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

Skip to comments.

Skeptics on seat-belt laws dig their heels in for free choice
San Jose Mercury News ^ | July 16, 2005 | Gary Richards

Posted on 07/17/2005 10:17:40 AM PDT by Technoman

… Having a license to drive means signing a contract to follow the rules of the road. Wearing your seat belt is one of them. If you die because you stubbornly don't buckle up, your death will affect family and friends. I doubt if they are OK with that…

(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: nannystate; seatbeltlaw; seatbelts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: Bigh4u2

"You can apply a law haphazardly and expect people to be happy about it?"

Should have been a question mark at the end of that sentence.

Sorry!


41 posted on 07/17/2005 11:15:16 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
It does not give you the right to force me to care behind the force of law

As a conservative I dislike nanny state laws. But choosing not to wear a seat belt, as an expression of your freedom of choice, is just plain stupid.
42 posted on 07/17/2005 11:15:33 AM PDT by redheadtoo (I am alive today thanks to my seat belt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Technoman
I am perfectly fine with you not wearing a helmet or a seat belt, but I think if you get in an accident an you are not wearing a seat belt, you waive all liability. Ie you cannot sue the other car (even if they are at fault) you cannot sue the automaker, .... if you are not wearing you safety protection whose to say you wouldn't have been hurt. Its your right not to wear one, but you have to bear the complete responsibility of not wearing it.
43 posted on 07/17/2005 11:16:38 AM PDT by Plant7Pugsley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg

as long as it's in the contract, it's not a problem.

Insruance companies should be able to practice not paying out for dumbass behavior so the other people that think about what they do don't have to pay for the morons.


44 posted on 07/17/2005 11:17:50 AM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

Shouldn't need to pass that law, Insurance Companies own enough politicians already, no telling what kinda riders would be attached to a law that would simply return our Rights.

We shouldn't have to negotiate our Freedom.


45 posted on 07/17/2005 11:18:03 AM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Technoman
When our state, California first started with the seatbelt law, they swore the would NEVER stop a vehicle just for a seatbelt violation. They would only issue a ticket if it happened during a normal traffic stop.

Kind of like a temporary tax...
46 posted on 07/17/2005 11:18:24 AM PDT by Lx (Do you like it, do you like it. Scott? I call it Mr. and Mrs. Tennerman chili.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Technoman

>You might die if you don't wear it

Yup and without it I'll die too......

>Yah but it will cost society more

Nope not unless we are making the government pay for my healthcare.

Besides are our lives supposed to be lived so as to serve the state and the greater good or do we still believe in a principle called personal freedom. The freedom to take risks and live with the consequences.


47 posted on 07/17/2005 11:22:38 AM PDT by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: festus

Great Tag!


48 posted on 07/17/2005 11:25:02 AM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Technoman
People that don't wear seat belts are total morons. I think parents should be held criminally liable if they don't fasten the kids in or put them in a secure seat if too young to wear a belt. If morons want to not wear seat belts and imitate a missile when they go through the windshield, that's their fault. Frankly, though, I don't have a problem with mandatory seat belt laws. Seat belts save lives -- only someone at the OJ jury level of refusal to see the evidence would dispute that.

Surely you can find a more egregious and pointless intrusion on personal liberty than this!

49 posted on 07/17/2005 11:25:26 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (Forget Blackwell for Governor! Blackwell for Senate '06!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flixxx; Technoman

"Nice post"?

You think it is acceptable to force others to do something to protect YOURSELF if you are negligent?


50 posted on 07/17/2005 11:26:13 AM PDT by Politicalmom (Just one more reason to hate the government....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"There are too many pictures of the dead and horribly injured drivers and passengers who are ejected during an accident. Death and injury will always accompany collisions, but seatbelts do indeed save lives."

Which in no way whatsoever validates the notion of using the coercive force of government to REQUIRE their use. Such use should be VOLUNTARY---likewise with motorcycle and bicycle helmets.

