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.
That is a pretty weak paper. They do as much cherry picking as other people on hear. I mean limiting saves by only people going through a window? LIes lies and statistics.
A more telling argument for the "for" is not looking at crashes, but instead looking at overall trends. The truth of the matter is that we are down to 1.48 fatalities per 100M miles traveled versus 3.35 in 1975. The trend didn't even start to sway or change until seat belt rules were put in place (and seat belt use grew).
For instance, this paper makes a big deal on the data. . .but with less injuries (due to seat belts) there are less items being reported. Its counter-intuitive their focus. Its better to just focus on seat belt laws, when they went into place, and fatality and injury rates
There's just as many holes in your argument.
Do you think airbags had anything to do with the drop?? Or safer cars? Maybe harsher DUI laws? Better healthcare?
This is a bizarre mentality to me. Either something is safe or unsafe. You educate people.
even the smartest of men can do stupid things. And you are in a position where you are always relying on what OTHERS will be doing.
I could be the safest driver in the world. follow all the laws, go the speed limit. do not enter traffic without looking, and all it takes is ONE inattentive #$#@ who doesn't, who will send me to the hospital with a broken leg or arm, because he/she didn't do what I do on the road.
driving is inherently not safe. That's the problem you all fail to realize. We put laws into effect to help MAKE it safer. That's why we have rules to follow and laws to regulate. We are mitigating injuries, not stopping them.
Quote:
Making it a criminal offense generates revenue and makes people criminals.
Seat Belt laws are CIVIL laws. YOU do know the difference between a CIVIL law and a criminal one, correct?
And if you follow the law, how could you be branded/or pay into the system? Seems to me, that those who want to get fined, are the ones that disobey the laws, so they have something to complain about.
I've been driving for 27 years. I have never once, paid a speeding ticket or any moving violation ticket. I've never paid a ticket for not wearing my seat belt. I even make sure I wear my helmet (required by law in my state) when I'm riding my motorcycle (in fact, I own a full set of racing leathers and boots to help up my chances of not getting injured by riding).
Those who harp about "big brother" are the very ones responsible for the government for putting more laws a regulations in place by GIVING them reason to play big brother.
So, I'm not sure what the point here. Something akin to liberty being taken away (with a lot of words). Here is the deal.
Governments build roads for public use, If you want to use the roads, you must follow regulations
- 55mph
-20 in a kids zone
- must be 16
- can't drink and drive
-Car must be in a certain condition (i.e. emissions)
- your lights must work
The regulations, wrong or for the better, are built by Public, Industry, and the Government. The rules are a blend of rules to prevent accidents (such as cornering speeds) as well as fines. You need a carrot (do this) and a stick (if you dont).
The idea that police just sit around and wait for accidents, and everyone has a free for all until then. . .t wouldn't make driving very safe would it?
If someone wants the Liberty to not wear the seatbelt, I'm okay but the law should be adapted
- Insurance company can deny claims (medical and auto)
- Hospital can deny admittance (unless you pass your credit check and ability to pay)
- you are denied any medicare/medicaid/SSN support due to your incapacity
- your kids are denied any medicare/medicaid/SSN support due to your incapacity
Why don't you just list all of the above for the person who actually causes the wreck??
There was a time when conservatives used logical and rational arguments. How I miss those days...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Yes ... but it is the accident that causes the harm and not the seat belt. So outlaw accidents, and punish the guilty!
Ah, accidents are "outlawed" which is why those who cause them are cited for any number of violations of traffic codes?!?
Quote:
The point is,
If there is one.
Quote:
preemptive laws, of any kind, dole out punishment in the absence of an incident of crime or harm, and is totally antithetical to liberty, freedom, and most importantly, justice under common law.
Wearing a seat belt is punitive, and only a 16 year old would even begin to attempt to argue that it is an unreasonable restriction on their liberty or freedom. As for common law it would be nice if for a change you actually understood that common law is nothing more than following established principles based upon previous judicial rulings and that common law does not trump statutory or regulatory law.
Quote:
It's brutish Nazi like thought crime enforcement that creates a population of slaves ruled by thuggery and force.
See Godwin's Law: game, set and match. You're done!
Why don't you just list all of the above for the person who actually causes the wreck??
The person who CAUSED the wreck should take no blame in injuries that could of been prevented if you took reasonable precautions (i.e. seatbelt). Anything else, feel free to charge him for.
That is a pretty weak paper. They do as much cherry picking as other people on hear. I mean limiting saves by only people going through a window? LIes lies and statistics.
Actually, they are picking holes in the statistics that is used to defend the position of it being more safe. That is the entire point here, statistics are being manipulated in support of seat belts as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
A more telling argument for the "for" is not looking at crashes, but instead looking at overall trends. The truth of the matter is that we are down to 1.48 fatalities per 100M miles traveled versus 3.35 in 1975. The trend didn't even start to sway or change until seat belt rules were put in place (and seat belt use grew).
