The Nanny State Strikes Again

Fox News ^ | 12/26/03 | William A. Niskanen

[jimkress]

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, who must have little else to do, has recently urged state governments to pass "primary" seat-belt laws, which allow police to stop and cite motorists solely for failing to wear a seat belt.

And the Bush administration has proposed a $400 million incentive to reward state governments that pass such laws.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The fact is that the $400 million in incentives is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost in human lives, law enforcement, medical attention, and loss productivity from those who are injured in automobile accidents, let alone the increases in car insurance. The DOT is trying to save the States some money by offering this incentive, but the people in this forum seem to be too dense to notice anything other than an opportunity to hand Dean the White House.

[MEG33]

I have voted since the 50s and have never agreed with every thing my candidate proposed.

[nopardons]

The possible holds NO charm for them.It's 100%, or nothing and they'll ALWAYS get NOTHING...or so they claim, even when they DO get 50% or better of what they've said they yearn for, from President Bush.

[nunya bidness]

So seatbelts save lives and random checks are the only way to verify their use. Forget about probable cause and misallocation of police resources and consider the obvious prior restraint consequences.

Meanwhile, most of us who ride motorcycles in Florida without helmets are laughing at all the idiots in cages who are too old, too busy, too young, too distracted, and otherwise not paying attention to drive; but they'll be protected by seatbelts.

Here's a clue: when I'm on my bike I assume everyone is trying to kill me and it keeps me alive. The same applies to four wheels but with talk radio.

[inquest]

...even when they DO get 50% or better of what they've said they yearn for, from President Bush.

I must've missed that news item.

[FLAMING DEATH]

The nice thing about Freerepublic is that even people who have no idea what they are talking about get to have their say. Good to see you exercising that privelege again.

FYI, I did my part in '92 and '96, and again in '00, voting straight Republican ticket each time.

All those times, I did so with the assumption that I was voting for conservatives. Since then, I've outgrown the whole "blind optimism" thing. The Patriot Act and CFR did it for me. I don't know what it will take for you, but someday, friend, maybe you will outgrow it too.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I always wear a seat belt because it is among the most effective means, short of not driving, to protect my own safety. The issue is whether that is a sufficient basis for requiring others to follow my example. I suggest not, because there is no benefit to me from other drivers also wearing a seat belt."

The author is a moron.

If wearing a seatbelt is one of the best ways to protect his own safety, then, by his own conclusion, it is also the best way to protect the safety of the person with whom he may have an accident with. If that accident is the author's fault, and the person not wearing the seatbelt is seriously injured, or killed, the author's insurance would go up, and he may face criminal charges, up to and including vehicular homicide if the circumstances warrant the charges.

The cost of automobile accidents affect everyone, specially, the increase in insurance rates.

The State is perfectly within its rights to impose seat belt laws as a condition of licensing NF operating a motor vehicle, the Feds are simply offering a little incentive to get the laws on the books.

[nopardons]

Obviously,you've missed the threads regarding what this presikdentg has actually done, as well as the lists, on so many threads, which is a compilation of same. That's YOUR fault/problem, not mine. Try reading the FR archives.

[MEG33]

I am not impressed by their principle if they say.."We'll teach 'em a lesson.I hate to see a dim in the White House..but..!"

[Jorge]

What an IDIOT position to take for a conservative. I guess you'd prefer Pres. Dean's policies. People like you make me ill.

I agree. I'm sick to death of these single issue fanatics promising to stay home on election day over the most nit-picky disagreements with Bush.
Can you imagine how miserable it must be to be married to a person like this?
Why don't they just boycott these boards and sulk for a few years.

[nopardons]

Pot and no kettle, dear. LOL

I actually KNOW what I'm talking about; unlike you.

Oh, so you've only been voting and/or working for candidates since 1992 ? Since 1992 ? And now you imagine that YOU know enough about politics from such a rich (/sarcasm ) past history ?

Bwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Luis Gonzalez]

"So seatbelts save lives and random checks are the only way to verify their use. Forget about probable cause and misallocation of police resources and consider the obvious prior restraint consequences."

Come on, get a grip on reality here.

There's NOTHING in the article (other than the author's fertile, yet somewhat misguided mind) that suggests that the police will be setting up "seatbelt" checkpoints on our highways any time soon, you and I drive the same roads, and you know as well as I do that cops don't stop you for not wearing a seatbelt.

[garv]

Since numerous studies also show that bigger, heavier vehicles dramatically reduce automobile fatalities, why are the feds forcing through regulations to make us drive smaller, lighter vehicles?

[Fred Mertz]

The cost of automobile accidents affect everyone, specially, the increase in insurance rates.

Spoken like a true Statist, DarkDrake.

You need to change your song and tune once in awhile.

[Fred Mertz]

...you and I drive the same roads, and you know as well as I do that cops don't stop you for not wearing a seatbelt.

Just goes to show, you don't know anything.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Cause there's only so much oil in the ground.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I know enough to know that you are obsessed with me Freddy.

[nopardons]

What, not come here and throw a tizzy ? The PURISTS/UNAPPEASEABLEDS would rather slit their throats. They yearn for attention, any attention at all, and are NEVER happier, than when they're miserable and telling everyone just how miserable they are. ;^)

[MEG33]

Who is exibiting blind optimism?I am simply saying you would rather let a far more liberal democrat win because you didn't get your desires in some things.No one ever gets all he wants from his candidate!

[inquest]

I've been following the threads just fine. You can't even give a general listing of things that he's done that constitutionalists have been demanding. Has spending gone down even a little? Is there even any kind of serious effort to get it under control? Have the swarms of federal officers who regulate every aspect of our economic affairs been reined in at all? You know the answer is just the opposite of what it ought to be.