raider179 was right...

[SaburoS]

You know, it's kinda cold and low to bring into the argument a personal embarrasing issue of the person you're arguing with especially when that personal issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with your argument.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Sixpence
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?

The cost to society of me being hurt base jumping is exacly the same as if I recieved the injuries in a non-belted auto accident.  Murder is relatively rare so perhaps legislation prohibiting it should be repealed, as only common things should be regulated.

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?

It has if I want to jump naked.

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

The answer is absolutely yes.

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.

The driver is at fault for not requiring restraint of his passengers.

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. [/B]

So momentum sould be outlawed?

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

The cost to society of me being hurt base jumping is exacly the same as if I recieved the injuries in a non-belted auto accident.

ok, so you say if there were the same amount of base jumpers as drivers, health care costs wouldn't change, if you think so, I guess there is nothing that will change your mind

Murder is relatively rare so perhaps legislation prohibiting it should be repealed, as only common things should be regulated.

Murder to seat belts, interesting

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.

The driver is at fault for not requiring restraint of his passengers

Hmmm, wouldn't this take away his freedom to choose?

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

The answer is absolutely yes.

Ahh, the "I have thrown in the towel answer", my work here is done

[Lazerus]

Ya might as well give up Holden. It's obvious that logic and reason are not used by these guys. It's almost as if they read the responses and rebuttals to their posts with the sole purpose of refuting the other persons opinion with no thought to whether or not they might not be approaching the question from the right direction to start with.

Was it Twain?  "never argue with an idiot. he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience"



Not directed at any one person specifically, simply because ya ain't supposed to in here. But it does apply to a lot of the back and forth rhetoric.

Let the witty "I know you are but what am I" banter begin.

[Sox62]

Sixpence...no answer?

[Holden McGroin]

Can't quite give up yet...

Originally posted by Sixpence
The cost to society of me being hurt base jumping is exacly the same as if I recieved the injuries in a non-belted auto accident.

ok, so you say if there were the same amount of base jumpers as drivers, health care costs wouldn't change, if you think so, I guess there is nothing that will change your mind

No, I said that if I were hurt (for instance broke my back) the cost to society would be the same regardless of the cause of the accident.

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.[/i]

The driver is at fault for not requiring restraint of his passengers

Hmmm, wouldn't this take away his freedom to choose?

[/b]No, he would still be free to choose to be irresponsible.

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

The answer is absolutely yes.

Ahh, the "I have thrown in the towel answer", my work here is done [/B]

I guess you do not understand the definition of freedom.  If your choices of behavior are restricted by law, then law is restricting your freedom.

In our society we have chosen to restrict our freedoms for the sake of a well fuctioning society.  I am not free to rob banks for example.  This restriction of my freedom is obviously acceptable, as if I chose to rob, it would infringe on others rights to be secure in their persons or property.

My freedom to be unsafe in my personal behavior is what the seat belt law is all about.  To be responsible for one's own actions may be the ultimate freedom.  To say that my freedom is restricted because society must pay the bills for medical consequences is restricting my freedom because of a choice of the government to pay for those consequences.  If they government doesn't want to pay all it has to do is stop writing checks and hold me financially responsible.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by SaburoS
You know, it's kinda cold and low to bring into the argument a personal embarrasing issue of the person you're arguing with especially when that personal issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with your argument.

Yea, it`s a lot more interesting when someone comes in and drags up a soapbox, gives this little speech that has nothing to do with anything.
  If it is upsetting you so much curl up with your NFL doll and go night night sweet cheeks.

  Make sure the safety belt and bed rails are up. I don`t want you to start costing us money.

[Toad]

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.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Jackal1

  If it is upsetting you so much curl up with your NFL doll and go night night sweet cheeks.

  Make sure the safety belt and bed rails are up. I don`t want you to start costing us money.

