Posted on 05/31/2006 9:42:50 AM PDT by from occupied ga
>>Care to dispute that point sir?<<
Well, I for one can not dispute that point. Other than the fact that those were not the laws when I got my license.
I guess they can come up with any boneheaded law they want - like helmets in cars, for example - and I'll just have to say, "oh well, I made that choice when I agreed to the rules of the road".
By the way, if you choose not to wear, you only pay a fine when you get caught.
On a side note, when they first started putting those warning buzzers in cars, I knew people who could not figure out how to unplug the buzzer, but they drove around SITTING ON THEIR BUCKLED UP SEAT BELTS.
On another side note, in our old car, the seat belt chafed my wifes shoulder/neck raw, so she quit wearing it.
Maybe you should read more than one post when referring to that subject bubba. That poster made comments about my kids directly so your are at least less than totally informed about this as to the comment you just made.
I will accept your appology now.
No, not really. It is about personal responsibility. You blow through, you pay for the crime.
Did that really happen? That is unbelievable that he would only get 100 days unless there were incredible mitigating circumstances, like space aliens disabling his brakes or something...
Right, but it should be a choice and not a law enforced by armed agents of the government.
If I want to go outside in my underwear in below-zero weather, that's dangerous, but I don't need a law to keep me from doing it.
The point you seem to miss is that the government keeps intruding into our lives incrementally and in places they shouldn't. There are already too many laws on the books protecting me from myself.
Bubba by 'some on this thread' I meant posters not posts. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I hope that removes your claim of dishonest rhetoric.
Ask elkfersupper about drinking and driving law enforcement then get back to me OK. My point will stand as I meant it and have tried to explain to you in this post.
And sometimes people have to accept laws they do not particularly care for.
That broken arm turns into surgery and a funeral would become the cheaper lol
I agree. I have heard horror stories about what cops let slide at certain intersections in Houston. I did not mean to come off racist, but the crap I saw could have hurt or killed someone. It was not just a remote light or sign with no other traffic around.
Last I checked wearing a seat belt IS the law that came from the body tasked with forming the laws that bind us.
GO on and start a petition to gain ballot access. You have that choice. Make it.
You are probably WRONG about many other things too.. d;-)~',',
No need to ask.
Drinking while driving is now illegal in all 50 states.
Drinking, then driving, while impractical and inadvisable is legal in all 50 states.
What is your point?
If you do an "archive" search under 'Janklow' at the FR search engine theres about 2 dozen articles.
I don't know about you, but those commercial bother me.
They can be summarized as: "We're from the government, and we're going to punish you for your own good."
Until such time as you can see the law changed you just have to follow it, or pay the consequences for not doing so. Personal responsibility can be a b!t@% sometimes.
Paying the fine is all one can do if they chose not to wear the seat belt.
It was much easier to remove the ground harness so you didn't have to buckle the belt and sit on that uncomfortable thing!
On the shoulder harness deal, that is not part of our law here. I do not wear mine and have been pulled over before because of it. Then the police notice I am indeed wearing my belt and I have never got a fine out of the deal. I have been lectured but I fire back that there is no provision in the law for wearing the shoulder harness.
The titanium in my spine and the fact I have broken my left collarbone three times causes me to avoid that shoulder harness also. When I ride ( as is the case most of the time) I do wear the shoulder harness.
You just don't get it.
I am sorry for the loss of your brother, but one of my brother's ex girlfriends died because she was wearing a seatbelt. She was involved in a car crash. Her seatbelt's clasp jammed and would not release. Her car burst into flames from a broken fuel line and she burned alive. Should her surviving family, I mean they experienced grief and there was a social cost to her death, have the right to sue the state because they had in place a law that contributed to her death? If a law supposedy meant to save laws takes one should the state be liable?
Are you sure this hasn't changed? I thought it had.
>>Haven't buried anyone lately have you?<<
Ah, but they will be buried once, no matter what the cause. It's zero sum. ;)
Here's something to try on for size. It is a known fact that wearing flame retardant suits (like fire fighters wear) would save a lot of lives in auto accidents. They're big, bulky, hot and not at all comfortable to wear.
By your logic, we should pass a law requiring all occupants of a motor vehicle to wear them while riding in the vehicle because wearing them would save lives.
Such an intrusive law passes your tests, but not mine. That is where we differ. We separated from England over such as this but that spirit seems to be fading.
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.