I just wanted to remind everyone.....


PDA






Jeff
June 1, 2005, 12:48 AM
"Click it or ticket!"



I get so enraged when I hear this that I could eat nails. :banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "I just wanted to remind everyone....." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Third_Rail
June 1, 2005, 12:55 AM
Shh. Drink your kool aid and buckle your seat belt. OR ELSE. :scrutiny:



MA also has a ban on smoking in quite a few places.

DSRUPTV
June 1, 2005, 01:03 AM
Well at least there is a weak argument that smoking can negatively affect the health of others. I see no need at all for an adult to be forced to wear their seatbelt. Proper restraints for young children seems ok, but not for a reasonable adult.

Alex45ACP
June 1, 2005, 01:05 AM
More idiotic nanny-statery... :cuss:

dustind
June 1, 2005, 01:16 AM
With laws like that. Who's side are the police on? I thought they where supposed to protect citizens, not harass them supposedly for their own good.

thorn726
June 1, 2005, 01:16 AM
want future genretions not to be annoyed??

teach yer kids like my parents taught me.

i have always worn a seatbelt. my dad drives a volvo (inventors of belt) my mom is a nurse.
we always wore them, i feel naked in the car without it. helps keep me in the seat while driving. anyway point is it only bothers you if you think someone is telling you to put it on.

you really want to do a 360 faceplant thru the windshield, well i do know a guy with the following signature-
"stupidity should be painful"

PS= agioan, like with the helmets= if a bunch of losers who werent wearing seatbelts didnt get hurt and proceed to clog the courts going after $$$$$$
dollars, if people didnt use up hospitals, E/R services, police with their extra injuries due to lack of belt, it would be no problem.

you want to use public roads, you deal with the public, and we deal with you.
dont think most of us want anyone in that belt to protect them- heck, the less of you out there, the more for me (ha ha).
but say the brakes fail on my big truck= id rather do as little damage to you physically as possible. i feel much better slamming you forwrd in your seat than i do sending you upward, crushing your neck on the roof, then bashing your face against the windshield........

but hey man , it's up to you. my brakes are good for now............

Jeff
June 1, 2005, 02:29 AM
anyway point is it only bothers you if you think someone is telling you to put it on.

Point is, it is no one else's right to force you to wear it. And, someone is telling you to put it on...no thinking about it.

you really want to do a 360 faceplant thru the windshield, well i do know a guy with the following signature-"stupidity should be painful"

Stupidity should also be someone's choice.

PS= agioan, like with the helmets= if a bunch of losers who werent wearing seatbelts didnt get hurt and proceed to clog the courts going after $$$$$$

Why don't we outlaw motorcycles, since motor cycles don't have seatbelts? Hmmmm? Why don't we mandate helmets for bicycle riding, since they are not already mandated? Hmmmm?

Why don't we outlaw hang gliding, down hill skiing, big wave surfing, cave diving, motocross racing, rock climbing, etc, since all those activities are actually quite dangerous, and people get killed by them all the time. People file lawsuits for accidents/deaths incurred by those activities all the time. Let's outlaw all of them....hmmmm?

It's NO ONE'S job to FORCE me to wear a seatbelt......it's NO ONE'S job to protect me from myself when I am an adult who is fully capable of making adult decisions.

Whether I want to do something stupid or want to live dangerously, it is NO ONE else's right to force me to do otherwise.

Get it?

ravinraven
June 1, 2005, 02:30 AM
...when New York State first introduced this further abomination of the "Get more law into their faces" crowd, the top cop in the state, Thomas Constantine, I believe, said on the radio that the NY State Police would never stop anyone for not having a seat belt on. If they stopped someone for some other violation and the people were unbelted, they'd be ticketed. Right. They are not going to let all that money just roll by now are they?

An odd bit of trivia on the seatbelt law. Passed in 1984---hmmm. I took up a collection in a bar and raised $20 to send to the first person, a lady from Vermont, who was busted by this idiocy. That made it into the local scandal sheets and, I believe in Rutland, Vt. where she lived.

More odd, still, A student in a class of mine at a two-year college was the son of the cop that wrote that ticket. He was not proud.

I chat with a few state cops who do business where I do at times. Many are embarrassed to have to stand in the road and make these idiotic checks. One I know quit in embarrassment. But as we move further along and idiocy is the order of the day, as illustrated by the poster from Berkley, expect to see the country slide further into tyranny.

One of the highlights of this campaign of idiocy happened when a female cop drove her patrol car into the side of a guy's car trying to see if he had his belt on up here about two towns up the road.

Also, if you are driving alone and come to a seat belt check point, you have a great chance of getting a ticket, belted or not. The whole idea is criminal activity by the state. If you are running a scam operation, expect scammers to be attracted toward it especially if the scam is "legal."

An ex-state cop friend of mine said, back in 1982, that 90% of traffic laws are created for or enforced for the sole purpose of raising revenue. Witness the stop light cam scam where one geek figured out that making the yellow light two seconds shorter raised the "take" at a particular intersection by a few hundred thousand a year.

I am in favor of seat belts. A great idea. They have caused deaths enough times so that their use should be personal choice. On the average, they save lives. Specific instances of them causing death were recorded at least before the law went into effect. Honest cops on occasion, up here anyway, would tell a reporter that so and so would be alive if it hadn't been for the seat belt.
These cases were obvious. They all concerned small cars that were ripped apart and the occupants dragged out by their seatbelt.

Boy, you don't wanna state truth like that now if you are a cop or you won't have a job very long.

Enjoy the ride. This ol' handbasket is approaching warp speed.

rr

Byron Quick
June 1, 2005, 02:56 AM
I think adults should be allowed to wear seat belts or not as they choose. I think the insurance companies should also be allowed to sell policies that require selt belt use (both automobile and medical) and policies (with a much higher premium) which have no such requirements.

If you're covered by a policy that requires seat belt use and you are found with injuries without one after an automobile accident...then you have no coverage...and the hospital doesn't have to treat you if you can't pay cash...up front.

Personal responsibility for your actions means more than just doing whatever you please. Your actions affect others. When your actions affect my finances...I get ornery. I don't want laws that force you to do anything that you do not choose to do. I do want laws that prevent your carelessness from affecting my wallet.

