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.
How about this..... "I" can ride a motorcycle in without a helmet in 31 states including the state I live in and every state surrounding it. Or, there are only 19 states where "I" can't ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
You "nuances" basically restrict kids.
If you choose to ride your motorcycle with no helmet it’s your choice not a smart on but you’re choice. But you have to buckle up in your car it’s the law like it or not. You can argue all you want it’s dose no good.
I am old enough to remember when you would be driving around and see some moron of a parent with a toddler standing up in the front passenger seat. Used to make my head explode. Wouldn't take much to make that body into a projectile.
My grandkids climb into their car seats in the back, with no problem. I guess calling dibs on the front seat is a thing of the past.
I think Wyoming was one of the last states to institute a seatbelt law, and I liked it. (The first law.) You couldn't be stopped for not wearing one, but if you were stopped for something else and were wearing a seatbelt, its use earned you like a $15 credit toward any fine. That was a good law -- no teeth in it, but it probably encouraged a few people to buckle-up, and it was friendly. You were rewarded for wearing the belt but not punished if you didn't.
Alas, I imagine it wasn't enough to loosen the feds' strings on highway money, so now the state actually has a law where you can be stopped for not wearing a seatbelt. And fined. Actually, I've never heard of anyone being stopped for it, but I imagine it does happen.
I often don't wear one for short trips around town. I know I should. Driving in town is more dangerous than driving on the interstate at 80 mph, but sometimes I just take the gamble. For my job I drive to around a dozen houses daily. Some of them are 100 miles apart, some less than a block. If my drive is a block or two long, I'm not going to do the seatbelt thing. If it's a hundred miles I will. The in betweeners are what I need to work on.
Really. So why did I have to pass a written test, take lessons, attend a 5-hour pre-licensing class, and pass a road test administered by NYS DMV BEFORE getting my license? Why couldn't I just fill out an application, pay a fee, and get right on the road instead, and make my own rules of the road when I got there (like those drivers who rack up a DMV rap sheet)? Why is my keeping my license from being revoked or suspended dependent on me maintaining a clean driving record?
Bullcrap. If you have passengers in the car with you and you get into an accident, your body, as well theirs, becomes a projectile.
You chose to, you didn't HAVE to. Probably for the same reason you answer summons to jury duty.
People comply with the state's BS because everyone else does, or its easier than not complying, or they are afraid of the possible consequences of not complying.
But there are as I said dozens of court findings that state very clearly that driving (non commercially) is a right, and not a privilege. Dozens.
Bullcrap. If you have passengers in the car with you and you get into an accident, your body, as well theirs, becomes a projectile.
What if you have no passengers?
Thats not necessarily true about all crashes. On the expressway I can understand seat belt laws, but regular streets I do not, I rear ended another car back when i was 18 or 19, I hit a stopped car going about 35 mph, I was not wearing a seat belt and my truck at the time did not have airbags. I was not injured in the least, Im now 43 yrs old, never had any neck or back problems due to that crash either.
If they are so concerned with my health and safety, I have my own medical insurance anyway.
I can certainly understand why seat belts are important though, I just do not think it needs to a law to wear them, or a type of offense, everything does not have to be all or nothing.
Thats not necessarily true about all crashes. On the expressway I can understand seat belt laws, but regular streets I do not, I rear ended another car back when i was 18 or 19, I hit a stopped car going about 35 mph, I was not wearing a seat belt and my truck at the time did not have airbags. I was not injured in the least, Im now 43 yrs old, never had any neck or back problems due to that crash either.
If they are so concerned with my health and safety, I have my own medical insurance anyway.
I can certainly understand why seat belts are important though, I just do not think it needs to a law to wear them, or a type of offense, everything does not have to be all or nothing.
What you think does not count because it is the law boy why do people have a hard time accepting the fact that it’s the law so jut click it or ticket your choice. Why do people think they are above the law.
I worked for the rail road and they have an extensive fines for safety violations. For example, not wearing a safety helmet can result in a $10,000 fine which comes out of the employee's pay as well as the employer.
Why such a high fine? Because of human nature. People will violate safety rules and risk their lives without a second thought, but will follow the rules if their is a financial risk.
You chose to, you didn't HAVE to. Probably for the same reason you answer summons to jury duty.
People comply with the state's BS because everyone else does, or its easier than not complying, or they are afraid of the possible consequences of not complying.
But there are as I said dozens of court findings that state very clearly that driving (non commercially) is a right, and not a privilege. Dozens.
This is true, there are definitely court cases that state driving is a right (although there are plenty of others that say it isn't as well). However, the United States Supreme Court, probably the most important case, called driving a right (although 70 years ago, so we'll see how much that changes in the future).
However, in the very next paragraph of the ruling (all paraphrasing/summarizing, obviously), they said that due to public safety, it was a right that states could regulate, require licensing and demonstrating proficiency, and states can restrict that right based upon your (lack of) qualifications or ability to do safely or per the states laws. It states that states have the right to enforce rules and regulations on driving. The ruling continued to say it was a "right" in the sense that the state could not just deny you that right on the basis of someone at the state simply not liking you or any other reason not related to your qualifications to drive and your compliance with laws in doing so. The ruling even went so far as to allow the states to revoke your "right/privilege" to drive for reasons not directly related to your qualifications to drive, such as if you got convicted of another unrelated felony.
So, while technically calling it a right is probably correct (although some states and courts still do not do so), the spirit of the original statement that @zigy100 made "Driving is not an inalienable right. Driving is a privilege with rules and stuff." holds true, even if not totally accurate and is better said 'Driving might be considered a right, but one you are allowed only if you follow the rules and stuff".
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.
