raider179 was right...

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
OK, so if medical coverage in your insurance contract is made void by not wearing a seatbelt, and you sustain life threatening injuries, who/which hospital is obligated to treat you?

[/b]

None. Darwinism at it's best. I bet that sounds harsh but I'm one of those that figures if you're that stupid, and get held accountable for your stupidity, I and the rest of society shouldn't be held accountable for your stupidity.

 

your seatbelt/airbag save you, but you suffer serious injury caused by the rear seat passenger, who was NOT wearing a belt, being thrown forwards into the back of your seat?

[/b]

First of all, you're getting into the "hit by a meteorite" category.  The answer however is the same as the above. Who's the "aircraft commander"? The guy at the wheel.

If his passengers don't belt up, who's ultimately responsible? The aircraft commander.  You should see what the fine is for an airline captain that allows the aircraft to be pushed back from the gate with people standing in the aisles. The fact that it's a 747 and he can't even see the multiple aisles from the cockpit is ignored.

And... rather than voiding your insurance contract by driving around without a belt, would it not be better to leave the law as it is and let folks drive around without a belt if that's what they want, and just collect the fines for non compliance?

No. See previous 3 pages.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Toad


No. See previous 3 pages. [/B]

 

  That suggestion sounds vaguely familiar.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Once again you miss the boat there slugger. What has been said is not that they have "taken away", but that you have "given them away" freely. You are trying to pass off the act that are quite happy with the fact that your freedom of choice no longer exists. Big difference there. A lot of us here are not so happy about the fact that our rights and freedom of choice is being trampled. Figured you might be able to glean that from the thread.

In 49/50 states, including TX, you have a seatbelt law. Erm... can you please explain  in what way the legislative process has differed in those 49 states from the way the same law was passed in Britain, such that you might add some measure of credence to your assertion that "What has been said is not that they have "taken away", but that you have "given them away" freely. You are trying to pass off the act that are quite happy with the fact that your freedom of choice no longer exists." ??? Because it sounds to me that said freedom of choice no longer exists in Texas nor in any other state except NH.

And...  if you're just now getting so bent out of shape about a seatbelt law, don't you think you've left it rather late? Surely the time to start crying would have been 20 years ago when said laws began to be passed??? (I believe IL had a seatbelt law as long ago as ~83)  Because now the law is so deeply entrenched that you'll never be rid of it.

Good luck with the evacuation, Jackal. Your bowels I'm talking about!

[Hangtime]

The seatbelt & speed limit downgrade package was forced down the throat of the states during the gas crunch 25 years ago by tying compliance with highway funding.

No seatbelt law, no federal dollars for the state.

States rolled over.

It's always about the money, ain't it?

[Toad]

It's the Golden Rule; he who has the gold makes the rules.

The States have so given in to the creeping Federalism that they are now dependent on sucking the Federal teat.

The Feds merely threaten to withhold funds... which, ever so ironically and beautifully are collected from the States... and the States roll over like a submissive puppy.

But this is the way it should be... in the mind of Mary Poppins.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
It's the Golden Rule; he who has the gold makes the rules.

The States have so given in to the creeping Federalism that they are now dependent on sucking the Federal teat.

The Feds merely threaten to withhold funds... which, ever so ironically and beautifully are collected from the States... and the States roll over like a submissive puppy.

Hmmmm, there's a lesson for Europe in there. Fortunately the good people of France & the Netherlands had the good sense to say NO to the constitution, so now the constitution is DEAD. I hope it stays dead.

So, when will NH capitulate and introduce a seatbelt law? tick-tock, tick-tock

[Toad]

What's the New Hampshire state motto?

Your clock stopped.

[Toad]

BTW, as Hang pointed out, the State seat belt laws were extorted from the States by the Feds.

Something of which all you Poppins can be justly proud... after all, the extortion was "for their own good".

[Monk]

Originally posted by lazs2

At least the girly men here still admit that it is government intrusion....
lazs

Hey mister, you calling me a girly man? (studmuffingot wink dude here).

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Mr. Toad
BTW, as Hang pointed out, the State seat belt laws were extorted from the States by the Feds.

Something of which all you Poppins can be justly proud... after all, the extortion was "for their own good".

Don't go blaming the Feds. In New Hampshire's case, it's the NH police chiefs who want a seatbelt law.

NH Seatbelt law proposed - http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20050109/FP_002.htm

For the first time ever, New Hampshire's police chiefs favor a mandatory seat-belt law and will actively support legislation to create what would be the Granite State's first law requiring everyone to buckle up.

If approved by lawmakers, New Hampshire would join every other state in the nation, Puerto Rico, and every province in Canada, all of which have mandatory seat-belt laws. Currently, only young people in the Granite State -- 17 or under -- have to buckle up.

