View Full Version : NFBT: Seatbelt Laws

05-21-2001, 11:03 AM
One of my BIGGEST concerns when it comes to the decline of America is the encroachment of a "nanny" state on my rights in order to "protect" me from myself. Seatbelt laws are (to me) a perfect example of this. There is NO legitimate excuse for these laws being on the books...yet there doesn't seem to be ANY public outrage.

(slowly watching my rights erode)

05-21-2001, 11:05 AM
The most recent news on this subject... The National Safety Council has released a report today which recommmends ....

Withholding federal highway funds if belt rates do not increase by 2006.

As part of this year's campaign, more than 10,000 law enforcement agencies are preparing to crack down on motorists not using their seat belts.

The weeklong event will combine checkpoints, announcement of enforcement, and increased patrols to enforce seat belt and child restraint laws.

...more federal extortion.


05-21-2001, 11:08 AM
I agree. I think it is a 50-50 chance that it will save me.

Not to mention it wrinkles my good work clothes.

05-21-2001, 11:10 AM
Another fine example of socialism. Oleman?

I sometimes wonder what Jefferson, Adams, etc. would do if they could return and see their present day creation. I'm sure they'd be aghast at how we've sheepingly given up the freedoms they fought for.

05-21-2001, 11:21 AM
I've often wondered the same thing ck. It's appalling to me how easily the American people are ready to roll over and let the government run their lives. Like Kyle I'm watching my rights erode, but I'm not sure it's all that slow.

05-21-2001, 11:24 AM
I think this one is pretty simple.

More people wearing seatbelts = Lower payouts for insurance companies.

I remember when they first passed the seatbelt law in The Peoples Republic of California. The insurance industry was it's biggest backer. Just more of our personal freedoms being sold down the road. The funny thing about laws like this is that they will continue to put it on the ballot until it finally passes but once it does it is never voted on again.

Rick Stephens
05-21-2001, 11:51 AM
Here in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia it is a $200.00 fine for not wearing a seatbelt. At first I was totally against a law of this type because I do not believe that the government should be telling me what to do with my life. I use the belts in my car anyway. However there are a lot of people who don't use seatbelts and are involved in accidents with no type of medical insurance. They are treated for these injuries at hospitals and leave the taxpayers with the bill. Some people do need laws like this to make them do what is just plain common sense. Seatbelts do save lives and save taxpayers from paying for a lot of others medical bills. I don't believe that this is nearly as bad as the infringement of my rights that have been taken from me under the second amendment.

Bob Dole
05-21-2001, 12:00 PM
One must look no farther than to states like Texas to see that there's something at work besides Uncle Sugar's concern for an individual's well-being.

It's against the law to drive an enclosed automobile without wearing a seatbelt.

It's not against the law to operate a motorcycle without wearing a helmet.

Doesn't make much sense to Bob Dole...

If memory serves, the implementation of state seatbelt laws was originally coerced by the threat of withholding Federal highway funds. Bob Dole has always assumed that the laws were enacted to protect innocent bystanders from being struck by individuals flung from their motor vehicles.

(Bob Dole is <i>still</i> kicking Bob Dole for not capitalizing on the Saf-T-Shirt idea...)

05-21-2001, 12:00 PM
The problem is Rick, it's these little things that eventually lead up to the greater infringements that you reffered to. The "taxpayer footing the bill" argument is often used as a justification for more gun control also.

To me, personal freedom is personal freedom. The line should be drawn clearly, no exceptions.

05-21-2001, 12:10 PM
Having worked in EMS for almost 12 years, I can say for a FACT that seatbelts and helmets do save lives. I have never seen anyone, nor heard of anyone who died because they were wearing a seatbelt. Maybe it does happen but it is extremely rare. Thus I don't buy the argument about "I might be trapped".

I also agree that it does tend to lower insurance rates, and ussally those who don't were belts and are hospitalized run up HUGE medical bills, which is in turn passed on to everyone.

