seat belt laws

Recently I've become annoyed by this law. No, I didn't get a ticket, but since I've moved to Texas from Pennsylvania, I looked into some of Texas' state laws. Texas is one of the states that views non-seat belt use as a primary offense meaning if you are seen not wearing one and operating a vehicle, you can be pulled over and fined. In Pennsylvania, one cannot be pulled over for that reason alone.. and the fine is 5% of what it is in Texas to boot! Regardless, the seat belt law is unconstitutional as a whole. I can ride a motorcycle which is ten times more dangerous with or without a helmet than driving a car without a seat belt. Moreover, mandating the well-being of an adult in any situation is tyranny.

Eh, Im actually very shocked that there is no law against not wearing a seat belt.
All parts of Australia have the law to wear seat belts, even if you're riding a bicycle.. a bicycle.
I think it varies depending on the population of the area and the prior history of the recorded events in the matter involved. If Texas has a large death toll due to car crashes and seat belts not being worn, then i think the law itself is quite a reasonable one.

The government is always trying to protect idiots from themselves. Consider it a trade off for being able to walk into a hardware store and buy a handgun with no paperwork.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robyna

Eh, Im actually very shocked that there is no law against not wearing a seat belt.
All parts of Australia have the law to wear seat belts, even if you're riding a bicycle.. a bicycle.
I think it varies depending on the population of the area and the prior history of the recorded events in the matter involved. If Texas has a large death toll due to car crashes and seat belts not being worn, then i think the law itself is quite a reasonable one.

---

Robyna, where the heck have you been?

Now why do you think the government should have the authority to tell us how or how not to care for ourselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clock-

The government is always trying to protect idiots from themselves. Consider it a trade off for being able to walk into a hardware store and buy a handgun with no paperwork.

---

Not a good deal in that case.

Oh, I've been very busy with training and exc. I know I haven't been on for a while, so hi!

Well, I see your point. The goverment though, MUST have a certain amount of control over our lives. It is part of there job. Think about what might happen if we didn't have a goverment.. no laws.. goodness knows what would happen. We'd have crack heads and thiefs all over the place. And if they let drunken drivers drive around with at a seat belt, bless, who knows how many people would die. One thing I agree with you on though, is that the goverment cannot exceed the limit in which to control the way in which we care for ouselves- cause that is one of our rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robyna

Oh, I've been very busy with training and exc. I know I haven't been on for a while, so hi!

---

Hi :D It can't be that hard to visit the site for a minute ;)

[QUOTE=One thing I agree with you on though, is that the goverment cannot exceed the limit in which to control the way in which we care for ouselves- cause that is one of our rights.[/QUOTE]

So you do agree with me as far as individual safety. I'm very curious at what point people said "let's tell fannie may and freddie mac what's good for their health and then fine them if they don't listen".

Yes, true that is, oh well (;

I do agree with you on that point, yes. But I can see the beneficial point of the choice made by the goverment, and the reasonibility of it. As far as indivual safety- yes, the goverment shouldn't be able to do that. But as a communities safety- i think, no, what the goverment is doing is infact right. because come to think of it, what makes a community? indivuals. so therefore the goverment are actually attacking the indivual in order to keep the community a safe and livable area. though EVERY individual puts themselves first, before others of their community [and I mean EVERYONE] which is where i think what you say is right..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robyna

Yes, true that is, oh well (;

I do agree with you on that point, yes. But I can see the beneficial point of the choice made by the goverment, and the reasonibility of it. As far as indivual safety- yes, the goverment shouldn't be able to do that. But as a communities safety- i think, no, what the goverment is doing is infact right. because come to think of it, what makes a community? indivuals. so therefore the goverment are actually attacking the indivual in order to keep the community a safe and livable area. though EVERY individual puts themselves first, before others of their community [and I mean EVERYONE] which is where i think what you say is right..

