Author Topic: Helmet & Seat Belt Laws (Read 1676 times)

beet1e · « **Reply #45 on:** January 03, 2003, 07:43:33 AM »

LOL! Lots of replies...

SOB!

Quote

post more and tippie-toe further out onto that limb you're dangling on.

Oh! Well PLEASE tell me what might happen when I tippie-toe beyond safe limits? Maybe my keyboard will fall on the floor? LOL

Airhead's was the most intelligent reply, but...

Quote

We can drive faster here than you can in England. Personally I'm glad our speed limit is 70mph...

The speed limit on British motorways and dual carriageways (divided highways) is also 70mph. As for headshops, I clearly remember them being banned in NV one day in May 1981. I was passing through en route to CA - they must have known I was coming! I thought such shops had since been outlawed nationwide - shops that sell freebasing kits and all that toejam.

Wlfgang - I had not forgotten Colorado's casinos. These were the ones I was referring to when I said "a few pisspot casinos here and there". Indeed, I've been to them, and pisspot they were. I'm talking about a place called Central City, up SR-7 off I-70 west of Denver. I was working in Golden for a few months in 1997, and got to know that area quite well. Even though the casinos were crap, CO looked like a damned nice state. Especially up there in the Rockies.

AKDejaVu - yes I know about Montana! As for casinos -

Quote

We have 5 casinos within 2 hours of where I live. Can you say the same?

Of course I can. I live within 45 minutes drive of Mayfair, London. There are gaming casinos there, and I've even heard that bin Laden used to frequent them... As for their typical clientele, well many years ago when the Arabs got rich from oil, a Rolls Royce parked outside a casino was broken into, and a briefcase containing £40,000 stolen. That's the sort of money they would leave lying around in the Roller while they were inside gambling. Even closer to me than London is Reading - a town within 15 minutes of here - where there are at least two casinos. One is called the Sergeant York, I believe. I don't know what they're like because my need for gambling is at the same level as my need for a gun.

Back in the 1980s, the legal drinking age was not always the same across all US states. In Illinois it was 21 for everything, but across the border in Wisconsin, beer and wine could be bought and consumed at age 19. What then happened was that many 19/20 year olds were driving up to Wisconsin so they could drink - but then driving back again afterwards. There was a lot about that and the problems it caused at that time in the newspapers.

Well AKDV, lazs, SOB, Airhead - glad to see you're all helping eachother out. I see that gangbanging extends from the AH game and into the BBS! LOL

But that's OK, I'm used to that.

So touching to see AKDV sticking up for Lazs. Almost has me reaching for my pocket handkerchief. Now all you guys should go and have a group hug.

Doh! SOB was right... my damned mouse just fell on the floor - ROFL!

lazs2 · « **Reply #46 on:** January 03, 2003, 08:24:53 AM »

Well.. guess I was wrong on the drinking thing... Ihaven't drank in a bar in 16 years tho.

Everything in the states is bigger and better and cheaper and it is a direct result of less nannying.

lars... I have seen that when people that wore helmets went down they allways had scratches and such on their helmets... when people who didn't wear helmets went down they rarely ever got a scratch on their head... Sorta like wearing a hard hat on the job... you are allways bumping something with it. so far as being in someones car that insists on me wearing a belt... it's their car I'll do as they ask or get out. we can take my car next time. Oddly... most people fasten their belt in my cars allmost right away without prompting.

beetle... gangbanging is a function of opportunity... You come in here grabbing your ankles with your pants down and wonder why you are getting gangbanged?
lazs

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #47 on:** January 03, 2003, 08:58:09 AM »

Interesting pic beatle... drop the 5 and remove the snow and it could have been taken in england.

As for everything else... I'm pretty much convinced your just staga posting super trolls here on the bbs. You lie, bend and distort with the best of them. Carry on.

AKDejaVu

StSanta · « **Reply #48 on:** January 03, 2003, 09:15:30 AM »

Here we got public health care. Seat belt laws are good because otherwise our taxes would go up even more.

Interestingly enough we spend less of the total state income (percentage wise) on health care than does the US (8% vs 13.5%). It can be done because our bureaucracy is much more effective - I heard my father say that up to 25% of the total cost is an administrative one in the US.

Anyway, seatbelts and helmet laws are good. Saves money. Even though it should be up to the individual, when the bill is picked up by someone else a law is in order, so stupid cases are avoided as much as possible.

I think it's pretty egoistical to drive without wearing a seatbelt/helmet. Even if it is your choice, think of your loved ones.

An interesting note; the motivation behind airbags were the American lack of interest in using seat belts. The next best thing was and is airbags, and with both in place you have a decent chance of surviving a medium speed collision.

What *I* want to see in cars is a mandatory roll bar. It's quite scary to see the statistics; lots of people die not because of the primary impact but because the car rolls over, the roof collapses and the neck snaps. A mandatory roll bar would save lives but aestethically it'd be less than pleasing. It'd also add maybe $100 to the cost of the car. I'd pay it - hell I'm even thinking about installing one when I get my first car.