Whats the answer? Not sure but there needs to be some sort of real incintive fopr people to were them. Heck let the Insurance companies pay only 25% if you have an accident with out a seat belt. But laws mandating them are an Infringment. Granted some people are to stupid to care, but for those, say who have been involved ina serious accident with out one, maybe then make it mandatory for them to use one.

Now as for Kids and carseat use... IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY!!!
No if's ands or buts about it. Some people are really to ignorant to have kids in the first place, and anything you can do to protect those children should be enforced.

For that matter I think seatbelts should be mandatory(including helmets) untill you are 21. Because lets face it 16 to 21 is when most kids and young adults have no clue about how dangerous a vehicle can be.

Clint in Wichita
05-21-2001, 12:13 PM
Those who can't decide for themselves (children, some handicapped, etc.) should be required to be buckled up, but if I'm alone in my car, I should be allowed to take a header out of my windshield if I want.

When flying corpses start causing injuries to others, THEN enforce seatbelt laws!!

05-21-2001, 12:16 PM
Ok Rick, how would you feel about a sugary snack-cake law?

It's been proven that obesity and heart disease are closely linked. It's also been proven that high fat foods and obesity are linked. Under your scenario, I'm sure that lots of people without insurance are treated for heart disease and tax payer dollars go for their care. Therefore it would be logical that laws are enacted to protect people from their own lack of common sense regarding consumption of snack cakes.

Absurd you say? Please outline the difference between my eating a twinkie and not wearing a seatbelt. Neither is the guvments business.

Lightning Rod
05-21-2001, 12:31 PM
Don't know this to be gospel because I was not there but, my father once told me a story where wearing a seatbelt might have killed him. The gist is that he rolled a car and was thrown out the window. He suffered a concussion but other than that was unhurt. The roof of the car on the other hand was caved in to the point that he would have been squashed had he remained in the car.

True? untrue? doesn't matter. IMO statistically one should be much safer wearing a seatbelt. Is the governments job to make us do what is good for us "Like it or not"? No I don't think so. That goes for smoking, eating red meat, having sex outside of marriage, sky diving and so forth.

Freedom to live your life how you see fit, hey there's a neat idea.

05-21-2001, 01:26 PM
All these kind of laws tick me off. When I was a kid one of the things I loved the most was standing in the back of my fathers pickup and holding on to the roll bar when we drove around town. I am sure that many of you would want my father crucified for doing that. :rolleyes: I also started riding motorcycles at 6. Where do you draw the line? This is all such crap. At what point do we stop living so a few wienies can feel safe?


Truly HATES people that think they know what's best for everyone.

05-21-2001, 02:01 PM
I think a couple of things should happen:

1. If motorcyclist's don't want to wear a helmet, make sure they have the financial means to support themselves on life support for the next 20 + years.

2. Make buckling up children mandatory, which I do believe in most states that is the case. I agree with one of the previous posts' : if the accident victim isn't wearing a seatbelt, the insurance company shouldn't be liable for the costs. But this I don't this would really help with anything because the bill will still be paid by the rest of us.

05-21-2001, 02:16 PM
I wonder if Derrick Thomas wishes that someone had made him buckel his seat belt?

05-21-2001, 02:20 PM
ck_IN is absolutely right.

The idea that laws restricting freedom can be based on vague financial concerns is ridiculous. It is assumed that seat belts could have save 9000 lives last year (how in hell this was calculated I don't know) This leaves 'not wearing a seat belt'... well off the top 10 list for causes of death in the U.S.

Liver disease fatalities were well above this figure. So based on this logic... beer is next. If you have a problem paying other peoples medical bills... address the issues with medical coverage... but don't steal my rights to pay your bills.


(Lobbying for a "running with scissors law")

05-21-2001, 04:13 PM
Well, at least this isn't New Zealand...

New Zealand farmers to be taxed for farting livestock

New Zealand's government is planning to put a tax on farm animals' flatulence.

The Sunday Star-Times says the proposed tax is designed to reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions.

Farmers would be taxed 1.20 for each sheep and around 18 for each cow they own.

The animals' flatulence produces methane gas while their dung and urine produce nitrous oxide.

