Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate panel backs extending seat-belt requirements (more RINOs coming out of the woodwork)
kpcnews.com ^ | 2 15 05 | DEANNA WRENN

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."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: aclulist; backs; belt; biggoverment; coming; daddysam; darwinaward; donutwatch; extending; forthechildren; govwatch; indiana; libertarians; more; nannystate; of; out; panel; privacy; privateproperty; requirements; rinos; rinowatch; seat; senate; the; unclesam; whatfreedom; woodwork
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-158 next last
To: ken5050
nanny car n. A car that uses computer technology to prevent the driver from making unsafe actions or decisions.

—nanny-car adj.



Example Citations:

The legacy of the witless 60 Minutes investigation into runaway Audis almost two decades ago is that soon nobody will be allowed to start a car, raise or lower a convertible top, or so much as open the gas cap without flooring the clutch, putting on the parking brake and then putting both feet out the window.

Nanny-car syndrome will get worse, as traffic density and automotive performance increase; as manufacturers turn cars into rolling offices, restaurants, I'm-so-wired communicators and DVD entertainment centers; and as driver competence plummets.

—Stephan Wilkinson, "Man & Machine," Popular Science, December, 2003



Your car soon may be more than just transportation. It could become your nanny.

Federal regulators are urging automakers to install devices that chime, buzz, beep, blink and otherwise nag you until you fasten your seatbelt. Ford uses such gadgets, and others may follow.

Seatbelts save lives. They would save a lot more if we could get our usage up from the current 73 percent of motorists.

The feds also are about to require sensors that will warn the driver of underinflated tires. If tire pressure is low, warning lights will come on until the tires are properly filled. That's going to require a lot of badgering, because only about 11 percent of motorists properly check their tires.

Down the road, perhaps, the nanny car will have devices that monitor body fat and cholesterol. If they're too high, the car won't start.

Instead a flashing display on the dashboard will say: "You're too fat. Get out and walk."

—"Coming soon: nagmobile," The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN), October 15, 2002


41 posted on 02/17/2005 11:14:12 AM PST by TChris (Most people's capability for inference is severely overestimated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sully777
Mandatory seatbelt laws are wrong because...?

Do you need the government as a mommy? Most adults don't so I would guess that neither do you.

42 posted on 02/17/2005 11:15:32 AM PST by DJ MacWoW ("Are you cops? FBI" bad guy, "I'm currently unemployed" Tony Almeida of 24)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
"In any case, driving is a privilege, not a right. The state can regulate it any way it sees fit, and this is totally reasonable."

You must be joking when you make such a remark.

Do you know you are at a forum called Freerepublic.com?

Indiana Constitution

Bill of Rights. (not to be confused with a bill of privileges)

Section 1.

WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the people;

What part of LIBERTY do you not understand?

How did the right to travel by horse or wagon, before the invention of the automobile, constitutionally become a privilege, granted by the state, after the invention of the automobile, without a constitutional amendment?

When did a "law or regulation" have the constitutional hierarchy to circumvent, deny, dismiss, diminish, and disparage rigths enumerated in an Article of a Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights?

The only reason citizens injured in an automobile collision from not wearing a seatbelt "cost...frigging money..." and "guess who pays for that?" is because the citizens, through their representatives were dumb enough to enact legislation for that purpose.

Repeal such laws and it will not cost you a dime whether someone wears a seatbelt or not, from the public treasury.

If it costs the insurance company money, they will eventually write policies that are two tiered: seatbelt use, a low premium. No seatbelt use, a higher premium.

If found not wearing a seatbelt with a seatbelt use policy, that policy is now void, the insurance company does not have to pay.

And your state government cannot do anything about such contracts.

Indiana Constitution

Section 24.

No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed.

What part of "shall ever be passed" do the Indiana citizens and legislators not understand?

By the way, my suggestion on how to handle the issue of "public safety" and seat belt use is how free people act in a free capitalistic economy with constitutionally protected, inalienable rights.

43 posted on 02/17/2005 11:18:00 AM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bella_Bru
BTW, I drive a Volvo.

Hippie. =P

44 posted on 02/17/2005 11:19:57 AM PST by TheBigB ("Official Keeper of the FR Eye Candy" ~Title bestowed by SirLurkedalot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tahiti

Are you running for any public office? I'd like to vote for you.


45 posted on 02/17/2005 11:20:47 AM PST by Still Thinking (Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

"Funny though I am still waiting for my refund from all the money seat belts have saved."

