Posted on 05/31/2006 9:42:50 AM PDT by from occupied ga
I'm dragging hundred dollar bills...
Perhaps you misunderstood my post.
Nor has mine - in fact it seems to keep edging up every six months.
Maybe you weren't around when a Required Hand Gesture for braking, turning, slowing, and stopping was the norm. Then only after years of progress, style, and government intrusion did turn signals and brake lights finally relieve the driver of that required hand gesture to signal intent. Further, brake lights, turn signals and hand gestures can be ignored.
Brakes on the other hand are a fact of engineering and a requirement to operate the vehicle. Stopping distance is what's regulated.
"A nasty car wreck that damages your body will make you see things in a light that previously you may not have noticed."
I place accident avoidance as a higher priority than accident survival. I've put quite a few miles on a motorcycle and even tens of thousands of miles on a bicycle (I commute in rush hour by bicycle). I haven't gone down since I tried to jump a dirt pile on my stingray in 1966. I have been hit by three cars, all of which were severely scratched up though - but I stayed up.
I don't go through a red light if there are other cars going through, silly rabbit. I have the human ability to look both ways AND look for pedestrians (and cops). remember, the laws are for the lowest common denominator.
How big a crib did your parents buy?
Are you saying in this post you want to remove the representative republic structure and in its stead install wholesale democracy for every law? Maybe just ones you disagree with huh?
Stupid people need protected just as much as 5 year olds. After all they both have the same problem. Lack of knowledge and application of it.
Where between 5 and 17 are you voting for? You have not yet shown where you draw the line as you gave 5 and 17 as your range. I seek one that defines a year (age). I suppose then also 17 can make the choice to have sex too right? So much for universal application of your position!
(((Kids don't have the same liberty because they aren't knowledgeable or mature enough to handle the responsibility of the decisions liberty brings.))))
EXACT same thing can be said just as truthfully about those over the age of 18.
I don't think the Miranda decision was entirely ridiculous. It's application is problematical.
Precicely. Unless there are cops around. I even blew through a four way stop one time, right in front of a cop. He completely ignored it.
Your solution implied 100% or zero coverage depending on whether the seatbelt was worn or not. On = 100% covered. Off = 0%. I can't think of anything where we assign liability and responsibility that way. Maybe that's how they treat non-coverage of suicides during the first n months of a new life insurance policy.
Or, maybe they offer 20% coverage if they're 80% sure it was suicide. Coverage based on the certainty of the determination might not be such a bad idea.
When you get rocked by a deer and are thrown about in the car you can come tell me all about not endangering others as you car veers all over the place because you ended up the passenger seat.
BTW I have no father and never have so there is no way you can properly label me your son.
Then you call me a dunce. Those that call names do so because their position is weak and their debate is even weaker.
"If someone gets in a car accident and is NOT wearing a seat belt, statistics say that their medical costs are going to be much higher."
Cite source, please.
I wonder if this ad campaign is running nationwide. "Click It or Ticket" radio and TV ads have been running constantly here in Connecticut over the past several weeks...
When you lose control of your car, which you very well can do if not belted, you endanger others just the same.
Here in illinois your logic does not hold true. When you are in the back you are at fault REARDLESS so there is not even a need for brakelights. Folling to closely is what is assigned the blame...control of your vehicle thing.
Brake lights horns marker lights and seat belts all serve the same purpose. Safety in the car on the road. Call it whatever you want to but that is the most basic truth.
I think so - Ads for it are all over the place.
Only an idiot would stop at a stop sign on a deserted highway.
I define freedom as having choice. If I do not qualify for something because of the choices I make then I am totally cool with that. What is important is that I have a choice.
Requiring seat belts is akin to requiring age of 16 or a requirement to pass a test in order to qualify to drive. I have a choice therfor I have my freedom.
how do you define freedom? Getting your way every second of everyday and never having any personal responsibility for the choices you make? Being free from any rules you disagree with?
The ads here in Fl do say that it's a "National Campaign".
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.