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.
Reading comprehension problems? I chose neither side of the arguement but rather pointed out facts to the OP.
You can pick and choose which laws you want to obey; however, in doing so one must be willing to accept the price. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
I think that may be a bit of a stretch. Motorcycles are accepted modes of transportation. Some modes of transportation bear inherently higher risks than others - but we still think they are acceptable. You see, you could also argue that car accidents cause many more fatalities and injuries than train travel and that you should, consequently, prohibit the automobile and reinvest in much safer train travel.
Next you could argue that walking is safer and causes even fewer deaths....
Since none of that makes any sense, it's not really a valid point. What is a valid point is that we can make the modes of transport we deem acceptable a bit safer. Some believe that laws (such as seat belt and helmet laws) are the way to go...
Isn't all of it based on risk though?? If your trying to outlaw risks, or choosing laws that lower risk, then why not cut out the riskiest practices??
Which is safer? Riding a motorcycle or driving without a seat belt??
I'm stupid for not wearing a seat belt but a biker is not considered stupid for driving a motorcycle. Doesn't make sense.
I am for seat belt laws for anyone that isn't an adult. If you are an adult and you want to gamble your life away despite overwhelming evidence that seat belts save lives, then whatever. You will do what you want to do at that point. Just as long as you are not endangering someone that is less able to make an informed decision, then have at it.
Same thing with a car going underwater. I always take mine off on bridges over waterways. I've been nabbed twice for no belt. I think they should go back to it not being the sole reason for a stop.
I do this, too. And I roll my windows down.
I thought it was still required to be a secondary violation. Maybe it depends on the state.
Why should I be obligated to research your post history when my comment was directed solely at the comment as expressed?
There's nothing narcissitic in my post.
Why do people insist on relying on red herrings and false analogies. You would have been better off by asking me if I am favor of mandatory helmet laws. And yes as a motorcyclist I believe in mandatory helmet laws. As for alcohol besides being another red herring, in this context only becomes an issue when it is abused.
As for cigarettes. Even as a smoker, I would greatly appreciate it if the government did outlaw it. It would save me the time, effort and money that I've wasted trying to quit.
Any other questions?
No. I get it. You want the government to outlaw all things unsafe. I understand your stance on seat belt laws, just disagree with it.
I am for seat belt laws for anyone that isn't an adult. If you are an adult and you want to gamble your life away despite overwhelming evidence that seat belts save lives, then whatever. You will do what you want to do at that point. Just as long as you are not endangering someone that is less able to make an informed decision, then have at it.
I thought it was still required to be a secondary violation. Maybe it depends on the state.
Not in KY. I was pulled over for simply not wearing a seat belt. The cop who was going in the opposite direction busted a U-turn and raced to come pull me over and give me a seat belt ticket.
A child seat is the same type of restraint as a seat belt. Are you really advocating for a little girl to suffer agonizing pain becuase she was required by the law to wear a defice that restrained her from escaping from flames?
How sadistic can you be?
Child seats are not at all the same. The harness is not flexible like a seatbelt, once it's adjusted to fit the child, it doesn't move. When the child gets bigger, you have to readjust it. Also a child seat has a five point harness, not three. I don't see why they couldn't just cut the belt off, either way, in your scenario.
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.