Commissar Gribb
June 1, 2005, 03:05 AM
tax dollars at work, my friends. ;)

AK-74me
June 1, 2005, 03:08 AM
Might be good for teenagers who think it is not cool to put on your seat belt, but at the same time I don't think people should be forced to wear them. Myself I wear it so this doesn't get me one bit upset. Hopefully it will help save a life or two even if it does come from the fear of getting a ticket for buckling up.

Sindawe
June 1, 2005, 03:42 AM
seat belt laws :cuss:

I'll not ride without a helmet, nor will drive/ride in a car without a seat belt. Better if I can use a lap and shoulder belt. But it is the INDIVIDUALS choice to use them, or not.

"Click it or ticket" laws are revenue generation laws, nothing more.

Jeff White
June 1, 2005, 04:51 AM
First off let me say I have NEVER written a seatbelt ticket. Of course I've never worked for an agency that required you to. Some agencies do.

Here in Illinois we have a primary seatbelt law. However when the nanny staters forced a motorcycle helmet law through the legislature the state supreme court declared it unconstitutional! Yep the very same same state supreme court that upheld the seatbelt law as constitutional, struck down the helmet law.

I have long said that by the time those people who have nothing more important in their life to do but worry about what everyone else is doing, we'll all live in foam rubber rooms, drink only distilled water and only eat a specially blended nutriant....

Jeff

c_yeager
June 1, 2005, 05:36 AM
Ive never supported any kind of seatbelt of helmet law. YES i absolutly use both of them EVERY SINGLE TIME that I am riding or driving and so does anyone else who rides in my car. Its a personal choice that shouldnt be within the bounds of government control.

I understand the argument that people not wearing seatbelts costs everyone money through medical costs and insurance rates. However the solution to that problem is to fix the insurance and medical systems NOT the limitation of individual liberty.

Third_Rail
June 1, 2005, 07:05 AM
Why don't we mandate helmets for bicycle riding, since they are not already mandated?


In MA, they are.

Zach S
June 1, 2005, 08:27 AM
This reminds me of a story.

Pug didnt have to wear his seatbelt because of, something, I dont really know what, but it was medical. He rolls up to a seatbelt checkpoint and the officer informs him that he should be wearing his seatbelt, and he's getting a ticket because of the governor's "clicket or ticket" program. Pug reaches into his wallet, pulls out the note from his doctor and says "Well, according to this, I dont have to wear my seatbelt, so you can tell Governor Hunt to love it, or shove it." The officer laughed, and then said "I'll be sure to do that."

garyk/nm
June 1, 2005, 08:32 AM
It puzzles me that, given the "it's for the children" mentality of so many nanny-lovers, there are still no seatbelts in school buses.
One of my co-workers is also a brand spankin' new deputy sheriff. Being a gung-ho newbie, he loves writing tickets. Last week, I noticed him coming up behind me in traffic, lights blazing, so I pulled aside and he flew past, and he pulled over a car. The same car which had just run a red light and was weaving at higher speed thru traffic. I mentioned to him later that I was glad that he had pulled this guy over, and he said the only thing he ticketed the guy for was no seatbelt...hadn't even noticed the other infractions. :banghead:

Third_Rail
June 1, 2005, 08:49 AM
there are still no seatbelts in school buses.

You weren't supposed to notice that.

GigaBuist
June 1, 2005, 08:51 AM
I wear a seatbelt 99.9% of the time and this campaign still annoys me.

Let's see, you're taking my tax dollars to pay for an advertising campaign to remind me of a law that I don't think should even exist, and using police officers on the public payroll to harass motorists so that you can garner more revenue from the taxpayers. Serve and protect or harass and tax?

I'm not blaming the officers here... just the idiots that put them up to this.

So, while we're running this massive click-it-or-ticket campaign around here we had an armed robbery of a gas station. That's not a regular occurance around here, and it makes me wonder if the criminal element considers it to be less risky to pull off a stunt like that when the politicians put the police officers on baby-sitting duty all day.

Igloodude
June 1, 2005, 09:36 AM
Jeff, being in Vermont, I'm sure you'll get an extra special laugh out of this one:

http://unionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=55084

Check the map! Are we in Vermont yet?
By SHAWNE K. WICKHAM
Sunday News Staff

Jeannie Johnson actually groaned aloud when she heard they had to cut down New Hampshire trees for two Vermont billboards that are quickly becoming infamous.

The story just keeps getting worse.

Johnson is the coordinator of the governor’s highway safety program in Vermont. That agency paid thousands of dollars to put up two billboards in the middle of New Hampshire that have been turning heads and sparking conversations.

“Buckle up in Vermont. It’s the law,” read the large billboards on Interstate 293 near the Manchester-Hooksett line, and on Route 9/202 as you enter Hillsborough.

Huh?

Is that supposed to be a swipe at New Hampshire, where seat belt laws only apply up to age 18? Was it just a mistake?

Nope, it was your federal tax dollars at work.

Johnson told the New Hampshire Sunday News that Vermont got a $24,000 federal grant to put up billboards reminding drivers of the seatbelt law.

Here’s what’s funny: Vermont bans billboards.

So the grant was for Vermont to rent billboards in New Hampshire and Massachusetts instead. Johnson explained past seatbelt surveys have found the areas of Vermont with the lowest rates of seatbelt use are along those borders.

Something different

The feds had made it clear they weren’t happy with Vermont’s seatbelt usage rates. The only way the state was going to get more highway safety money this year was if they tried something different.

Billboards were different.

The feds liked Vermont’s idea and gave them the grant in March. But when Johnson set out to find billboards close to the borders, they had all already been rented long ago.

“We assumed they were going to be right on the border, but it turned out there were no right-on-the-border locations that we could get.”

“We had a lot of money thrown at us and a very short time to get it done.”

Dumb or brilliant?

There were two billboards available in New Hampshire: On the Manchester beltway and on what serves as the local road into Hillsborough, now that the Route 9/202 bypass is open.

