Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should seatbelt laws exist?
Yes 190 62.91%
No 104 34.44%
Unsure 8 2.65%
Voters: 302. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-20-2012, 04:56 PM
 
14,893 posts, read 8,511,936 times
Reputation: 7322

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
If you did, you wouldn't have made such a stupid statement in the first place.

If you did know the difference, you would know that Breathing is a natural biological occurrence, therefore its not a privilege nor it is a right.
And you say I MAKE STUPID STATEMENTS?

Look ... if you have a "right" to life ... and I assume we would all agree to that, but I'm hesitant to make any assumptions with some of you ... so maybe I'm going out on a limb here ....

But for the sake of argument, I'll just assume you agree you have a "right" to live. The last time I f*** checked, breathing was one of the big prerequisites, and very few manage to continue living without breathing. So, by that simple calculation of cause and effect ... breathing would have to be a "right" also. So which one of us is missing something here?

What's that old saying about it being better to say nothing and let people think you are %^^% .. rather than open your mouth and prove them correct? Maybe you should try that, cuz this ain't working in your favor at all.

 
Old 08-20-2012, 05:01 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,252,197 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
The basis of civil law also requires a damaged party. In a civil suit for example, you have to prove damage, otherwise you have no case. And the damages have to be real, not perceived or potential damage. That doesn't cut the mustard.
What I bolded in red is that start of a FALSE statement. And from there you follow a faulty train logic because of this.

Civil law does NOT require a damaged party. Civil law is in place to help settle disputes and provide compensation (not necessarily from any "damage"). It could be a simple contract dispute (one party doesn't honor a portion of the contract), to handling the probate of wills, trusts and property claims. It can also just be a violation of established laws, where a party fails to follow laws that are in place.

If I lose a leg in a car accident because of the fault of a teenager texting while driving, and what I do is dependent on having two legs (ie a professional dancer), I can sue that person for any potential earnings I would be losing due to having the loss of my leg and any hospital care that resulted from the accident.


Quote:
If I'm sitting at a traffic light, or even driving down the road, and a cop pulls me over for not wearing a seat belt, what damage have I caused?
Confusion is on your part. Civil laws aren't just to recover for damages. they are also in place to MITIGATE cost of damages and injuries. Do you know and understand the definition of mitigate?



I still fail to see your blather where you addressed that the courts have already determined that Driving is a privilege and not a right.


MILLER v. REED, No.

Quote:
The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous.   The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it.   What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.

...

Miller does not have a fundamental “right to drive.”   In Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 112-16, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a state could summarily suspend or revoke the license of a motorist who had been repeatedly convicted of traffic offenses with due process satisfied by a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation had taken place.   The Court conspicuously did not afford the possession of a driver's license the weight of a fundamental right.   See also Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979);  Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 542-43, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971).


In sum, Miller does not have a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle, and the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede his right to interstate travel by denying him a driver's license.
 
Old 08-20-2012, 05:02 PM
 
19,023 posts, read 25,890,531 times
Reputation: 7365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Which is the EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE

I'd like to ask your opinion of Air Bags: Do you approve of air bags?
Just on air bags it depends..... It depends on what the risk is.

If that is mostly another car then they can be a god send...

If the risk is something that hits the hood high and smashes the windshield pillars it is a sin.

Like Moose in New England... In moose country you want the air bags OFF....
 
Old 08-20-2012, 05:03 PM
 
8,483 posts, read 6,906,215 times
Reputation: 1119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
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.



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.
First off the word "criminal" wasn't to be taken literally. Your second presumptive statement about Big Brother is completely wrong.

There are those who support individual liberties and teaching people responsibility. For you to assume those that understand the difference, don't need a nanny state and are somehow "offenders" is highly prejudicial and lacking in discernment.

I suppose the women who get raped were asking for it as well.

I think you missed the part discussing color of law,safety and legality. If someone has been caused harm or damages then clearly they are due.

Last edited by CDusr; 08-20-2012 at 05:27 PM..
 
Old 08-20-2012, 05:03 PM
 
14,893 posts, read 8,511,936 times
Reputation: 7322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Onions View Post
I look at it as a cost-benefits analysis:

What are the costs of wearing a seat-belt?
What are the costs of not wearing a seat belt?

