Seat Belt Tickets...Specious Law Overturned!

[Phatscotty]

My main point is this. In order for the undercover seatbelt sting operation to qualify as a function of safety, then the commuity needs to believe in that law. The fact that here, in my community, they told us they wouldn't make the seat belt ticketable as a primary offense to get it passed as a secondary offense did not really help the community to believe in the law as a safety measure.

[PLAYER57832]

My main point is this. In order for the undercover seatbelt sting operation to qualify as a function of safety, then the commuity needs to believe in that law. The fact that here, in my community, they told us they wouldn't make the seat belt ticketable as a primary offense to get it passed as a secondary offense did not really help the community to believe in the law as a safety measure.

In most areas it started as a secondary offense, but when the statistics came in about how much folks not wearing seatbelts cost taxpayers, it became a budget issue.

I find it supremely ironic that you are, on the one hand, angry over high taxes. Yet, when asked to do something that will reduce our tax burden (AND save lives.. perhaps your own!), you are against it.

[PLAYER57832]

to me it's more of a state police signpost. Read the bills being passed by the senate.
If they keep citizens focused on changing the system, they keep citizens IN the system, thus maintaining the control they have had for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years. They just slipped the patriots act extension through a jobs bill without the main media even noticing.

I see, you feel that forcing people to wear seatbelts is a government plot to invade our homes and your supporting evidence is that the Patriots act was extended. (not without notice, by-the-way).

nice try.

[Phatscotty]

My main point is this. In order for the undercover seatbelt sting operation to qualify as a function of safety, then the commuity needs to believe in that law. The fact that here, in my community, they told us they wouldn't make the seat belt ticketable as a primary offense to get it passed as a secondary offense did not really help the community to believe in the law as a safety measure.

In most areas it started as a secondary offense, but when the statistics came in about how much folks not wearing seatbelts cost taxpayers, it became a budget issue.

I find it supremely ironic that you are, on the one hand, angry over high taxes. Yet, when asked to do something that will reduce our tax burden (AND save lives.. perhaps your own!), you are against it.

asked? LOL you are completely dismissing the entire point of the thread....go shoot yourself

[PLAYER57832]

My main point is this. In order for the undercover seatbelt sting operation to qualify as a function of safety, then the commuity needs to believe in that law. The fact that here, in my community, they told us they wouldn't make the seat belt ticketable as a primary offense to get it passed as a secondary offense did not really help the community to believe in the law as a safety measure.

In most areas it started as a secondary offense, but when the statistics came in about how much folks not wearing seatbelts cost taxpayers, it became a budget issue.

I find it supremely ironic that you are, on the one hand, angry over high taxes. Yet, when asked to do something that will reduce our tax burden (AND save lives.. perhaps your own!), you are against it.

asked? LOL you are completely dismissing the entire point of the thread....go shoot yourself

The part that was wrong was being able to pay extra to get the offense removed from your record, not the rest.

I disagree with you. I gave some pretty clear reasons. You come back with eroneous ambulance data, irrelevancies and now, this...

You started this debate with some reasoned argument. Now you have moved to trolling.

[jay_a2j]

It's the government intruding in our lives that makes it annoying. I wear my seat belt, always have. I just don't like LAWS that require it. It's my car, my seat belt, my life. I do not need the government forcing me to do anything! Remember the old saying, "If it doesn't harm anyone else, live and let live?" You give them an inch, they WILL take a mile. LIBERTY!!!!!!!

When you have your own personal, privately funded ambulance and rescue service.. you might have an argument.

You don't. You rely upon tax payer funded people to grab your rear out. So it DOES HARM OTHER PEOPLE!

And if that isn't good enough, try looking up the mortality rate for emergency responders to today's highways. If you can get up and walk away, no one has to RISK THEIR LIFE TO SAVE YOURS.

So I guess we should not treat people who have drug overdoses unless they have their own "privately funded ambulance and rescue service"? Same goes for anyone? You logic is baffling to say the least. Are you implying that someone who doesn't wear their seat belt DOESN'T pay taxes to FUND emergency services?

No, but they should suffer penalties for taking drugs in ways not consistant with either a doctor's order or over-the-counter instructions. And, gee... they DO!

