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.
Gawd, if your to lazy to look at the state by state law and impact. . .then whatever. Go hide your head in the sand. Its not like this data is hidden.
Air Bags are a factor too (of course), and the two trends go hand in hand . . .
The paper deals with that. Note, the paper cites all the data from the main agency that reports those statistics. I am not sure why you are being so defensive here, there are issues with the assumptions made concerning the data. I would think you would be interested in the facts, but you seem to be arguing for a specific conclusion. That is why statistics out of a liars mouth is simply... a lie. The point is, we shouldn't be trying to argue a position, but evaluating what the data actually represents.
There was a time when conservatives used logical and rational arguments. How I miss those days...
A good many people wouldn't recognize logic if it hit them square in the face ... and I dare say that describes you too, from what I've gathered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Ah, accidents are "outlawed" which is why those who cause them are cited for any number of violations of traffic codes?!?
Actually, the trend has been moving to the "no-fault" concept of accidents, and unless there is bodily injury, many jurisdictions won't even file a report on non-injury accidents. And unless the cause is obvious, no investigation is even engaged unless serious injury has occurred.
This isn't the case everywhere ... but it's growing in popularity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
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.
Funny ... I was probably driving (without a seat belt) before you were born. And your understanding of common law would need to drastically improve to reach the 16 year old level.
And there is no such thing as "regulatory" law". Statute law must be consistent with and not in violation of the constitution (which is common law) otherwise it is null and void ... or no law at all. That, for your information is defined as "unconstitutional", when a statute is contrary to the supreme law. That you would think that statutes and regulations trump the constitution just shows how out of touch with reality you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
See Godwin's Law: game, set and match. You're done!
You're right ... sometimes one must simply bow to the absurd.
This statement proves you do not know the difference between a privilege and a right
No .. I know the difference. But you sure don't seem to .. and go back a page or two and review the court decisions I referenced that disagrees with you too.
Because the government wants to impose a carbon tax on you (and most of you liberal types are all in favor of that) they are in effect telling you that breathing is not a right, but a privilege. You cannot charge someone a fee or a fine for exercising a right .... that too was cited by the court cases referenced earlier.
Read, educate yourself, and learn. Then you won't come across like this in front of everyone. It's embarrassing .. show a little self respect.
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?
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. Beyond you personally stopping yourself from breathing, you can't control how others breathe.
Co2 is a natural byproduct of the human body. CO2 emissions from cars can be curbed througn invention, and innovation. Unless you know away to biologically change the human byproduct, one cannot stop a human from expelling CO2 gasses.
so before you blather on, why do you and everyone else who says driving is a right, ignore the court case that explicitly stated that Driving is a privilege?
To me the issue is purely economic. If you want to wrap yourself around a street light or bounce off the pavement knock yourself out. Just don't expect Uncle Sam to put you back together again.
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.
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.
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.
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? Since legitimate civil law requires damages be present for a case to be made, what damage can the state claim to have suffered by my actions? NONE. There is no damage and therefore no legitimate civil case.
But I'll tell you how they get away with this, if you'd like to become better informed. They get away with this through your alleged voluntary agreement to abide by these administrative "rules" under the contract you signed in applying for and accepting a driver permit! So it's contract law, which is administrative in nature, that does not require damages to be incurred in order for a violation of the terms of the contract to take place.
Trouble is, legal contracts have to be fully disclosed and voluntary .. not forced or coerced. And you really didn't agree voluntarily ... you were forced, under color of law to ask for and attain that permit which constitutes this alleged voluntary agreement, under threat of incarceration for non-compliance. So it wasn't voluntary at all, and therefore the contract is invalid. And it is a further fraud to claim that no one is forced to get a driver license, because you can simply not drive. In order to travel, which you have a right to do, the state is requiring that license under threat of prosecution. So they are violating your right to travel right from the start, then forcing you to comply with contractual requirements stipulated in that forced contract. This is indeed criminal conduct on the part of the state ... racketeering, essentially. There is little difference between this, and the mafia selling "fire insurance".
Now, the practical, functional difference between seat belt laws and say .. traffic regulation such as speed limits and stop signs and traffic lights is this ... obeying traffic regulation does prevent inevitable harm from occurring that would certainly be expected as a result of not obeying it, which renders it's legitimacy, whereas wearing or not wearing a seat belt does not have this predictable affect in general practice. Speeding through a red light at rush hour will almost certainly cause harm, and constitutes recklessness. And such recklessness itself is unlawful behavior because of the high risk and likelihood of harm, be it operating a vehicle or other types of recklessness. Not wearing a seat belt does not constitute such negligent behavior, 1) because it is unlikely to cause harm directly .. and 2) the potential consequences of not wearing a belt cannot be predetermined .... there are situations where not wearing a safety belt can be beneficial. I know this first hand ... because an old roommate years ago struck a telephone pole in a Chevy ... he was ejected out of the drivers side window, and when the car came to rest, the steering column was pushed into the front seat where his chest would have been, and the driver cockpit area was squashed. The EMTs responding told him how fortunate he was that he was not wearing his seat belt, else he would surely have been killed.
Given the variability of outcomes, pro and con, wearing a seat belt should be a personal decision, and not a requirement by law. Today, he'd probably get a ticket for not wearing the belt that also saved his life. That's the new liberal logic of the 21st century, and the new version of American liberty which says you are free to do as you are told, or else!
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).
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.
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
