tightloop Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 The cops in and around Houston are on a tear about enforcing the seat belt law. There are big highway signs which are supposed to tell you of traffic conditions, which not show, CLICK IT OR TICKET, and yesterday while running some errands, I had to make a U turn under one of the freeways and there under the overpass were two police cars sitting there with the officers out checking the passengers of the cars making that U turn to determine if they had their seat belts on. I know, I know, seat belts save lives; no doubt about it. However I look at this law like I look at the Texas motorcycle helmet law, I should be allowed to make my own choice to wear it or not. It is your choice on the helmet, but not the seat belt. Heck, I am way over 21 and I should be able to choose if I want to wear the darned thing. If the State govt wants to mandate us to belt in all the underage drivers and passengers, OK, but for adults, it should be optional at the discretion of the over 18 year old occupant. and those obnoxious signs, what kind of a stupid threat is that. I know the real reason for the cops under the over pass. It is far easier, more profitable, and less dangerous for them to stop a motorist under the freeway while making a U turn and give him a ticket than it is to be out finding a murderer, rapist, robber or other violent felon. Couple that with the total inability of our idiot mayor to run the city without a budget deficit, I see why they do it. It just gripes me that there is no consideration given to the judgement of adult drivers and passengers. Just another example of our induvidual liberties being taken away, never to be seen or heard from again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeeter Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 it's the "we know whats best for you" that i can't stand. kids drown in pools they got to go. sky diving? chutes don't always open it's got to stop. cann't have a fire place, bikes, skate boards..... it's only a seat belt but i see as bad things to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Yeah, that kind of "law"is just a tax in disguise. If the government is really worried you might get yourself killed, why is it still legal to smoke, or drink? Because the government make big bucks on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Two words: Revenue Collection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Is it constitutional? Since you don't have a right to drive I think it is a constitutionally sound law. Driving is a priveledged granted by the state issuing your license. The issue of cops hanging out looking for violaters burns me up too. Especially when I couldn't even get one to come see me when I had my windsheild smashed by some human garbage in a pickup truck. I wasn't as important as collecting the speeding tax I guess. -ld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3quartertime Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 I'm with ya here TL. Wearing a seatbelt, helmet etc... may be the smartest thing we can do to guard against injury but why is it the job of the federal and state governments to force us to make the decision. My thought is that laws like these come from career politicians trying to pad their political resume. Laws should be made to protect the freedoms of the citizens not dictate oppinion, even if the oppinion is well backed with fact. If a person chooses not to use personal saftey equipment then he should be punished with the consequences of his actions. Another one I hate (and I'm sure I'll be slaughtered for) is the continual lowering of the drinking limit. I would never argue that we should be allowed to drink and drive but this constant push to lower the limits is more political than result based I believe. It's a big battle for control and funding between the states and feds. The results may be some reduction in drinking related casualties but more so I think it crowds the jails and courts with the guy that had a couple on the way home and just fails the test. Vehicular accidents happen because of bad drivers. How many are grouped into alcohol related because someone failed a breathalyzer but were really caused by a person that should never have been issued a license? Alot I bet. Obviously a good many ARE caused by drivers under the influence but did changing the limit from 1.0 to .08 or .05 really help that? Driving is a PRIVILEGE not a right. Those that display they can't perform the action should have the privilege taken away. Wonder what that would do for their 'scare tactic' numbers??? <img src=http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/sulkoff.gif> (going to get the nomex suit out of the closet) <img src=http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/explode.gif> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogmaDog Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 I don't know if its constitutional or not. I don't know why there isn't a constitutional right to drive, either...I mean, the constitution protects our right to the PRESS, not to think our