Author Topic: raider179 was right... (Read 7956 times)

Toad · « **Reply #60 on:** September 20, 2005, 10:49:26 AM »

Sixpence....

It isn't a "law and order" question.

Law and order deals with stuff like "you right to swing your fist around stops a quarter inch short of my nose".

No other person is at risk or being harmed by a biker without a helmet or a driver not wearing a seat belt.

The biker or driver in question are only putting themselves at risk and that is their decision to make.

It's that freedom thing.

Hangtime · « **Reply #61 on:** September 20, 2005, 10:53:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
well, hey then, screw law and order and let's just all do what we want!

Don't tempt me.

Sixpence · « **Reply #62 on:** September 20, 2005, 11:03:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
The seatbelt issue is the same as the motor cycle helmet issue.

Good point, and it varies from state to state, as it should, like seat belt laws. How is wearing a helmet taking away your freedom to ride a motorcycle? If you feel wearing a safety harness is taking away your freedom, you don't get on the amusement park ride, if you feel wearing a helmet takes away your freedom, you don't get on the motorcycle.

When you are ejected from your vehicle, you are a projectile. You can be thrown into oncoming traffic and cause another accident. If I am sitting in the front seat of a car, and the guy in the back seat is not wearing a seat belt, he then becomes a projectile that can kill me. Look, if you want to be stupid and it only effects you, that's fine, knock yourself out, but if it effects me, I should have a say in it.

I live in a state that has a seat belt law, and if it comes up for a vote, I am going to vote for it. Putting on my seat belt does not take away any of my freedom to drive a car, nor does putting on a safety harness take away my freedom to enjoy an amusement park ride

Toad · « **Reply #63 on:** September 20, 2005, 12:03:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence

I live in a state that has a seat belt law, and if it comes up for a vote, I am going to vote for it.

Some flaws in your argument:

Quote

How is wearing a helmet taking away your freedom to ride a motorcycle?

[/b]

It takes away your freedom to ride without a helmet. That is a personal choice; we don't need the government nanny to make that choice for us.

Quote

If you feel wearing a safety harness is taking away your freedom, you don't get on the amusement park ride

[/b]

When you enter the amusement park... a "for profit" privately held enterprise that you pay to enter, you have to follow their rules to use their equipment. They could be sued in the event you fell out of the ride and weren't wearing the harness.

The motorcycle or car is your private personal property and you make the rules for that. Before you start, the roads are public and not owned by the government. The government CANNOT be sued if you die from a head injury in a motorcycle crash while not wearing a helmet.

Quote

When you are ejected from your vehicle, you are a projectile. You can be thrown into oncoming traffic and cause another accident.

[/b]

Yeah and an asteroid can come screaming in from outer space and hit you on the head and kill you if you're not wearing a motorcycle helmet.

Do we have lap straps and shoulder harnesses for motorcycles? Because by your logic we should... cycle riders always get ejected from their vehicle in a crash so ......

You logic is faulty. Again.

Quote

Look, if you want to be stupid and it only effects you, that's fine, knock yourself out, but if it effects me, I should have a say in it.

[/b]

Which is exactly the point. The odds of it having any effect whatsoever on you are so remote as to rival the odds of winning the megalotto.

Quote

Putting on my seat belt does not take away any of my freedom to drive a car, nor does putting on a safety harness take away my freedom to enjoy an amusement park ride

[/b]

You continually ignore the obvious. That is YOUR choice. Do as you like.

Just don't think you can nanny everyone else.

And don't think I'm "anti" helmet or seatbelt. I've owned about 6 cycles, 2 airplanes and cod knows how many cars.

I use seat belts, shoulder harnesses and helmets as appropriate for each vehicle. I think only a fool would NOT use them.

HOWEVER, I, unlike YOU, realize that those choices are personal choices, not decisions that a nanny state should be making for every single individual.

Truth be told, there are few people I despise more than folks that think they have the "right" to make personal decisons for others.

Live YOUR life. Let others live theirs. There's no statistically relevant danger to your personal safety from helmetless cycle riders or seatbeltless drivers.

Sixpence · « **Reply #64 on:** September 20, 2005, 12:58:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

It takes away your freedom to ride without a helmet. That is a personal choice; we don't need the government nanny to make that choice for us.