Departing from its traditional position against a mandatory seat-belt law in keeping with New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" philosophy , the association of police chiefs has changed its tune -- partly because of an alarming number of fatal car crashes last year -- and it now overwhelmingly supports such a measure.

A mandatory seat-belt bill submitted by a New Hampshire doctor who is also a state representative, will have the backing of the chiefs association for the first time ever.

"It, quite frankly, is a departure from what the association has followed in the past," said Plaistow police Chief Stephen Savage, president of the association. "We have not been in support of seat-belt legislation in the past. We felt it ought to be voluntary. The issue was raised once again about a mandatory seat-belt law, and at the general meeting in the fall, it was put to a vote. It passed with only two dissenting votes."

Savage himself was one of the two chiefs voting against it, but he said he yields to the wishes of the majority and will "wholeheartedly support the position of the association."

"Times change and I guess people do," he said. "There is compelling evidence that it is necessary -- including an alarming rise in fatalities."

Last year was a particularly deadly year on New Hampshire's roadways. Fatal car crashes claimed the lives of 167 people -- up from 119 the year before.

According to statistics from the New Hampshire Department of Safety through Nov. 1, at least 41 people killed in car crashes in the Granite State last year could be alive today if they were wearing seat belts.

Dr. Joseph Sabato Jr., who is chairman of a safety group that held a safety summit where the statistics were presented, said the number of people killed who weren't wearing seat belts is probably much higher.

However, in 38 percent of the cases, no determination could be made whether seat belts were worn or not.

Ten years ago, Sabato founded a grass-roots group to put an end to a string of fatal car crashes in the Derry area, which claimed the lives of many young people. There was one common denominator among the victims of those fatal car crashes: Not one was wearing a seat belt, Sabato said.

Even back then, Sabato wasn't convinced that a mandatory seat-belt law was the answer, having moved to New Hampshire partly because of its reputation for having fewer regulations and laws than Massachusetts and other states.

The late Harry Richardson of Derry, a driving instructor, convinced Sabato that a law was needed to get more people to buckle up. The two successfully lobbied for a youth seat-belt law.

An emergency room doctor for 23 years, Sabato has treated thousands of accident victims. He is the former emergency services director for Parkland Medical Center in Derry.

He said people who aren't buckled up tend to have more serious injuries and more broken bones than other car-crash victims. That also translates into higher health-care costs, he said.

"The state and its citizens pick up the extensive cost of the freedom to not use seat belts," he said. "In fact, everyone else is subsidizing those who are injured or die when they could have been saved by seat belts. The fiscally responsible move is to look for every opportunity to reduce costs and save lives. Increasing seat-belt use would save many lives."

Sabato, who lives in Windham, is an emergency room doctor at Southern New Hampshire Medical Center in Nashua and medical director of the Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services.

The legislation to establish the state's first mandatory seat-belt law was introduced by state Rep. James Pilliod, a pediatrician from Belmont.

Under the legislation, not wearing a seat belt would be a secondary offense. That means police would not be allowed to pull someone over simply because someone in the car wasn't buckled up. Police could, however, cite the driver for not wearing a seat belt or for having passengers who weren't wearing seat belts, if they stopped the car for another traffic violation.

Peter Thomson, coordinator of the Governor's Highway Safety Agency, said he strongly favors seat-belt use, but said he had not seen the proposed legislation. He said he needed to discuss the bill with Gov. John Lynch before announcing what position the new administration would take. Lynch has just taken over as the state's new governor, succeeding Craig Benson.

Thomson said seat-belt use in the Granite State is on the rise. Based on annual statewide surveys, seat-belt use has increased from 16 percent in 1984 to 63 percent last year.

"Obviously, I'm in favor of having everybody buckle up," Thomson said. "Wearing a seat belt is a life-saving choice. You stand a 50 percent better chance of surviving a crash if you're wearing a seat belt."

That article is from the NH newspaper, the Eagle Tribune, on January 9th of this year.

Seems like there's nothing wrong with my clock!

Tick-tock, tick-tock.....

[Toad]

And the Police Chiefs are somehow special because? They should have the right to decide because?

Note that  seat-belt bill was introduced by Rep. James Pilliod in January. It is now September and the bill has not passed. Perhaps you're dancing a bit too early. Time will tell. I wouldn't count your nannies before their hired.


Interesting to note that you Nannies support government extortion and bribery.

In 1991, there were about a dozen states that refused to pass a seat belt law and many more states did not pass a motorcycle helmet law. To "encourage" those states to pass such laws, members of Congress resorted to their usual method of extortion and blackmail to force states to do things that the citizens in those states did not want.