Wlfgng · « **Reply #49 on:** January 03, 2003, 09:20:17 AM »

where's that pic from Beetle ? did you take it?
I mean.. why not go for a fourteener instead ?

(if ya wanna compare uh.. sizes)
c'mon over and I'll take you to 4 of them within 10 minutes of each other. bring you oxygen mask.

(I don't know about Casino's being good/bad since I never frequent them, but I assume you're right)

(chumming)

Airhead · « **Reply #50 on:** January 03, 2003, 10:45:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by StSanta
Here we got public health care. Seat belt laws are good because otherwise our taxes would go up even more.

Thank you, StSanta, for making my point for me! When you allow your Goverment to educate you, clothe you, and make you well when you are sick you have given that Government a legitimate right to..uh.."nanny" you.

The real difference between Euros and Americans is that you seem to be OK with the Government controlling your life whereas Americans, regardless of political persuasion, prefer less Government interference on a personal level.

Case in point is that in all the gun threads not one American "liberal" on these BBS has agreed with the position of many Euros that a gun ban is a good idea. Whenever possible we choose to be allowed to choose.

SOB · « **Reply #51 on:** January 03, 2003, 11:07:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
SOB! Oh! Well PLEASE tell me what might happen when I tippie-toe beyond safe limits? Maybe my keyboard will fall on the floor? LOL

Pretty simple...you'd go from sounding like an assanine dipshit to sounding like a babbling moron. It's a fine line, but either way you are an entertaining clown...and for that I thank you.

SOB

miko2d · « **Reply #52 on:** January 03, 2003, 12:28:23 PM »

SOB: LOL, you are a sad little clown aren't you Beetle. Pumping gas into my automobile is now a freedom that's being denied me?

As much as you personally dislike Beetle, he has a valid point here which you have to admit or sound hyppocritical.

The freedom is denied to owners of the gas stations and to the motorists - the freedom that other 48 states and most foreign countries did not find necessary to limit.

That limitation does cost owners money.
They have to hire extra workers, those located at state border lose customers repelled by higher gas price and delay to fuel in a neighbouring state. I do not mean that many people would drive extra for 3 cents per gallon but those travelling across state lines anyway would certainly select cheaper, faster service. So border areas would have fewer stations - unless right next to a high-tax state like NY.

That limitation costs motorists money that they partially pay to cover extra jobs through higher gas prices. It also costs them time waiting untill someone comes out to serve them - which can also be expressed as money or hours of life.

That limitation costs motorists convenience since some gas stations would not be built or would be closed at night. In other states you have unattended stations working 24 hours on less travelled routes where you pay with a credit card and fuel yourself. It would not be possible to build such station or staff it around the clock because it would not ever generate enough money to pay salary to 2-3 people required to run it in addition to other expences - especially with minimum-wage laws and those preventing employment of teenagers.

So, yes - I personally feel that it is a freedom denied to me. Having to pay a few cents extra for unneeded service is an undeserved fine and having to waste a few minutes extra is an undeserved sentence - confinement to a gas station. Those amounts are small but they accumulate. Plenty of people I know share my feelings.

Of course if the dangers associated with self-pumping were substantial, free entrepreneurs would have been able to make their own rules and their insurance rates would reflect their practices. As well as the customers would be able to decide wether to use full-serve or self-serve.

miko

beet1e · « **Reply #53 on:** January 03, 2003, 01:08:57 PM »

miko - thanks for your support.

I don't think any of my fan club dislike me; indeed, I do not dislike any of them. I think they find me annoying because I know a lot of details about the US that they'd prefer me not to, and when they climb aboard their US National Supremacy Hobbyhorse - calling the rest of us "pissants" etc., they don't like it when I can point out their various idiosyncrasies.

Wlfgang - yes, I took that picture - in JUNE 1998, which as you recall was an El Niño year, hence all the snow on the ground from about 10,000ft up. I took a drive from Estes Park up the Rocky Mtn National Park highway, and made various stops along the way. I was revisiting a few friends with whom I had worked the previous year. The shot was taken looking out towards the 14,000ft jobs - Mt. Evans?

Actually, I found THIS more interesting...

SOB · « **Reply #54 on:** January 03, 2003, 01:42:24 PM »

Miko - I think you're spreading the "freedom" brush a bit broad. There are a lot of things I would consider necessary freedoms, and the freedom to pump my own gas is not one of them. There are plenty of gas stations around and I've never had trouble finding one open when I needed gas, whether I'm in Salem or driving down I-5...regardless of what time it is. If you feel it's an infringement on your freedom, it's your right to feel that way and I won't argue that point...but I don't feel anything is being taken from me. While gas prices can vary between Portland and Vancouver with Vancouver usually being cheaper, I'd bed that the state averages for WA and OR are damn near the same. I don't dislike Beetle, he just consistently comes up with inane arguments from one end of the spectrum that barely cling to making any sense and I choose to give him toejam about it. I live in Oregon and this isn't that big of a deal.