There were seven signs available in Massachusetts — and they’re not on the Vermont border either. Six are in Pittsfield in the Berkshires and one is on Interstate 91 near Springfield.

Johnson said she knew it wasn’t ideal. “We said this isn’t perfect, but maybe we can put our toe in the water and see whether this is the dumbest idea we ever came up with, or maybe it’s brilliant.”

“Here’s the deal: We either don’t do it at all and send the money back or give it a shot,” she said. “The fact of the matter is it’s federal money and if it only helps New Hampshire and not Vermont, that doesn’t meet my goals, but it’s good for the country.”

Still, she said, “If we’d known we were going to be in Manchester, we might have worded it differently.”

Did Johnson consider giving the money back? “Briefly,” she admitted. “But if nothing else, I realize I may be fried over this, but if I get fried in the flurry of conversation about people in Vermont trying to get you buckled up, I’m willing to go down.”

“I hate the idea of using my money to help New Hampshire when I need help so badly, but I don’t see how anything bad can come out of it,” she said.

That was before she heard about the trees.

Signs, trees come down

The company that owns the I-293 billboard recently hired a contractor to cut a wide swath of pine trees, to allow sight lines for the sign from the highway.

Bill Boynton, spokesman for the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, said the tree-cutting was part of an agreement signed in February between the state DOT and Viacom Outdoors. The company owns more than 250 billboards in the state, according to a Viacom representative.

Boynton said the pilot project let Viacom Outdoors do “vegetation management” around its billboards in eight locations, in Bedford, Rochester, Dover, Merrimack and Hooksett. In exchange, the company will take down five of its older signs, in Concord, Belmont, Keene and Goffstown.

“We’re allowing the private sector to have a certain amount of limited access and also enable us to get some of the less desirable billboards down, and they won’t be replaced,” Boynton said.

“And also part of the mix is some public service messages.”

Raising eyebrows and ...

Before the latest sign, the Hooksett billboard bore a message from the state of New Hampshire, reminding drivers of the penalties for buying alcohol for underage individuals.

But urging Vermonters to buckle up?

“We were pretty surprised by the nature of the message,” Boynton admitted. “We don’t have any problem with Vermont encouraging seatbelt use by spending money. We did find it somewhat eyebrow-raising that they did it in the heart of New Hampshire.”

Johnson sounded appalled when she heard about the trees. “I can assure you we asked nobody to cut down any trees,” she said.

“I can see outrage coming from that, and who could blame them?”

“Maybe they were just trying to improve visibility on the roadway,” she suggested hopefully.

A NH message

Peter Thomson, coordinator of New Hampshire’s highway safety agency, said any buckle-up message can’t hurt, especially as the state launches its own seatbelt campaign this week. But he said, “I wouldn’t spend the money to put a billboard in the middle of Massachusetts or in the middle of Vermont for a New Hampshire activity.”

For instance, he said, the state plans to put up message boards in time for Motorcycle Week in June, warning drivers and bikers alike to use caution. But he said, “That’s going to be on the border on the New Hampshire side.”

Reactions to the Vermont billboards last week ranged from jokes to minor outrage.

“We weren’t sure whether this was some sort of payback for the whole Killington thing,” Boynton said, referring to that town’s efforts to secede from Vermont and join the Granite State.

Jim Coffey is the business administrator for the town of Hillsborough. He wasn’t impressed with the new sign.

“Your tax dollars at work,” he said with disgust.

“I could see putting it in New Hampshire just before you cross the Connecticut River. But putting it in a commercial zone in Hillsborough, New Hampshire, is nuts.”

Then he had an idea: “Why don’t we put a New Hampshire liquor store in Vermont?”

Mary Ann Wells, who works in the state Bureau of Traffic office that regulates billboards, said her office got a good laugh when they heard about what Vermont was planning to do.

“It just absolutely boggles my mind that they did this,” she said. “It makes absolutely no sense.”

And she wonders if the signs will confuse out-of-state visitors: “You’re going to say, ‘Hon, grab the map. Where the heck are we?’”

Then there was this joke making its way around a certain state office last week: “It definitely can’t be a Vermont country road, because it has new pavement, new paint and four-foot shoulders.”

Third_Rail
June 1, 2005, 09:57 AM
:D


That's really funny.

TallPine
June 1, 2005, 10:13 AM
i feel naked in the car without [wearing a seatbelt]
Yeah, but seatbelts don't cover very much .... :neener:

Arc-Lite
June 1, 2005, 02:24 PM
just goes to show, how dense some people are.... the point here, is not who is telling you to wear seat belts... the point here....is that wearing them just makes sense, your head doing 30mph into the window...is bad news...and if anyone must tell you this, then good luck. I hate any commercials... thats why we have the "mute" botton. If you feel like this is a "freedom" issue... then do as you choose...be "free" to fly into the windshield.

Third_Rail
June 1, 2005, 02:33 PM
Arc-lite, you misunderstand. Most of us wear seatbelts for the reasons you describe. Being told we must is what ticks us off.

Justin
June 1, 2005, 02:39 PM
"Click it or ticket!"



I get so enraged when I hear this that I could eat nails. Jeff, why do you hate the children so much?

PrudentGT
June 1, 2005, 02:46 PM
Not wearing your seatbelt makes baby Jesus cry... ;)

And yes, I too remember how we were told seatbelt laws would oh-never-ever-ever be the sole reason for a traffic stop. Just gotta get your foot in the door, baby!

Nehemiah Scudder
June 1, 2005, 03:00 PM
Got the perfect solution...

Just enact a law (or lack of one) saying that the insurance companies don't have to pay out for an accident where seatbelts weren't worn.

Nightfall
June 1, 2005, 03:18 PM
"Click it or ticket!"
I have to mute the TV everytime they run that damn commercial. :fire:

Arc-Lite
June 1, 2005, 05:03 PM
third rail....I know, thats why we have the mute button.... telling me something I already do...just makes me smile...and shows me, again... I am ahead of the game..I don't take it personal !

dasmi
June 1, 2005, 05:16 PM
Why don't we mandate helmets for bicycle riding, since they are not already mandated?
In California, the State cares for us so much, that they HAVE mandated helmets for bicycle riders.