And no, people not wearing seatbelts are not the primary funders of emergency services. Besides, having an emergency service available when you need it doesn't give you the right to ignore basic precautions to prevent having to use it.

I can't even begin to comprehend how your mind works. Somehow you have elevated yourself above those who don't wear seat belts. Why don't YOU get your own privately funded ambulance and rescue service? Seat belt non-wearers are tax payers too and have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to services as you. Liberalism has caused more death and pain than any unbuckled seat belt!

[Pedronicus]

Seat-belts were invented at McGill University in 1898

[jonesthecurl]

Seat-belts were invented at McGill University in 1898

Amazingly, seats weren't invented at McGill University until 1899.

[PLAYER57832]

I can't even begin to comprehend how your mind works. Somehow you have elevated yourself above those who don't wear seat belts. Why don't YOU get your own privately funded ambulance and rescue service? Seat belt non-wearers are tax payers too and have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to services as you. Liberalism has caused more death and pain than any unbuckled seat belt!

Let me spell this out for you.

If you get up and walk away from a wreck, NO RESCUE IS NEEDED. Tow trucks, etc still need to respond, often police do. However, the effort is far less significant than if someone is injured. Wearing seatbelt very significantly increases your chance of injury. MORE PEOPLE need to respond just to help you out. Not all injuries are preventable, but those arising from failure to be properly restrained are. Therefore those who choose to wear seatbelts are PLACING OTHERS IN DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE DANGER BY THIER PERSONNAL STUPIDITY.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENDANGER OTHERS THROUGH YOUR STUPIDITY.

I take this personally becuase my husband happens to be one of those who has to put himself at risk to come get people who get in wrecks that would have been minor, had the occupants worn a seatbelt.

In ADDITION, without a seatbelt, you are far more likely to become permanently disabled. This makes you a burden to society, simply because you chose to ignore a basic safety rule.

ALL of those reasons outweigh the mere inconvenience you wish to elevate to some kind of moral right.

[jay_a2j]

Let me spell this out for you.

If you get up and walk away from a wreck, NO RESCUE IS NEEDED. Tow trucks, etc still need to respond, often police do. However, the effort is far less significant than if someone is injured. Wearing seatbelt very significantly increases your chance of injury. MORE PEOPLE need to respond just to help you out. Not all injuries are preventable, but those arising from failure to be properly restrained are. Therefore those who choose to wear seatbelts are PLACING OTHERS IN DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE DANGER BY THIER PERSONNAL STUPIDITY.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENDANGER OTHERS THROUGH YOUR STUPIDITY.

I take this personally becuase my husband happens to be one of those who has to put himself at risk to come get people who get in wrecks that would have been minor, had the occupants worn a seatbelt.

In ADDITION, without a seatbelt, you are far more likely to become permanently disabled. This makes you a burden to society, simply because you chose to ignore a basic safety rule.

ALL of those reasons outweigh the mere inconvenience you wish to elevate to some kind of moral right.

No, let me SPELL THIS OUT for you. My most recent accident 2007, I was airlifted to a hospital, I WAS WEARING MY SEAT BELT. But that is besides the point. The point is, even if I WASN'T wearing my seat belt I CAN NOT BE DENIED EMERGENCY SERVICES!!!!!!! You liberals are SOOOOOOOO hypocritical it's nauseating. Lets me expound on your logic. Me, a tax payer, is injured in a car accident in which I was NOT wearing my seat belt. I AM DENIED EMERGENCY SERVICES. Jose crosses the Texas border illegally, gets shot in a drug deal and (according to you liberals) is ENTITLED to emergency services.


THIS is why liberalism is a MENTAL DISORDER!!!!!!! (They REALLY need to find a cure!)

[PLAYER57832]

No, let me SPELL THIS OUT for you. My most recent accident 2007, I was airlifted to a hospital, I WAS WEARING MY SEAT BELT. But that is besides the point. The point is, even if I WASN'T wearing my seat belt I CAN NOT BE DENIED EMERGENCY SERVICES!!!!!!!

No one is talking about denying you services!

I stated that the government, we the taxpayers have a vested interest in strongly encouraging you to wear your seatbelt. This is the purpose of fines.. to limit stupid behavior.

You are the only one wanting to spin this off into denying people services.