own thoughts, and it protects our right to ARMS, not to self defense; surely we have a right to go where we want, and there ought to be a constitutional protection to the instrumentality by which we exercise that right. The argument that you'd have to let blind people drive cars doesn't wash either, as we restrict other constitutionally protected rights...felons and crazies may not own guns, that sorta thing. On the other hand, we expect paramedics to come and scoop us off the pavement when we get in a wreck, and every dork who goes flying through a windshield, or smashes his un-helmeted head into a divider occupies the time of police and paramedics, and costs me, the tax payer, money, and stops up traffic, denying me the liberty to go where I want. So it's your right not to wear a seatbelt, but your civic duty to wear a seat belt. Now the question is, how do we inculcate the general populous with a notion of civic duty, so the cops can quit being baby sitters? Semper Fi, DogmaDog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3quartertime Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 'inculcate' good one!!! Sent me running for dictionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 The removal of a felons 2nd amendment rights is unconstitutional. Just because we have been doing it and the courts support it doesn't change that. Unfortunately there is a lot of crap that goes on because of that reasoning or lack of reasoning. -ld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted January 30, 2003 Author Share Posted January 30, 2003 jhgtyre What is wrong with the idea that when you become a felon that you don't have any of the rights we law abiding folks do. do they have the right to cable TV and the right not to work outside in inclement weather? They loose the right to vote, to own land, why not to own guns? Thread drift mode on: If I ran a prison, I bet I could make it self sufficient with regards to having the state pay for the keeping them locked up. How about getting paid for cleaning the highway right of ways, building fence, tending crops, Corp of Engr work. making and selling all sorts of items, and doing contract labor. If not completely self sufficient, at least reduce the cost of locking them up from 50K per year to half that. Drift mode off: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Right on, jhgtyre. Explain to me how I forfeit my right to defend myself by writing a bad check. Helmet laws are such a crock, claimed to save taxpayers money from motorcyclists' head injuries. Far more head injuries come from auto accidents, yet it's illegal to wear a helmet in a car. And why can somebody ride a bicycle on the same streets at the same speeds as a motorcycle but she/he doesn't have to wear a helmet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 tightloop, I don't really have a problem with the idea. The problem is that our rights are described as inalienable by the Declaration of Independance so the government cannot remove them for any reason because they don't have the authority to do so. Unfortunately they do have the power to do so and have been flexing their muscles quite a bit. -ld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 These discussions have gone on for decades and I doubt we will solve them here. I used to be a Chief Instructor for the Motorcycle Safety Foundation and I have heard just about every argument pro and con on helmet useage. I also taught driver education for years and I have been in the volunteer fire service for two decades. I have cut up dozens of cars that were involved in crashes and I have spent countless hours standing on the pavement waiting for the coroner to come fetch the corpses. I am very jaded when it comes to seat belt and helmet use. I agree with DogmaDog, it is everyone's civic duty to wear seat belts and helmets. It also just makes sense. On the other hand, I feel it is just plain bogus to actually stop a vehicle under the guise of checking for seat belt use. Such stops are nothing more than fishing trips for bored law enforcement officers. Once again we prove that you can't legislate against stupidity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 man....reminds me of that time I got a little drunk one night...I protested the local governments method of collecting revenue without regard to income or representation...I loped off the heads of all the parking meters with my pipe-cutter. Next thing I know, I am part of a forced-labor camp. I get slaved out, while the crooked sheriff makes easy money...under the table. (You ought to see me eat eggs, though!) That didn't go as well as the time I tossed the tea into Boston Harbor. Oh well...those were the days. I am less of a rebel now that I have received a better education...all that "extra" money, collected by the state lottery commision, going to help the schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Lol! Cool Hand Flex eh? Or is it Paul Flexvere? -ld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted January 30, 2003 Author Share Posted January 30, 2003 Ron help me understand why it is my civic duty to wear a seat belt. Driving alone in my car, it impacts only me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bulm5 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 ANd your family..