Right, and you chose to drive on our roads, and we all get together and make the rules for the road, and they are many. If the majority decide we want the seat belt law, it should be so, what is wrong with that?

The motorcycle or car is your private personal property and you make the rules for that. Before you start, the roads are public and not owned by the government. The government CANNOT be sued if you die from a head injury in a motorcycle crash while not wearing a helmet.

But they are our roads, and deny all you want, but the decision not to wear a seat belt effects me, not just you, as I have explained many times. So I should have a say in it.

Yeah and an asteroid can come screaming in from outer space and hit you on the head and kill you

Well, I haven't seen that, but I have seen people thrown from their cars into oncoming traffic

Do we have lap straps and shoulder harnesses for motorcycles? Because by your logic we should... cycle riders always get ejected from their vehicle in a crash so ......

There is nothing we can do about that, being it is more dangerous being tied to a motorcycle in a crash, and I wouldn't say you can't drive a motorcycle, so I compromise. You are comparing that to a seat belt in a car?lol, I knew that silly argument was coming, but keep trying, you are running out of straws

You logic is faulty. Again.

It may be faulty, but it saves money and lives

Which is exactly the point. The odds of it having any effect whatsoever on you are so remote as to rival the odds of winning the megalotto.

Unfortunately, people are thrown from their cars everyday

You continually ignore the obvious. That is YOUR choice. Do as you like.

And you ignore the obvious, your decision effects me

Just don't think you can nanny everyone else.

I agree, I am all for darwinism, but if your darwinism effects me, I should have a say

And don't think I'm "anti" helmet or seatbelt. I've owned about 6 cycles, 2 airplanes and cod knows how many cars. I use seat belts, shoulder harnesses and helmets as appropriate for each vehicle. I think only a fool would NOT use them.

You are missing my point, I don't care what happens to the person who makes the choice, I care how it effects me. And you may find my reasons remote or not valid, but I think they are valid

HOWEVER, I, unlike YOU, realize that those choices are personal choices, not decisions that a nanny state should be making for every single individual.

I agree, and you have the choice to drive or not. Again, driving is a privilege, not a right, and we all get together and decide the rules. You need a license, you have to stop at a railroad crossing, right turn on red, wearing a seat belt. We do that collectively, if the majority decide that not wearing a seat belt effects everyone, but are willing to sacrifice what the consequences will be, then we decide that you do not have to wear one. If the majority decide we want a seat belt law, it should be so.You make it sound like the government is this entity we have no control over, a union is only as good as it's members

Truth be told, there are few people I despise more than folks that think they have the "right" to make personal decisons for others.

I agree, what I despise more are people who think they have the right to make decisions that effect others because they feel it remote or their concerns are not valid

Live life. Let others live theirs. There's no statistically relevant danger to your personal safety from helmetless cycle riders or seatbeltless drivers.

"Conversely, safety belt nonuse results in significant economic costs to society. The needless deaths and injuries from safety belt nonuse account for an estimated $26 billion in economic costs to society annually. The cost goes beyond the lost lives of unbuckled drivers and passengers: We all pay - in higher taxes and higher health care and insurance costs."

It effects me, wether you consider it valid or not, so I should have a say

Toad · « **Reply #65 on:** September 20, 2005, 01:15:08 PM »

It no more effects you than lightning striking someone effects you.

I tell you now though that you and your nanny ilk will probably be responsible for starting the next American revolution.

Unless you learn to mind your own business... and someone else's use of helmets or seatbelts is NOT your business.

Iceman24 · « **Reply #66 on:** September 20, 2005, 01:15:45 PM »

The only thing I can think of is that macho men who fancy themselves as ace drivers feel that their image is being tarnished by wearing a seatbelt.

You nailed it right there bud, we're Americans the abive definately applies to us lol... I knoe what your saying about your bettle only going 50mpn, my 1st car was a 79 jeep with a beat up 6 cylinder, would do about 60mph tops on the highway and if the wind blew hard 50mpn lol

Sixpence · « **Reply #67 on:** September 20, 2005, 01:19:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
It no more effects you than lightning striking someone effects you.

