Author Topic: raider179 was right... (Read 7966 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #135 on:** September 21, 2005, 08:15:20 AM »

six... you never answered a single question... did your medical and car insurance rates go down? Better... did the rate of rise in cost go down?

I can't believe that I am explaining freedom to an American male... you are trying to turn this place into beetles mom's version of england.

So... again... why not just have the insurance companies charge more for people who say that they probly won't be wearing their seatbelts 100% of the time? even more for those who go 50%?

And... what if wearing helmets and nomex fire suits could save.... oh... 10.... no.... 20 yeah that's the ticket 20 BILLION dollars a year in health care costs!!! would you then be for the feds mandating and dictating to the states that everyone wear helmets and nomex in their cars?

then of course... head straps and 5 point harnesses would be looking pretty good right?

you really should move to britan. You really don't belong here.

lazs

Sixpence · « **Reply #136 on:** September 21, 2005, 08:32:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The fallacy in your arguement is the fact that the parachute in base jumping is analogous to the car in driving. And yes I am required to use a horse when riding a horse.

ok, i'll play, let's see, what's the ratio here in ma. for a given day for car drivers and base jumpers, a million to one? Two million to one? Let's just say that base jumpers equaled car drivers everyday, hmm, my guess is you would see alot more base jumping accidents. So would it be fair to say that that many base jumpers would send health costs through the roof?

Now we don't want to take away the freedom of base jumping, but studies show that wearing knee and elbow pads will greatly reduce knee and elbow injuries and reduce health care costs and the state requires you to wear them. Has your freedom to base jump been taken away?

Again, you can't walk around in public naked, you are required to wear clothes. Is this an infringement on your freedom to chose?

And again, this darwin doesn't just kill himself, but is thrown into the person in the front seat and breaks his neck. Now the person who was wearing a seat belt and would have survived the accident is dead because of the darwin in the back seat.

Newton's law, the car has stopped, but you are still going 65mph, not only can you kill another in the car, you can be thrown into oncoming traffic and cause another accident.

lazs2 · « **Reply #137 on:** September 21, 2005, 08:41:59 AM »

let's see.... wearing seatbelts or helmets is like going around naked... how? oh... the not wearing is indecent? it offends people? I believe the latter is probly correct for those with a nanny complex..

You really don't get the whole American thing do you? but then.... look where you are from... you guys haven't understood freedom for a few generations now.

If someone wants to base jump with any kind of equipment he wants that is fine with me so long as he pays his own bills.... if you weren't the mother from hell you socialist you would agree.

lazs

Jackal1 · « **Reply #138 on:** September 21, 2005, 08:42:12 AM »

Just how much freedom and freedom of choice are you willing to give up because someone else tells you it is the right thing to do and WE know what`s best for you?
You willing to give all freedom of choice up and let a group of people make all your decisions for you?
Once you start giving up your freedom and freedom of choice it can easily steamroll everyone.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that can`t be put in a positive or negative light to you if you wish someone else to have control over you. It`s called being gullible.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that can`t be twisted, distorted , spoon fed to you and passed into law. It`s like polls that are ran. Most polls usualy come out with highly positive results for the ones who called for the poll in the beginning. Third party, non-biased polls?? No such thing. There is always someone willing to sell out for their own personal, short time benefit.
What if........
As has been well covered over the years, too much TV watching can be bad for your health. A law is passed to limit your viewing time to one or two hours per week. Why? Because others have decided "we know what`s good for you".
Too much PC use is bad for you. It damges eyesight. It causes carpal tunnel injuries, etc, etc. A law is passed limiting you to one hour a week of PC use. Why? Because others have decided "we know what`s good for you".
Too much news service such as local newspapers cause anger , public unrest and can even lead to rioting. A law is passed making local printings illegal. You will be limited to one news publication a week. It will be written, printed and distributed by the government. Why? Because others have decided "we know what`s good
for you".
Some cars are produced safer than others. A law is passed. One car will be produced and manufactored by government chosen and ran companies. Everyone will drive and own the same car. Why? Because others have decided "we know what`s good for you".
Like them ideas? Didn`t think so. Get your head out.
Sound far fetched? So did traveling to and landing on other planets a very short time ago. Keep bending over and freely giving up your freedom and right of choice and you will find why what once was considered science fiction is now fact.

Toad · « **Reply #139 on:** September 21, 2005, 09:05:32 AM »

The correct way to address the problem is to make seat belt usage a part of the insurance contract.

You are free to use or not use a seat belt as you wish. However, if you are in an accident and injured while not wearing a seat belt, the insurance company does not have to pay any medical costs on you. Same for a motorcycle helmet.

The individual's right to choose is preserved.

The insurance companies... those benevolent "we only have your best interest at heart", not-for-profit, charitable organizations... don't have to pay out any money at all for some guy that takes a header through the windshield.

