[benVFR]

Unless your cops are just world class dicks they aren't going to be going WAY out of their way to stop people for seatbelt violations. If they see you, they might stop you. It's not like MA cops constantly look for it. BUT if NH seatbelt usage goes up to 99% you will stand out enough and they might get you.

The reason you are never going to get people "furious" about this is almost everyone agrees seatbelts are good.. it just doesn't feel like "oppression" to be told to wear one.

Anti-government types always play the "slippery slope" card. But in our form of government a large # of people have to be bothered before people will organize to the point of defeating something like this. Are you going to take a vacation day to picket against a seatbelt law? Going to give up your free time to organize a protest? Probably not. Our government has not failed... if and when a truly oppressive law is proposed people will stand up. But until then everyone is comfortable and apathetic and no one is going to be motivated by seat belt laws.

I think the case for controlling what kind of food can be on the market (anti-mcdonalds) is actually stronger.. health care is going to become a crushing burden on our country, and obesity is going to lower our competitiveness with other countries. But it would be MUCH harder battle to control food, people will stand up for that, it's in our basic biology.

[Kham]

i disagree too.

hey i got an idea. why don't they make manufacturing build a self seatbelt like the the one i have that comes with a 91 Stanza. without that i would have never buggled up. and another thing why don't they spend more money to educate young and inexperience drivers. educate the idiots.

[JeffL]

Originally posted by bentbryan
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this thread is getting alittle off the original topic. It's not that you can be issued a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt (assuming it's an additional charge for some moving violation) but the fact that police will now be looking for seat-belt violations and subsequently stopping vehicles for that sole reason. Personally, I feel the police have much better things to do than look for people not wearing their seatbelts.

I'm pretty sure this has been the case in MA for awhile now? Not sure about the subsequent offense, but they can pull you over and ticket you solely for not wearing a seatbelt.

[mzdagrl]

As far as wearing seat belts go, I am pro-choice. I choose to wear mine. My mother's life was saved by a seatbelt (she broke her sternum and threw her back out of alignment, but without it, she would have gone through the windshield and thrown 50+ feet). My father on the other hand, is alive because he didn't wear one. Luck, I know, but when you are t-boned at 55mph, you're in much better shape if your body moves freely into the passenger seat, rather than being roped to the part of the vehicle being crushed. (separate accidents)

Back to topic at hand. I think the cops being able to pull you over in a seatbelt optional state is bullshit. I got pulled over as a kid because I looked too young to be driving (I was in fact 16). That is age discrimination, pure and simple. In MA, or any other state that seatbelts are required for all ages (like, all of them), then fine, they can pull you over - have at it. Otherwise, BS.

[Hardcore]

Originally posted by JeffL
I'm pretty sure this has been the case in MA for awhile now? Not sure about the subsequent offense, but they can pull you over and ticket you solely for not wearing a seatbelt.

that law passed a while back but was pulled + is now trying to be passed again!

Anyone that thinks the government should pass Any more laws is fucked up!
there are way too many laws as it is!
people should be forced + allowed to make there own decisions--if they choose wrong--so what--stupid people need to be punished--besides, the world is overcrowded anyhow!
obsession with safety breeds pussies!!!

[Brian_C6]

Originally posted by benVFR
Don't be thinking I'd actually be out there fighting for seatbelt laws.

Getting worked up over this is hard for me to do though... it does not harm me to wear a seatbelt, or really limit me in any way.

There are far bigger fish to fry and things to worry about.

+1.... I agree. My issue is freedom of choice which is the bigger fish. The problem I have with you is you can't see the bigger fish.... so I don't understand your post. Personally, I don't give a shit about wearing a seatbelt, but I do give a shit about not having the choice.

[Brian_C6]

Originally posted by SSearchVT
I wear my seatbelt by choice everytime I get in the car. Personally I don't think it should be a law for adults - sort of.

The problem arises when people are involved in accidents and because they chose not to use readily available and proven safety equipment end up getting injured more severely then if they had used their seatbelt. A large portion of the medical bills for these folks is covered by insurance. Insurance companies need to re-coup losses. They do this by charging higher rates. So, I am paying more money because of a decision someone else made.

Because of this twist I feel it should be a law. Find a way to keep me from having to pay for other peoples decisions and I'll change my position...

Any doctor will tell you drinking alcohol isn't healthy. Any doctor will tell you eating fried food is unhealthy. But you still have the choice to eat whatever you want, right? The argument up at the house is insurance costs. They say, "People who are uninsured, and hurt in auto accidents are costing the state money.... in turn "effecting" other people. If everyone wears seatbelts, the health cost will drop." In my opinion, that is the only valid argument and it doesn't validate a law.

I will take this back to the healthy food issue. What is the difference between forcing seatbelts on people to control health costs vs. controlling food intake on unhealthy people to control health cost?

