NFBT: Seatbelt Laws

[AustinChief]

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 [B]perfect[/B] 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.

--Kyle
(slowly watching my rights erode)

[AustinChief]

The most recent news on this subject... The National Safety Council has released a report today which recommmends ....


[QUOTE]
• 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.
[/QUOTE]

...more federal extortion.

--Kyle

[47mack]

I agree. I think it is a 50-50 chance that it will save me.

Not to mention it wrinkles my good work clothes.

[ck_IN]

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.

[gh4chiefs]

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.

[BIG_DADDY]

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]

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]

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...)

[gh4chiefs]

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.

[JOhn]

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]

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!!

[ck_IN]

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]

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.

[BIG_DADDY]

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?

BIG DADDY

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

[bkkcoh]

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.