Something like that would be far more acceptable but that way Nanny doesn't get to be the boss so it won't happen.

Suave · « **Reply #140 on:** September 21, 2005, 09:15:05 AM »

Any law that has a purpose other than preventing antisocial behavior is unjust and counter liberty.

Seatbelt law is a prime example of the majority democratically stripping the rights from a minority.

Hamburgers and cigarettes kill more people than riding in an auto without wearing a seatbelt does.

Next thing you know your ilk will be lobbying to regulate tobacco and fast food.. oh wait you guys are allready doing that.

Are there really so few of us left who value liberty more than our physical safety?

Some few of us are happy to know that we don't have a mommy to pick us up when we fall anymore.

beet1e · « **Reply #141 on:** September 21, 2005, 09:15:55 AM »

It's too long ago for me to remember all the anti-seatbelt hysteria leading up to the 1983 law, but I'll try...

In the mid 1960s in Britain, car usage looked set to rise exponentially. More cars were coming out, and with more and more powerful engines. The number of RTA fatalities began to rise in proportion with the number of cars. c1967, a new law was passed, requiring that front seatbelts must be fitted to all 1965 cars (meaning 1965 and onwards). But there was no law saying that you had to wear them. Take up was only about 1/10. With vastly more traffic on the roads in the 1980s compared to the 1950s, and with high speed roads like motorways claiming heavy losses of life, the government decided it was time to act. Up until that decision was made, there were two possible scenarios:

Do nothing - in which case the headlines would have been "Avoidable road deaths remain high despite seatbelts - government fails to act" - or...
Seatbelt law - now 9/10 front seat occupants use them - fatalities reduced by some 2000 per annum.

We chose the second scenario. Remember, the law was passed by a democratically elected government, and has not been repealed by their opposition since coming to power in 1997.

I'm not interested in discussing insurance costs, insurance company profits. That's small beer compared to the REAL costs which are being saved - 2000 lives - every year in Britain alone.

And before you trot out the tired old chestnut of "the right of those drivers to choose whether or not to belt up", it has to be said that many drivers have responsibilities outside of the car. I have no respect for such pig-headed arrogance when the end result might be that an avoidable death results in one more grieving widow and several children who no longer have a father - just because HE decided he didn't need a seatbelt. The law is there to protect his spouse and offspring, not just himself. And... the vast majority of us don't want our hospitals cluttered up with RTA injuries, thereby depriving needy cases of a hospital bed.

Wearing a seatbelt is a negligible inconvenience at most. There is NO case for not wearing one. It has nothing to do with "freedom", "nanny", "gullibility" or any of that crap.

Seatbelt laws exist because most people want them to exist. Tough shirt if you're not one of them.

Suave · « **Reply #142 on:** September 21, 2005, 09:17:38 AM »

Seatbelt and helmet laws are what happen when democrats and republicans put aside petty partisan bickering and come to get on the really important issues.

Torque · « **Reply #143 on:** September 21, 2005, 09:18:05 AM »

well, you can always circumvent the tyranny of the government's seat belt law by taking public transit, the irony.

i wear mine all the time without a second thought, it's more of a reflex action when i get in. i wear one not because the govn't forces me to, but because of common sense from driving 30k a year in all sorts of weather and people conditions.

Suave · « **Reply #144 on:** September 21, 2005, 09:25:13 AM »

I take public transportation when I feel like it, I appreciate that it's there for the people that need it, and I appreciate that it's my decision not to take it if I don't want to.

I wear my seatbelt all the time too, yet I don't feel that I have the right to force others to.

Torque · « **Reply #145 on:** September 21, 2005, 09:32:20 AM »

I take public roads when I feel like it, I appreciate that they' re there for the people that need them, and I appreciate that it's my decision not to take them if I don't want to.

I drive on them all the time too, yet I don't feel that I have the right to force others to.

Suave · « **Reply #146 on:** September 21, 2005, 09:40:51 AM »

Good. Then I presume you extend the same logic to seatbelts.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #147 on:** September 21, 2005, 09:58:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
the government decided it was time to act.

Quote

We chose the second scenario.

Irony in it`s finest form.
Bend Over Bob standing beside of the road waiting on the rush delivery of Vasoline.

SaburoS · « **Reply #148 on:** September 21, 2005, 11:45:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash

Snip
Do the insurance companies just soak up the profits from less payouts`snip?

..that would be my guess.
Insurance companies seem to be a business of profit.

beet1e · « **Reply #149 on:** September 21, 2005, 11:51:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jackal1

Irony in it`s finest form.

Erm... you were saying? Better read this

Quote

Forty-nine of the 50 states have mandatory seat belt laws and all passenger vehicles sold today have clear warnings to wear your seat belt at all times.