet I would say most people wear them - myself included, because a good percentage of the time they do save lives/prevent injuries.  But why should common sense be legislated?  Taken to the extreme that's like having a law against using a chainsaw while riding a bicycle.

Oh, but I'm selfish if I want to endanger my own life apparantly, yep and I'm a whiner because I don't like armed and uniformed people enforcing laws that shouldn't exist.  You people are all the same, you want _your_ little freedoms but you don't give two shits for the larger picture.

Drivers of the world, unite!  You have nothing to lose but your seatbelts!
[:D]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it is a little funny to be interjecting a call for revolution into a thread on seatbelt laws. [;)]

Pardon me, but if you don't wear a seat belt you deserve an 80.00 ticket. It stupid not to, i would not be here now if I did not wear mine. silly thing is it costs you nothing to wear them, how much do you think the air bags in your car cost ?? a lot more than 80.00. then again, there is a shortage of organ donors so if you or anyone else sees fit not to wear your belts, please take the time to fill out the organ donor section of your license. By the way, this was in my local paper today:
LAGRANGEVILLE -- Two people killed in a crash Sunday on the Taconic State Parkway have been identified as Kingston residents.

Stacey Howell and Karitta Wheeler, both 27, died when the Chevrolet Blazer they were traveling in smashed into a tree. The driver, Melvin Howell, 29, of Kingston, was in critical condition Monday at Westchester Medical Center, hospital officials said.

Police said the accident happened about 8:30 a.m. when the Blazer went off the northbound lane and into a ravine in the median just south of Todd Hill Road.

The women, who police said weren't wearing seat belts, died at the scene.

The crash is under investigation police, said.



http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/today/policecourts/stories/po052102s5.shtml

I have had to replace a winshield in every car I own at least once because it was cracked by a stone thrown up from a tire. Now if your crusin' down the road on a harley and get clocked in the bean by a rock and i am coming the opposite way you are not just about to kill yourself (like someone not wearing seatbelts), you are about to take me with you. I'm sure this scene does not happen often, but that fact it can is a good arguement for helmet laws

RogerB,

No kidding. I cant believe people would VOLUNTARILY ride a bike with no helmet or leathers! It insane! I think the people who do it are just out for the macho-tuff guy image. Nothing feels better than getting a june bug in the face at 70MPH or the feel of rain or sleet pelting you. The wind is so intense that your eyes water to the point of piss poor vision even with glasses.

At some point every rider lays down their bike and I would rather have some overly warm cow hide on than a t-shirt and jean cut-offs. I have seen pics of the above mentioned type of people who have recked and IF they live they are horrably scarred for life if they are lucky.

The odds are stacked against you front the start if you wreck a bike, but why would you willingly give away any advantage of surviving?

And for the states that require helmets some losers wear skull caps (basically a hard beany) Ok, so the top of your head is protected but you have no face anymore!

BrenLover

Rogerb said about seatbelts, "...silly thing is it costs you nothing to wear them..."

Why don't you ask model Nikki Taylor about how much it costs to wear a seatbelt? She was a passenger in a car driven by her boyfriend when he started to look for his cell phone and accidentally drove the car into a pole. Nikki was wearing one of those automatic seatbelts which cross your torso diagonally. The impact cut her liver in half. Haven't seen her in any commercials lately. Hm-m-m-m.

While wearing a seat belt is good sense and can save your life (it probably saved my life once), some of you are missing the point.  The point is that the government is [u]forcing[/u] you to protect yourself at penalty of law.  Does no one else see a problem with this?  It's not like failing to wear a seatbelt is endangering the rest of the public.

The argument is not whether or not seat belts are a good idea (pretty much everyone agrees they are), the issue is whether or not the government should be in the business of forcing people to wear them.  It's ironic that some states are legalizing suicide on the basis of personal choice, while requiring people to buckle up "for your own good, or we'll send the police after you."