Wearing?
Three seconds of time each time you get in the car. Maybe a second of time when you exit (you push the button and the seat belt releases, going back to its original position).

Not wearing?
about $26,000,000,000/year (in the year 2000 dollars -- adjust upward accordingly)
Wearing Your Seatbelt Could Save Billions - ABC News
CDC - Seat Belt Policy Impact Brief - Motor Vehicle Safety - Injury Center

So I am a for. The costs for wearing are trivial, the costs of not wearing are substantial, even for those who do wear them.
My old roommate would very much disagree with you, and you'd lose the argument, big time. The EMTs told him he would surely have died had he been wearing his seat belt, and not ejected out of the driver side window.

Now I dare say that if I have a direct connection to someone who's life was saved by not wearing a seat belt ... what do you think the chances are that he's the only one?

One has to treat "statistics" with a grain of salt ... because statistics can, and often do take the same data and come to opposite conclusions.
 
Old 08-20-2012, 05:04 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,936,824 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
If I lose a leg in a car accident because of the fault of a teenager texting while driving, and what I do is dependent on having two legs (ie a professional dancer), I can sue that person for any potential earnings I would be losing due to having the loss of my leg and any hospital care that resulted from the accident.
Which also raises another issue, your damage claims would be limited if it can be demonstrated that your failure to use a seat belt was a contributing factor to your injury.
 
Old 08-20-2012, 05:14 PM
 
Location: West Egg
2,160 posts, read 1,947,514 times
Reputation: 1297
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
My old roommate would very much disagree with you, and you'd lose the argument, big time. The EMTs told him he would surely have died had he been wearing his seat belt, and not ejected out of the driver side window.

Now I dare say that if I have a direct connection to someone who's life was saved by not wearing a seat belt ... what do you think the chances are that he's the only one?
No, I wouldn't -- and I pity your inability to see the glaringly obvious. Seat belts save lives. That they may, on very rare occasion, cost a life is as immaterial as the fact that ambulances sometimes kill people in collisions when speeding to a hospital. In the same way that this fact does not negate the overwhelmingly positive aspect of ambulances, your trite little tale says nothing whatsoever about the overall benefit of seat belts. Your point is as insipidly moronic as claiming that eating is bad because someone occasionally chokes to death on a steak, or dies of food poisoning.

Quote:
One has to treat "statistics" with a grain of salt ... because statistics can, and often do take the same data and come to opposite conclusions.
Hilarious! You serve up a second-hand anecdote as proof-positive that wearing seat belts is bad, then admonish people not to believe the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration!



You people really do live in your own self-contained fantasy worlds, where you've immunized yourself from all reality that might conflict with what you desperately wish to believe!
 
Old 08-20-2012, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Texas
1,187 posts, read 992,096 times
Reputation: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
What a good sheeple (pats you on the head).
I always wear a seatbealt and I can NOT stand the stupid nanny laws! And I just LOVE how those who love nanny laws will change their excuses from them from "have you seen the horrible accidents if nanny laws aren't in place" to "it costs tax payers millions of dollars if nanny laws aren't there". When in reality the nanny laws and the implementations of them cost much more to the tax payers than any possible problems they supposedly solve!

Too many people are all too willing to give up their personal freedom for "to protect someone" or to "save money", without understanding the actual costs to their wallets AND Their own personal choices.
 
Old 08-20-2012, 05:26 PM
 
Location: USA
13,255 posts, read 12,081,024 times
Reputation: 4228
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
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.
Great logic.

The person who CAUSED the wreck should take no blame...

That's the worst statement I've heard all day.
 
Old 08-20-2012, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,385,259 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyndsong71 View Post
I always wear a seatbealt and I can NOT stand the stupid nanny laws! And I just LOVE how those who love nanny laws will change their excuses from them from "have you seen the horrible accidents if nanny laws aren't in place" to "it costs tax payers millions of dollars if nanny laws aren't there". When in reality the nanny laws and the implementations of them cost much more to the tax payers than any possible problems they supposedly solve!

Too many people are all too willing to give up their personal freedom for "to protect someone" or to "save money", without understanding the actual costs to their wallets AND Their own personal choices.
Lots of nanny laws are stupid. I agree with you on that point.

It will take you more time to read this post than to click a seatbelt. The cost to click is zero.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top