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted January 30, 2003 Author Share Posted January 30, 2003 bulm5 OK, did you read my prior post? riding alone in my car, how/why is it my civic duty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 tightloop: In the event of an accident, not wearing a seat belt has the potential to become one of the most important events of your life, and of those who know you, and of those who come in contact with you after the accident. It impacts the lives of the volunteer firemen who freely and willingly get up in the wee hours of the morning to come cut your limp body out of your automobile. If you still have a pulse, it impacts the lives of those who slave frantically to keep you alive while they wait for what seems like an eternity for the helicopter to arrive. If you are dead (and I prefer dead folks because they don't complain and won't sue you) it impacts the lives of those you leave behind. Your death also impacts the life of the probationary fireman who can't get the image of your brains, broken bones, and guts out of his/her head. Your decision not to wear a belt impacts the lives of the folks who care for as you languish in intensive care from massive trauma. Of course, the millions upon millions of dollars spent all over the nation taking care of the injured has an impact (arguably) on the cost of health care. Had you worn your belt, instead of finding your lifeless body, I would have found you stomping around on the shoulder of the road, threatening to kick the crap out of the drunken bastard who ran you into the ditch. I really do understand where you are coming from and it is a real Catch 22. As an individual, you have the right to influence your own destiny. This country was founded on the principles of individual freedom. If you chose not to wear a belt, that is up to you and I really do understand. I have some very close friends who choose not to wear a belt. I disagree with their decision, but I do not think any less of them and I still value them as friends. As for civic duty, well I suppose I feel like it is everyone's civic duty to be productive and to make a positive contribution to society. I feel that wearing the belt has the potential of keeping a crash victim from becoming a burden on society. I think wearing a seat belt or a helmet is the responsible thing to do, and I think it is incumbent upon all of us to act responsibly. There are some thought processes that I just don’t understand. That doesn’t make me stupid, nor does it make the opposing point of view wrong, we just disagree. The choice is yours... (Edited by Ron Ankeny at 3:35 pm on Jan. 30, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted January 30, 2003 Author Share Posted January 30, 2003 Good post, Ron. I wear mine, I just get hacked off that those idiots in Austin don't think I can make a decision without their help. However, it should be an individuals right to choose for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiG Lady Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 While not particularly taking a stand on ANY of this... Here are some local facts: ---Hefty fine in Oregon for not wearing a seat belt. (Hefty $$ incentive, therefore for wearing one.) Seat belt is VERY uncomfortable given both my recovering hip and my various little spinal injuries. But I can't afford the fine. So I'm uncomfortable in the car. ---It's the law in Eugene to wear helmet while on bicycle. (Kids [and other people] were dropping like flies--permanently--before the law went into effect.) ---Helmet saved MY life TWICE in motorcycle accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Freedom demands responsibility. July 9th. 1986, 23:00 hrs. I was riding a Yamaha XS-850. The speedo only went to 85, so I 'm not sure how fast I was going, but it was probably near 100 mph. The front tire blew on a curve. (Yes, I was doing over 90 mph on a curve in the dark.) I was also on a rural Wyoming blacktop that nobody travels at night. About 2:00 am an EMT from Salt Lake found me where I had crawled back into the road and passed out again. (He said he got lost looking for a KOA campground, OK.... whatever........) The Deputy that responed to the ER that morning was my wife's cousin and a close friend of mine. He didn't know it was me until he pulled the wallet from my pocket. Since I wasn't wearing a helmet, the windshield had pretty much removed all of my scalp. It was apparently floppin around on my back somewhere. My buddy got to wake up my wife. Three days later I woke up. They said the odds were, that I wouldn't. So.... with that experience, I guess I have a special perspective on helmet laws. (and maybe about life.) All the helmet laws in the universe wouldn't have kept me from having that wreck. I had already chosen to break quite a few traffic laws that night. I got dusted because I was behaving in a grossly irresponsible manner. I still ride, usually