Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your first statement is not a question. Your 2nd statement is assuming I'm gonna die in a car crash. I'm pretty sure there were lots of Americans still living before there were seatbelt laws.
And you still are enjoying a privilege of driving, therefore you accept that privilege by respecting those traffic laws of the state.
You run a much higher risk of dying in a car crash without wearing a seatbelt. Before seatbelt laws, people did die in traffic accidents to do not wearing a seatbelt...therefore there is a reason why this law exists in the first place.
If you accept the premise that driving is a privilege and not a right, then you have to accept the rules of the privilege - and if that rule includes wearing a seatbelt, then wear a seatbelt. If you don't then you have to accept the consequences.
I understand that some insurance companies limit your coverages if you are injured in an accident and not wearing your seatbelt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Exactly. People keep forgetting that they may be driving around in their own car, but they're driving on property belonging to someone else.
You've heard of "My house, my rules"? Well, their highway, their rules. Simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Driving is a privilege not a right, therefore seat belt laws fall in the same category of speed limit laws. If you wish to take part in this privilege, then you must obey the rules that are set up. If you don't like those laws, you are also welcome to not drive.
If the fear of getting a ticket is enough to make you wear a seatbelt, then the law is working.
People in our country think that every law is about rights, when it comes to driving it is about privilege, those are two different things.
What we are debating here is whether they should be laws or not. We the people should have some voice in what laws get passed and what laws don't.
How would some of you feel if we lobbied to outlaw motorcycles? Or lobbied to outlaw drivers over a certain age?
Memphis1979, I merely argue the point because it is the topic at hand. I would never go out of my way to complain to my state, I have better things to do; I just deal with it.
Urbanlife78, Yes I understand what you are saying but again, the topic at hand is are you for or against the seatbelt law. Yes I am against it, but I do wear one as many people do. Just because I wear one for fear of receiving a ticket doesnt really prove anything. We are talking about are you for or against. And choosing to wear a seatbelt should be a right and as you stated driving is a privilage that many should not have.
Pullmyfinger, I understand what you are saying, but if I didnt wear one, thats the risk I take. We take risks everyday. Again, I see all these safety requirements just adding to the already large population. Less population = less people driving = less accidents.
I personally dont wear seatbelts and instead have dark tinted windows on my car preventing an officer from seeing whether I'm wearing one or not. I'll just put on the seatbelt before the officer gets to my window if pulled over. I dont like the feeling of being strapped in. Never caught a seatbelt ticket but have been ticketed for the tints. Here in NYC if you go to a shop and send in a reciept along with the ticket within either 24 or 48hrs (I forget) stating that the tints were removed, they will dismiss the ticket. Its been quite a while since I've gotten a tinted window ticket so the laws may have changed since then.
I think if you're not wearing a seatbelt the paramedics should not treat you.
You make the choice.
And this defines the mentality of liberal compassion.
A person is driving along, but not wearing a seat belt. Another person who is wearing his seat belt comes recklessly flying through a red light, smashing into the him broadside.
The paramedics should attend to the reckless driver at fault, and let the innocent driver bleed to death.
This is the upside down world through the eyes of a person suffering from liberalitis.
Arent highways and roads payed for and maintained by US the taxpaying citizens?
Yeah, and I pay rent to my landlord every month. But for some reason, they have the right to tell me how big a dog I can move in here.
Would you tell someone "You have no right to tell me what I can do in my own clothes!" after walking into their house with a lit doobie?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
What we are debating here is whether they should be laws or not.
That is correct. And my argument is that seatbelt laws are justified in that they help (help) keep onlookers (particularly children) from being traumatized and that so long as the city/state has to deal with the cleanup, the city/state reserves the right to decide how much to charge for the extraneous mess. They can't bill you once you're already dead, so they make you pay the fee beforehand, like so many other optional services.
What we are debating here is whether they should be laws or not. We the people should have some voice in what laws get passed and what laws don't.
How would some of you feel if we lobbied to outlaw motorcycles? Or lobbied to outlaw drivers over a certain age?
If you honestly care, get involved with you local and state governments, they are made up with people that live in your state and this is a law that was written by the people of Illinois and reflects the people of your state. If you think it shouldn't be a law, there is nothing stopping you from trying to change such a law.
As for your other examples, we do regulate motorcycles much like cars, also many insurance companies have much higher costs depending on type of bike. Also we do outlaw certain ages of driving, right now it is just below a certain age, 16 depending on state to state. As for too old, I do think there should be checks made once you hit a certain age to see if you are still able to drive, which is why I also think there should be solid funding in alternative transportation to allow people who can't drive to have ways to get around conveniently.
Yeah, and I pay rent to my landlord every month. But for some reason, they have the right to tell me how big a dog I can move in here.
Would you tell someone "You have no right to tell me what I can do in my own clothes!" after walking into their house with a lit doobie?
That is correct. And my argument is that seatbelt laws are justified in that they help (help) keep onlookers (particularly children) from being traumatized and that so long as the city/state has to deal with the cleanup, the city/state reserves the right to decide how much to charge for the extraneous mess. They can't bill you once you're already dead, so they make you pay the fee beforehand, like so many other optional services.
You're way off course here by comparing tax funded highways to that of a privately owned home.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