You liberals are SOOOOOOOO hypocritical it's nauseating. Lets me expound on your logic. Me, a tax payer, is injured in a car accident in which I was NOT wearing my seat belt. I AM DENIED EMERGENCY SERVICES. Jose crosses the Texas border illegally, gets shot in a drug deal and (according to you liberals) is ENTITLED to emergency services.


THIS is why liberalism is a MENTAL DISORDER!!!!!!! (They REALLY need to find a cure!)

No, this is Jay unable to understand plain english... with some heavy bias against anything he happens to think might possibly be liberal (even if it really is not!).

The good news is there is a cure .. its called "education". Sadly, you feel you already know everything already.

[jay_a2j]

The good news is there is a cure .. its called "education".

Then PLEASE, PLEASE get some. The disorder is killing your mind! Please get the cure!

[Phatscotty]

everyone agrees seat belt keep you safer for the most part. however, allowing the out of control health care costs dictate our LAWS on behaviors, however neceasry you try to make the case, is not a very good idea. sugar, pop, and fast foods are next. All of this takes away from the individual choices a supposed free people are to make. al of this brings us closer and closer to a nanny state of paralyzed freedoms. I'm sure when that time comes, some will still be reveling they have the choice to go outside still, even if too much sun causes skin cancer....

[jay_a2j]

everyone agrees seat belt keep you safer for the most part. however, allowing the out of control health care costs dictate our LAWS on behaviors, however neceasry you try to make the case, is not a very good idea. sugar, pop, and fast foods are next. All of this takes away from the individual choices a supposed free people are to make. al of this brings us closer and closer to a nanny state of paralyzed freedoms. I'm sure when that time comes, some will still be reveling they have the choice to go outside still, even if too much sun causes skin cancer....

Governor Patterson (NY State) is trying to pass a SODA TAX in a insane attempt at reducing obesity. Can't wait for the TWINKIE TAX, the HO-HO tax and the KOOL-AID TAX.


If someone wants to be fat, it's a personal choice.

[SultanOfSurreal]

everyone agrees seat belt keep you safer for the most part. however, allowing the out of control health care costs dictate our LAWS on behaviors, however neceasry you try to make the case, is not a very good idea. sugar, pop, and fast foods are next. All of this takes away from the individual choices a supposed free people are to make. al of this brings us closer and closer to a nanny state of paralyzed freedoms. I'm sure when that time comes, some will still be reveling they have the choice to go outside still, even if too much sun causes skin cancer....

you fucking idiots can't even pay attention for one goddamn second can you

driving is not a natural right and it's an activity that involves a high level of risk for everyone involved. with something like 18,000 people in america dying every year from it, i'd almost say that normal civilians shouldn't be allowed to drive at all, or at least not so easily, but the realities of our modern world sort of necessitate quick travel for most people.

there's a reason we don't let civilians operate aircraft without extensive training and a certified license from the state. by taking the license you acknowledge that you will follow the rules that the state has set for operating an aircraft. the same thing is true of becoming licensed to drive. if you don't like the rules, you don't get to drive.

it is unfeasible, in fact insane, to suggest that the rules of driving should be determined by individuals as they see fit. shit doesn't work that way. deal with it.

[Phatscotty]

everyone agrees seat belt keep you safer for the most part. however, allowing the out of control health care costs dictate our LAWS on behaviors, however neceasry you try to make the case, is not a very good idea. sugar, pop, and fast foods are next. All of this takes away from the individual choices a supposed free people are to make. al of this brings us closer and closer to a nanny state of paralyzed freedoms. I'm sure when that time comes, some will still be reveling they have the choice to go outside still, even if too much sun causes skin cancer....

you fucking idiots can't even pay attention for one goddamn second can you

driving is not a natural right and it's an activity that involves a high level of risk for everyone involved. with something like 18,000 people in america dying every year from it, i'd almost say that normal civilians shouldn't be allowed to drive at all, or at least not so easily, but the realities of our modern world sort of necessitate quick travel for most people.

there's a reason we don't let civilians operate aircraft without extensive training and a certified license from the state. by taking the license you acknowledge that you will follow the rules that the state has set for operating an aircraft. the same thing is true of becoming licensed to drive. if you don't like the rules, you don't get to drive.

it is unfeasible, in fact insane, to suggest that the rules of driving should be determined by individuals as they see fit. shit doesn't work that way. deal with it.

