Posted on 05/19/2015 6:18:09 AM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder
Click-it or Tick-it
The first time I saw this sign, I was south bound on I-25 north of Colorado Springs, CO.
The hair on the back of my neck bristled.
I thought I had suddenly been transformed to Nazi Germany.
++++
I had the very same reaction when I first saw this on FR:
Cruz-or-Lose
Don't be naive. They just say it's about safety. What it's really about is protecting the Insurance companies from loses. Insurance companies have undue influence on our legislatures, and they get them to enact laws which protect their interests, and they have little concern about the denial of our freedoms.
Yeah. On the one hand, they are arguing you don't have a right to take risks, and on the other they are allowing that you do.
I live in Ft. Walton Beach, panhandle east of Pensacola.........................
A couple of weeks ago in Round Rock, a cop, in a cop car, just missed a head on with me in a shopping center parking lot because he was looking down and texting while driving. I had to run up on a curb to avoid him running into me. I guess I should feel lucky he didn’t try to arrest me for reckless driving.
This is worse than Hitler!
It’s because in a MC accident, most of the time it matters not whether you are wearing a helmet or not.................................
This. So is mandatory insurance. And for the exact same reason.
It’s for the CHILDREN......except that school buses don’t have seat belts.
The difference between a state imposed restriction and one imposed by a private party is that you can chose whether or not to patronize the private party, but you have to live under your state restriction whether you like it or not.
Oh...I am far away near Boca Raton (Mouth of the Rat, in Spanish...well named for this lib stronghold!)
I say adults are entitled to take risks if they so chose. It is not the business of the state to tell us we may not take risks.
Of course, but the flavor of those who coined the phrases seems to be the same.
And car seats for infants and toddlers too.
When I was very young I somehow distracted my mom and she ran into a phone pole hurtling me right through the windshield. I’ve still got the scars to show for it.
If when I drive into the city, traffic becomes heavier, I decide to put on a seatbelt because my chances of an accident go up.
Driving down the road, it begins to rain. I turn on my headlights and fasten my safety belt....because driving conditions have deteriorated.
It's very simple, I do not need the nanny state to protect me. I am perfectly able to decide for myself.
I'm not happy about it either.
Don’t be naive. They just say it’s about safety. What it’s really about is protecting the Insurance companies from loses. Insurance companies have undue influence on our legislatures, and they get them to enact laws which protect their interests, and they have little concern about the denial of our freedoms.
__________________
preach it! you see the truth here.
The more I look at the corporatist focus of our government whether it be seatbelts and the insurance industry, or health care and the healthcare insurers and agencies and large corporate hospital networks, or the food stamp programs and the large food manufacturers, distributors and retailers, and the automobile industry and the regulators I see tax burden and guaranteed profits for cronies.
When seatbelt laws hit the books, I hated them and used every trick in the book to fool the LEO, even though I knew that every race car driver used a lot more seatbelt than in our cars.
After getting a $150 ticket, I started clicking. Gradually got used to the idea.
Not by intention you stated the most logical reason to use a seatbelt, “who have a vested interest in minimizing damage claims”.
I still don’t agree that they should fine you for not wearing one, but a better way might be if the insurance companies had a contract clause saying “if you are not wearing seatbelt and have an accident and have any injury, they don’t pay”. Sort of like if you leave your keys in your car and it gets stolen, they don’t pay.
When I was very young I somehow distracted my mom and she ran into a phone pole hurtling me right through the windshield. I’ve still got the scars to show for it.
I can accept a state law intending to protect people who have not reached the age of maturity. As guardians, parents have an obligation not to put any of their wards at overt risk. The state has an obligation to insure that they don't.
But telling adults what to do regarding their own safety is a very different matter.
Seems to me the insurance companies could simply include a clause in their policies stating they would not pay for injuries caused by not wearing a seat belt. Wait! That would eliminate the fines. Oh...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.