Clickit! Or Stick it?

[priv8ter]

So, recently in Washington, a law was passed which made not wearing a seat belt a primary offence. Before, you could be given a ticket for not wearing a seat belt if you were pulled over for something else. Making it a primary offence made it legal for the police to pull you over for not wearing your seatbelt.

Since November, when the 'Click-it or Ticket' campaign began, 22,611 people have been ticketed, at $86 a piece. This has made the state almost 2 million dollars. But, figure in the ad campaign and the extra OT for the cops, well, the state has made less than a million. So, it's not very effective as a revenue raising venture.

So, a group of concerned citizens, headed by an ex-state trooper, have filed a state initiative to get this intrusive law removed.

Sigh.

I know it's not gun related, but it does show how we can fight back somewhat against Government Gone Wild.

More info can be found here:

www.clickitstick.com

 

[EJ]

Weall too often forget that infringement of rights is a disease hat spreads with any contact or perversion of life--

 

[Blackhawk]

Weall too often forget that infringement of rights is a disease hat spreads with any contact or perversion of life--

So are you saying that while exercising the privilege of driving you have the right to not wear a seatbelt?

If so, do you also have the right to not have operable brakes, brakelights, etc.?

How about bald tires? Do you have the right to drive around on tires with no tread?

Just askin'....

 

[EJ]

Yup--

While exercising the privilege of driving I feel I have a right not to wear a seatbelt--

Moreover I feel I have an even greater right not to be accosted for that percieved infraction alone--

The risk is to me-- not to other drivers--
and we allow Bikers to ride sans-helmets-- so the social obligation to keep idiots like me safe has little to stand on--

 

[AZTOY]

I took out the seat belts in my truck to fit 2 12 inch subwoofers behide the seat

 

[Blackhawk]

The risk is to me-- not to other drivers--
and we allow Bikers to ride sans-helmets-- so the social obligation to keep idiots like me safe has little to stand on--

If that was really true, it would be fine with me.

However, because of all the other "social obligation" laws like taxpayer supported emergency rooms, social security and WC benefits to the permanently impaired, and the exorbitant pain & suffering awards from lawsuits, YOUR physical risk is MY financial risk.

I wouldn't mind at all if my tax and insurance premium money didn't have to pay for the additional costs of your incrased risks. Maybe we'd agree on a law that says "Don't use seat belts at your own risk" or something that lets you take ALL the risk....

I really don't mind my tax money doing its part if you do yours, know-whut-I-mean...?

 

[Standing Wolf]

I've been wearing seat belts in cars since 1957, when my father traded in his 1952 Chevrolet on a new one with seat belt holes in the floor, and installed his own.

As far as I'm concerned, people have an inherent right not to wear seat belts and motorcyclists have an identical right not to wear helmets—and I, in turn, have an identical right not to pick up the tab for their medical expenses.

 

[CZ-75]

I wear seatbelts religiously and possibly even owe my bacon to one, as it was possible I might have been thrown from my truck.

I support, grudgingly (violates the MYOB principle), a law mandating their use (unless you waive the right to medical treatment or are self-insured or some such to negate the effects of your actions on my pocketbook), particularly by minors. Consequently, I believe that helmet laws should be mandatory if we wish to impose seatbelt laws.

I do not support the idea that this is a primary offense. It really sounds like an excuse to go fishing by the cops.

 

[Azrael256]

Personally, I think you're a little crazy if you don't wear one, but then I think you're a little crazy to buy a glock. In both cases, I fully support your right to to make up your own mind and do what suits you. If you choose not to use a seatbelt, or if you choose to act irresponsibly with your glock, I refuse to pay for any costs that may result. This is my stance as a Libertarian. You don't mess with my life, and I don't mess with yours. Everybody stays pretty happy like that.

 

[hammer4nc]

YOUR physical risk is MY financial risk

This is the same argument used to justify smoking-related regulations, and helmet laws, among others. I think its been shown that in the case of smoking, early death due to tobacco use, actually SAVES money, whether we're talking about the overall burden on public healthcare funds, or private insurance funds. I suspect, but can not prove right now, that the same is true for seatbelt use/helmet laws.

The guy who ends up on life support for 20 years, at public expense, because he wasn't using his seatbelt or helmet, is more than offset by the cases of premature death, due to accidents. All these folks will not tax the system with age-related diseases, medicines, nursing homes etc., that the clean/safe living crowd can expect to require in their later years.

I don't question the anecdotal example, but I don't believe it plays out statistically...and we're talking about statistics here, are we not?

Seems like these issues stem more from the desire to contol behavior, and raise revenue.