I dont know what any of that has to do with the topic of the seat belt law being specious, and the draconian enforcement of the law, or even the excessive fees charged for failure to comply. not even anything to do with the most recent discussion, in this topic, about allowing out of control health care costs dictate our laws.

airplanes? wtf....

[jonesthecurl]

Driving a car is subject to regulations.
One of those is to do with wearing a seat belt.
If that's liberal craziness, then so are all speed limits, anti-drunk driving laws, and traffic lights.

[jay_a2j]

Driving a car is subject to regulations.
One of those is to do with wearing a seat belt.
If that's liberal craziness, then so are all speed limits, anti-drunk driving laws, and traffic lights.

DRIVER'S SEAT BELT, DRIVER'S CAR, DRIVER'S LIFE! The things YOU mentioned effect OTHER PEOPLE!

[PLAYER57832]

everyone agrees seat belt keep you safer for the most part. however, allowing the out of control health care costs dictate our LAWS on behaviors, however neceasry you try to make the case, is not a very good idea. sugar, pop, and fast foods are next. All of this takes away from the individual choices a supposed free people are to make. al of this brings us closer and closer to a nanny state of paralyzed freedoms. I'm sure when that time comes, some will still be reveling they have the choice to go outside still, even if too much sun causes skin cancer....

First I agree about the sugar and pop, but ironically not quite in the direction you mention. The problem is that we heavily subsidize these products, which is part of why they are so much cheaper than healthier foods. (another story, and yes exactly the opposite track of seatbelts).

The issue with seatbelts is much more immediate and direct. The thing is that even most of you arguing against this law still make it clear that you wear seatbelts. That's pretty telling. I am old enough to remember when cars did not come with seatbelts, when people did not wear them becuase they honestly felt they could be trapped. In truth, we now know that seatbelts save many times more lives than they ever harm.

The real truth is that this is a law aimed primarily at the "young invicible" drivers. and, yes, I am one of the many parents who are happy to have the assistance of a law.. despite the fact that my sons are very responsible. Many of his friends are less so. So, rail against it, but the people you really have to blame are not these "idiot liberals" it is your parents.

[Phatscotty]

everyone agrees seat belt keep you safer for the most part. however, allowing the out of control health care costs dictate our LAWS on behaviors, however neceasry you try to make the case, is not a very good idea. sugar, pop, and fast foods are next. All of this takes away from the individual choices a supposed free people are to make. al of this brings us closer and closer to a nanny state of paralyzed freedoms. I'm sure when that time comes, some will still be reveling they have the choice to go outside still, even if too much sun causes skin cancer....

First I agree about the sugar and pop, but ironically not quite in the direction you mention. The problem is that we heavily subsidize these products, which is part of why they are so much cheaper than healthier foods. (another story, and yes exactly the opposite track of seatbelts).

The issue with seatbelts is much more immediate and direct. The thing is that even most of you arguing against this law still make it clear that you wear seatbelts. That's pretty telling. I am old enough to remember when cars did not come with seatbelts, when people did not wear them becuase they honestly felt they could be trapped. In truth, we now know that seatbelts save many times more lives than they ever harm.

The real truth is that this is a law aimed primarily at the "young invicible" drivers. and, yes, I am one of the many parents who are happy to have the assistance of a law.. despite the fact that my sons are very responsible. Many of his friends are less so. So, rail against it, but the people you really have to blame are not these "idiot liberals" it is your parents.

I've not used the word liberal or anything close in this thread. That's all AJ, and he's kind of high-jacked it

[SultanOfSurreal]

airplanes? wtf....

[BigBallinStalin]

Driving a car is subject to regulations.
One of those is to do with wearing a seat belt.
If that's liberal craziness, then so are all speed limits, anti-drunk driving laws, and traffic lights.

DRIVER'S SEAT BELT, DRIVER'S CAR, DRIVER'S LIFE! The things YOU mentioned effect OTHER PEOPLE!

Actually, you're wrong. You not wearing a seatbelt effects other people.

