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.
The results completely flipped from the initial poll.
All that your poll has suggested so far is that is is about even and that the people who voted in the first one have yet to vote in this one. Did you know 300 votes is more than 34 vote....I know right, it is mind blowing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
My time is money. I don't need some officer to come waste my time and money over a seat belt and then go hop back in his car and get back to his cell phone conversation.
Well now you are going off opinion, if your time is money, then I suggest you don't break the law and you won't be wasting money. It is funny that I never get pulled over because I always wear my seat belt and I don't drive recklessly. Maybe you should give it a try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
Why don't you just tax dangerous drivers and go after the people your really upset at.
We kind of do tax dangerous drivers, have you ever seen the premiums with the insurance with someone who is a dangerous driver, it is extremely high. Also dangerous drivers do lose their license and sometimes have to deal with complications such a breathalyzers when they break the law by driving drunk. But fun fact about that, those who lose their license from bad driving are still free to travel anywhere in the country, they just can't do it behind the wheel.
It is good to see you have still yet to bring any facts to the table, while I have brought several. It is hard to state a case when it is nothing but opinions, but then again someone who is debating with nothing but opinions is usually gonna ignore facts because how could their opinions ever be wrong.
All that your poll has suggested so far is that is is about even and that the people who voted in the first one have yet to vote in this one. Did you know 300 votes is more than 34 vote....I know right, it is mind blowing.
Well now you are going off opinion, if your time is money, then I suggest you don't break the law and you won't be wasting money. It is funny that I never get pulled over because I always wear my seat belt and I don't drive recklessly. Maybe you should give it a try.
Just because something is law, doesn't mean its just. I would be locked up back in the day for making love to my partner. Is homosexuality justified? Did you support Jim Crow laws as well? You have no point.
And I've never been pulled over for any traffic violation other than speeding and running a stop sign. The running the stop sign was an issue of a cop racial profiling. I nearly got T-boned by some idiot running a stop sign. My co-worker was shocked at the situation.
We kind of do tax dangerous drivers, have you ever seen the premiums with the insurance with someone who is a dangerous driver, it is extremely high. Also dangerous drivers do lose their license and sometimes have to deal with complications such a breathalyzers when they break the law by driving drunk. But fun fact about that, those who lose their license from bad driving are still free to travel anywhere in the country, they just can't do it behind the wheel.
That is an insurance rate, not a law. There's a difference. People are not criminals because they're not wearing a seat belt. I don't care what you try to sell me.
It is good to see you have still yet to bring any facts to the table, while I have brought several. It is hard to state a case when it is nothing but opinions, but then again someone who is debating with nothing but opinions is usually gonna ignore facts because how could their opinions ever be wrong.
You haven't even acknowledged any of the points other posters have made. You've got your head in the sand on the issue.
Your fact: Seat belts make drivers safer.
Everybody freaking agrees! What do you not get about that?
You need to make up your mind. Is your argument safety? Is it cost to other tax payers? Are those your two arguments?? Please clarify.
You haven't even acknowledged any of the points other posters have made. You've got your head in the sand on the issue.
Your fact: Seat belts make drivers safer.
Everybody freaking agrees! What do you not get about that?
You need to make up your mind. Is your argument safety? Is it cost to other tax payers? Are those your two arguments?? Please clarify.
Can't it be both? Why does everything have to be one or the other?
My fact, which is the general fact is seat belts make drivers safer.
The fact that you choose to ignore is the fact that seat belt laws increase seat belt use. In order to understand what that means, please refer back to the original fact that I have made.
Also I have addressed other people's comments in here, so I don't know what you are talking about.
Should taxpayers really be paying other citizens to go around and check to make sure everyone's wearing their seat belt??
And an even bigger question. Is the law even effective? It seems that most people on here wear seat belts due to the issue of safety, not because there's a government mandate.
Also, why aren't similar risks outlawed? Smoking. Cigarettes. Alcohol.
Your "safety" argument doesn't hold up. Neither does your "cost to taxpayers" argument.
Should taxpayers really be paying other citizens to go around and check to make sure everyone's wearing their seat belt??
And an even bigger question. Is the law even effective? It seems that most people on here wear seat belts due to the issue of safety, not because there's a government mandate.
Also, why aren't similar risks outlawed? Smoking. Cigarettes. Alcohol.
Your "safety" argument doesn't hold up. Neither does your "cost to taxpayers" argument.
Actually there is actual proof that seat belt use has increased since the creation of the seat belt law. Also, those people who go around checking to make sure people wear seat belts are called police, not just random people.
I have pointed this out to you several times and you continue to ignore this, so please pay attention. Seat belt laws are a States issue, which means it is up to the people (people like you and those that we vote into office in our states, this is not a Federal Law.) It also depends on what state you live in, some states see this as a primary offense while others have ruled it to be a secondary offense. Primary means the officer can pull you over if you are not wearing your seat belt, a secondary offense means the officer cannot just pull you over because you are not wearing your seat belt. This rule is differs from state to state because the people of each state dictate such rules.
Another thing you keep running with which makes absolutely no sense, Seat Belt Laws do not ban you from driving your car. Therefore it is not the same as outlawing smoking, cigarettes, or alcohol. If the seat belt law actually banned people from driving, then you would have a point, but it does not so you do not have a point, do you understand what the word "ban" means??
Also, the safety argument holds up because you yourself agreed that seat belts increase one's safety with driving and I have proven already that seat belt use has increased since the passing of seat belt laws in each state, which I will remind you that each state makes up their own seat belt laws which are written by the people of each state. If you don't like it, then you can blame the people of your own state for the current seat belt laws, and a better suggestion would be move to a state that has seat belt laws that better fit you because they are out there.