[Brian_C6]

Originally posted by benVFR
Unless your cops are just world class dicks they aren't going to be going WAY out of their way to stop people for seatbelt violations. If they see you, they might stop you. It's not like MA cops constantly look for it. BUT if NH seatbelt usage goes up to 99% you will stand out enough and they might get you.

I was pulled over on 93N Thanksgiving Day 2 years ago for not wearing a seatbelt. I was traveling in the 3rd lane and passed a state police officer... legal speed of course. When I passed him, he glanced over at me, pulled behind me, flashed his lights, made me pull into the breakdown lane on a busy interstate, and busted my balls for 20min.

[SSearchVT]

Originally posted by Brian_C6
Any doctor will tell you drinking alcohol isn't healthy. Any doctor will tell you eating fried food is unhealthy. But you still have the choice to eat whatever you want, right? The argument up at the house is insurance costs. They say, "People who are uninsured, and hurt in auto accidents are costing the state money.... in turn "effecting" other people. If everyone wears seatbelts, the health cost will drop." In my opinion, that is the only valid argument and it doesn't validate a law.

I will take this back to the healthy food issue. What is the difference between forcing seatbelts on people to control health costs vs. controlling food intake on unhealthy people to control health cost?

I agree with you, it doesn't validate the law - but, unfortunately unless it's a law, punishable by fines, there really isn't any incentive for people to change their habits and use seatbelts if they don't already.

[hessogood]

Originally posted by Brian_C6

I will take this back to the healthy food issue. What is the difference between forcing seatbelts on people to control health costs vs. controlling food intake on unhealthy people to control health cost?

The difference is you can go to the gym to work off that food, and counteract high cholesterol, heart disease, and obesity. There is no way to prepare for or counteract the force throwing your body through your windshield. The food and drug industry is regulated through a number of methods to protect us from being harmed or killed just as seatbelts are made to do the same thing., they're not taking away our cars to keep us away from danger.

Why not have the same open law for helmets? Because morons wouldn't wear them, much like so many squids in NH. I'd rather see a biker with a pouty face and a helmet on than his brain on one side of the street and an emptry skull on the other. And I rather see my sister in the hospital when she crashes her car again than see her at her wake.

[bentbryan]

Originally posted by benVFR
Unless your cops are just world class dicks they aren't going to be going WAY out of their way to stop people for seatbelt violations. If they see you, they might stop you. It's not like MA cops constantly look for it. BUT if NH seatbelt usage goes up to 99% you will stand out enough and they might get you.

Actually, within the last year or two I remember the Boston police (or maybe Manino) made an announcement that they were going to begin enforcing the seatbelt law as a primary violation (meaning you now would be stopped for not wearing your seatbelt, whereas before it was a secondary violation that would only be given if you had been stopped for speeding, etc) I found this
that shows it as a secondary violation. Still trying to find something about them changing that though...

As far as a seatbelt law in general, I agree with you. Nobody is going argue too much because seat-belts do save lives.

[Kham]

Originally posted by hessogood
his brain on one side of the street and an emptry skull on the other.

might be better off that way. no?

[benVFR]

Originally posted by bentbryan
Actually, within the last year or two I remember the Boston police (or maybe Manino) made an announcement that they were going to begin enforcing the seatbelt law as a primary violation (meaning you now would be stopped for not wearing your seatbelt, whereas before it was a secondary violation that would only be given if you had been stopped for speeding, etc) I found this
that shows it as a secondary violation. Still trying to find something about them changing that though...

As far as a seatbelt law in general, I agree with you. Nobody is going argue too much because seat-belts do save lives.

Except they don't.. almost nothing is enforced down here. If they wanted to make mad revenue there are any number of places where they could bag 100+ cars for doing 90 in a 55 every morning. ISTR they made a PR move in the last year about trying to step up enforcement, but that was mostly about running stop signs and red lights in the city. And I haven't heard much that it was actually stepped up.

In my town they are particularly strong in terms of enforcing inspection stickers and such though. In the morning 2 blocks from my apartment is one of the busiest intersections in town, which is how you get out to the highway. At least 2-3 days a week they have the motorcycle cop sitting at the intersection. He just sits there and waves everyone over who has an invalid sticker. He had 5 people pulled over this morning. So maybe he is checking seatbelts, but my impression is it's inspection stickers. And it could be red light running too, he is in a perfect position to see that and it's common at that intersection.

[Brian_C6]

Originally posted by hessogood
The difference is you can go to the gym to work off that food, and counteract high cholesterol, heart disease, and obesity. There is no way to prepare for or counteract the force throwing your body through your windshield. The food and drug industry is regulated through a number of methods to protect us from being harmed or killed just as seatbelts are made to do the same thing., they're not taking away our cars to keep us away from danger. .

Again... I will rebut this argument by introducing auto driving training. Maybe a a SERIOUS program designed to properly teach people how to drive a car is required to obtain a license. If people learn how to actual drive a car, the theory would be less accidents, less injuries, less costs. Hense, teaching someone about Nutrition.