---

Robyna, the government is a group of individuals telling another group of individuals what to do with their own safety. That's just plain wrong. I don't care what their intentions are. It's just against everything the Constitution or a free country is about. Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawn Tennis

Robyna, the government is a group of individuals telling another group of individuals what to do with their own safety. That's just plain wrong. I don't care what their intentions are. It's just against everything the Constitution or a free country is about. Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

---

But then what would the consequences be? There would be so many errors and problems if we DID NOT have laws. They are a neccesity. We have laws for abuse to another person, but what if we didn't? God knows we'd all be killing each other! And it's the same with the seat belt law, even if it is against the constitution of a free country, it's what we as humans need to stay alive, to not kill one another.. if we were gentle, harmless creatures then there would be NO NEED for laws, but sadly idiots do exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robyna

But then what would the consequences be? There would be so many errors and problems if we DID NOT have laws. They are a neccesity. We have laws for abuse to another person, but what if we didn't? God knows we'd all be killing each other! And it's the same with the seat belt law, even if it is against the constitution of a free country, it's what we as humans need to stay alive, to not kill one another.. if we were gentle, harmless creatures then there would be NO NEED for laws, but sadly idiots do exist.

---

Robyna, I'm not saying government and laws are a bad thing... just the seat belt law in particular. There are many things that can kill and injure us.. should the government make laws for all of it? The number one killer in America is heart disease. Maybe the government should mandate everyone have an hour of exercise every day to prevent heart disease.

But you said 'The government is a group of individuals telling another group of individuals what to do with their own safety. That's just plain wrong. I don't care what their intentions are'.

And no, they probably can't stop heart disease, it's a natural cause of death.
And well, I think a lot of people would prefer to die then do exercise.. tragically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robyna

And no, they probably can't stop heart disease, it's a natural cause of death.
And well, I think a lot of people would prefer to die then do exercise.. tragically.

---

I'm was talking about premature deaths due to heart disease which is the case 99% of the time.

LOL

I don't like the government regulating trivial stuff such as this. Like recently in MI a smoking ban was passed that will prevent people from smoking in private businesses. Laws restricting things "for your own good" especially in something like a private business are absolutely idiotic. I'm amazed it got past the state legislature considering it's past libertarian tenancies. But I don't care enough to raise a stink about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clock-

I don't like the government regulating trivial stuff such as this. Like recently in MI a smoking ban was passed that will prevent people from smoking in private businesses. Laws restricting things "for your own good" especially in something like a private business are absolutely idiotic. I'm amazed it got past the state legislature considering it's past libertarian tenancies. But I don't care enough to raise a stink about it.

---

Exactly like that. I don't smoke and think it's a bad choice.. but it should be completely up to the individual if they want smoke in their business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawn Tennis

I'm was talking about premature deaths due to heart disease which is the case 99% of the time.

LOL

---

oh okay.. fair enough then.

oh, and tbqh i think any laws which contribute to making the society in Australia a better place are terrific as the government have been rather slack. don't know what its like where you guys live but over here anything [< thats meant to be positive] the government does is just a small reassurance that we're not going to die. people get away with murder and starving their children to death in our country cause our judges are wonderfully educated..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robyna

oh okay.. fair enough then.

oh, and tbqh i think any laws which contribute to making the society in Australia a better place are terrific as the government have been rather slack. don't know what its like where you guys live but over here anything [< thats meant to be positive] the government does is just a small reassurance that we're not going to die. people get away with murder and starving their children to death in our country cause our judges are wonderfully educated..

---

That's horrible. People shouldn't be having sex if they don't plan on taking responsibility of children no matter how much 'protection' they use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawn Tennis

That's horrible. People shouldn't be having sex if they don't plan on taking responsibility of children no matter how much 'protection' they use.

---

Exactly!
Sadly a majority of our nation is too stupid to understand this.
Oh, A man earlier this year threw his daughter, Darcy Freeman, of a bridge, and he was sentenced to a life in prison, but his lawyer claimed he had mental issues so the sentence was lowered to something like, I think, 20 years, which is far to less for him.. and he wasn't mental. He just killed her cause he saw him as the problem of issues which he'd been going through in the marriage.
That's the excuse all our prisoners use, and they only get at MAXIMUM 30 years, that doesn't seem fair at all.. god, I wish we had a president like Obama. His awesome.

Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention that those supposely 'mental' people who are given a sentence of 10-30 years aren't even sent to prison? They're sent to a mental hospital where they're treated like kings. Our mental hospitals have libraries, indoor/outdoor pools, spas, theatres. Gosh, it's like heaven for murdering your child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robyna

Exactly!
Sadly a majority of our nation is too stupid to understand this.
Oh, A man earlier this year threw his daughter, Darcy Freeman, of a bridge, and he was sentenced to a life in prison, but his lawyer claimed he had mental issues so the sentence was lowered to something like, I think, 20 years, which is far to less for him.. and he wasn't mental. He just killed her cause he saw him as the problem of issues which he'd been going through in the marriage.
That's the excuse all our prisoners use, and they only get at MAXIMUM 30 years, that doesn't seem fair at all.. god, I wish we had a president like Obama. His awesome.

Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention that those supposely 'mental' people who are given a sentence of 10-30 years aren't even sent to prison? They're sent to a mental hospital where they're treated like kings. Our mental hospitals have libraries, indoor/outdoor pools, spas, theatres. Gosh, it's like heaven for murdering your child.

---

But no tennis?! That's punishment enough. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawn Tennis

But no tennis?! That's punishment enough. :D

---

Eh, they probably have that to :p

I know they have basketball courts and eg.

Not sure about tennis..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawn Tennis

Exactly like that. I don't smoke and think it's a bad choice.. but it should be completely up to the individual if they want smoke in their business.

---

And yet if you, like so many europeans (i'm thinking Denmark here) were footing the medical bills resulting from that "bad choice" i think you'd be pretty damn pissed. In my personal opinion, a person's rights are only infringeable (and then only to some extent) when the results of their actions not only impact the lives of others (71% tax is what i'm flaggin here), but are beyond stupidity.
I believe that the sale and smoking of tobacco should be made illegal immediately for a simple reason - in difference to alcohol, there is no such thing, i repeat,NO SUCH THING! as enjoying tobacco in moderation.
More than 70% of the smokers i know started as "party smokers", and then slowly, discretely, became nicotine addicts. They thought they were smoking moderately, now they can look forward to a life with restricted athletic capacity, diminished quality of living, and most likely one of the many deeply unpleasant deaths that smoking so often entails. The fool is the man who refuses the good intentions of others in defense of his own liberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnusEffect

And yet if you, like so many europeans (i'm thinking Denmark here) were footing the medical bills resulting from that "bad choice" i think you'd be pretty damn pissed. In my personal opinion, a person's rights are only infringeable (and then only to some extent) when the results of their actions not only impact the lives of others (71% tax is what i'm flaggin here), but are beyond stupidity.
I believe that the sale and smoking of tobacco should be made illegal immediately for a simple reason - in difference to alcohol, there is no such thing, i repeat,NO SUCH THING! as enjoying tobacco in moderation.
More than 70% of the smokers i know started as "party smokers", and then slowly, discretely, became nicotine addicts. They thought they were smoking moderately, now they can look forward to a life with restricted athletic capacity, diminished quality of living, and most likely one of the many deeply unpleasant deaths that smoking so often entails. The fool is the man who refuses the good intentions of others in defense of his own liberty.

---

I don't smoke. In my opinion, it is disgusting. If I had the choice to either smoke a half dozen cigarettes daily or stub my toe a half dozen times daily, I would choose the latter. However, I have absolutely no right to tell somebody whether or not to smoke for any reason nor does the government. It is true that smokers have more than tripled the cost of health care because of their damaging habits. But the fix is not to ban cigarettes. It is to fix the system in which charges non-smokers the same price as smokers.

No, because that would be a violation of their right to equal treatment. Besides, smokers are already listed last on all transplant lists, and have much more expensive medical insurances.
The problem with smoking that people apparently refuse to recognize is that nicotine, the real villain in cigarettes, is an addictive carcinogen on it's own. It is every bit as addictive and lethal, if not more, than marihuana. And the funny thing is, according to recent studies (published in Scientific American), the very first cigarette can make you an addict, albeit withdrawal symptoms won't show up for weeks or months.
So why is it nobody has the balls show zero tolerance for smoking nicotine-containing cigarettes, when we're willing to incarcerate marihuana smokers for years, occasionally even condemn them to death?
Hypocrisy is what it really is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnusEffect

No, because that would be a violation of their right to equal treatment. Besides, smokers are already listed last on all transplant lists, and have much more expensive medical insurances.
The problem with smoking that people apparently refuse to recognize is that nicotine, the real villain in cigarettes, is an addictive carcinogen on it's own. It is every bit as addictive and lethal, if not more, than marihuana. And the funny thing is, according to recent studies (published in Scientific American), the very first cigarette can make you an addict, albeit withdrawal symptoms won't show up for weeks or months.
So why is it nobody has the balls show zero tolerance for smoking nicotine-containing cigarettes, when we're willing to incarcerate marihuana smokers for years, occasionally even condemn them to death?
Hypocrisy is what it really is.