I tell you now though that you and your nanny ilk will probably be responsible for starting the next American revolution.

Unless you learn to mind your own business... and someone else's use of seatbelts is NOT your business.

Again, it effects me you tell me to mind my own business, I am glad I live in a country where people can't do that. God bless America

Iceman24 · « **Reply #68 on:** September 20, 2005, 01:20:36 PM »

don't know about ya'll but I'm gonna live in a bubble for the rest of my life

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #69 on:** September 20, 2005, 01:32:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

The seatbelt issue is the same as the motor cycle helmet issue.

No helmets required here in Florida. The law was repealed strictly for economic reasons. To attract motercycle riding tourists. Yet we are required to wear a seat belt in a car. Government at it's most bizaar!

Iceman24 · « **Reply #70 on:** September 20, 2005, 01:45:02 PM »

yeah same here in TX Cliffra, helmets on motorcycles are optional but u have to where a sreatbelt in a car, I can ride in the back of a pickup without 1 but if I get in the cab I have to put 1 one lol Also people that ride bicycles have to where 1 or they are ticketed, but yet if I put a motor on that bicycle I don't have to lol

lazs2 · « **Reply #71 on:** September 20, 2005, 02:12:37 PM »

so six... your reasons are economic? I just got done telling you that wearing helmets in cars and wearing nomex would reduce head injuries and expensive burns by 50%..

would you be for making everyone wear helmets and nomex in cars?

you are a pitiful excuse for a man in my opinion. Not because you think wearing seatbelts is a good idea but because you think you having the right to decide for others is a good idea.

And.... just so you understand... If my mother was as controling as you she would never get another mothers day card..

but sheesh.... I am talking to a wall that thinks ted kennedy is a great American hero.

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #72 on:** September 20, 2005, 02:35:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
Again, it effects me you tell me to mind my own business, I am glad I live in a country where people can't do that. God bless America

You and your ilk just keep pushin'.

You'll eventually find out why the 2nd Amendment is in there.

Your seatbelt won't help you then.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #73 on:** September 20, 2005, 02:39:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
well, hey then, screw law and order and let's just all do what we want!

If you consider some of the crap that is going on within government now as law and order, then HELL YEA, screw it. Your right. I`ll take my chances and along with it my freedom of choice.
You must have terrible back problems after asumming the position on a permanent basis.

beet1e · « **Reply #74 on:** September 20, 2005, 02:42:36 PM »

Sixpence! - I'm still with you...

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
When you are ejected from your vehicle, you are a projectile. You can be thrown into oncoming traffic and cause another accident. If I am sitting in the front seat of a car, and the guy in the back seat is not wearing a seat belt, he then becomes a projectile that can kill me. Look, if you want to be stupid and it only effects you, that's fine, knock yourself out, but if it effects me, I should have a say in it.

Yes, that's a very good point. When Britain first had a seatbelt law in 1983, it applied only to front seat passenger and driver. Road deaths dropped from around 5000 a year to about 3000. So effective was the law that we even had a shortage of donated organs. But it was found that although the lives of the people in the front of the car were being saved, the rear passengers became projectiles and were causing injuries to those in the front as well as to themselves. So now all cars are fitted with rear seat belts and it's mandatory to wear them.

Sorry Toad, I don't agree that other people dying or being seriously injured does not affect me. Avoidable injuries put extra strain on our National Health Service. The presence of someone injured in an RTA, in an NHS hospital, means that someone else somewhere down the line is not able to get treatment. And if the person is killed, his life assurance has to pay out - a payment of many thousands of £/$/whatever. That means that they have to recover that cost - by higher premiums for everyone else. Thus we are affected by the negligence of those refusing to wear helmets/seatbelts. Why should I have to pay higher life assurance premiums to guard against the life assurance company having to make a large payout on a death that could have been avoided? Why should someone be denied hospital treatment because the last bed was taken by someone with head injuries who wasn't wearing a seatbelt? That's why we have the seatbelt law (1983) and a helmet law (1976). I don't get this "freedom" thing. How does not wearing a seatbelt create more freedom? Either way, you're in your car and have responsibilities to yourself and other road users. What can you do in that car without a seatbelt that you can't do with a seatbelt?