 

[JohnBT]

Like the man said, driving on a public road is not a right. Their game, their rules. Too bad.

On a more personal note, I've seen way too many people at work over the past 30 years who have sustained serious brain injuries. Way too many. Anybody who doesn't wear a seatbelt is stupid or suicidal or both.

John

 

[Ian]

Blackhawk: In answer to your questions: Yes on all counts.

All those actions would be pretty stupid (especially driving without brakes) but hey, it's your life. The solution to being forced to pay for others' healthcare is to return to a wholly private healthcare industry.

 

[NewShooter78]

I think that almost everyone can agree that wearing a seatbelt in a car or a helment while on a motorcycle is the safest thing to do. But it shouldn't be mandated by law. And I don't know many states where you can drive without insurance, so that's already covered. But I don't think that an opperator of a vehicle should be mandated by law to wear a saftey devise. Furthermore, I really think its a waste of manpower to make such laws primary offenses that allows for you to be pulled over.

I can see it being a law that as a driver you should be obligated to make sure that all minors are safely secured in a seatbelt while in a car, but other than that, let adults make their own desicions on the matter. If they end up dying, then that's natures way of culling the heard.

Insurance companies already provide extra savings if you have certain saftey features in your car, that aren't standard features (or until they do become standard features). They should do so with seat belts. Keep it a private thing.

And if the states were worried about your saftey on the road then they should not have raised the speed limit on the highways. Imagine the trauma from a wreck at 70 mph. I doubt that even a seatbelt would be of much help then, and even if it kept you from being killed outright, it would definetly cause some injury to your chest/neck/shoulder. The whole argument is academic. People say that airbags save lives, but there are documented cases where they have killed people...the same goes for seatbelts. I have seen a seatbelt cause the only injury in a car accident (which was a sever cut in a man's face where it actually tore the skin apart).

 

[Blackhawk]

I don't question the anecdotal example, but I don't believe it plays out statistically...and we're talking about statistics here, are we not?

No. We're talking about rights.

 

[Blackhawk]

All those actions would be pretty stupid (especially driving without brakes) but hey, it's your life.

If you don't have brakes or servicable tires, it may well be MY life. It's bad enough wondering if the driver closing fast on my six is paying attention to the fact that all the brake lights ahead are telling him to commence stopping actions without having to worry about whether or not he CAN stop.

 

[Kaylee]

However, because of all the other "social obligation" laws like taxpayer supported emergency rooms, social security and WC benefits to the permanently impaired, and the exorbitant pain & suffering awards from lawsuits, YOUR physical risk is MY financial risk.

Oh for God's sake.

Once you attatch a financial number to right (in this case, the right to be left alone unless you're actively posing a risk to OTHERS), that right is GONE.

The "social obligation" argument can, has been, and will be trotted out for every "icky" behavior from eating at McDonalds to owning an "assault weapon."

I mean no offense to you personally Blackhawk, but that argument itself is morally bankrupt and not worth countering on technical grounds. IE.. "well, if you wear a belt you're more likely to be injured instead of killed, and so the social obligation expenses are higher not lower.."

It doesn't matter if it's a net gain or a net loss to the state.
Again.. IT DOESN'T MATTER

Rather, the argument itself is a sham that presumes to legislate other people's behavior because "it might cost others too much."
I say that's horsepucky. Down that road is having to justify my right to own a .45 because some kid I don't know might get in a gangland fight and end up in the hospital.

Sorry to get heated, but I find the very argument itself morally repugnant.

The answer isn't to ban something -- ANYTHING -- because of the risks to the the "social obligation" -- the answer is to not pay for other people's health care for their own stupid decisions at the point of a gun. Don't wear the right gear and end up leaving half your epidermis on Route 95? Expect to pay a monster hospital bill ON YOUR OWN. It's called self responsibility.

okay. rant done. Have a nice day.


-K

 

[Ed Brunner]

I have been in two auto accidents where I would have been very dead or very seriously injured had I been belted in.

Still, I almost always wear seat belts and I always wear a helmet when on a motorcycle.

I also pay for insurance to cover my medical expenses.

I do not favor seat belts on motorcycles. They are like winshield wipers on a billy goat's posterior. Normally I would have said XXX, but I am happily conforming to Oleg's policy

 

[Blackhawk]

Kaylee,

You boiled over before you read the next word. I said:

"social obligation" laws

Those are the blissninny laws that say "no matter what you do or how irresponsible you are, it's not your fault and the taxpayers will pay to make it all better and soothe your owie."

I am in NO way endorsing them -- I'm simply acknowledging their existance, and saying that they cost a bunch of taxpayer money by underwriting the consequences of irresponsible behavior.