---

I know you don't really believe that. If somebody uses a service more than somebody else, how can any sane person charge them the same price?! With that mentallity, one could say the same thing about insurance companies charging more for a faster car. Again, it's a problem with the way systems function in our society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawn Tennis

I know you don't really believe that. If somebody uses a service more than somebody else, how can any sane person charge them the same price?! With that mentallity, one could say the same thing about insurance companies charging more for a faster car. Again, it's a problem with the way systems function in our society.

---

Just as i know you don't really believe that smokers should have the right to make imbecilic choices, even when informed. And just FYI, in just about every single country in the western world, the government charges you not on basis of use, but on basis of income. What is required is a mix of the two:
People too poor to afford medical assistance should have it paid by the government but beyond that, people should pay an increasing amount themselves as their pay grade rises - that way, you may pay more, but you still pay on basis of use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnusEffect

Just as i know you don't really believe that smokers should have the right to make imbecilic choices, even when informed. And just FYI, in just about every single country in the western world, the government charges you not on basis of use, but on basis of income. What is required is a mix of the two:
People too poor to afford medical assistance should have it paid by the government but beyond that, people should pay an increasing amount themselves as their pay grade rises - that way, you may pay more, but you still pay on basis of use.

---

This could go on and on about how to pay for this and that, but honestly, I don't believe there's an entirely clear route in anybody's mind. The point I'm trying to make is that people's choices are being taken away from them. If Pat wants to eat two jelly filled donuts as a midnight snack every night, then so be it. Sure it's a horrible diet and a sure way to an unhealthy lifestyle. Many of us would recommend against it, but ultimately it's none of our business. If somebody wants to climb Mt Everest, we have no obligation or right to stop this person from putting oneself in danger. The same goes for cigarettes. Or how about all the people that lay out in the sun.. all of us know how dangerous skin cancer is. Maybe we should have sunblock police. And lastly, if somebody wants to or not to wear a seatbelt this should be their choice and their choice only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawn Tennis

This could go on and on about how to pay for this and that, but honestly, I don't believe there's an entirely clear route in anybody's mind. The point I'm trying to make is that people's choices are being taken away from them. If Pat wants to eat two jelly filled donuts as a midnight snack every night, then so be it. Sure it's a horrible diet and a sure way to an unhealthy lifestyle. Many of us would recommend against it, but ultimately it's none of our business. If somebody wants to climb Mt Everest, we have no obligation or right to stop this person from putting oneself in danger. The same goes for cigarettes. Or how about all the people that lay out in the sun.. all of us know how dangerous skin cancer is. Maybe we should have sunblock police. And lastly, if somebody wants to or not to wear a seatbelt this should be their choice and their choice only.

---

Now, you're only focusing on the things that aren't 'people killing people'.
When people smoke cigarettes nobody is killing the person smoking, they are making the choice to kill themselves. Sure, someone infact is manufacturing them, but is that a direct risk to the smoker? No. Same goes for your example of Pat's donut, laying in the sun and all the rest of them. They are choices made by somebody, only including them. They aren't risking others.
But say a man is driving in his car, no seatbelt on, and some drunken idiot driver crashes into them. Whose fault is it? The drunken morons. But who dies? The opposing driver, who didn't have his seatbelt on. Frankly, I dont see the point in having 'a choice about wearing seatbelts or not' if you're not alive.
Now look at it like this, a man walks around the street with a knife. Now would you approve of someone walking around the streets with a knife, risking the life of innocent, harmless people? Would you expect the goverment to do so?
See, walking around the streets with a knife killing random people could be just as dangerous as having some drunken person driving around the roads. Someone could die simply because they made the choice to leave their seatbelts off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robyna

Now, you're only focusing on the things that aren't 'people killing people'.
When people smoke cigarettes nobody is killing the person smoking, they are making the choice to kill themselves. Sure, someone infact is manufacturing them, but is that a direct risk to the smoker? No. Same goes for your example of Pat's donut, laying in the sun and all the rest of them. They are choices made by somebody, only including them. They aren't risking others.
But say a man is driving in his car, no seatbelt on, and some drunken idiot driver crashes into them. Whose fault is it? The drunken morons. But who dies? The opposing driver, who didn't have his seatbelt on. Frankly, I dont see the point in having 'a choice about wearing seatbelts or not' if you're not alive.
Now look at it like this, a man walks around the street with a knife. Now would you approve of someone walking around the streets with a knife, risking the life of innocent, harmless people? Would you expect the goverment to do so?
See, walking around the streets with a knife killing random people could be just as dangerous as having some drunken person driving around the roads. Someone could die simply because they made the choice to leave their seatbelts off.