Overall doesn't always help as it does not identify why something occurs or not. It would be like saying that we have more tornadoes now than we had in the past. The "overall" trend would suggest such, but when you look at the details, you see that they are now calculated differently (we include all F0+ now while previous analysis only tracked F2+) and our technology now allows for satellite tracking while sight and eye witness report was primarily the means before. You wouldn't know that if you simply looked at the over all trends and this is why it is important to pick at the details of the data, for to ignore such is simply an exercise in serving the bias of whoever is doing the "overall" analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
For instance, this paper makes a big deal on the data. . .but with less injuries (due to seat belts) there are less items being reported. Its counter-intuitive their focus. Its better to just focus on seat belt laws, when they went into place, and fatality and injury rates
I think they cover that in the paper and points out the issues with the evaluations being done. The entire problem here is there is too much speculation being used to drive a position. Like you said "lies, damn lies, and statistics".
Do you think airbags had anything to do with the drop?? Or safer cars? Maybe harsher DUI laws? Better healthcare?
Your leaving out a lot of variables.
There are also problems (as the paper points out) with how they classify things. For instance, the statistics on "ejections" defines such with loose and minimal requirements such as a persons hand being injured because it was outside the window. They call that an "ejection" and that is extremely misleading and skews the analysis.
So, I'm not sure what the point here. Something akin to liberty being taken away (with a lot of words).
Sorry, I know that in the modern world of twitter and tweating ... attention spans have shrunk to the size of a mouse. Sorry, I'm old school, and complex thoughts cannot be condensed into one liners. It's this overuse of one liners that has created a populace that can no longer think critically and analyze anything more complex than tic tac toe logic. This is perhaps our greatest problem today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
Here is the deal.
Governments build roads for public use, If you want to use the roads, you must follow regulations
- 55mph
-20 in a kids zone
- must be 16
- can't drink and drive
-Car must be in a certain condition (i.e. emissions)
- your lights must work
The regulations, wrong or for the better, are built by Public, Industry, and the Government. The rules are a blend of rules to prevent accidents (such as cornering speeds) as well as fines. You need a carrot (do this) and a stick (if you dont).
Sorry again .. but "government" can't build an anthill. Government is a concept, not a thing or a person capable of building ANYTHING. Nor does government have a penny to build such roads even if it could ... it is our labor and our money that created the roads for our use. (You must be confused like Obama ... "you didn't build that" Yes We Did Build That)
And courts have agreed that travel is a right, not a privilege:
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489
The confusion you suffer from was well ingrained into you by fraudulent "color of law" enforcement, and not necessarily your fault. Even most police officers, politicians, lawyers and judges either don't know, or choose to ignore the law with regard to right of travel under the constitution. Texas knows this, which is why only "commercial drivers" engaged in commerce which is subject to such licensing are required to have a driver license under the Texas Constitution and Texas Statutes. But you had better be prepared to spend nights in jail and spend lots of money on attorney fees to secure that right, because it will be violated and you will be prosecuted for not having a driver license. That's a fact. It's wrong, but that's the reality, because there is no consequence to the police or the courts for prosecuting such cases other than losing the case ... so they continue doing so, in spite of the law, rather than because of it.
Unfortunately, too few even know their rights, and therefore the few who do are literally forced to comply because of the difficulty and costs for non-compliance. If EVERYONE knew their right to drive without need of a license, and chose to exercise that right, this lawless behavior of the state would come to an immediate, screeching halt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
The idea that police just sit around and wait for accidents, and everyone has a free for all until then. . .t wouldn't make driving very safe would it?
With the levels of real crime that exists, the police have plenty to do, and should be doing that ... addressing crime and arresting criminals and not serving as revenue collectors on our nation's highways and roads. We'd be all much safer if they did that, instead of checking to see if you're wearing a seat belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
If someone wants the Liberty to not wear the seatbelt, I'm okay but the law should be adapted
- Insurance company can deny claims (medical and auto)
- Hospital can deny admittance (unless you pass your credit check and ability to pay)
- you are denied any medicare/medicaid/SSN support due to your incapacity
- your kids are denied any medicare/medicaid/SSN support due to your incapacity
No one is asking your permission or opinion on the matter. Your signature does not appear on that piece of parchment known as the constitution, and therefor your personal views of the matter are irrelevant, and thank God for small favors. Unfortunately, your opinions represent the majority, so you are far from alone. Nevertheless, it is the ignorance of the populace regarding their rights which allows them to be violated so flagrantly and repeatedly. And it is unfortunate though true that a right not exercised is a right lost.
The ignorance has gone on so long, it has become stupidity as we now go so far as to demand that our own rights be violated and taken away. And that really is crazy.
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.
This statement proves you do not know the difference between a privilege and a right