LOL, Damn now that's funny

[Bodhi]

Toad, our litigous state would never allow what you propose.  Can you se the lawsuits against insurance companies . in the .01 % chance that wearing a seat belt is the cause of death for you?

I am all for wearing seat belts, do it all the time.  Saved my face when I was rearended in Dallas on Wednesday morning early.

Either way, it's the laws restricting my rights that concern me.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by Toad
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.

I like the idea, but I think any is too strong. There are injuries that seatbelts cannot prevent that should still be covered. This of course opens the can of worms for the lawyers to jump in and argue which do, which don't, and why their client deserves 498 billion dollars, of which they will only take a nominal percentage as a fee.


But ......

damn that's a big but...

...that is another problem that needs to be addressed by itself.

The increasing ease with which we allow, plead, rally for ourselves to be restricted in our own actions is disheartening. Common sense answers like what Toad suggested are buried beneath the pile of political dung and the corruption of deep pocketed lobbyists that permeates our system.

Not to mention the loud mouthed nanny state proponents that shrilly cry out their rhetoric, ignoring the very principle that allows them to do so.

[Sixpence]

I don't get it, everyone wants the power to govern to be in the hands of the states and towns, but then wants to tell them what they can do.

We live in a dry town, we like it that way. We have a low crime rate and there isn't alot of riff raff. Now someone in another part of the country is trying to tell us we are wrong to have a dry town? Gee, with people like that around, who needs the feds to tell us what to do. If you want to drink and party, live in a town that allows it. You have that choice if you choose to drink.

The same with walking around naked in public, we don't wanna see bums(or anybody) walking around naked in public, and we don't allow this in our town. But some liberals are going to tell us we have to let them walk around naked because we are taking their choice to walk around naked away? Huh?

We want people to buckle up in our town, when multiple people are thrown from a vehicle, it puts a strain on our limited resources. It is alot easier to tend to victims who are close together than it is to find and tend to them when they are hundreds of feet apart. Now some liberals are going to tell us that we can't have that law cause we are denying their choice to be thrown from the vehicle?

Your right to choose? I agree. You have the choice not to live in a dry town. You have the choice not to live where they have a seat belt law. And you have the choice to live where you are allowed to walk around naked.

Not one of those instances have any basic rights been violated.


The problem, in my mind, is the power of the feds to make everyone conform. Beetle made the statement that 49 out of 50 states have a seat belt law, and this is a statement that people in these states want the law, but that is not the case. And maybe someone has brought this up.

Reagan blackmailed the states years ago, if you didn't raise your drinking age to 21, you didn't receive any federal highway funds. And the feds have been doing this ever since(maybe it was done before him, but that is the first one I remember). If I read correctly, that is why alot of states have the seat belt law that otherwise would probably not have it.

So if you want to live in a state that does not have a seat belt law, you can't find one. But you have choice, and if a majority don't want to have a seat belt law, you choose to vote for someone with balls enough to tell the feds they can stick the money where the sun don't shine(even though you paid those federal taxes)

[beet1e]

Originally posted by SaburoS
You know, it's kinda cold and low to bring into the argument a personal embarrasing issue of the person you're arguing with especially when that personal issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with your argument.

Indeed, I've been trying to get that through to jackal myself. The problem is, he's spent all his time in this thread saying how we in Britain lie prostrate at the feet of government while they "take away our freedom" by way of a seatbelt law, and then it turns out that 49/50 US states have that same law - including Texas! He needs to use personal attacks because his case is entirely devoid of fact, so I'll forgive him.

Jackal, yet again you fail to concede, and yet your case that *we* have "given away our freedom" has been blown away by a hurricane. Yeah feel free to stick to stick to the insults. It seems that FACTS are not your style.

Have you had a look at what is being discussed in the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread. Maybe you can find a clue there if you are not too busy viewing ambulance chaser sites.

Have you had a look at what is being discussed in the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread. Maybe you can find a clue there if you are not too busy inventing fresh personal attacks, which by the way are in violation of the T&C of this board.

