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.
It's not that complicated, people. We pay them to maintain the highways and city streets. Extraneous cleanup calls for an extra fee. They cannot bill you once you're dead, so your speeding ticket is really a fee paid in advance for all the extra mess you're gonna make for them to clean someday.
You want extra pay for any gross, disturbing BS work that gets added to your work load unnecessarily, don'tcha?
Of course you do.
If you want to try to force this "cleanup fee" on people then I hope you plan on applying that same fee to people who drive motorcycles, smokers, people who drink alcohol, people who often cause wrecks,...
Statistics, laws, and data reports mean nothing--nothing--if an individual, for any reason whatsoever, believes that wearing a seat belt may lead to their death. No one has a right to take away another person's control over their own life. It is their right to prevent their own death as they so see fit, and in that instance, for that person, seat belt laws are meaningless, save to punish them monetarily. Which is the point of such laws. $$$$. About people who don't wear seat belts raising health care costs? Let's lower health care costs. Lets reduce them by reducing the fraud (by doctors and patients), have less doctors prescribing needless medications, eliminate made-up disorders, limit malpractice award amounts, and refuse people who go to the doctor for a hangnail.
It's not about insurance costs. Higher insurance premiums was the only foot the "pro" crowd had to stand on and so they all jumped on the bandwagon. Nearly all the rest of their arguments have been that I'm gonna hurt myself.
Yes, there needs to be a law against me hurting myself.
I'm starting this thread after a lengthy conversation with a police officer today. How do you posters feel about seatbelt laws? Personally, I feel like it gives officers too much authority. Nobody will be harmed, but yourself for not wearing a seatbelt. Shouldn't there be public awareness campaigns rather than law enforcement of the issue?
Even though I am against for forcing people to wear seatbelts I understand the point behind it. I do not agree that it only harms the person. If that person gets so messed up, has no insurance, who will pick up the tab? Would you agree to simply take that person to his house and not do anything about it if he is all messed up? I venture to guess that if some town out there says not seatbelts are required to wear and you hear that someone got messed up the the city would spend a dime on the guy you would throw your arms up and say how cruel the town was. If you want to enforce your rigths, enforce YOUR responsibilites and do not demand the city or others to pay for the consequences of your actions. Take care.
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.
As I stated previously, civil law is "contract law" ... and those items you mentioned are contracts. But in order to attain "relief", or due compensation under a contract, one must prove that liability ... if such relief sought is compensation for damages, one must prove damage occurred, otherwise no relief will be ordered.
In the case of State vs Bozo, legitimately the state should be able to prove damage caused by Bozo for it to get the sought relief. Get it? Show me how Bozo cause $200 in damage to the state for not wearing his seat belt, and then that compensation sought by the state would be legit. Otherwise, no.
If you opened your car door into mine, but caused no damage because you had one of those big bumpers on your door ... I would not get very far in trying to recover damages, because there were no damages to recover! But if you dented my car, then there would be. Why is this so hard for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
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.
That would be damage, no? And it wouldn't matter if you were a dancer or unemployed, you'd get compensated for the loss of a limb. If you were Joe the Plumber you might get a certain amount .. but if you were Peyton Manning and your salary was 35 Million a year, you'd be awarded a whole lot more, because you'd be entitled to actual damages. Manning is due to make 100 Million over the next three years, while Joe Plumber might only make 1 million for the rest of his life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
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?
What? Not just to recover damages but to "mitigate" the cost of damages??? WTF are you talking about here ... you're talking in circles. Stop already, before you do irreparable harm to yourself. Compensation is what "mitigates" damages ... what do you think it means? That's what mitigate means ... to lesson the impact of ... reduce the severity ... relieve the pain .... of damage caused.
Furthermore, civil law includes a wide variety of areas, and there are countless examples. You're trying to mix them altogether as if it were one thing. A Will or Trust has nothing whatsoever to do with accident litigation .. which has nothing to do with international commerce ... which has nothing to do with divorces ... but all of those fall under the big umbrella of civil law ... which covers everything except criminal law.
Perhaps we should just let this die before you drive yourself and me crazy.
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.
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!
So is it about safety? Or is it about money? If its about safety, then outlaw all cigarettes. Outlaw alcohol. They are responsible for many more deaths. Car accident fatalities: 40k Smoking related casualties: 400k
I am not saying the seat belts are of no use, but any LAW that collects a fee for no use is the bad part of the law..
NH has no such foolish law and i am as free to go with no belt as i am with no lid when i ride... I do however at all times wear a holster since it is against my law to just shove a .45 in my belt with not very good retention .....
Some safety gear is essential.
it's too bad there wasn't a holster LAW for all of legal age.
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.
The cost to my freedom to choose is immeasurable though! My freedom to choose how I see best to live my life is much more valuable than anything else on this planet. What freedoms are you willing to give up so readily? Is there nothing you wouldn't give up just because it was "good for you"? Are you willing to have a gun (proverbial government gun) put to your head to save your life or to save some money?
The cost to my freedom to choose is immeasurable though! My freedom to choose how I see best to live my life is much more valuable than anything else on this planet. What freedoms are you willing to give up so readily? Is there nothing you wouldn't give up just because it was "good for you"? Are you willing to have a gun (proverbial government gun) put to your head to save your life or to save some money?
I guess this is the point I was trying to make. You hit it on the head.
Perhaps we should just let this die before you drive yourself and me crazy.
beyond the fact that you have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not understand CIVIL law, where is your comment on the fact that the courts have already determined that Driving is a privilege and not a right.
this is the fourth time you have ignored this point, which is in direct opposition of your opinion that driving is a right, that you made 3 pages ago. keep on running away like you always do, when confronted with facts.
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.
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.
