Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SOB on December 31, 2002, 03:50:42 PM
-
I don't feel strongly either way, but I do lean toward supporting them. Purely from a monetary standpoint tho'...it costs money to get brains scooped off of pavement, and I would think that anyone not using these devices would be more likely to sustain serious injuries than those using them. Does insurance pay for all the costs involved - police, traffic backups, freeway closures (when fatalities are involved).
Whaddya think?
SOB
-
I'm for them because of the medical cost issues too. But I do realize that people may or may not like them for one reason or another and may chose not to observe that particular law. More power to them.
However... when they're in my car... I impose my views.
AKDejaVu
-
Pretty much the same way DJV... if you're in my car, you're in a belt... or we're not moving.
It's not about anyone else's safety but my own. When/if I do get in an accident, I don't want any passengers flying into me.
I'm a firm believer in belts. I wouldn't be here if I didn't use them.
-
I always buckle up, but I'm not so sure I should be fined by the Gov't. based upon the potential cost to society if I don't buckle up. Where do we draw the line? Do we start fining people because they're too fat or are wrecking thier livers with cheap booze?
Miko made this point in the "freedom" thread, and in the case of helmet laws, seat belt laws or other running with scissors laws I tend to agree with him. (Just not his right to pollute my air with his cigarette smoke.)
-
Oh... guess I should add... If you would rather not use safety equipment, I'm all for personal choice and I disagree with helmet and safety belt laws...
It'll make the gene pool just that much deeper when you smear your brains all over the asphalt. That goes for your kids too. If you're not smart enough to strap 'em in, you shouldn't have 'em.
-
There isn't a line to draw. Its simply impossible to do so.
BTW... my views were predominately for seatbelt laws... for helmets I don't care because you're not really adding up medical bills but saving on them. Every scar I've ever had a motorcycle rider show me they got while wearing a helmet.
For seatbelts... I do think its the case. Its a low impact adjustment at worst. Besides, its tough to drive home child seatbelt regulations when allowing the adults to be unbuckled. And when it comes to people's children, I have no mixed feelings about it. If you want to piss me off on the highway, drive by me doing 70 with your kid standing up in the front seat.
I'm also not a proponent of stopping people for seatbelt violations. It should only be something that can be cited if the vehicle was stopped for another reason.
But that's just my take on it. I can't clearly define a "these things should be allowed and these shouldn't", but I do think that seatbelt laws are for the most part better.
AKDejaVu
-
I'd rather NO ONE wore seatbelts or helmets and drove really fast with a cocktail in one hand and a cell phone in the other. So when this moron blasts into a tree or over a cliff.. there's a higher chance of my donor pager going off saying I get his kidney.
morbid? yes.. welcome to my life.
-
seatbelt/helmet laws suck. the gov't shouldn't be involved. they should be making laws to protect us from others not ourselves.
I wear a seatbelt every time I get in the car, and if you want to avoid walking you better buckle yours too. but thats my bussiness because it's my car. and your bussiness because it's your life but the gov't can butt the hell out.
helmet laws are another thing all together. helmets are dangerous, and I would never wear them on the street given a choice. but I can't really go any further than that today. it's new years, I don't want to open up that can of worms and start the new year on a rant.
-
I think the seatbelt laws are a good idea because before they became a legal requirement here (on this day in 1983) only about 20% of people wore them. I was in the 20% because I never heard a convincing argument against them. Helmets became mandatory here in 1976. We used to have about 5000 deaths a year on the roads. With belts, helmets, better cars etc. that's down to about 3000. But remember! There's no substitute for safe driving. One of the best tips given in the IL driver manual that I had to study to get my US license, and I still remember it and apply it today, was "the right of way is a thing that should always be given, and never taken. If another driver makes a mistake or does not give way, give up your right of way rather than causing an accident"
Capt. Apathy I think you're overlooking the fact that if someone sustains injuries that could have been avoided by the wearing of a seatbelt, they may well be tying up medical resources which could have been usefully deployed elsewhere - hospital bed, surgeon etc.
One of the things that frustrated the hell out of Lee Iacocca, the former CEO of Chrysler, was that people were never prepared to pay for safety. If belts/airbags were offered as optional extras, the take up would be small. I think it was he who was instrumental in the development of airbags. He got a letter of thanks from a female motorist whose life was saved by the airbag.