R.H. Lee
June 1, 2005, 05:22 PM
If you’re riding in a car please buckle up (buckle up)
If you’re riding in a car please buckle up
Buckle up safe and secure,
Yes I’ll say it one time more
If you’re riding in a car please buckle up

Please make sure that mom and dad buckle up too (come on, Mom)
Please make sure that mom and dad buckle up too (come on, Dad)
If you’re big or if you’re small
Doesn’t matter not at all
Please make sure that mom and dad buckle up too

If you’re riding in a car please buckle up (buckle up)
If you’re riding in a car please buckle up
Buckle up safe and secure,
Yes I’ll say it one time more
If you’re riding in a car please buckle up

If the child is very small, use a car seat (that’s right)
If the child is very small, use a car seat (always!)
Please show us you are wise
A car seat, just the right size
If the child is very small, use a car seat

If you’re riding in a car please buckle up (buckle up)
If you’re riding in a car please buckle up
Buckle up safe and secure,
Yes, I’ll say it one time more
If you’re riding in a car please buckle up




:p

Bravo11
June 1, 2005, 05:26 PM
I don't buckle up. I want to be thrown clear of the wreckage :D

hvengel
June 1, 2005, 05:43 PM
In many states when there is an accident when someone is not wearing a seat belt is injured it is considered to have contributed to the injury. So if the injured person was not wearing a seat belt the at fault person will not have to pay the whole amount of the total damages to the injured person. I have been told that this often reduces the amount awarded by 20% to 40%. I think having a seat belt law is one of the things that makes this possible. That is the injured person broke the law and this contributed to the injury therefore they are not going to get fully compensated.

I was in a multi-car accident about 2 years ago and only two individuals had more than minor bumps and scraps. Neither was wearing a seat belt. One of them had a significant head injury as he went into the windshield head first. Everyone in my car was wearing their belts and none of us was injured in any way.

I will not leave my driveway until everyone in the car is buckled up. It would not matter if there were a law about this or not. I have also been in cars a few times in the past when one of the passengers refused to buckle up. Having a law about this helps the driver in these situations as he can say "Hey I don't want to get a ticket so please buckle up". If I were driving I would say "Either buckle up or get out of the car." So again the law would not matter.

I agree with the poster above who said that it should be something that the insurance companies handle. If you don't want to buckle up you pay more (way more). I don't think this is out of line. After all part of how much your insurance costs is based on how safe your car is in a crash and buckling up makes your car safer. Seat belt use would just be an added factor in how costly the insurance is.

Yowza
June 1, 2005, 06:17 PM
Well, I have heard the statistic that almost (less than) 60% of fatal crashes involved people not wearing their seatbelt. So what does that mean? Almost half the people that died in crashes were wearing their seatbelt! Really, how good are those odds? I'm not really being serious, I just love it when they trot out that statistic since by itself it doesn't really mean much.

I have no problem with wearing my seatbelt, but I have a serious problem with the government hassling me over anything related to personal choice, even as it relates to my safety. Life is dangerous and the sooner people get used to the idea and leave everybody else the hell alone, the better I'll like it. Of course, that's not going to happen anytime soon.

I don't think it's necessary for there to be a law requiring seat belt usage in order to implement an insurance-type solution. All you would need is a couple of checkboxes on the accident report.

Rick

Ironworker
June 1, 2005, 08:35 PM
"They all concerned small cars that were ripped apart and the occupants dragged out by their seatbelt."

It didn't help matters a bit that the seatbelts were attached to the *door*, not the *car*. Yes, wearing a seatbelt in a crash can kill you, but with a relatively modern design and implementation (say, 1980 or later, with exceptions going both ways), a lot more people are prevented from death/serious injury by wearing one than by not. Most deaths from a seatbelt are from people who are not wearing it properly; some people seem to think the "lap belt" portion should be across their lower rib cage, and this can get messy in an accident.

Yes, the state telling me to wear a seat belt rankles. But, until we come to the point that we can tell motorcyclists who distain helmets, and car drivers who ignore their seatbelts that, in the event of an accident, they will not be able to receive any medical care NO MATTER THE OUTCOME OTHERWISE other than what they can fund out of pocket, there will be laws telling people to do things that most rational persons would do anyway.

SIOP
June 1, 2005, 09:07 PM
The thing that really frosts my ass about this click it or ticket BS is that the government runs these Gestapo-like checkpoints so the cops can write YOU a ticket, but nobody makes the cops or other government employees wear THEIR seatbelts. I'll bet that around here seatbelt compliance by cops and other city/county employees is around 25 percent at best. I keep a running list of all the government goons I see riding around without their belts on so that next time I get corralled in the sweep, I can ask the cop why they don't have to wear their belts, and when he replies that they do, I can whip out my notebook and start reading.

By the way, I wear my seatbelt 100 percent of the time, even if I'm driving across a parking lot.

This just pisses me off. They could make better use of confiscated tax dollars by going after real criminals. Heck, the policeman of the year in this town only solved 50% of his cases, you'd think that rather than hassle otherwise law abiding citizens about their seatbelts that he could use that time to solve maybe one more crime.

jefnvk
June 1, 2005, 09:11 PM
A point I like to bring up.

If this is all about saving lives, and saving medicals money, why do we stop there. Why don't we take all the technology learned from racing and make it mandatory. What if we put roll cages in all cars, to prevent them from being ripped apart in a side impact? What if we required firesuits, to delay injury in case the car starts on fire? Head trauma is a biggie in car accidents, a helmet would reduce that. Whiplash and broken necks can be reduced by a Head and Neck Restraint device.

After all, it is to save lives. If it saves your life, isn't it worth it?

scout26
June 1, 2005, 09:13 PM
To quote what my father said this past weekend:

"They're going to legislate us all to heaven, whether we want to go or not."

Sam
June 1, 2005, 11:48 PM
We have got to do away with all those so called safety laws.
Need to keep the morons thinned out somehow.

Sam

Combat-wombat
June 2, 2005, 12:05 AM
I feel the same way you do. I have a hard time restraining myself from smashing the TV in with a baseball bat when I see those commercials. :cuss:

I've always worn my seat belt, but this ad makes me not want to. It's not about wearing a seatbelt, it's about the government telling you to.