Face it, dude. The fat lady is in your back yard, singing like a canary.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Well I am surprised. When the rights and wrongs of a seatbelt law were first being discussed, it seemed as this was a new concept in the states of those voicing protest. I knew that some states had such a law, but I didn't realise it was 49/50 until I googled that up last night, with New Hampshire being the last bastion of "freedom".

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? When we've discussed medical treatment in the US in earlier threads, I have been told that a hospital cannot refuse treatment if your condition is life threatening. Suddenly the hospitals could be faced with hundreds of accident victims, and would have to treat them even though they're not insured. Is that right? Also, what happens if you're driving, wearing your seatbelt, and get into a frontal collision - 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? It starts to get complicated. You can guarantee that the insurance company would try to wriggle out of that one...

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?

[lazs2]

beetle is makeing my point.... I am a coward... the seatbelt law is a very bad.... immoral law and I obey it most of the time even if I don't want to... the helmet law is even worse and ,since it is harder to get around... I obey it more often.

sixpense and others.... peoples freedom does not depend on if you or even a majority get a break on your insurance rates or not...  

I have nothing against you getting a break on your insurance tho if you claim you wear your belts 100% of the time... or a helmet etc.  You couldn't not cover someone if they didn't wear a belt but you could give breaks to those who did...   Point is... the insurance companies have not passed on any supposed savings in any case.

As for dry counties... they are immoral laws too so far as I am concerened... I don't drink but I bet that there are quite a few in dry counties that do and find the restrictions on their freedom immoral.

In the end... we have 5 million laws on the books... all of us break a couple a day without even knowing it...  at some point there will be so many laws that no law will have any importance.

Like I said... beet proves the original premis of the thread... we allow inusrance companies and busyboddies to make laws restricting our freedom and we do nothing.  

I couldn't live as they do in england... it is a depressing place to me.... I am afraid that the girly men like sixpence are nannying us into just another england nanny state except for more elbow room...

And... those of us who know better... do nothing.

lazs

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
Indeed, I've been trying to get that through to jackal myself. The problem is, he's spent all his time in this thread saying how we in Britain lie prostrate at the feet of government while they "take away our freedom" by way of a seatbelt law, and then it turns out that 49/50 US states have that same law - including Texas!  

  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.

.  if you are not too busy inventing fresh personal attacks, which by the way are in violation of the T&C of this board.

  Take off the robe and sit down. Lmao
Somehow it just doesn`t ring right coming from someone who gets around 75% of their posts modded. Give us all a break and don`t fall off that pedestal just yet. Mandatory parachute laws are not in place and you might get injured, causing your countrymen great expense.

Face it, dude. The fat lady is in your back yard, singing like a canary.

  Dude??? ROFLMAO

  That`s not the fat lady singing and it`s not like a canary. A lot of us are not too pleased with our rights being jacked up as you can tell. That`s eagles you are hearing. It`s not only in the back yard, but the one across the street, across town and across the country. I beleive there are possible changes in sight because citizens are getting POed and are voicing their beliefs and making a pretty clear message of cease and desist. There will always be the bend Over Bob`s here just like everywhere else, but a lot of U.S. citizens have had just about enough of the overstepping of what our country is founded on. As you know, when enough people in the U.S. get behind something and get POed, things have a way of getting done. Damn the Bend Over Bob`s, full speed ahead.

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?

  Yea , that would be the subservient thing to do if you like government, lobbyists and insurance companies dictating what you can or cannot do and raping you on every issue. Roll over and play dead. The answer to everything.
  A much better idea would be to, once again, take back control of our laws, regain our rights and remind government that Jesse James at least had the decency to use a gun when robbing.
  The BIG thing you are missing here is that you think the issue is seat belt laws or no seat belt laws. It is not. Freedom and rights, our constitution itself and the abusing of it is the issue.

The good news is, I just saved a bundle with Geico. I`m snuffing the lizard.