AKDejaVu - Well, I think we've found something we can agree on! But I'm surprised you don't consider the helmet and belt laws as products of a nanny government. :)
-
i didn't really over look it. it's just that in some way every action/decision we make effects every other one of us on some level or another. at some point we have to let people take responsability for themselves.
It's my opinion that alot of the moronic things people do is because they are so used to being told by authority (parents, teachers, law) what to do and what not to do they have no judgement skills of their own. how could they have these skills if they are never allowed to use them.
good decision making comes from experience, a lot of that comes from bad decision making
-
As regards seat belts:
I detest Government involvement in protecting us from ourselves, However, If you were to invent something today that caused or allowed so many fatalities in its use, It would never be allowed to market.
Manufactures should be required to make sure that their products are safe allowing for normal use.
You cant tell if you are going to hit black ice, deer, errant motorists. Shucks..you may even unwittingly take a corner a tad fast and hit the soft shoulder.
Seatbelts and airbags really arent so muct to protect us from ourselves as they are to allow for unforseen circumstance.
As someone else mentioned, I personally dont want to get hit by a 130-200 pound missile in an accident.
My take on it.
-
I believe that seatbelts should be provided in cars... I believe that if someone wants me to wear a belt in their car that I should. I believe that helmets should be mandatoryu for children for bikes and scoots. I believe as an adult that I am capable of making my own decision. I personaly find that the current 'shoulder belt' sucks... It rubs me raw in the neck and is distracting. I have lap belts and use em in both my cars but that is my decision. I quit riding motorcycles before helmets became mandatory. If I take a motorcycle around the block or for a short ride I don't wear a helmet. I never wore a helmet and was involved in several (or more) motorcycle accidents that required ambulance rides... I never sustained a head injury... In all that time rideing I never knew of anyone sustaining a serious head injury that didn't heal faster than a broken leg or.... simply kill him.
The cost? be careful... I don't care about the cost. I don't want the government put in charge of any more facets of my life...I find that they simply run amuck and do an unfair and piss poor job everytime. I wouldn't trade the "cost" of the government running peoples lives for the "cost" of medical increases or decreases. So far as I know.... not one study has shown a savings in medical expenses for motorcycle injuries in states that have helmet laws.
I have about one ticket a year for driving without a seat belt. I make my kids wear seat belts when they are with me.
I don't know but I would say that the "cost" in taxes, for government programs... is far higher than the "cost" in medical expenses, for people to make their own decisions about their lives.... I mean.... look at england.
lazs
-
Originally posted by hawk220
I'd rather NO ONE wore seatbelts or helmets and drove really fast with a cocktail in one hand and a cell phone in the other. So when this moron blasts into a tree or over a cliff.. there's a higher chance of my donor pager going off saying I get his kidney.
morbid? yes.. welcome to my life.
Are you serious (about needing a kidney)?
If so, I hope that you get one soon.
eskimo
-
Lazs -
I personaly find that the current 'shoulder belt' sucks... It rubs me raw in the neck and is distracting.
How tall are you? I have a slight problem with my Beetle seat belt, but modern cars like the Golf have a diagonal belt whose height can be adjusted. I prefer to set mine quite low so that the belt flows over my shoulder. Look on the bright side, Lazs - at least neither of your cars has that idiotic system whereby the belt is connected to the door frame and runs round a track... lol! :rolleyes:
-
neither of my cars has the idiotic factory shoulder harness.
I think helmet laws are a huge infringement of personal freedom by a nanny government. I believe they should butt out.
I believe it all started with womens sufferage and that we need to end womens sufferage now.
lazs
-
rgr that Eskimo2 and thanks for your well wishing.
-
Soo... now that we have these seatbelt and helmet laws.... how much has the percent of your income paid for medical insurance gone down?
NEVER give the govenment a chance to run a part of your life for your own good. They will allways do a piss poor job of it and cost you more than it was ever worth. NEVER vote to take away anothers freedom unless it interferes with yours.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Soo... now that we have these seatbelt and helmet laws.... how much has the percent of your income paid for medical insurance gone down?
Are you suggesting that these laws are nanny like? But they are US laws...how can that be?
-
They are indeed nanny like. The U.S. is not devoid of freedom robbing nanny laws.. In fact... I was the one who suggested that you and beetle choose seatbelt and helmet laws for an example of U.S. nannying.