---

Robyna, actually that logic is a little off. When somebody decides to climb Mt Everest, they understand and accept the risk. When somebody decides to eat donuts as a regular part of their diet, they have took on the risk as well. When somebody lies out in the sun, they understand and accept the risk of skin cancer. And when somebody decides not to wear a seatbelt, they understand and accept the risk. The four examples are completely identical in that the only person's life being risked is his or her own. And I can't see how any person could ever want to take away those freedoms of choice to possibly save a life.. which brings this to a sub-topic. There is actual proof that in some instances, not wearing a seatbelt has saved lives and that by wearing a seatbelt, one has been killed. Because it is a chance, this makes the law an even more ludicrous one! I know the numbers are stacked up a little better for seatbelt wearers, but that is not enough to mandate use and violate our freedoms.

The bottom line is that if you say "I'm not going to wear a seatbelt cause I'm just going to the car wash a few blocks away", that choice should be completely up to you. Not one other person's life is placed in danger from this choice; therefore the choice should remain up to the user's discretion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawn Tennis

Robyna, actually that logic is a little off. When somebody decides to climb Mt Everest, they understand and accept the risk. When somebody decides to eat donuts as a regular part of their diet, they have took on the risk as well. When somebody lies out in the sun, they understand and accept the risk of skin cancer. And when somebody decides not to wear a seatbelt, they understand and accept the risk. The four examples are completely identical in that the only person's life being risked is his or her own. And I can't see how any person could ever want to take away those freedoms of choice to possibly save a life.. which brings this to a sub-topic. There is actual proof that in some instances, not wearing a seatbelt has saved lives and that by wearing a seatbelt, one has been killed. Because it is a chance, this makes the law an even more ludicrous one! I know the numbers are stacked up a little better for seatbelt wearers, but that is not enough to mandate use and violate our freedoms.

The bottom line is that if you say "I'm not going to wear a seatbelt cause I'm just going to the car wash a few blocks away", that choice should be completely up to you. Not one other person's life is placed in danger from this choice; therefore the choice should remain up to the user's discretion.

---

Jeez, your not getting my point. You can choose to not wear your belt, fair dinkum to that, but is it up to you if some maniac crashes into your car? It can happen anywhere! Your only thinking of it from one person's perspective. Your not looking at the danger another person could cause!

There is actual proof that in some instances, not wearing a seatbelt has saved lives and that by wearing a seatbelt, one has been killed.
Yeah, and how much people do you think have died cause they WEREN'T wearing a seat belt! Do you honestly think that will matter when the statistic of people who died cause of not wearing a seat belt is reviewed?
Honestly, I completely support the law of the government and heck they should be even harsher about it in my opinion.

And maybe you have the logic to not drink and drive, but it's not about one person, there are thousand of young people dying out there simply because they drink and drive! And they can easily take other people who weren't even IN their car with them.

Example? I didn't want to raise this topic up.. but I guess it's the perfect example. Just yesterday, or two days ago, 5 young teenagers died in Melbourne cause of drink driving. They didn't have their seat belts on and were speeding at 150 kph (not sure what that would be in your measurement?). These boys were around the age of 18-19, and 2 of them were brothers. And you know what? Their 15 year old sister was also in the car. She lived. Because.. She.. had.. her.. seat belt.. ON! Now, think of it like this, what if these boys had crashed into just ONE more car? Some unsuspected, innocent person could have died with them. Do you think it's fair for that person to suffer the consequences of that?

And if you were the parent of one of those children would you go on tv and say 'Oh, my boys died.. but at least they died with the choice of choosing to not wear their seat belts. You know.. at least they had that choice, and that's what counts, oh and you know, it doesn't matter, cause they could have survived EVEN IF they didn't have their seat belts on.