helmet-less. Surprised? Shouldn't be. Here's why: I didn't die in July 1986, because it wasn't my time to die. When it is my time, I will. That's not my call. Until then, I will work to fulfill my life's purpose. Part of that purpose is to act responsibly. Responsible people are a law unto themselves. And laws just can't help irresponsible people. People want more laws because they worry too much. We pass more and more laws and people just get more and more irresponsible. Every law is a sacrifice of freedom. When will people finally realize that? I don't know about you, but I've got damn little freedom left to give up. Freedom demands responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Dunlop Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Great post Sam, thankfully I read it before flex's else I couldn't see for the tears!! I wear my belt by choice too, when I do forget, (one day no doubt) I'll be pretty pissed at a $400 reminder from our public servants. 3/4time, I live rural, no taxis, buses, trains. I'm not a big fan of the drink drive laws and would never defend them. Just give me all the info, no spin, just the raw facts and leave me make up my own mind. P.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Sam: Nice post. We need to get together and talk bikes. I haven't ridden since I sold my old GS1100EZ. I have heard the same discussions before. In the world of social psychology, what you are talking about is the internal vs. external locus of control. Lots of folks (myself included) believe we are immortal right up until the time the good Lord calls us home. Of course, the degree to which we allow destiny and faith to control our lives has been canon fodder for some of the greatest philosophical and religious debates of all times. Kind of reminds me of the old joke about the (insert alternate religion here) Baptist farmer who was caught in the flood. There are several versions and I'll give you the Reader's Digest version. You have probably heard it before. When it began to rain, the old boy turned on the radio and listened intently to the warnings to evacuate low areas and historical flood plains. He decided to stay on the farm and let the Lord's will be done. It rained and it rained and the flood waters started to rise. As the water rose, the good old boy went to the second floor of the farm house. A Search and Rescue team came by in a boat and asked the farmer to get in and go with them to safety. The old boy told them, "The Lord will provide for me." The flood waters continued to rise as the farmer scampered up on top of the roof. A little while later a helicopter hovered over the roof and dropped a rescue basket. The old boy refused and told the rescue crew, "God's will shall be done." The house washed away and the farmer drowned. When he arrived in Heaven the old boy rejoiced in being called home. One day he asked the Lord, " Why did you choose a flood to bring me home? Was it symbolic?" The Lord answered, "What are you talking about? I sent you a radio announcer, a boat, and a helicopter." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 I'll chime in (as if it matters)... Folks, you all can still choose to not wear a helmet, use your seatbelt, speed, jaywalk, double park, not feed the meter, pay your taxes (whoa, big can o' worms there), etc. You can make a concious choice as a living, breathing human being to make a decision to do what ever you want to do, all laws of physics applicable. However, those we have elected (nother can o' worms, even bigger) have decided that that they wish to deter people from these actions by monetary or penal remedy. I'm not saying its right, thats just how it is. Greatest good for the greatest number type of thing going on. After all, its in their best intrest for you to live, if you die, they loose a potential source of revenue. And too, you have to remember that these laws you mention are State Laws, not federal. Remember that whole "States Rights" thing we all (I hope) were taught in school? But what does it really matter, the Fed Gov't can elect to withhold highway funding if they don't like a states speed limits or BAC %'s. Do seatbelts save lives? Most of the time. Do helmets protect your noggin? Most of the time. Does imposing a BAC help deter some idiot from having "one more for the road". Sometimes. Is it a bad thing to have people driving 70 mph in front of a grade school? Probably. We can get rid of all of these laws, if we wanted to. Unfortunately, I don't believe that human beings (at least in the country) on the whole have the ability to be honest with themselves when it comes to things like that. As an example: Your [insert person you care for] is walking home from the market and when they cross the street, they get struck by someone driving 90 with their lights off, because "I wanted to and there's no law saying I can't". In the aftermath, would you be willing to accept that knowing that you have the ability to do the same thing, of your own free will, without fear of penalty or prosecution? I know that was an extreme example, I was just trying to make a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now