As Pournelle and Niven put it: "Think of it as EVOLUTION IN ACTION."

51 posted on 07/17/2005 11:28:09 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Plant7Pugsley

"but I think if you get in an accident an you are not wearing a seat belt, you waive all liability. Ie you cannot sue the other car (even if they are at fault) you cannot sue the automaker"

Nope! You are wrong.

Just because you decide not to wear a seatbelt does not excuse the other driver from culpability.
Because your injuries would be a direct RESULT of the accident, not an incidental happening because you don't wear a seatbelt.



52 posted on 07/17/2005 11:28:56 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

"Although I understand 'turbulence' on a plane is a problem,how about 'turbulence'(road hazard) on a bus?"

I have actually been on a flight from Cleveland to Dallas that dropped about 500 feet due summer heating and thin air pockets. Talk about a wild ride. I always keep my seatbelt on so I was okay and luckliy was not working on my laptop. Talk about choas. There were drinks all over the place laptops, papers, kids, adults. No one seriously hurt but there were plenty of bumps and bruises.


53 posted on 07/17/2005 11:30:51 AM PDT by Syntyr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Technoman

Tricky one.

I think people should wear seat belts for their own safety but I am against laws requiring people to do so. It's the stuff of a nanny-state, IMO.


54 posted on 07/17/2005 11:32:06 AM PDT by L98Fiero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Technoman
To the people arguing that wearing seat belts saves lives:

Nobody is disagreeing with that. The bone of contention against mandatory belt laws is that the GOVERNMENT is usurping the right to decide how safely we live. That is a decision best left to the individual, not to a (theoretically) well-intentioned behemoth.

55 posted on 07/17/2005 11:34:21 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"I'm guessing you don't favor the helmet law either."

Correctomundo, chief!

Seat belts, helmets, hot balloons that go off in your face may or may not be a good idea, but, they are terrible law!

56 posted on 07/17/2005 11:34:40 AM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Syntyr

And I can understand using seat belts on an airplane for just the reasons you stated.

However. Seat belts are not 'mandated' by the goverment on airplanes, but are 'required' by the company, mainly out of insurance considerations.
Although the FAA may also require the companies adhere to using them.


57 posted on 07/17/2005 11:36:41 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

Make that a law that says the government will not pick up ANY medical bills (outside of service personnel and veterans), PERIOD, and you got MY support.


58 posted on 07/17/2005 11:39:10 AM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Technoman
Good post.

      But there are two separate questions being discussed already.  I believe your post poses the question,
  1. Should the state use its police power to force those is moving vehicles to wear seatbelts?
      And lurking in the penumbra is an emotionally related but logically separate question:
  1. Should those is moving vehicles wear seatbelts?
      Question 1 is political.  IMO, conservatives, who believe in individual responsibility, should quickly answer, NO.  Liberals, who believe in ?, will answer, yes. 
      And then there are the fuzzy thinkers, who apparently believe that answering the second question answers the first.

Down with fuzzy thinking!

Up with indiviual responsibility!

Down with the nanny state!


59 posted on 07/17/2005 11:43:05 AM PDT by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
No doubt the fundamental problem with seat-belts is they are a gol-darned new-fangled gadget that no responsible driver ever needs. It's time to roll time back to the happy days of the 1950s where we can once again experience the thrill of launching ourselves out through the windshield of a Studebaker! Neat scar tissue helps a fellow get the neatest dates.

I don't think the guy is advocating that we do away with seat belts. If you want to wear one please do. If you don't, the law has no business telling you that you MUST wear a seat belt. Require all cars to have them but do not require motorists to wear them.

Tell me, what is the difference in a law requiring you to wear a seat belt and one that says you must take certain vitamins daily to ward off illnesses that may kill you? They are both equally offensive and go against the right to decide for ones self what is proper for you and what is not.

Nanny state laws have no place in the US.

60 posted on 07/17/2005 11:47:12 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 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