One problem tho... what we do about seatbelt and helmet laws the limey's do on a greater scale... they outnanny us... Their helmet laws are nationwide and were passed without any resistance by a passive people... In the U.S. there are pockets of resistance for helmet laws at least.... many states told the feds to go pound sand on helmet laws. Many other states fought the feds for years... in California... for a decade before caving in to the liberals and the women and the actors.
ending womens sufferage would go a long way toward making things right again in the U.S. The men could then shame the sissy men who vote like women into voting properly. They would be men again for at least a minute or two whild they were away from their "significant other" (damn that cracks me up) at the voting booth.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
everyone talks about how medical costs go up due to people not wearing seatbelts and/or helmets..
how much does it cost to enforce?
haw many cops are busy checking seatbelts and helmets instead of stopping criminals?
-
ROFL Curval! Good one. :D
Let's see...- The freedom to keep all your money - but Uncle Sam takes taxes.
- The freedom to drive at 100mph - taken away in most states.
- The freedom to build whatever you like, wherever you like - taken away by US Zoning laws.
- The freedom to drink alcohol - denied to those under 21.
- The freedom to gamble - removed in all states except NV,NJ, and a few pisspot casinos here and there.
- The freedom to buy bongs, and other drug paraphernalia at head shops - outlawed in 1981.
- The freedom to pump your own gas - denied in OR and NJ. :confused:
I could go on, but you get the point... Yes, all good quality US laws. Still, they have enough lawyers, so they have to be kept occupied.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ending womens sufferage would go a long way toward making things right again in the U.S.
Let it be known that lazs...spokesman for tough hombres everywhere....is proposing that the US should pass the greatest nanny law of all time. The repeal of women's right to vote. Help save the United States from women...please.
-
My cousin recommends wearing seat belts in his Mercedes cause if you don't, the air bags (hopefully never deployed) would break your neck.
Helmet laws are another thing. In my community there is a police officer who is going nuts about "illegal helmets" the beanies many people wear. Too much to get into here.
Bonden
-
beetle... every example you gave above about U.S. "nannying" is done in limeyland to you by your nannies 10 fold over us.
curval... well of course I am for ending womens sufferage. Isn't everyone? Comon... I won't tell your "significant other" (damn that cracks me up).. Why should women be allowed to vote? Sheesh... you are suppossed to leave your mom at some point and make your own decisions.
lazs
-
Lazs!
beetle... every example you gave above about U.S. "nannying" is done in limeyland to you by your nannies 10 fold over us.
Wrong. I can pump my own gas, anywhere in Europe. I can drive legally at 100mph - well, in Germany I can, which is of course part of my pissant continent. Alcohol may be drunk legally by those aged 18 and over. Gambling is allowed here. So you're wrong on a few counts - so nice to see that in a world of change, some things remain the same!
-
what good is it though.. it's.. it's.. over THERE
-
hawk, does one have to die to donate a kidney? I thought you could survive with only one, or am I misinformed? The reason I ask is that I've been a platelet/plasma donor for years and am a bone marrow donor as well. You need a kidney? You can have one of mine...I've got another.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
ROFL Curval! Good one. :D
Let's see...- The freedom to keep all your money - but Uncle Sam takes taxes.
- The freedom to drive at 100mph - taken away in most states.
- The freedom to build whatever you like, wherever you like - taken away by US Zoning laws.
- The freedom to drink alcohol - denied to those under 21.
- The freedom to gamble - removed in all states except NV,NJ, and a few pisspot casinos here and there.
- The freedom to buy bongs, and other drug paraphernalia at head shops - outlawed in 1981.
- The freedom to pump your own gas - denied in OR and NJ. :confused:
I could go on, but you get the point... Yes, all good quality US laws. Still, they have enough lawyers, so they have to be kept occupied. [/B]
1) Our tax rate is lower than yours in England and most other Euro countries.
2) We can drive faster here than you can in England. Personally I'm glad our speed limit is 70mph...from what I've witnessed most drivers can't handle that speed very well anyway.
3) Zoning laws? Ya got me there. I can't build a porn shop next door to an elimentary school, a supermarket in my residential neighborhood or a nuclear reactor right in downtown NYC.
4) Correct, our drinking age is 21. But have you ever seen a 18, 19 or 20 year old drunk? They tend to throw up alot and wreck their cars... but if you feel this is a "denial of freedom" then doesn't your limit of 18 deny the right to drink to 17 year olds also a denial of freedom?