That is, Congress in 1991 passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, in which had provisions in the Act threatening states that did not pass both a seat belt and helmet law by October 1, 1993 with the loss of control over a certain portion of federal highway funds...

....In addition to using blackmail and extortion to force states to pass laws, Congress also uses bribery, another criminal offense in the private sector. In the 1991 Transportation Act there are provisions for federal grants (bribes) for states that pass seat belt and helmet laws to be used for enforcement of such laws.

That means, states that "sell" their citizens’ freedom to keep fully intact federal highway funds, are also rewarded with grants, and members of the press are not only silent about such blatant tyranny, but castigate state legislators for refusing to join-in the congressional conspiracy to violate the Bill of Rights.

But that is still not the whole sordid story about Congress and the fuel tax laws which create those federal highway funds. Congress not only engages in blackmail/extortion and bribery in the distribution of such funds, but passes such tax laws under false pretenses.

When passing laws that establish the amount of the fuel tax per gallon, nowhere in such laws does it say that states must first pass adjunct laws of any kind, such as seat belt or helmet laws, as a condition for receiving back such funds. Such conditions are created by members of Congress only when it comes time to distribute such funds.

The fact is, Congress passes the fuel tax laws with the understanding that such taxes would be returned to the states for road construction and repair needs in each state. In a given year, some states might not receive all of such fuel taxes collected; others might receive even more than what was collected in the state. However, in either case, the return of fuel taxes has nothing to do with the passage of other laws Congress wants the states to pass.

Of course, it's standard procedure; they've done it before. But the ever expanding Federalism is detrimental to finding better solutions too.

Congress used federal highway funds to bribe states into setting a maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour, long after it became obvious that such a low speed limit did no good for safety.

Highway funds are or have been contingent on drug-free workplace laws, metric conversion, and removing billboards from highways. Colleges must allow military recruiters on campus or face the loss of federal funds.

This reduces the effectiveness of our federal system, a system designed to allow state experimentation in order to find the most effective solutions.

For example, if a state better way to monitor driver safety than a point system, they can’t use it without losing federal funds. If a state finds that something other than seat belts can provide better safety in an accident, they must still require seat belts--with primary enforcement--or they will lose federal funds. If states experiment with contractor pay, they run the risk of losing federal funds. The list goes on and on and on.

Nannies.... Champions of Big Government.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
In 49/50 states, including TX, you have a seatbelt law. Erm... can you please explain  in what way the legislative process has differed in those 49 states from the way the same law was passed in Britain

  Sure. It`s getting a little old having to explain this to you over and over, but read the last 3 to 4 pages of this thread. Sound familiar? It should. The difference is we are not rolling over and just accepting it. It`s far from over along with a lot of other issues that have came to light in recent events. People are waking up to the fact that if you put total trust into lobbyist and government you are screwing up BIG TIME. It takes some doing for a lot of folks have become very complacent and live with a "don`t rock my boat" attitude. The boats have been rocked. The natives are restless. We are not just rolling over and saying "Government knows what`s best for you". What we don`t like , we won`t accept. What we don`t accept, we change. It is not given away freely and not an "it`s over because someone else says so" issue. That`s the difference.
If you are happy with your laws at the price of freedom of choice and or willing to accept it as fact, so be it. What goes on there I could care less about. What goes on here I care very much about. that`s the difference.

And...  if you're just now getting so bent out of shape about a seatbelt law

Thanks for, once again, showing the total lack of comprehension of what is being discussed here. As stated before and selectively over looked by you is that the subject is not just about seat belt laws or no seat belt laws. It`s freemom of choice, our rights and our constitution and the very foundation of this country being trampled. Not only do you pretend you can`t see the forest for the trees, you are blocking the light out by burying yourself in the leaves.
  The U.S. is what is being discussed here, not some dreary fantasy land where everyone is happy with whatever comes down the pike.

[beet1e]

Mr Toad, you didn't show your source for that quote. Was it this?  I am about to print that off to read while I enjoy another cup of tea! I'll comment on it when I've read the whole thing.

Not heard anything from jackal - I guess he's on the yellow bus already.

[Holden McGroin]

"The state and its citizens pick up the extensive cost of the freedom to not use seat belts," he said. "In fact, everyone else is subsidizing those who are injured or die when they could have been saved by seat belts. The fiscally responsible move is to look for every opportunity to reduce costs and save lives. Increasing seat-belt use would save many lives."  

So we have apparently established the cost of giving up our freedom of choice in regards to our personal safety.

I wonder what is the price of giving up our freedom of choice in regards to our personal speech?

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e

Not heard anything from jackal  

Since Vox is not enabled here you will just have to read it like the rest of us.
Try looking directly above your post. Be sure you have that robe all the way off and don`t get it caught over your head. It seems to be blocking your vision.