Not that wearing them is bad, but the precedent of the government forcing you do things for "your own saftey" opens the door for other laws requiring you to do things "for your own saftey".

[(:|)]

Kingme, who's to say she'd be alive at all if she did not have it on in the first place ? When i wrecked at very high speed (totally my fault), the seat was very twisted which resulted in a big squeeze by the belt and  a punctured intestine. But without the belt I would not have lived at all, no doubt at all. (tree impact at over 110 mph and I walked away, literaly) There are people who would have died if they had belts on , but it is rare, I'm sure any LEO will tell you that and tell you to buckle up, but hey its your life, just fill out that donor card , okay ?

WATCH OUT - THE BLACK HELICOPTERS ARE RIGHT BEHIND YOU!!!! Quick - get your tinfoil hat on!

P3[pyro][:P][heavy]

Exactly. It's my life, not the government's.  And as long as I'm not endangering anyone else, I should be left to my own peril.

[(:|)]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. [rolleyes]

Unacceptable: as in dragracing and going 68 in a 35. Blowing through stop signs and red lights. Driving while phucked up. Driving 25 in a 50 (old & drunk folks).

Now, splain to me how these relate to a liberal politician trying to get into your back pocket.

P3[pyro][^][heavy]

Wrong. It does when you're not in control of your car - or, say, your carcass sails through the windshield of the other guy and kills him (I worked that scene, too). -Yeah, a statistically low chance of this happening, but tell that to the widow (just her - her kid and husband were killed by carcassman).



The Gubmint isn't forcing you to - it's still a choice. Granted, there're consequences (legal and physical.



Touche. You and I will find about three square inches of shared common ground here, but I think laws requiring triggerlocks would be more in that territory.

P3[pyro][^][heavy]

Yes, but only because that's a crime in my state, and I have not the slightest whim of discretion regarding the choice of citing you or not. If I [b]was[/b] given the discretion... I probably would [b]not[/b] cite you.



Yes.

P3[pyro][^][heavy]

???????????
Whether or not I'm buckled makes no difference in how "in control" of my car I am.  I don't slide around or fall out of my seat because I'm not bucked.

I'll bet drivers are more wreckless when they're talking on their cell phones or to their freinds, or eating in their car than when they're not wearing a seat belt.  Perhaps we should ban eating, talking, coughing, and sneezing in cars.  Think of the insurance savings the insurance companies will surely pass on to us.


Yes, the government is forcing you to through legal coersion.  Besides, I know you aren't stupid - You knew what I was talking about.


The same principle would allow the governemnt to require people to unload and lock their guns up in their homes "for their own good".  You made my point very clear.  Thanks.

Should we also ban rock climbing because people can hurt or kill themselves, even though they're endangering no one other than themselves?  

Do it for the [s]children[/s] [i]insurance companies[/i].

[(:|)]

Not [i]until[/i] you get hit... Ehhhhhhh... I won't continue to argue this with you; regardless of the facts our respective... opinions are clear.



FYI&FWIW, "Reckless" involves "willful and wonton disregard, yahdayadha" - head-up-the-butt vs. intentionally driving like a dick. Those actions you listed are [i]careless[/i], and, if they contribute to a wreck (they fequently do) - well, "press hard, five copies."



You're right - and I agree. Should the government have to? No. - Does that sound hypocritical of me? I dunno. Maybe.

The principle of legislative "coersion" doesn't sit well with me any more than it does with you. All I know is that [b][i]this[/i][/b] law does save lives.

Look - every time a state does a "click-it-or-ticket" thing, the percentages of compliance goes up ~ 8-10%.

So what? Well, each percentage point pencils in to about 200 lives saved.

I'll wrap up with this:

[size=5]There is not one philosophical, logical, ethical, or moral reason for anyone not to wear a seatbelt.[/size=5]

P3[pyro][^][heavy]

In that case, it shouldn't be hard to use [b]persuasion[/b] to get everyone to buckle up instead of making it a law, should it? [;)]