Posted on 02/17/2005 10:28:42 AM PST by freepatriot32
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- A Senate committee advanced a bill Tuesday that would require drivers and all passengers to wear seat belts in trucks, SUVs and cars.
After hearing emotional testimony from family members of those killed in crashes, the Senate's public policy committee voted 10-0 to endorse the bill. It now moves to the full Senate, which approved similar legislation last year before it was blocked in a House committee.
The bill requires people in front and back seats to buckle up in all vehicles with seat belts, with exceptions for trucks used on farms. People who cannot wear seat belts for medical reasons are also exempt.
The bill is being dubbed "Megan's Bill" after 24-year-old Megan Minix of Kokomo, who died last year when the pickup truck she was riding in flipped over. She wasn't wearing a seat belt because she felt safer in the truck, her father said, even though she always wore one in her car.
I wonder how different our lives would be if Megan would have had her seat belt on," a tearful Darrell Minix told the committee. "She was my little girl."
A group of high school students from Evansville told senators they also supported the bill. Adrian France said teenagers like herself would start wearing seat belts in trucks and as backseat passengers if Indiana's law was changed.
"We're afraid of getting a ticket, not of dying," France said.
Bill sponsor Sen. Tom Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, said the bill would likely face opposition as it moves through the legislative process.
"It's not without controversy," he told senators. "You're going to hear from constituents talking about their freedom and liberty."
Wyss said legislators should focus on public safety, not personal rights.
"We're talking about human life and human injury," Wyss said.
Rep. Bob Alderman, R-Fort Wayne, said adults should make their own choices on whether to wear seat belts without interference from lawmakers.
"There's a group of us who still understand personal freedom," Alderman said.
Alderman said if the bill was assigned to the House public policy committee, of which he is chairman, he might give it a hearing but would not guarantee a vote on the proposal.
Rep. Cleo Duncan, a Republican from Greensburg who heads the House's transportation panel, said she was undecided on what she would do with the bill.
"We're going to have to keep an open mind," Duncan said.
Minix said he would return to the Statehouse to testify if the bill gets a hearing in the House. He said his daughter was not standing up for her personal freedoms by not wearing a seat belt - she simply knew she didn't have to wear it.
"She wasn't trying to make a statement," he said. "This could happen to anyone."
I'll bear that in mind next time I'm in town.
They're wrong because they are arbitratry and capricious.
Do you see them in schoolbuses with all those PRECIOUS little children?
And why not?
Seatbelt laws are only passed for the reason that they collect more revenue for the greedy government, who couldn't be less interested in actual safety.
But who are we to make life choices for our neighbors. For example, I would never ride a motorcycle for safety reasons, let alone ride one without a helmet. To me the risk outweighs the benefits. But others choose to ride motorcycles without helmets because to them, the perceived freedom of riding with the wind through their hair outweighs the risk of injury.
Who am I to mandate the extent to which they should value their own safety. Life is short. We should all enjoy it in our own way. Liberals seem to think that the only goal in life is to prolong it.
In that case, hopefully, they go through the open window at the pillow factory....
that is why I said it would lead to too much intervention.....but on the side, and I wouldn't argue this on FR cause of the flak, but I am of the opinion that smokers, obese people etc should pay higher premiums because risky optional behavior does effect all of us in the long run with higher costs, less production etc. I know there are other variables and others will start in with me about other lesser things.....again, this is just my opinion.
Do you see them in schoolbuses with all those PRECIOUS little children?
And why not?
Seatbelt laws are only passed for the reason that they collect more revenue for the greedy government, who couldn't be less interested in actual safety.
Seatbelts aren't a big deal in school busses because in a typical collision between a 20,000lb bus and a 3,000lb car the passengers on the bus will feel a slight jolt.
Deciding you are going to cripple yourself is not a private decision when someone else is going to have to pay your medical bills.
I agree with you. If you are a smoker or a glutton, the insurance company's have every right to charge you for it. You are free to engage in conduct, but still must face any non-goverment-imposed consequences.
The government cannot claim ownership of your body simply because it chooses to impose responsibility for your health care on the public. (Hey, we found a loophole in the 13th Amendment!) The logical extension of your argument would lead to totolitarianism. The simple solution is either not to impose these costs on the public or accept the fact that with public imposed health costs comes a need to tolerate the increased costs caused by bad personal choices (we can call this the "Liberty Tax").
OK by me. As soon as these laws are repealed, I will support this law.
Tell that to the survivors (there were some) of that schoolbus in Idaho that got T-boned by a 40,000-pound beet truck in Idaho when I was a kid.
Some "slight jolt!"
"Deciding you are going to cripple yourself is not a private decision when someone else is going to have to pay your medical bills."
Uhmmmm, I have not decided to cripple myself.
It's like the law requiring motorcyclists to wear helments. Instead of being killed outright in a motorcycle wreck, the helmet reduces it to a lifetime (at someone else's expense) in a wheelchair with a spinal injury or some such. Unforseen consequence.
Seatbelts may or may not be a good idea, examples exist both ways, but they are a terrible LAW.
So your solution to problems caused by illegal government meddling in health care is illegal government meddling in auto safety? You must be a liberal.
There's always a fluke exception if you go looking hard enough. The most common collisions between busses and passenger vehicles do not inflict serious acceleration forces on bus passengers.
Uhmmmm, I have not decided to cripple myself.
Statistically, you are almost certain to have an accident eventually and when you do you will be injured more severely without a seatbelt than with. Not wearing a seatbelt absolutely is deciding to cripple yourself, the only question is when.
The NHTSA says the average hospital bill for an unbelted motorist is 55% higher than for someone wearing a belt. That is real money and it is coming out of my insurance premiums and my tax bill.
No, I'm a realist. The government is going to meddle in healthcare, period. That isn't even on the table. So long as they are going to meddle, they ought to at least meddle effectively.
Making you wear a belt is a damn sight less meddling and intrusive than making me pay $180,000 to the four surgeons trying to put you back together all night.
Then "statistically," I'm even more certain to have an accident because I've driven over 1,200,000 miles without so much as putting a dent in a vehicle.
Seatbelt laws are not very enforceable at night, so I guess they're "daytime only" laws. (/sarc.)
"Seatbelt laws are immoral and unconstitutional because they are a pure example of government regulating behavior which does not hurt anyone but the actor."
Got to disagree with you on this one. I have witnessed very minor accidents where the driver was thrown from their position behind the wheel ( because of non-seatbelt use ) which then caused a total loss of control of their vehicle, thereby causing more accidents.
It is hard to drive your car from the passenger seat floorboard.
Acquiescence is implicit approval. It would be on the table if 30% or more of the people in the nation demanded it be on the table. Two wrongs don't make a right.
It is my right to choose.
Nanny State! Want to make sure everyone crosses the road at the light too or you won't pay for any government disability, etc?
"Bill of Safeties" LOL
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.