SMMAssociates
June 2, 2005, 01:04 AM
I don't have any stats, but I believe that the yellow school bus is about as safe as it gets as far as over-the-road transportation.

The problem is that when they are involved in an accident, it's an "Omygawd Children!" reaction.

The problem also is that they're built to standards that would scare the crap out of you if your car was built the same way. When's the last time you saw a car's body and chassis going different directions after an accident....

However, over the years, a good deal of effort has gone into improving the insides of the vehicles. The "disaster" accident - a semi or a train, for example, is extremely rare, so the interiors are designed to keep the kids in the area defined by their seats and the back of the seat in front of them. As long as the kids stay in those areas, they're about as safe as they're likely to get in a normal accident.

(Bear in mind that except for "Field Trip" usage, they rarely are driven all that fast in most areas, and spend a toof time at 25-30MPH.)

Keeping the kids in the cocoon isn't the easiest thing for the driver to do, but it's not impossible. IMHO keeping seat belts on the kids (some of them are kind of tiny, too, and may be in danger from the belts) ought to be nearly impossible. The feeling seems to be that a very large percentage of the risk is in slow-speed accidents, so let's keep that as safe as possible and just hope for the best otherwise.

Just IMHO, of course....

(As to seat belts and helmets for adults, well, I wear belts and don't have a motorcycle. I object to the "mandatory" nature of the laws, but favor the use of the devices. I agree, too, that a lot of traffic enforcement is strictly revenue. Locally, we had a speed trap city nearby that was forced to send the traffic cases to a muni court instead of a "Mayor's Court". This resulted in most of the revenue staying with the muni court. The PD is still out there and writing tickets, but for real violations....)

JerGun
June 2, 2005, 01:18 AM
I don't buckle up. I want to be thrown clear of the wreckage

Roger that --- Who wants to have to hang out in a mangled car until help arrives? ..... NOT ME!!


What if the car starts on fire?......I don't wanna be in there, for sure!!


Seriously, I'm an adult. I don't have to eat vegetables, or wear a seatbelt. That's just how it should be.

If you're worried about increased healthcare costs due to my robbing the poor insurance companies, maybe we can tap into the 40% + of my earned wages that are taken from my paycheck. Now where's that money?................Oh yeah, that's right - It's being spent to tell me I'm being naughty.

Cellar Dweller
June 2, 2005, 01:18 AM
Johnson told the New Hampshire Sunday News that Vermont got a $24,000 federal grant to put up billboards reminding drivers of the seatbelt law. Here’s what’s funny: Vermont bans billboards.


***? Bureaucracy at its finest? :fire:

“Here’s the deal: We either don’t do it at all and send the money back or give it a shot,” she said. “The fact of the matter is it’s federal money and if it only helps New Hampshire and not Vermont, that doesn’t meet my goals, but it’s good for the country.”
“I hate the idea of using my money to help New Hampshire when I need help so badly, but I don’t see how anything bad can come out of it,” she said.

It never was YOUR money; it isn't LEGAL within your own borders, therefore you should have never applied for the grant in the first place...of course the upside is you can spend every penny and get those federal road funds ransomed. Even if seatbelt usage continues to be low, you can always whine for more money next year, because obviously $24k wasn't enough. :banghead:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know it's never gonna happen, but I wish that someday some state legislature collectively "grows a pair" and tells Big Daddy Fed that they're gonna withhold revenue > the amount the fed agency is holding hostage.

Joejojoba111
June 2, 2005, 01:53 AM
In every second year of school they'd scare us half to death and thus encourage us to use seatbelts, gruesome videos, gruesome stories, gruesome cafeteria food...

I agree that a seat-belt that saves your life is no reason to make it law, it stops you from being sucked out the window in a roll-over, but that's not a reason to codify them in law.

There is one fact they told us that would justify seat-belt laws, I guess it is that when there's more than 1 person in a car and they crash at higher speeds, the occupants to a lot of damage to each other. Often that's what kills them. And the problem is that both people have to wear belts to stop it, or else the 1 guy without the belt will be propelled into the guy with the belt and they still get messed up. So when someone is in my car they wear a seat-belt, they're just a 200 pound bag of cement and rocks as far as I'm concerned, like a loose cannon on a ship of the line they need be tied down.

But that's my car, my law, I'm not sure that's reason enough to impinge other's freedom. I'm pretty sure it's not.

ravinraven
June 2, 2005, 04:03 AM
" Jeff, why do you hate the children so much?"

I hope, for your sake, and the next generation's sake, that you were kidding when you said that.

The number of "children" that will some day be killed in the fight to take back liberty in this country will far outweigh even automobile deaths among people who refuse to wear a belt.

rr

CleverName
June 2, 2005, 06:12 AM
Putting on my seatbelt when I sit in a car is as automated to me as making sure I have my wallet when I go out.

As to being trapped in a burning/sinking/something car by the seatbelt... well, that's why we have seatbelt cutters. Or knives. You do carry a knife with you, right? A seat belt cutter is $3. There are worse things you could spend your money on.

Old Guy
June 2, 2005, 07:52 AM
My Wife and I wear seat belts, all of the time....except... Pauline had been to a play in the downtown area, I was picking her up, as she suffers from Woman’s disease! Too cold if air conditioning is on! She had a shawl with her, on jumping into the Jeep and telling me all about the show and of course with the shawl across her lap, neither one of us noted the seat belt had not been snapped on.

The I4 was just two blocks from the pick up point, so in a minute or so we are doing 60MPH, on our way home. Nitwit young Lady driver attempted to come across three lanes, to leave the I4 via the most dangerous left leaving lane in the State, needless to say she had left it too late, my horn told her she was in my path, as I tried to lesson the impact by hitting her square on!! 04 Grand Cherokee, great disc brakes, she booted it, I did not hit her, my Wife was on the edge of her seat, both hands on the dash! just about to go through the glass!

You can do what you want, we wear ours.

Side bar, the idiot bodyguard of Princess Di did not have his charges wear belts, they died, he had his on! He did not.