And no, this logic CAN'T be off, it's just fact. The government don't want people to die, I rather much think they'd prefer for people to be living.

Oh, yeah and when you say they 'understand and accept that risk', that may apply for you, but I don't think that applies to a majority of other people out there. It's also just fact that 95% of drivers who did drink driving and miraculously survived said 'I wish that I had worn my belt', at least in Australia, that is. And most of those people were left with permanent disabilities anyway.. and I can guarantee you this too. The people who you say 'understand and accept that risk', if they were to go through a car crash, will say the same. 'I wish I had worn my belt'. That is if they survive, of course..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robyna

Jeez, your not getting my point. You can choose to not wear your belt, fair dinkum to that, but is it up to you if some maniac crashes into your car? It can happen anywhere! Your only thinking of it from one person's perspective. Your not looking at the danger another person could cause!

There is actual proof that in some instances, not wearing a seatbelt has saved lives and that by wearing a seatbelt, one has been killed.
Yeah, and how much people do you think have died cause they WEREN'T wearing a seat belt! Do you honestly think that will matter when the statistic of people who died cause of not wearing a seat belt is reviewed?
Honestly, I completely support the law of the government and heck they should be even harsher about it in my opinion.

And maybe you have the logic to not drink and drive, but it's not about one person, there are thousand of young people dying out there simply because they drink and drive! And they can easily take other people who weren't even IN their car with them.

Example? I didn't want to raise this topic up.. but I guess it's the perfect example. Just yesterday, or two days ago, 5 young teenagers died in Melbourne cause of drink driving. They didn't have their seat belts on and were speeding at 150 kph (not sure what that would be in your measurement?). These boys were around the age of 18-19, and 2 of them were brothers. And you know what? Their 15 year old sister was also in the car. She lived. Because.. She.. had.. her.. seat belt.. ON! Now, think of it like this, what if these boys had crashed into just ONE more car? Some unsuspected, innocent person could have died with them. Do you think it's fair for that person to suffer the consequences of that?

And if you were the parent of one of those children would you go on tv and say 'Oh, my boys died.. but at least they died with the choice of choosing to not wear their seat belts. You know.. at least they had that choice, and that's what counts, oh and you know, it doesn't matter, cause they could have survived EVEN IF they didn't have their seat belts on.

And no, this logic CAN'T be off, it's just fact. The government don't want people to die, I rather much think they'd prefer for people to be living.

Oh, yeah and when you say they 'understand and accept that risk', that may apply for you, but I don't think that applies to a majority of other people out there. It's also just fact that 95% of drivers who did drink driving and miraculously survived said 'I wish that I had worn my belt', at least in Australia, that is. And most of those people were left with permanent disabilities anyway.. and I can guarantee you this too. The people who you say 'understand and accept that risk', if they were to go through a car crash, will say the same. 'I wish I had worn my belt'. That is if they survive, of course..

---

Let me first say 'rest in peace' for the ones who passed away. It's sad how many lives alchohol takes.

Now Robyna. I'm afraid you're still looking at this wrong. To address your first statement, whether somebody decides to wear or not wear a seatbelt does not effect the outcome of another driver whether they are drunk or not. And yes, I agree that wearing a seatbelt you have a slightly better chance of surviving an accident. However, because it is a chance, this is where it's a problem. The government is taking a chance with your life based on a very broad, ill-conceived basis that wearing a seatbelt in every scenario is best for you becaue we said so.

The bottom line is this: I feel uncomfortable driving with a seatbelt on. By my choosing to not wear a seatbelt, the only person's life endangered is my own. In a free country, the choice of one's own safety and personal well-being is left up to the individual. I live in the USA where these choices are protected by the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawn Tennis

Let me first say 'rest in peace' for the ones who passed away. It's sad how many lives alchohol takes.

Now Robyna. I'm afraid you're still looking at this wrong. To address your first statement, whether somebody decides to wear or not wear a seatbelt does not effect the outcome of another driver whether they are drunk or not. And yes, I agree that wearing a seatbelt you have a slightly better chance of surviving an accident. However, because it is a chance, this is where it's a problem. The government is taking a chance with your life based on a very broad, ill-conceived basis that wearing a seatbelt in every scenario is best for you becaue we said so.