4) Gambling! Are you saying England has no restrictions on where gaming casinos can be built? FWIW I can drive less than 30 miles in any direction and find a place to lose my money, and they're building more every day. Maybe what we should do is do a Google search on gambling and see just where more money is wagered- here in the USA or all of Europe combined. ;)
5) Paraphinilia for drugs being illegal? Where? In CA it depends on whether you call it a "bong" or a "water pipe." They're both the same thing, just that "bong" implies its for drug use. I can also buy cigarette papers of every type and size, subscribe to High Times magazine, even legally posess marijuana now.
6) Pumping gas? Right, illegal in New Jersey and Oregon, OK in the other 48 States. Believe me, though, you can find screwier laws than that to point to.
Basically a freedom to drive fast in Germany affects you as much as a prohibition of pumping gas in Oregon affects me. You don't live in Germany so you can't drive at 100 MPH, and I don't live in Oregon so I can pump my own gas. I'll bet you I can get to a place where I can legally drive at 100 MPH, tho, a lot quicker than you can get to the Autobhan, and I'll bet the gas I use costs about a third of what you pay for petrol. :)
Curval, ya got me curious now. Is Bermuda subject to taxation?
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Curval, ya got me curious now. Is Bermuda subject to taxation?
I did this already for lazs...but here goes again:
We have taxes on all imports in the form of customs "duty". Basically "everything" is expensive and the tax is buried in the cost to the consumer.
We have annual fixed fees for companies incorporated here...no "income tax" for companies.
Payroll tax must be paid for all employees.
Land tax based on an annual rental value of the property (which is unrealistically low, but set by government).
There is an arrival tax paid by each cruise ship passenger, and a departure tax for air visitors.
There is a hotel occupancy tax which is paid by the guests and passed on to goverment.
There are no income taxes of any kind.
Boils down to a consumtion tax from an individual's perspective..you buy it, you pay tax on it.
-
Sounds like a sales tax based system which is what we should do here. Our tax code is so screwed up that we worry more about raising "red flags" than we do about accuracy. If I buy a boat I pay taxes on it, but if I buy a boat that has a head on it I can write it off as my "second home." Thanks for info.
-
consumption tax is the only fair tax.. IMO
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Lazs! Wrong. I can pump my own gas, anywhere in Europe.
:rolleyes:
It has nothing to do with nannying and you know it. But continue to post the obtuse arguments... it suits you.I can drive legally at 100mph - well, in Germany I can, which is of course part of my pissant continent.
ROTFLMAO! Well... you can do 100 in Montana with the same allowances they have on the Autoban (basically, the can ticket you if they feel you are being "unsafe" with your speed. Basically, if the car or the road conditions aren't conducive to the speed you were traveling. Worst case we could head up to Canada or down to Mexico and do the same thing. I mean, if you have to play the "Germany has..." card.
BTW... kinda ironic you pick on the two states that have "no self service" but cite the one European country that allows you to do 100. Ah... but this is arguing to incite, not to make sense. Alcohol may be drunk legally by those aged 18 and over. Gambling is allowed here. So you're wrong on a few counts - so nice to see that in a world of change, some things remain the same!
Ah.. so 18 is OK and 21 isn't. And how many casinos do you have around there in England? I mean... I guess you could have them if they didn't tax everything so high. We have 5 casinos within 2 hours of where I live. Can you say the same?
And I didn't really see where he was "wrong" beatle... just alot of you redefining things.
AKDejaVu
-
also, he forgot Colorado Casino's....
-
Originally posted by beet1e
- The freedom to pump your own gas - denied in OR and NJ. :confused:
[/B]
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? Please, for the love of all that's amusing because it's tragically sad, post more and tippie-toe further out onto that limb you're dangling on.
SOB
-
jonnyb
a person can (and do) live completley normal lives with just one kidney. (in fact sometimes people find out later in life that they were born with just one and are surprised) people get them donated two ways. 1. thru altruistic donation. a person says 'take one of mine' (with blood type match of course and other genetic workup) and 2. when a person dies and that person was an organ donor. , they 'harvest' lots of tissue, heart/lungs/kidney/liver/eyes/skin/ anything viable that could help another person. the benifit of a living donor is that it will last much much longer in the recipeint.
kudos to you for being a tissue donor, I know many people are eternally thankful for your thoughtfullness.
if you are interested in altruistic donation, you need to know your blood type. mail me at billhawkins@earthlink.net (as I don't want to hijack this thread:) )
-
well.... guess I didn't need to respond to beetle after all.. At least we don't tax TV sets anually...