Do me a huge favor and re-read what I just wrote and really pay attention to what I am saying so I don't have to repeat myself again. Thank you.
Can't it be both? Why does everything have to be one or the other?
My fact, which is the general fact is seat belts make drivers safer.
What your failing to realize is that your not staying consistent with your stance of increasing public safety. Your simply picking and choosing which issues you feel the government should be involved in. We all do to some extent, but it still does not justify an absolute need for the law. Just your opinion.
The fact that you choose to ignore is the fact that seat belt laws increase seat belt use. In order to understand what that means, please refer back to the original fact that I have made.
See above comment.
Banning motorcycles would make drivers safer too.
Also I have addressed other people's comments in here, so I don't know what you are talking about.
You've simply spouted off the same position. Repeating yourself is not an equivalent.
Actually there is actual proof that seat belt use has increased since the creation of the seat belt law. Also, those people who go around checking to make sure people wear seat belts are called police, not just random people.
This American doesn't give a sh*t. I wear my seat belt when I feel the need.
I have pointed this out to you several times and you continue to ignore this, so please pay attention. Seat belt laws are a States issue, which means it is up to the people (people like you and those that we vote into office in our states, this is not a Federal Law.) It also depends on what state you live in, some states see this as a primary offense while others have ruled it to be a secondary offense. Primary means the officer can pull you over if you are not wearing your seat belt, a secondary offense means the officer cannot just pull you over because you are not wearing your seat belt. This rule is differs from state to state because the people of each state dictate such rules.
I can understand secondary offense laws. I support none.
Another thing you keep running with which makes absolutely no sense, Seat Belt Laws do not ban you from driving your car. Therefore it is not the same as outlawing smoking, cigarettes, or alcohol. If the seat belt law actually banned people from driving, then you would have a point, but it does not so you do not have a point, do you understand what the word "ban" means??
I understand what your saying. But your levying a tax on me that's unjust. The part that you don't understand is to what degree it impacts my freedom. I'd be willing to discuss that issue further.
Also, the safety argument holds up because you yourself agreed that seat belts increase one's safety with driving and I have proven already that seat belt use has increased since the passing of seat belt laws in each state, which I will remind you that each state makes up their own seat belt laws which are written by the people of each state. If you don't like it, then you can blame the people of your own state for the current seat belt laws, and a better suggestion would be move to a state that has seat belt laws that better fit you because they are out there.
I'll detail WHY the laws were passed shortly. I'm sure you can guess why. It wasn't about safety. Or people supporting them. In fact, a VAST majority of Americans opposed them at the time.
Do me a huge favor and re-read what I just wrote and really pay attention to what I am saying so I don't have to repeat myself again. Thank you.
While such laws had been proposed before 1985, they were rejected by most state legislators since they knew the vast majority of the people opposed them. “The Gallup Opinion Index,” report no. 146, October 1977, stated: “In the latest survey, a huge majority, 78 percent, opposes a law that would fine a person $25 for failure to use a seat belt. This represents an increase of resistance since 1973 to such a law. At that time 71 percent opposed a seat belt use law.” “The Gallup Report” (formerly “The Gallup Opinion Index”), no. 205, October 1982, report showed that a still-high 75 percent queried in June of that year opposed such a law.
Given the massive, obvious opposition to seat-belt laws, why did state legislators suddenly change their minds and begin to pass them in 1985? Simple–money and federal blackmail. According to the Associated Press, Brian O’Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said, “People have been talking about seatbelt laws and there have been attempts to pass them for well over 10 years. It’s been a snowball effect, once the money poured in.”1 That sudden flow of money began in 1984, when then-Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole promised to rescind the rule that required automakers to install passive restraints by 1990 if states representing two-thirds of the U.S. population passed seat-belt laws by April 1, 1989.2 Passive restraints included air bags, which automakers bitterly opposed because, they claimed, the high expense to develop and install them would raise the price of autos way beyond what the average auto buyer would pay. Dole’s promise amounted to an invitation to the automakers to use their financial resources to lobby states for seat-belt laws, something the Department of Transportation (DOT) was forbidden to do by law, in exchange for the government’s not forcing them to install air bags. In effect, the DOT surreptitiously used the financial resources of the private sector to further the political agenda of the federal government through blackmail.
In response to Dole’s promise, the automakers created the lobby Traffic Safety Now (TSN) and began spending millions of dollars to pass seat-belt laws. That caught the attention of state legislators, and suddenly the “will of the people,” void of financial backing, gave way to the “will of the seat-belt law lobbyists,” who had millions of dollars to spend.
Besides the millions of dollars spent by TSN, the federal government added millions more by, for example, giving grants to states for achieving a certain percentage of seat-belt use and to pay the police to enforce the seat-belt law.3 And with increased seat-belt law enforcement, ticket income increased, another source of easy revenue for the state.
The law, passed in 2009, allows police to ticket drivers not wearing seat belts even if they haven't violated other laws. Before that, seat-belt violaters weren't tagged unless they'd been stopped for some other violation.
But during discussions late Monday night, the Pioneer Press says, Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, suggested a return to the secondary seat-belt law approach, noting police were making stops to increase compliance.
"I think it's totally unnecessary and is more of a revenue raiser than a safety issue,'' Rukavina said.
The amendment passed 75-55.
Yesterday, public safety officials spoke at the Capitol against the proposed change.
Public Safety Commissioner Ramona Dohman said: "The best tool that we have to improve public safety in Minnesota is in jeopardy as a result of a bill that passed in the House last night repealing the primary seat-belt law."
Statistics cited by Cheri Marti, head of the Public Safety Department's Office of Traffic Safety show since the law's passage:
There have been 179 fewer serious injuries and 69 fewer fatalities involving unbelted motorists.
Seat-belt compliance has increased from 87 percent to 92 percent.
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.