SOB

PS...Beetle, I couldn't care less what you do or don't know about the U.S., and any seedy things that may be going on here. And I also could care less to argue about who's got the better country, as I'd consider the UK a perfectly nice place to live and look forward to visiting there someday.

miko2d · « **Reply #55 on:** January 03, 2003, 02:02:48 PM »

SOB: Miko - I think you're spreading the "freedom" brush a bit broad.

Not really. The only good reason on society's part to interfere with individual freedoms is to limit/prevent the harm, danger or risk and individual poses to other people.
Trying to prevent harm an individual may do to himself - the way state sees it - is a necessary way to despotism. There will always be good reason not to let you work for less money, engage in activities, consume unhealthy food, read harmfull literature, etc.

You may make a good point that pumping your own gas subjects other people to risk - like igniting gas with static electricity, etc. If there is a research clearly showing that years of human life lost and property damage exceed respectively the number of years of human life lost due to waiting in line and reduction of wealth (increase of wealth saves lifes) due to reduction of economic activity, as well as secondary effects of not having a service (running out of gas in the middle of the night, not having a gas station with a phone around in case of emergency, etc) and income created - I will vote for the same rules in my own state.
I doubt the balance would be in favor of your argument but it is at least theoretically possible.
Of course in politics the dumb voters can be clearly shown the concrete results of an action but even economists may ignore the unintended consequences - especially things not created or prevented from existence by the same legistation.

But there is no reason for seat belts and helmet laws - beyong advisory. Person driving without a helmet does not hurt me any. If anything, he will more likely to be killed instantly and not require my taxes for his medical expences and disability. I definitely do not want expensive cops paid for by my taxes to waste time enforcing seatbelt laws with all other dangerous crap going around. Surely, they would love to safely collect fines than do real risky job they are paid to do.

People smart enough to drive are smart enough to realise the need for helmets/seatbelts. If they are not, they are not smart enough to vote for legistature enforcing it on themselves, so the whole talk about democracy becomes a sham.

I'd bed that the state averages for WA and OR are damn near the same.

Someone has to pay that unnecessary expence and/or suffer reduction of demand. You compare prices on the stations you see. You do not notice stations that were not built becasue of that law or gas station owners earning less money for the same amount of work/risk/investment.

miko

lazs2 · « **Reply #56 on:** January 03, 2003, 02:26:22 PM »

No reason for helmet and seat belt laws... It can't be proved that we have saved one penny over em. I would go so far as to say that they have increased the medical load. Certainly they haven't lowered anyones taxes or saved anyone money for insurance or medical costs.

But... saving money isn't really the point in any case... It is a matter of choice and personal freedom. or lack thereof.

It all boils down to letting women vote and idiotic men thinking they will get laid if they act womanly.
lazs

Airhead · « **Reply #57 on:** January 03, 2003, 03:20:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
I don't think any of my fan club dislike me; indeed, I do not dislike any of them. I think they find me annoying because I know a lot of details about the US that they'd prefer me not to, and when they climb aboard their US National Supremacy Hobbyhorse - calling the rest of us "pissants" etc., they don't like it when I can point out their various idiosyncrasies.

LOL Well, as a member of your fan club, I concur- I don't dislike you.

However, what's "annoying" about you (your word) is just how much you do NOT know about the American psyche, not how much you DO know. Of course if you are typical of most Europeans then I don't know Euros as well as I thought I did either.

For instance, you believe restricting access to firearms to the point where it is a de facto ban on firearms, while at the same time maintaining your "right" to light up a cigarette at any time, any place regardless of those around you, is the natural order of how your Government should evolve.

We are just the opposite. I don't feel at risk because Lazs, who lives 45 minutes away from me, has firearms. If anything Lazs and Toad make a compelling arguement that I'm safer from home invasion style crimes because of their posession of firearms. I prefer my Government wait until Lazs commit a crime before they confinscate his property. OTOH if Lazs and I were co workers I would have an issue with him if he lit a cigarette in MY workplace area... I have the RIGHT to be free from his second hand smoke in the workplace.

Maybe it's Americans' insistance on private property rights which you aren't grasping Beatle. Here a man's home is his castle and we hold that as a sacred belief. That is balanced with the responsibility of being a part of society and realising we, as individuals, can't violate the rights of others. We call that "freedom."

Wlfgng · « **Reply #58 on:** January 03, 2003, 03:52:44 PM »

beet1e · « **Reply #59 on:** January 03, 2003, 04:12:32 PM »

Quote

For instance, you believe restricting access to firearms to the point where it is a de facto ban on firearms, while at the same time maintaining your "right" to light up a cigarette at any time, any place regardless of those around you, is the natural order of how your Government should evolve.

No Airhead, I never said I wanted firearms banned in the US. Look over the various threads - I never suggested that. What I did say was that arming every Tom/Dick/Harry is no substitute for correctly deployed law enforcement. I might have suggested that arming everyone increases the chance of arms getting into the wrong hands - theft, negligence etc. I've also pointed out that unarmed societies like Britain/Japan have fewer people killed by guns.

You can take away my right to light up a cigarette. I'm a nonsmoker, and won't miss it.