We can buy anything we want here cheaper than you can there and we get to keep more of what we earn.... Legal age for drinking is 18 in some states isn't it? but... I'm not sure 18 year olds are adults so far as drinking goes..
We also have the right to defend ourselves with firearms that we own... be it from evildooers or vicious rodent attacks.
We got a country that has pickup trucks with more HP than your evo's (that japan has to build you) and the roads wide enough and dry enough to use em.
lazs
-
lol SOB!
that 'they have to pump your gas' thing is kinda wierd tho.. SOB, what is the official party line in OR about that? I've always wonderd why that is law. when I travel south to LA or Vegas I always stop in Vancouver and top the tank and as its about 300 miles thru Oregon I get the next fuel in Weed or Hilt CA. (with a gas can in back just in case)
-
The reason self serve gas stations were banned in Oregon is because it never stops raining there and Organians, being as simple minded as barnyard turkeys, will gawk skyward in slack jawed amazement, become mesmurized by the clouds and drown.
I'm not sure why self serve gas station are banned in New Jersey though. Probably has something to do with organized crime and a gas station attendants union where the average gas pumper makes 75k a year.
-
Airhead
you're kidding about that 75k a year, aren't you?
-
Well, I'm not sure what the original idea was behind it. I've heard that it was to cut down on the amount of gasoline being evaporated into the atmosphere and spilled on the ground, tho' that's never made too much sense to me. The current reasoning behind keeping the law is basically that overturning it would cost thousands of low-income folks their source of income. When I was young and ready to battle anything that I deemed uncessary I thought the law was stupid. Now I could care less...our gas doesn't really cost any more or less than anywhere else in the U.S., and it's nice sometimes (especially when it's raining hard and the wind is blowing like crazy) to have someone pump it for you.
SOB
-
Originally posted by hawk220
Airhead
you're kidding about that 75k a year, aren't you?
LOL Yeah, I was kidding about the 75k a year thing- I was serious about Organians drowning from looking skyward tho. :)
-
no he's not.. I almost moved there because of that simple fact.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
We can buy anything we want here cheaper than you can there and we get to keep more of what we earn.... Legal age for drinking is 18 in some states isn't it? but... I'm not sure 18 year olds are adults so far as drinking goes..
Everywhere in the US since 1988 its 21... though some states grandfathered the drinking age so it was effectively done by 1991.
Of course, we can still go to Mexico or Canada to drink at 18 and do 100 miles per hour.... since beatle decided to put his whole continent up against ours.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well.... guess I didn't need to respond to beetle after all.. At least we don't tax TV sets anually...
We can buy anything we want here cheaper than you can there and we get to keep more of what we earn.... Legal age for drinking is 18 in some states isn't it? but... I'm not sure 18 year olds are adults so far as drinking goes..
We also have the right to defend ourselves with firearms that we own... be it from evildooers or vicious rodent attacks.
We got a country that has pickup trucks with more HP than your evo's (that japan has to build you) and the roads wide enough and dry enough to use em.
lazs
The legal drinking age is 21 in all states. I believe that any 18 year old that decides to serve his/her country, and is expected to go to war and possibly die for that country certainly has the right to buy a drink. I have felt this way since I joined the USMC when I was 18, and as a bar manager, any serviceman/woman that comes in drinks. Heck, I'll usually buy the first round.
-
I had a cycle accident in '75, if it weren't for my helmet I wouldn't be here now.
I clipped a curb on a corner with the sun in my eyes at 50mph. My head hit a driveway curb, I was upside down, and the impact shattered my jaw. The docs said that if I had a full coverage bucket on my neck would most likely have been broken.
So, yeah, I think helmets are a necessary piece of safety equipment but one that should be a personal choice...with seatbelts or my cycles passenger there's no compromise, they either wear them or walk.
-
LOL! Lots of replies... :D
SOB! 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 :rolleyes:
Airhead's was the most intelligent reply, but...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 - 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 :D 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!
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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):D
(chumming)
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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."
-
woah
-
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. :D
-
I don't feel strongly either way, but I do lean toward supporting them. Purely from a monetary standpoint tho'...it costs money to get brains scooped off of pavement, and I would think that anyone not using these devices would be more likely to sustain serious injuries than those using them. Does insurance pay for all the costs involved - police, traffic backups, freeway closures (when fatalities are involved).
I've seen them go both ways. Wrecks where the only one killed was the one wearing the seatbelt and people being ejected and killed because they were not wearing their seatbelt. The speed that you are traveling has a lot more to do with the survivability of a accident in seatbelt issues.