Here is a side by side comparison and the similarities of each:

Bad Food = Bad Driving
Heart Attack, Stroke = Accident
Sensible Diet = Seatbelts
Exercise = Auto Training

Lata,
Brian

[benVFR]

Originally posted by Brian_C6
+1.... I agree. My issue is freedom of choice which is the bigger fish. The problem I have with you is you can't see the bigger fish.... so I don't understand your post. Personally, I don't give a shit about wearing a seatbelt, but I do give a shit about not having the choice.

Don't mistake "not seeing the bigger fish" with not caring about this issue.

If this issue was "New Law enforces manadatory sterilization unless the lottery selects you for the right to have children" then my reaction would be totally different.

It's a question of degree! You've got to show that the positive and negative effects of a certain right or loss of right are firmly in the negative column... with seatbelts that is not the case. With national ID cards or forced birth control or banning abortion or something the positive/negative point do not balance out, and hence people care. Seatbelts are not in this category at all.

[hessogood]

Your analogies suck.

So you want to trade the goverment regulation of saftey measures for a goverment regulation of more driver training now. Or do you just want to be stubborn and argure your health food relationship some more.

I eat unhealthy food when i feel like it and i excersize constantly. So if am I going to have a heart attack? How about I get plenty of driving training and still drive poorly. Sensible diet is the opposite of bad diet, are seatbelts the opposite of bad driving?

[Kham]

Originally posted by hessogood
I eat unhealthy food when i feel like it and i excersize constantly. So if am I going to have a heart attack?

could be...

Originally posted by hessogood
How about I get plenty of driving training and still drive poorly.

that's impossible.

Originally posted by hessogood
Sensible diet is the opposite of bad diet, are seatbelts the opposite of bad driving?

seatbelts compensate for bad driving i would think.

[RandyO]

Originally posted by Kham
seatbelts compensate for bad driving i would think.

[odduc]

OK....for Ben...it seems I have to explain myself to you everytime I try and make a point.

I am not against the use of seatbelts, just against ANY more laws as stated above by hardcore. The government is already way too intrusive into our lives !

Of course I wouldn't waste any time by staging an anti-seatbelt-law rally. My point about people being so passive to any new government regulation or laws is this: WHEN DOES IT END ? Why do we need any more laws ? And again I ask: Why aren't more people angry about the constant intrusion of the government into EVERY-SINGLE aspect of our lives? Of course we need the government for certain things but government regulation and involvement is getting way out of hand !

[Brian_C6]

ok... I'll try this again:

health = safety
exercise = auto training
eating right = wearing seatbelt
heart attack = accident
-------------------------------
health costs


Jay?

[hessogood]

now we wear our seatbelt and prevent accidents? Craziness i tell you!

Now what if you're all together healthy? You eat right, you excersize, and then one day you get hit by a bus. That's a pretty bad accident. The important question is 'was the bus driver wearing his seatbelt' or 'Was he wearing clean underwear'?

[Brian_C6]

Originally posted by hessogood
now we wear our seatbelt and prevent accidents? Craziness i tell you!

Now what if you're all together healthy? You eat right, you excersize, and then one day you get hit by a bus. That's a pretty bad accident. The important question is 'was the bus driver wearing his seatbelt' or 'Was he wearing clean underwear'?

I love getting you all fired up...

Now, when we going to Margs to eat shitty, drink alcohol, drive home impared, while not wear seatbelts, get into an accident, and get high cholestrol due to cheese quesedilla's.

Brian

[hessogood]

Soon?!

[Brian_C6]

Originally posted by hessogood
now we wear our seatbelt and prevent accidents? Craziness i tell you!

no, no, no. But now I understand where your argument is.

Let me start over...
The reason Congress wants a seat belt law is to lower health costs.... not prevent accidents. My argument is eating healthy lowers health costs. same / same (IMO).

[benVFR]

Originally posted by odduc
OK....for Ben...it seems I have to explain myself to you everytime I try and make a point.

I am not against the use of seatbelts, just against ANY more laws as stated above by hardcore. The government is already way too intrusive into our lives !

Of course I wouldn't waste any time by staging an anti-seatbelt-law rally. My point about people being so passive to any new government regulation or laws is this: WHEN DOES IT END ? Why do we need any more laws ? And again I ask: Why aren't more people angry about the constant intrusion of the government into EVERY-SINGLE aspect of our lives? Of course we need the government for certain things but government regulation and involvement is getting way out of hand !

You obviously feel pretty strongly about this. Do you actually donate any time to political campaigns? Have you run for office? Who do you vote for? A vote for Bush was obviously not a vote for small government. Neither was a vote for Kerry. Almost no one in the government cares.

I think you will find when it comes to small government intrusions which have a common good you're in the minority, most of us are not bothered enough to want to defeat the common good. How much freedom is taken away by having to wear your seatbelt or many of these other laws? When the government tries to take away real and significant freedoms you will see action. Why does a seatbelt harm you so much? You say this isn't about seatbelts, how about listing your top 10 other government intrusions that bother you so much.