SteveS
June 2, 2005, 09:50 AM
Just enact a law (or lack of one) saying that the insurance companies don't have to pay out for an accident where seatbelts weren't worn.

You probably wouldn't even need a law. Insurance companies could put it in the policy. Most would deny coverage if you do something stupid. If I left my keys in the car and it was stolen, do you think they would pay out?

If this is all about saving lives, and saving medicals money, why do we stop there. Why don't we take all the technology learned from racing and make it mandatory. What if we put roll cages in all cars, to prevent them from being ripped apart in a side impact? What if we required firesuits, to delay injury in case the car starts on fire? Head trauma is a biggie in car accidents, a helmet would reduce that. Whiplash and broken necks can be reduced by a Head and Neck Restraint device.

There was an article a while back that said that (in MI) over 90% of drivers complied with the seatbelt requirement. The steps you talk about are much more expensive than a seatbelt, so people would make a stink, especially the auto manufacturers. The high level of compliance, along with the fact that most people that don't like the law wear their seatbelt anyway (they just don't like being told), makes it highly unlikely that there will be any major protest against this law.

TallPine
June 2, 2005, 09:57 AM
Putting on my seatbelt when I sit in a car is as automated to me as making sure I have my wallet when I go out.
:D In my case, I hardly ever take my wallet unless I am going to town. Same thing with using the seatbelt. The gravel and dirt roads within about 10 miles are about the same to me as "going to the end of the driveway"


Not that it means anything statistically, but about a year ago there was a tragic accident near Billings. A mother and two kids rolled their car. possibly after a near collision with a deer. None were wearing belts, all were ejected, the mother died and the kids survived with injuries. Those who inspected the car afterwards said the mother would have lived if she had been wearing a belt, but the kids would have been killed because that side of the car was totally squashed. It goes both ways, FWIW ....

Tom Servo
June 2, 2005, 10:09 AM
Seatbelts are a good thing. I was in an accident once where I ended up with a few bruised ribs instead of being thrown through the windshield. Sensible people should wear them.

However, it is not the job of the government to regulate sensibility, as much as I sometimes wish otherwise :)

Around here, they do those "seatbelt checks," usually after midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. It gives the police a chance to get a peek in your car and a whiff of your breath. Given that I've got lifelong injuries from a drunk driver, I'm okay with that.

DRZinn
June 2, 2005, 11:39 AM
if the injured person was not wearing a seat belt the at fault person will not have to pay the whole amount of the total damages to the injured person. I have been told that this often reduces the amount awarded by 20% to 40%. I think having a seat belt law is one of the things that makes this possible.You don't need a law for that; contributory negligence is always grounds for partial liability, law or not.

hightech
June 2, 2005, 01:27 PM
The point is not safety or freedom of choice it is revenue generation. :fire:

petrel800
June 2, 2005, 01:39 PM
Unfortunatly, this is one area where I agree with the law to an extent.

Yes, it is your right to be stupid and not wear a seat belt. It is not your right to force me to pay your medical bills.

It is the public who foots the bill for those who do not wear a selt belt and are injured. If you get into an auto accident and are injured without insurance (auto or health), then the government steals my money for your care. It is the same with motorcycle incidents.

My solution is this, if you can provide an insurance policy that will cover your bodily injury or you have enough money to put in trust for an accident, then you should be able to do what you please. Otherwise, I hope you get a huge ticket, because if you ever get into an accident without your seatbelt or helmet, statistically you are more likely to be injured, and without proper coverage or money in the bank, the goverment is going to stick me with your bill. That my friends is theft.

atk
June 2, 2005, 01:59 PM
petrel800,

It sounds like, when one law is bad (stealing your money to pay for someone else's medical needs) you'd rather have another bad law (forcing someone to wear a seat belt) than to repeal the first bad law. Is that correct?

Art Eatman
June 2, 2005, 03:25 PM
Coming late to the party...

From page 1, the comment about Volvo inventing seatbelts. Well, er, no; think "airplanes". And, my father installed his own seatbelts in his cars somewhere around 1946 or so. I disremember when seatbelts first became an option; 1950s?

Anyway, Volvo did do a study about the effects of seatbelt use. 89% of the time, would-have-been fatal injuries were avoided or reduced. 11% of the time, the belts made things worse.

So, to me, 9:1 is a good number to have in my favor. Wish it could be like that at Vegas...

But I don't like Big Nanny ordering me to buckle up. And nowadays, if somebody wants to write me a ticket for not being buckled up, I'll empty my colostomy bag on their shoes.

:), Art

petrel800
June 2, 2005, 03:29 PM
In this case, I have no problem with it. IMO, the government will never allow the first law (using tax dollars . . .) to be repealed. No ER will be allowed to send away critically injured people.

So in this case as I said in my previous post, the seat belt laws and helmet laws serve to reduce the public's tax burdon. If you want to ammend the current seat belt and helmet laws to allow for freedom of choice if that person can show insurance coverage or money in trust, I have no problem with that. You have a right to be a statistic, on your own dollar!

I have no problem with allowing ERs to send away uninsured and people who cannot pay. There are enough charities out there to help the truly needed people. I am realistic enough to realize that will never be allowed.

rick_reno
June 2, 2005, 03:34 PM
I've installed seat belts around the sofa, the dining room table and here at my computer chair. I'm convinced that in the not to distant future we'll be required to wear them whenever and where ever we're sitting. When they pass this legislation, they'll tie it to the "War on Terror" with the promise that terrorists won't be able to damage if they're seatbelted in - and we're safer because of it. They're going to get a LOT of mileage out of this war before it's "over".

Art Eatman
June 2, 2005, 03:42 PM
Aw, petrel800, the trouble with "So in this case as I said in my previous post, the seat belt laws and helmet laws serve to reduce the public's tax burdon." is that you're supposing that somehow government has some right to taxes in the first place. :)

Next, you don't mind the government taking money as an aftermath of Big Nannyism which then reduces the quality of life for somebody who's having problems buying food or paying the rent. :)

The overall problem, of course, stems in part from the general policy of allowing almost anybody to own and drive a car, no matter how poor they are. That is, one can get by--governtmentwise--with a minimal insurance coverage under the liability laws, with a relatively low premium.