The bottom line is this: I feel uncomfortable driving with a seatbelt on. By my choosing to not wear a seatbelt, the only person's life endangered is my own. In a free country, the choice of one's own safety and personal well-being is left up to the individual. I live in the USA where these choices are protected by the Constitution.

---

Okay, I do understand where you are coming from.
But this is the thing: You say people understand and accept the risk. But to my argument I have to ask, do they really? I mean when I went to Spain, we went to a city where to not where a seatbelt is accepted by the Goverment, though this was a long time ago so I'm not sure if this law is still in place. And getting into a car with people who didn't wear their seatbelts, and didn't even seem to care about it, was strange, so I asked 'What if something happens, shouldn't you wear your seatbelt, just incase?'. And they replied like this: 'My seatbelt? No, Don't worry, we won't be involved in a car crash or anything. Theres no risk at all.. not in Spain'. Now that to me is stupid, but sadly, how I believe a majority of people who don't wear seatbelts see the case. They do not understand or accept the risks of their actions, and furthermore, they do not even care! Now, with people looking at it from the perspective of logic, I understand why the goverment would have such a law. Because, when people who think like that are involved in car crashes, their relatives, or themselves if they have enough luck to survive, they don't put the responsibility on themselves. They put it on someone else. I'm saying this ofcourse from the view that they are lucky enough to survive. They don't understand it was their fault, that they didn't have their seatbelt on, and that it was their choice. And even more sadly, there are a lot of people who are like that. You have the intelligence to understand and accept the risks, which makes it a reasonable action, but for a lot of people I know the case is different. And refering to the example I stated above, if people believe their is no risk of anything happening to them then they must at the least act in some way accordingly, to what they have said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robyna

Okay, I do understand where you are coming from.
But this is the thing: You say people understand and accept the risk. But to my argument I have to ask, do they really? I mean when I went to Spain, we went to a city where to not where a seatbelt is accepted by the Goverment, though this was a long time ago so I'm not sure if this law is still in place. And getting into a car with people who didn't wear their seatbelts, and didn't even seem to care about it, was strange, so I asked 'What if something happens, shouldn't you wear your seatbelt, just incase?'. And they replied like this: 'My seatbelt? No, Don't worry, we won't be involved in a car crash or anything. Theres no risk at all.. not in Spain'. Now that to me is stupid, but sadly, how I believe a majority of people who don't wear seatbelts see the case. They do not understand or accept the risks of their actions, and furthermore, they do not even care! Now, with people looking at it from the perspective of logic, I understand why the goverment would have such a law. Because, when people who think like that are involved in car crashes, their relatives, or themselves if they have enough luck to survive, they don't put the responsibility on themselves. They put it on someone else. I'm saying this ofcourse from the view that they are lucky enough to survive. They don't understand it was their fault, that they didn't have their seatbelt on, and that it was their choice. And even more sadly, there are a lot of people who are like that. You have the intelligence to understand and accept the risks, which makes it a reasonable action, but for a lot of people I know the case is different. And refering to the example I stated above, if people believe their is no risk of anything happening to them then they must at the least act in some way accordingly, to what they have said.

---

And you know what Robyna, you probably answered the reason why governments decide to infringe on the welfare of its citizens - that is because the government knows atleast half of the population is not going to think before doing things. While that is great for them, it's not so great for the rest of us. Anyhow, I just want to find a country where freedom is a prized possession and practiced habitually. Don't get me wrong, I still think the US is a splendid place to live.. it's just that we've stepped away from what is truly freedom in the name of safety for idiots among other things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawn Tennis

And you know what Robyna, you probably answered the reason why governments decide to infringe on the welfare of its citizens - that is because the government knows atleast half of the population is not going to think before doing things. While that is great for them, it's not so great for the rest of us. Anyhow, I just want to find a country where freedom is a prized possession and practiced habitually. Don't get me wrong, I still think the US is a splendid place to live.. it's just that we've stepped away from what is truly freedom in the name of safety for idiots among other things.

---

It'd probably be over half, disturbingly. I'm just grateful that there not doing anything drastic to affect us. I don't really mind the whole seatbelt thing, I guess, as long as I have the right to step out of my house and live my life as I please.

But, you know what? I consider myself lucky when I think about areas like Afghanistan, Africa and other corrupt countries. They don't even know what a seatbelt is, let alone a car. And, I think we're still lucky to be living in places like Australia and America, at least out government does have concerns for our safety.