seat belts

[dairygirl4u2c]

some reasons yea or nay etc would be appreciated as well.

spanx

[Laudate_Dominum]

I haven't given it much thought, but I'd like to hear a good argument as to why it should be considered criminal in the first place, and why there should be a fine at all.
If I wanna put my life in a bit of danger that's my business. Otherwise dare devils and stunt men should be arrested immediately! Also, they should make it illegal to gallop a horse bareback and without a helmet.. And maybe it should be criminal to sit on your butt all day or simply live an unhealthy lifestyle. I guess I'm saying that as far as I can tell the reasoning behind these laws could be refuted according to a reduction to the absurd.

[lifescanticle]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 20 2005, 11:02 PM']some reasons yea or nay etc would be appreciated as well.

spanx
[right][snapback]832399[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

In this day society often has to bare the cost of personal injury(i.e. government programs, insurance). It is very appropriate to place restrictions on priviledges, which driving is.

[Cre8d4Youth]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 21 2005, 07:27 AM']
If I wanna put my life in a bit of danger that's my business.
[right][snapback]832572[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
And don't think if you were to perish in an auto accident that you'd be the only one hurt by it. Aside from the insurance costs, and the fact taht in some way Joe avg consumer will be footing the bill for your sue happy friends and relatives (not saying you have them, just being arguementative), you absence from this dust ball will be surely missed here in Phatmass Cyberspace. [This space reserved for L_D] So while you get squished, and then proceed directly to the Father, we're stuck here for several more years dealing with debates w/o your attention to detail and whitty banter.

*goes to cut the seatbelts in all my vehicles* :

[Laudate_Dominum]

Haha, I'm not saying there is anything wise about people refusing to wear a seat belt, anymore than I'm saying it’s wise for people to live off of McDonalds and never exercise. But I don't think it’s possible to justify these kinds of laws apart from a perspective of pragmatism which might looks good and reasonable on the surface, but which is ultimately absurd.
But I have the impression that Americans are becoming neo-Marxists, so I guess a real justification isn't really required.
If we're talking about pragmatist, utilitarian neo-marxism these sorts of laws are absolutely justified. But from the perspective of what I would consider to be a cohesive and truly human world-view, such laws are just empty fluff and steps toward the next totalitarian scourge upon human history.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Cre8d4Youth' date='Dec 21 2005, 07:12 AM']And don't think if you were to perish in an auto accident that you'd be the only one hurt by it.  Aside from the insurance costs, and the fact taht in some way Joe avg consumer will be footing the bill for your sue happy friends and relatives (not saying you have them, just being arguementative), you absence from this dust ball will be surely missed here in Phatmass Cyberspace.  [This space reserved for L_D]  So while you get squished, and then proceed directly to the Father, we're stuck here for several more years dealing with debates w/o your attention to detail and whitty banter.

*goes to cut the seatbelts in all my vehicles* :
[right][snapback]832598[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
All you're really saying is that tragic accidents smell of elderberries, and I agree. But as far as I can tell nothing you have said justifies this law in any way.

And for the record, I tend to wear a seat belt and consider it to be a good practice, just as I consider it a good practice to look both ways before you cross a street. But I don't think the seat belt laws or the fines imposed have a foundation in solid principles. That's all.
But if the state says it's good, or the general sentiment of "the people" says that it's good, then they must be good right? Good enough to "punish" those who would rather live life without having every detail dictated by lobbyists and "statistics".

[Didacus]

I think the wuestion should be;

If not for the chance of getting a fine, would you wear your seat belt?



little known facts (at least in Canada);

If you are driving a 1950s automobile that has been manufactured without seat belts, you are in no obligation to have seat belts installed; technically it is legal to drive such a vehicle wihtout wearing seat belts.

also,
in Ontario, a driver may have as many passengers as they want iwthout seat belts being worn, for so long as two conditions are met;
1. the driver cannot be crowded.
2. All available seatbelts muist be used (ie; if four seatbelts in thevehicle, 4 people must be using those seat belts, the other 12 people in the vehicle don't need to be wearing seat belts)

Also; NEver double up in a seat belt (ie; have two people put on a single seat belt). If ever you get into a serious accidnet in this condition - you'll iknow why. *smirk*

[homeschoolmom]

What about laws to protect children? I ask because I'm curious... carseat laws and seat belts for kids...

[Carrie]

Its illegal here to go without a seatbelt if you sit in either of the front seats. The driver and passenger in the front seat will both get fined. If the passenger in the front seat is a minor, the driver is fined. There are seatbelt checkpoints to make sure people are following the law.

You can go without a seatbelt in the back seats.

It is illegal for children under the age of 7 to go without car seats.

I thought it was the same all over the country.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Carrie' date='Dec 21 2005, 08:03 AM']Its illegal here to go without a seatbelt if you sit in either of the front seats.  The driver and passenger in the front seat will both get fined.  If the passenger in the front seat is a minor, the driver is fined.  There are seatbelt checkpoints to make sure people are following the law.

You can go without a seatbelt in the back seats.

It is illegal for children under the age of 7 to go without car seats.

I thought it was the same all over the country. 
[right][snapback]832631[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Nope, it's different from state to state. I think the federal government dictates to some extent, but the states implement the federal stuff in their own way.

[Sojourner]

I think laws like these are to protect the lowest common denominator -- people who don't use the brains God gave them.

Things like using a seatbelt and having your kids in car seats are just good common sense. But we have nimrods (like myself) who don't like wearing seatbelts, and so we end up with our brains splattered on the road, which is gross for everyone else to look at. And sad, of course. Or we have nimrods who drive with their children in their laps, or let them run around the car willy nilly while it's in motion, thereby causing accidents and death -- again the gross and sad factors.

Jaywalking laws are the same things -- they're really for people who don't think to look both ways before crossing the street, so we make it super obvious to them that they're supposed to cross at X time and at X place. Duh. But if you look both ways and don't walk in front of moving cars, you'll be fine crossing the street wherever you want to.

Basically, we're fining people for being stupid. The fine is meant to communicate "this is important, you idiot. You could die." It just happens to also catch those of us who carefully consider the risks and still drive sans seatbelts. Or cross the street at places other than the intersection. Or let our kids run around willy-nilly in the back while we're driving.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 21 2005, 10:06 AM']Nope, it's different from state to state. I think the federal government dictates to some extent, but the states implement the federal stuff in their own way.
[right][snapback]832634[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The feds tell you what to do, and withhold money if you don't do it. So most states end up bending to the federal will.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 21 2005, 08:10 AM']The feds tell you what to do, and withhold money if you don't do it. So most states end up bending to the federal will.
[right][snapback]832637[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yeah, that's the impression I have too.. And a lot of times, what the feds say is based on pressure from lobbies. It's all pretty weird.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Carrie' date='Dec 21 2005, 08:03 AM']It is illegal for children under the age of 7 to go without car seats.

I thought it was the same all over the country. 
[right][snapback]832631[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Seatbelt/carseat laws vary widely from state to state. For example, here a child is required to be in a carseat (or booster) until 40 lbs. or 4 yrs. old. Not nearly long enough (in my opinion). My children are small (Hsdaughter is as light as a feather, sons are short). My daughter graduated out of a booster at 8. Legally, my elder son could be without one even though he's under 40 lbs. (he's 7). The belts don't hit him in the right places, so, he's stuck-- (maybe until he gets his license... )

[Jaime]

Keep your laws off my body

(Hmm maybe I'll copyright that phrase!!)