Also when there is a major accident that causes closures and fatalities the State foots the bill on everything unless it is alcohol related, then its up to the intoxicated driver.
everyone talks about how medical costs go up due to people not wearing seatbelts and/or helmets..
how much does it cost to enforce?
haw many cops are busy checking seatbelts and helmets instead of stopping criminals?
How do you suppose we pick out the criminals in the bunch? Racial profiling? I've already been down that road, it sure isnt any fun. Problem was both times I was investigated for allegedly racially profiling it was white people.... go figure. Most of your "criminals" are fairly smart folks and are not going to be commiting a clear cut and substantial violation, so then you end up looking for you minor infractions that you are just going to warn for.
my two cents.
-
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.
Yep, it's sickening, ain't it? OTOH, there are some things I think all citizens should have access to - healthcare and education. A comparatively small percentage of our taxes go to these two things (something like 16%) so if we could exclude the other BS, we could have pretty low taxes here. But nope. Socialism, at its heart, is egoism maskerading as solidarity. Not good, IMHO.
And you Americans aren't without nannying laws. I seem to remember laws about what sexual positions are legal in some states. not to mention your judicial system leaves you wide open to ridiculous suits left and right. So all is not perfect in the US either.
-
StSanta -
And you Americans aren't without nannying laws. I seem to remember laws about what sexual positions are legal in some states. not to mention your judicial system leaves you wide open to ridiculous suits left and right. So all is not perfect in the US either.
ROFL!! :) Nice one, but other than that I've got pissed of this thread, and will unsubscribe.
Toodle-Pip :D
-
yep.. airhead hit it... the home is the castle thing... once you tell a person that he is the soverign in his home.... it opens up a whole can of worms freedom wise. When a burglar is shot in a home everyone in the U.S. cheers. Why? they put themselves in the homeowners place because so many of us do own our homes.
beetle... what you want is a defacto ban on guns. you have not spoken out against the very real ban of guns in england. So.. we assume that the english style of gun control is what you think we should have? perhaps not... enlighten us... what would you change in english gun laws? if you would change nothing then you are indeed in favor of gun bans.
seat belt and helmet laws? right to education and healthcare? no. pure nanny crap. All taxes should be consumption taxes and be "enterprise" funds...If, say, you pay 40 cents a gallon for gas at the pump in taxes then... that money goes into a fund that only can be used to improve roads. so much per dollar for defense. It would be easy to see where the money went and how many "programs" we really needed.
seat belt and helmet laws... no one can prove that we have saved on nickle on overall healthcare by having such laws. healthcare continues to rise. Insurance rates have not gone down they have gone up.
lazs
-
Originally posted by StSanta
... you Americans aren't without nannying laws. I seem to remember laws about what sexual positions are legal in some states. not to mention your judicial system leaves you wide open to ridiculous suits left and right. So all is not perfect in the US either.
Oh yeah, sex positions (my favorite is the Mercinary position) and, in the case of Texas, even sex toys (dildos) are outlawed. (Hmmmmm...And I always thought Texans walked funny cause of their boots.) There's also wide areas where it's impossible to buy alcohol (Salt Lake City, Bible Belt) during certain times, too. Nannying laws all, I agree. Well, except the Texas Dildo Ban. That was made necessary due to a shortage of latex rubber and AA batteries.
Lawsuits? You're right. Anybody has the right to sue anybody for anything. That's changing to add some balance and prevent frivilious lawsuits, but if the meantime what do we do? Deny the right of civil redress to people damaged through neglence or incompetince?
You are also right the USA is far from perfect. In fact I can go down to the State Capital or the Federal Building and there'll be dozens of different groups protesting in support of their various causes, using megaphones to shout out just exactly what's wrong with America.
When you and Curval posted that Ameerika thread offering up the viewpoints of different nationalities I read it and my first thought was that all those ethnicities- the Canadian, the Asian, the Bermudian- live in my community and are a part of my country. I don't have to go to Europe to see Serbians, Bosnians, Italians, whatever- all I have to do is wait and eventually they come over here.
Beatle made a comment about "us" (Euros) vs. "them" (Americans) and I let it slide, but that seems to be the attitude here sometimes. Really, we aren't all middle class white guys, illegal Mexicans or ghetto dwelling African Americans. If that's all some people want to focus on, then who's guilty of stereotyping?
Not that Beatle will read this...he uh...had to RTB. ;)