FULL responsibility would mandate coverage for both the car and the people, as to repairs to both the vehicles and all people involved in a wreck.

torpid
June 2, 2005, 03:53 PM
Interesting thread.

Well, I gotta run- my kids are sleepy and I need to get 'em into their Nap Helmets TM.


.

petrel800
June 2, 2005, 04:20 PM
"Aw, petrel800, the trouble with "So in this case as I said in my previous post, the seat belt laws and helmet laws serve to reduce the public's tax burdon." is that you're supposing that somehow government has some right to taxes in the first place."

Unfortunatly, they do under the sixteenth ammendment of 1913. I don't like it anymore than you.

"Next, you don't mind the government taking money as an aftermath of Big Nannyism which then reduces the quality of life for somebody who's having problems buying food or paying the rent."

I don't mind fines for people who wish to effect my quality of life by increased taxes. However, I would propose that anyone in violation of a traffic law be given the option of paying a fine or doing some sort of manual labor for the state to repay their debt. Giving people a choice between the two would allow the people to destroy the revenue generating of local governments through traffic fines. I would bet though that most people would still pay the fine.

I want to pose an additional question, if it is nannyism to force people to wear a selt belt or helmet, can the same be said about forcing people to carry insurance? Should someone be able to drive without insurance?

Bacchus
June 2, 2005, 04:48 PM
At the risk of taking the thread too far off course, perhaps more of the blame should be placed on the insurance companies--they do the studies and trot out their statistics about the likelihood of being hurt in specific cars, or specific accidents, etc.

The insurance companies are to blame. The gov.fed (or is it fed.gov...) are just profiting from them.

Need we make comparisons to Onstar?

TallPine
June 2, 2005, 04:55 PM
Well, since the govt has become the default payer for medical care, I suppose they should now just ban all dangerous activities ...

Including those that - you know - may incur certain medical issues in the coming months if engaged in without the proper protective devices ;)

So of course they need to pass a law that requires the use of those protective devices. Now let's see how intrusive the enforcement of that law will be ... :uhoh:

3 gun
June 2, 2005, 05:51 PM
Night-Vision Goggles Help Seatbelt Campaign

POSTED: 12:36 pm EDT June 2, 2005

ROCKVILLE, Md. -- The "Click It or Ticket" campaign is getting some high-tech help in suburban Washington.

Maryland State Police are using a military tool to make sure drivers buckle up.

Officers had night vision goggles on Rockville Pike outside the nation's capital last night to look inside darkened cars. Police said they can see from a distance whether drivers have their seat belts fastened.

Authorities said 40 percent of drivers are less likely to wear their seat belts at night and that could be deadly. Maryland State Police Cpl. Kevin Sherwood told Washington, D.C., television station WRC that night-vision goggles are an effective way to catch those drivers.

Maryland authorities said they issued 111 citations Wednesday night as part of the campaign.


http://www.newsnet5.com/print/4560534/detail.html

spartacus2002
June 2, 2005, 05:58 PM
[standing wolf]

Yeah, but we're not a police state.

[/standing wolf]

hammer4nc
June 2, 2005, 09:52 PM
The cost/benefit analysis justifying mandatory seatbelts is bogus (as is the justifcation for cigarette prohibitions). Does it include the savings to social entitlement programs, when someone does NOT collect an extended retirement; medicare; medicaid; social security benefits, owing to a premature death from not wearing a seatbelt, or smoking? We've all got to die of something.

Clickit or stickit? Its really about revenue generation and sheeple control.

Taurus 66
June 3, 2005, 01:56 AM
Seatbelts can be just as devestating to the motorist (or passenger) as it can be as a lifesaving device. Sure these thin straps will prevent even a 300 pound person from being hurled through the windshield during a violent head on collision ... now imagine what happens to someone who is t-boned while wearing this safety belt. The bumper (let's say) smashes the front driver side door, pushing the door into the driver. This poor sucker is getting guts squeezed out like a tube of toothpaste, all because the restraint wouldn't allow for the body a sudden shift to the passenger seat. That belt isn't going to give!

ravinraven
June 3, 2005, 04:23 AM
...of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

"Unfortunatly, this is one area where I agree with the law to an extent.

Yes, it is your right to be stupid and not wear a seat belt. It is not your right to force me to pay your medical bills.

It is the public who foots the bill for those who do not wear a selt belt and are injured. If you get into an auto accident and are injured without insurance (auto or health), then the government steals my money for your care. It is the same with motorcycle incidents."

While we're thinking about passing laws to keep you from making me pay for your health care, I once said that, "before you know it, they'll be passing laws telling you what to eat. After all, overweight conditions cause more untimely deaths than booze, tobacco or car wrecks." [I was quoting someone's statistics on this at the time] Tell about getting a roaring laugh. People were slapping me on the back and saying how funny I was and that I should take my show on the road. In this frigged up state, there are at least two lawsuits going on against McDonald's for making people fat. And you read about new food police actions everyday.

To basically the same crowd [that laughed at my food police idea] about a week ago I said, "I'm gonna sue Bill Gates for the time I waste playing FREE CELL on this computer." I didn't get a laugh. Not even a giggle.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and there is a special high speed lane just for this handbasket.

And, to Art: I remember that the 1956 Fords offered seatbelts and a rubber dashboard as a safety option. I don't know if it was the first car to do so, but I remember that they did. But it was interesting that the rubber dash came to a pointed edge. If you hit it during a wreck, you'd crush the point and some energy would be absorbed. However, if you did not take the rubber dashboard option, the metal dash came to the same point and would cut you in two during a wreck. The '57 corrected this mistake, IIRC.

The point to remember is that safety laws are designed to collect money from the sheep and enforce their sheepishness. All governments work against the liberty of the people. We had safeguards built into our system by the founders. But gradually these safeguards have been eroded. The process started about a nano-second after the ink dried on The Document in the 1780s. Now if you mention the BoR or your rights in the presence of about 99% of college faculty members, you are met with hoots and derision.