Your apology is accepted.

And regarding:

the answer is to not pay for other people's health care for their own stupid decisions at the point of a gun. Don't wear the right gear and end up leaving half your epidermis on Route 95? Expect to pay a monster hospital bill ON YOUR OWN. It's called self responsibility.

Isn't that just what I said here in the same post you quoted from?

I wouldn't mind at all if my tax and insurance premium money didn't have to pay for the additional costs of your incrased risks. Maybe we'd agree on a law that says "Don't use seat belts at your own risk" or something that lets you take ALL the risk....

I really don't mind my tax money doing its part if you do yours, know-whut-I-mean...?

Doesn't matter if it's not exactly the same by your reading, I agree with the way you put it.

 

[Mike Irwin]

I have absolutely no problems with people NOT wearing seat belts or wearing motorcycle helmets...

AS LONG AS...

they sign agreements stating that they are absolutely and completely responsible for their own injuries in an accident, and if injured critically, will be responsible for the entire bill no matter what, and agree that if their insurance runs out they will NOT be elegible for funds from Medicare or Medicaid or any other governmental agency.

In other words, your own stupidity costs only you and your family, NOT the rest of us tax payers.

If you're injured because you were too bull headed to wear your seatbelt, and you don't have insurance to cover your injuries caused by your own stupidity, you'd be wheeled out to the curb.

I'm alive because of seat belts. No two ways around it, and no way I would go without buckling up.

 

[EJ]

Yup-- Please protect me--
Belt me in and take away my gun before I hurt myself--
The Government knows what's best for me--

And YES it is the same thing--
It's about freedom to make your own choices--

And NO-- It doesn't impact on everyone else--
No more than Smoking -- Drinking -- Having a car with over 100 Hp -- a car without emission controls -- being over weight --ETC ETC--

It's called freedom and you can't have one without the other--
Seatbelt checks turn into firearms checks-- Believe it--


And just to pre-empt the major argument--
That's why we have Passive restraints--(IE Air Bags)
And -- The driver seldom needs a seatbelt-- That's from personal experience of 15 years handling traffic accidents and fatalities-- BEFORE air bags--
It's the poor sot in the passenger seat that gets it--
And children-- I'm all for children restraints-- (Pun intended)

Ok-- Now let's make sure we don't have excess expense for you guys--

We need
Diet Police
Cigarette Police
Exercise Police
Horserpower Police
"reasonable" behavior Police
Save me from myself Police
Sex Police--(AIDs ya'know)
ETC ETC
and of course-- increase the ATF's authority to protect you from yourselves

Maybe thought police too

THINK about what you're proposing here--

This isn't just about what people SHOULD do--
This is about the government making decisions FOR YOU in your best interests--

 

[Kaylee]

Your apology is accepted.

Ooops.

My apology is offered. Sorry about that...
I promise I'll read ya more carefully next time.

-K

 

[Joe Gunns]

When I started driving, I started wearing seatbelts. Figured if they were good enough for race car driver, they were OK for me. It was a second nature reflex without any conscious thought.

Since the WA State seat belt law I have found myself NOT wearing the belt! What an irrational fool. When I realize it's not on, I cuss myself for an idiot and buckle it up. There is that rebellious little-kid part of me that doesn't want to wear it now that seat belt use is not my own rational choice, arrived at upon due consideration of positive and negative results, a free choice that allows me to feel intellectually superior to fools who choose not to wear a belt, but is rather the directive of Mommy State.

Blackhawk - to even raise the financial arguement shows you to be a closet pawn of the Illuminati.

Regards,
Joe

 

[anchored]

Anyone dumb enough not to wear his seatbelt in a flimsy metal box moving at more than a mile a minute, on a really narrow strip of concrete with a hundred unknown people doing the same thing, shouldn't have the privilege of driving in the first place!

 

[Blackhawk]

Joe Gunns said:

Blackhawk - to even raise the financial arguement shows you to be a closet pawn of the Illuminati.

Just who are the "Illuminati," Joe...?

Since you capitalized the word, you're saying they're "any of various groups claiming special religious enlightenment." If you'd left it uncapitalized, you'd be saying they're "persons who are or who claim to be unusually enlightened."

So which is it Joe, and who are they?

 

[CZ-75]

I think I'm going EJ's way on the issue.

Guns are responsible for billions of dollars worth of emergency treatment per year, or so it has been said, some of which govt. (taxpayers) must pick up for indigent victims.

You can own a gun as long as you have triggerlocks and proof of financial responsibility. The more you own, the more financial assets you must have.