Let's say someone runs a red and slams into your car. Since you weren't wearing a seatbelt, let's just say you die. Then the perpetrators charges will be even more severe, but had you been wearing your seatbelt, you'd have most likely lived and the punishments for others wouldn't be as severe.

Of course, one can say that that guy shouldn't have run the red, but accidents happen, so wear your seatbelt. It does effect other people's lives.

[Timminz]

It's the government intruding in our lives that makes it annoying. I wear my seat belt, always have. I just don't like LAWS that require it. It's my car, my seat belt, my life. I do not need the government forcing me to do anything! Remember the old saying, "If it doesn't harm anyone else, live and let live?" You give them an inch, they WILL take a mile. LIBERTY!!!!!!!

oh boooooo hoooooo your precious right to become a pile of crushed up guts and bone on the side of a fucking freeway is being impinged upon, WHERE ARE THE PATRIOTS TO FIGHT THIS INJUSTICE

look, driving is not a right, it's a privilege, and the government has the power to regulate roadways -- and the usage of cars -- as they see fit. same as they regulate air traffic, and sea traffic in US waters. fuckin' deal with it you goddamn baby.

Build me some roads, and quit tellin' me how I can behave on them.

Ah, the classic, conservative entitlement complex.

"Look at me. I deserve everything I want. Ladida!"

[jay_a2j]

Driving a car is subject to regulations.
One of those is to do with wearing a seat belt.
If that's liberal craziness, then so are all speed limits, anti-drunk driving laws, and traffic lights.

DRIVER'S SEAT BELT, DRIVER'S CAR, DRIVER'S LIFE! The things YOU mentioned effect OTHER PEOPLE!

Actually, you're wrong. You not wearing a seatbelt effects other people.

Let's say someone runs a red and slams into your car. Since you weren't wearing a seatbelt, let's just say you die. Then the perpetrators charges will be even more severe, but had you been wearing your seatbelt, you'd have most likely lived and the punishments for others wouldn't be as severe.

Of course, one can say that that guy shouldn't have run the red, but accidents happen, so wear your seatbelt. It does effect other people's lives.

ARGUMENT FAIL!


As if people don't die WEARING THEIR SEAT BELT. I do not need the government trying to "help" me not die. (by taking my money especially) It's a little thing called l-i-b-e-r-t-y. And as long as I'm not harming other people, BACK OFF. How many people die every year do to DRUNK DRIVING? Yet they are taxing the pig snot out of cigarettes but not ALCOHOL. Then we have all the medical problems that arise from drinking.... still you can buy a case for $10. Please, just let the people have liberty and the government can get back to Trillion dollar bailouts that we the people did not approve of yet our grandchildren will have to pay for...... all in the name of "SOCIAL JUSTICE".

[BigBallinStalin]

Driving a car is subject to regulations.
One of those is to do with wearing a seat belt.
If that's liberal craziness, then so are all speed limits, anti-drunk driving laws, and traffic lights.

DRIVER'S SEAT BELT, DRIVER'S CAR, DRIVER'S LIFE! The things YOU mentioned effect OTHER PEOPLE!

Actually, you're wrong. You not wearing a seatbelt effects other people.

Let's say someone runs a red and slams into your car. Since you weren't wearing a seatbelt, let's just say you die. Then the perpetrators charges will be even more severe, but had you been wearing your seatbelt, you'd have most likely lived and the punishments for others wouldn't be as severe.

Of course, one can say that that guy shouldn't have run the red, but accidents happen, so wear your seatbelt. It does effect other people's lives.

ARGUMENT FAIL!


As if people don't die WEARING THEIR SEAT BELT. I do not need the government trying to "help" me not die. (by taking my money especially) It's a little thing called l-i-b-e-r-t-y. And as long as I'm not harming other people, BACK OFF. How many people die every year do to DRUNK DRIVING? Yet they are taxing the pig snot out of cigarettes but not ALCOHOL. Then we have all the medical problems that arise from drinking.... still you can buy a case for $10. Please, just let the people have liberty and the government can get back to Trillion dollar bailouts that we the people did not approve of yet our grandchildren will have to pay for...... all in the name of "SOCIAL JUSTICE".

You have yet to counter my argument properly, and you're most likely trolling. All you've done is twist my argument into something else and then went on nonsensical rant about liberty, rights, justice, and taxation.