The question is: Do we have to wear seatbelts and helmets in this handbasket?

rr

SteveS
June 3, 2005, 09:46 AM
While we're thinking about passing laws to keep you from making me pay for your health care, I once said that, "before you know it, they'll be passing laws telling you what to eat. After all, overweight conditions cause more untimely deaths than booze, tobacco or car wrecks." [I was quoting someone's statistics on this at the time] Tell about getting a roaring laugh.

The differnce is compliance. Most people wear their seatbelts anyway, so they have little or no complaints about being "forced" to wear one by the government. Laws prohibiting certain kinds of food would cause outrage and would be impossible to enforce. Smugglers would bring in twinkies from Canada and it would be just like Prohibition.

ravinraven
June 3, 2005, 11:36 AM
" Smugglers would bring in twinkies from Canada and it would be just like Prohibition."

ROTFLMAO

rr

RangerHAAF
June 3, 2005, 06:21 PM
I don't wear a seatbelt when I drive and in my state the law says that I don't have to because I drive a pick up truck. Whenever I get pulled over I never get ticketed for not wearing one.

Jeff
June 4, 2005, 10:44 AM
I like how this thread has stayed on course. Mostly everyone has had something intelligent to add.

To Petrel800, your agreement with this law rests on certain shaky grounds.
To begin with, as Art and others have pointed out, it is improper for the gov't to take our money from us in the first place. But they are going to do so and it is going to go somewhere or the other.

You seem to forget that between $10,000,000-$30,000,000 are being spent on this ridiculous campaign. So while our Uniformed Babysitters are out there enforcing this law you love so much, they are taking heaps of millions of our dollars. Makes a lot of sense, huh?

There is also a logical part of this equation that, when combined with the fact that tens of millions of our dollars are being wasted, totally undermines your argument. Mostly everyone agrees that seat belts saves lives, and most studies indicate that perhaps 90%+ of motorists do wear seat belts.

So your concern requires four separate things to happen: a motorist in the roughly 10% group who does not buckle; an accident; an accident serious enough to cause bodily harm and a trip to the ER; an uninsured motorist.

I would say the percentages for this group of people are minute enough, especially when weighed against the enormous costs of this gestapo-like campaign, that we can reasonably say it is not worth the harassments and loss of liberty.

And based on your concern, like I said before, why don't we outlaw motorcycles (no seat belts there), rock-climbing, hang-gliding, motocross racing, snowmobiles, ATVs, surfing, downhill skiing................want me to continue?

Art Eatman
June 4, 2005, 11:27 AM
Petrel800 asked, "...if it is nannyism to force people to wear a selt belt or helmet, can the same be said about forcing people to carry insurance? Should someone be able to drive without insurance?"

I don't think they're the same, because the first involves telling you what to do for your own good. The insurance thing is that you are responsible for the damage you cause to others.

Lemme get on my soapobox about I've long called "Naderism": Nader's idea, which has spread throughout our society, is that personal safety is paramount. If we can pass enough laws and write enough regulations, we'll all be safe and warm and snuggly all through life. Laws and regulations can make the world idiot-proof and Bad Guy-proof. Me bein' me, my response is simply, "BS."

Seatbelt laws aim at personal safety. Insurance laws aim at responsibility for the consequences of personal actions.

:), Art

MilsurpShooter
June 4, 2005, 12:09 PM
There is an on-going court case in NY, not 100% sure of the state. Gentlemen got stopped for not wearing his seatbelt (cop testified saying he said he didn't like them, caused more harm then good), put it on, 200 yards down the road got hit by a guy running a red light. Coroners report showed his cause of death to be blunt force trauma from the seat belt over his heart

Family is suing big time.

SMMAssociates
June 4, 2005, 03:17 PM
Jay:

Please keep us informed on that seat belt case. Kinda off-topic, but OH's idiotic vehicular carry rules imply some carry methods that would put the gun between you and the steering wheel. While common sense may help out, I'm concerned about this, and recourse if it causes problems. Might be a useful precedent. :(

My middle sister was in the back seat when an uninsured motorist whacked the rear end of mom's monster '57 Plymouth wagon. The car spun and hit a telephone pole. Drove the engine into the cabin enough to break mom's collarbone, and it moved the front seat enough to crack my sister's sternum. This was in 1960, before seat belts and a lot of the improvements we now enjoy, but if my sister hadn't gotten tossed out of the direct line of force, it probably would have killed her when the seat came back.

She was about 12 at the time, and kinda skinny. Mom spent a few days in the hospital. Sister was treated and released. My own take is that mom probably did OK regardless, but my sister definitely did better without the belt. :eek:

Modern cars with air bags, crush zones, and side-impact barriers probably ought to be about as safe with or without belts, IMHO. Getting thrown clear of a disaster has to be right up there with the lottery v.s. simply getting killed when it's that bad. So I wear mine.... (The $50 tickets do help me with the decision, but the joke is that my sisters bought me my first set of seat belts back in the 60's. I had a '63 Rambler that came with the necessary anchor points, but the belts were extra. They provided the $10! :what: )

The only problem I ever had was when I was working road patrol (rent-a-cop). Getting out of the car every couple blocks to shake a door or walk around a building was a PITA, but the first car I did that in had the shoulder strap clipped to the buckle, so you could fasten the belt and not the strap. Right - the strap stayed anchored elsewhere when driving between the closer accounts.

Art: IMHO Naderism is another reason for the gun grabbers.... Hadn't thought about Nader's involvement. Thanks. :)

Overall, I would like to see the lack of seat belts considered in contributory negligence decisions (but not as a "blanket" issue - there will be situations where the belt's use will be irrelevant), and mostly an effort to keep uninsured motorists off the road or subject to serious penalties (like DUI's). OH's random notice method is about as stupid as you can get, but it beats nothing at all.

(What they've done is contracted an outside company to poll randomly selected motorists. If you don't respond with valid proof of insurance, your license gets pulled, and getting it back is an exercise in pain. Downside is that they're doing it by mail, and really have no responsibility to get things right. Kinda like those traffic cameras.... :fire: )

Just IMHO of course.

Regards,

If you enjoyed reading about "I just wanted to remind everyone....." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!