I know that my rates ARE lower because I have full airbags and ABS. And my auto insurance rates have indeed gone down in recent years, more than one would expect just because the cars are a year older. In fact, they're down a huge amount. I have no idea why, though. We didn't have wrecks or tickets that have moved off our records and we haven't moved into a statistically safer driving age. But my premium is hundreds of dollars lower than it was three years ago.


46 posted on 02/17/2005 11:21:01 AM PST by Gone GF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: montag813
It is not a "RINO" to demand seat belt usage.

"Wyss said legislators should focus on public safety, not personal rights."

that is rino talk by definition.Infringing on personal freedom for the common good is what dems and rinos do.If you cant see how that is rino I feel sorry for you please let me know how the koolaid tastes.

47 posted on 02/17/2005 11:21:15 AM PST by freepatriot32 (Jacques Chirac and Kofi Annan, a pantomime horse in which both men are playing the rear end. M.Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NeilGus
"3. government does not have to pay disability for those who are in wrecks without their seat belts on, and, 4. government doesn't pick up the tab for all of the costs listed above.

Because none of these are true, I do not object to this type law."

Just because the citizens of a state, through their elected legislators, are dumb enough to enact such payment laws, does not mean that the "rights" of the citizens are now deniable or can be disparaged or diminished.

Repeal the stupid laws, but do not deny and disparage rights, that is what free people do, living in a capitalistic economy, in a constitutional republic.

48 posted on 02/17/2005 11:24:05 AM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Very true. Montag may want to work on his understanding of English sentence structure as well.


49 posted on 02/17/2005 11:24:54 AM PST by Still Thinking (Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sully777

I propose seat belt laws on motorcycles, bicycles, skate boards, snow skiis, water skiis, roller skates and ice skates. Also, movie theater seats, baby strollers, beds, and sleeping bags. Warning lables on knives, forks, spoons, hammers, bricks, rock, and limitations on pencil sharpeners....


50 posted on 02/17/2005 11:25:12 AM PST by Cobra64 (Babes should wear Bullet Bras - www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
See, that's how good ideas are hatched. Get the insurance companies and the automakers together and have a Seat belt option for any car. If you buy a car with that option your insurance rates are automatically lowered by 20%. And the insurance companies can not raise the rates of others to compensate for the loss of the revenue from those nanny needer's. Doubt it.....
51 posted on 02/17/2005 11:26:00 AM PST by Time is now (We'll live to see it......Does anyone see it yet?....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

Be careful what you ask for. When pencil sharpeners are outlawed...


52 posted on 02/17/2005 11:26:15 AM PST by Still Thinking (Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

...only outlaws will have sharp pencils.


53 posted on 02/17/2005 11:27:21 AM PST by Still Thinking (Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: sully777

I hope you read posts 10 and 12 and others.


54 posted on 02/17/2005 11:27:53 AM PST by biblewonk (Neither was the man created for woman but the woman for the man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Bump for your clear-headed reasoning!


55 posted on 02/17/2005 11:29:33 AM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tahiti

I'll vote for you, too. Maybe even if you run as a Redemopublicrat.


56 posted on 02/17/2005 11:31:18 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden

Thanks. That "driving is a privelige" thing is a real sore spot for me. Why not "[Insert activity here] is a privelige" and only to be engaged in if you're on this particular governments good side? Why not sex? Eating, drinking, and breathing? What makes driving so unique?


57 posted on 02/17/2005 11:34:11 AM PST by Still Thinking (Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
I always wear my seat belt and I think it is stupid not to do so. I do think it should be law that children are buckled up, but if an adult wants to go without a seat belt (or helmet, or smokes, or skydives, or eats too much, etc.), I say we let them engage in their right to live however they want.

Some have brought up the fact that injuries due to risky behaviors cause ins. premiums to go up for everyone. So how bout this; as an adult you can choose to disregard your own safety however you wish. But if you get injured, your insurance will not cover it. Problem solved.
58 posted on 02/17/2005 11:35:13 AM PST by teenyelliott (Soilent green is made of liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist

Can't the state regulate driving privledges such as who gets a license, rules and laws to make driving legal. I'm not for laws taking away my rights but I would think safety is a concern. If gov't can't regulate my freedom, then why don't I have the freedom to litter or such..It wouldn't hurt anyone if I did......I just think the principle of pure freedom like pure communism just can't be the end all of an ordered society.........IMO


59 posted on 02/17/2005 11:35:39 AM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB
:-P

It has more room than my '70 BMW. I can store pretty much my whole life in it.

60 posted on 02/17/2005 11:37:18 AM PST by Bella_Bru (You're about as funny as a case sensitive search engine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-158 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson