I'm sorry....

[BigMikeinNY]

MY REPLY TO THIS POST THAT I STARTED OVER 2 years ago...

 

As of Memorial Day, I have begun to wear my seat belt each and every time I get into the car. Going 4 days strong! Whether I am the driver or the passenger, I have promised myself to wear them.

 

I have given my ego a back seat on this one, and have decided to wear it each and every time; no matter my opinion on the law.

 

Reading your posts and talking with my family pretty much made me change my mind.

 

It's not about me "thinking our government is the Evil Empire". It's about me being safe for myself and my family.

 

BigMike

[TimC]

Next we'll convince you that the Civil War was the Government being an evil empire.

[Kid Cid]

MY REPLY TO THIS POST THAT I STARTED OVER 2 years ago...

 

As of Memorial Day, I have begun to wear my seat belt each and every time I get into the car. Going 4 days strong! Whether I am the driver or the passenger, I have promised myself to wear them.

 

I have given my ego a back seat on this one, and have decided to wear it each and every time; no matter my opinion on the law.

 

Reading your posts and talking with my family pretty much made me change my mind.

 

It's not about me "thinking our government is the Evil Empire". It's about me being safe for myself and my family.

 

BigMike

No, you're right, the government is evil. Not wearing a seat belt is not the way to protest this however. A simple email to your state representative identifying them as a tool of the insurance industry and making note that you won't vote for anyone who values money more than the freedom of the citizens he or she represents would suffice.

[Gonkis]

I like being alive, so I wear my seat belt. I have a brand new driver in the house, literally got his license about a week ago. I told him if he gets caught speeding, the punishment will hit him in the wallet when the insurance rates go up. If he also doesn't have his seatbelt on, I will take his license until I think he can remember to put it on. MY law is much more strict than the gubments.

[Delicious_bass]

So having the Law of Unintended Consequences work in your favor for once is justification for enacting a law that legislates away a free choice and expands police powers in the process?

 

 

 

You examples are specious at best, speculative at worst. Please show me the statistics that the number of injuries in automobile accidents that have been caused after the driver has been knocked unconscious and the car is careening out of control.

 

For the record, I always wear a seat belt just as I always wear a helmet when I rode a motorcycle (In CT helmets are optional). I also remember when we were told that the police would never be able to pull you over for not wearing a seat belt.The state continues to grasp for power and that is a zero sum game. For the state to have more power the individual must have less. It is a game that can only end in one of two ways, Complete governmental control of your entire life or revolution. There is no other end game. The only question is how long it takes.

So, despite the overwhelming evidence (some of which can be found here) that proves seatbelts save lives (a fact you've admitted yourself), you see the law requiring the wearing of seatbelts as 1) the evil govt just trying to get more power, and 2) a precursor to the government completely controlling your life? Doh-k

 

And you said I was being "speculative"? I'd like to see you provide some stats that show that laws written in the interest of public safey are really just the first step toward complete and total government control. Wow. Paranoid much?

 

How do you find the strength to get through your day with the evil govt out there constantly trying to take over your life?

[Delicious_bass]

He'll shake his head and call you one of those crazy because he doesn't have the knowledge of history or the imagination to conceive the truth of the outcome you indicate.

You're right. I dont have the imagination

[Kid Cid]

So, despite the overwhelming evidence (some of which can be found here) that proves seatbelts save lives (a fact you've admitted yourself), you see the law requiring the wearing of seatbelts as 1) the evil govt just trying to get more power, and 2) a precursor to the government completely controlling your life? Doh-k

 

And you said I was being "speculative"? I'd like to see you provide some stats that show that laws written in the interest of public safey are really just the first step toward complete and total government control. Wow. Paranoid much?

 

How do you find the strength to get through your day with the evil govt out there constantly trying to take over your life?

I never said seat belts don't save lives. I did say that I'm in favor of using them and that I do so as a free thinking man able to asses the pros and cons of the situation and to freely accept the responsibility for taking care of my own life. What I am saying is that you're using an argument that is ill conceived and not backed by any facts to support state sponsored control of seat belt usage. By your own words you said:

 

Lets say you get hit while you are driving. No seatbelt on, you hit your head and get knocked unconscious. Your vehicle continues to move (now uncontrolled) and ends up crossing over the center line where you collide with oncoming traffic.

 

So while the statistics you pointed to do in fact (if you are actually willing to analyze them, your link does not provide anything but the raw data) point to seat belts saving lives, they do not in any way speak to your scenario where the operator of the motor vehicle is knocked unconscious because he or she was not wearing their seat belt and the other passengers in the vehicle are thereby put at risk.

 

Now an argument could be made that in order to reduce traffic fatalities, more stringent rules and testing should be applied in order to actually receive a license to operate a motor vehicle in any state. That would be within the government's purview and would not be extending additional powers to the police. It also would achieve the desired goal of saving lives while reducing insurance costs. But since that is forcing the responsibility back on to the individual it is exactly the LAST course of action that anyone in the country wants to take.

[Delicious_bass]

I never said seat belts don't save lives. I did say that I'm in favor of using them and that I do so as a free thinking man able to asses the pros and cons of the situation and to freely accept the responsibility for taking care of my own life. What I am saying is that you're using an argument that is ill conceived and not backed by any facts to support state sponsored control of seat belt usage. By your own words you said:

 

 

 

So while the statistics you pointed to do in fact (if you are actually willing to analyze them, your link does not provide anything but the raw data) point to seat belts saving lives, they do not in any way speak to your scenario where the operator of the motor vehicle is knocked unconscious because he or she was not wearing their seat belt and the other passengers in the vehicle are thereby put at risk.

 

Now an argument could be made that in order to reduce traffic fatalities, more stringent rules and testing should be applied in order to actually receive a license to operate a motor vehicle in any state. That would be within the government's purview and would not be extending additional powers to the police. It also would achieve the desired goal of saving lives while reducing insurance costs. But since that is forcing the responsibility back on to the individual it is exactly the LAST course of action that anyone in the country wants to take.

First, I just threw some examples out (because it has been brought up in this thread that choosing not to wear a seatbelt only puts the driver at risk) to show how not wearing it can affect the other passengers in the car as well as other vehicles on the road. In addition to that, personal injury adds to the cost of an crash and those costs get further distributed making things more expensive for people not even involved in the wreck.

 

I realize that the link I provided does not break down the fatalities at the level of whether or not the driver was incapacitated/thrown from the vehicle. I dont have time to look for that level of detail right now nor is it really important to this discussion. The fact that seatbelts save lives is enough to show this law is (despite the agenda(whatever you want to believe that is) behind it) a positive thing. More people are wearing seatbelts now(some of which as a result of not wanting to pay the fine) and that is resulting in fewer deaths.

 

If you wear your belt and your family straps in as well, you have nothing to worry about. In fact, it seems to me that you may choose to look at this as the govt attempting to selectively discourage/punish those who choose (despite the data) to be more cavalier with their lives on the roads and tend to bump the costs for everyone else.