Over half of New Zealand's greenhouse gases comes from the country's 46 million sheep and nine million dairy cows and beef cattle.

Farmers are preparing to oppose the proposal, the paper reports.

Last updated: 12:42 Sunday 20th May 2001

05-21-2001, 04:24 PM
When Missouri first passed this law, it was voluntary. Then we were told that the officer could not stop someone just because he was not wearing a seatbelt - he had to be stopped for some other violation.
Now they are specificly going after people who aren't wearing seatbelts. Like anything else the government touches, the rights of individuals get stomped in the process. I abhore the seat belt law. It's another law passed by our friends in the government to pull in a little more cash for themselves. If you think they really care if you get hurt in a car crash, then I've got some ocean-front property in Missouri to sell you. :rolleyes:

05-21-2001, 04:29 PM
Thank God some of you feel like I do on this issue.
I have been ranting about this for years... and I rarely get anyone who agrees with me on this... or those that do agree don't seem to think that it matters...

(waiting for people to start caring again...)

05-21-2001, 04:39 PM
Now the next question is... how do I make a difference?

I would love to see a shift in public consciousness on this. What ever happened to the healthy paranoia that has kept America from becoming as personally intrusive as Europe.

Any ideas?


05-21-2001, 05:10 PM
Random thoughts on this subject:

1. I always wear my seatbelts. I wore them about 90% of the time before DT died. Now it's up to 100%.

2. IMHO, with apologies to those of you who do not wish to wear your seatbelts, I think its kind of dumb not to.

3. However, it's not my place (or the government's) to force you to do it. If you want to live dangerously, that's your business. No skin off my nose if your head goes through the windshield, and foolish or imprudent behavior that harms no one but yourself should not be against the law. It's your life, your safety, and your business.

4. If I'm not wearing my seatbelt, and get a ticket for it, somehow I don't think the ticketing cop has my personal well-being in mind. He's simply after my money. That's all these enforcement laws are about, in my view. I liken getting a traffic ticket from a cop to getting robbed by a gangmember.

5. Ditto for the insurance companies. If it was in the best interest of these thieving whores' bottom line for all of us to drop dead, you could bet they'd be dumping arsenic into the water supply by the tanker load.

6. I'll continue to wear my seatbelt because it's simply the right thing to do. Don't care what the government or anyone else things about it.

Another long post for Tommykat to stress over... :D

05-21-2001, 05:15 PM
Actually frazod,

I don't think anyone here was advocating NOT wearing a seat belt... just against it being the LAW.

It is the smart thing to do... so I do it... but I find myself feeling "tainted" everytime that I put one on... The idea of putting one on because Mother Government told me to...makes me sick.


05-21-2001, 05:23 PM
Here in the Land of Stinkin, cops can not (yet, anyway) pull you over simply for not wearing a seatbelt - they can, however, gig you for it if they pull you over for anything else.

If I didn't want to wear one, I simply wouldn't - government be damned. Personally I look on it as a win/win situation - I'm safer in my car, and if I get ticketed, it's less money for the Nazis to steal from me.

IMO, you shouldn't feel tainted for doing something smart, Kyle.

And I do know of one case where a friend of mine would have died had he worn his seatbelt (his head would have been crushed when his crappy little Dodge Colt flipped over). But that's the only instance involving anyone I've ever known. I know many more people who owe their lives to seatbelts.

05-21-2001, 05:23 PM

Probably a good thing you're not in the military then. It's been manditory to wear seatbelts since 1985, both on and off post. Only exception was for troops riding inside an APC or inside the back of a cargo truck that I know of

Course, the Big Green has been notorious for "watching after the youngsters".... even when they're in their 40s. :)

05-21-2001, 05:30 PM
Actually for me it is academic... I live in Spain (no car) and when I'm in the USA I have a '66 Impala convertible (only a lapbelt) so if I was in an accident... I would be pulling my steering column out of my chest.


05-21-2001, 05:35 PM
'66 Impala convertible? You lucky bastard! That's worth the risk, IMO. Great car.