Quote:And oh how you'd yell about government interference if they did mandate speed governors on cars. It really sounds like you just get pissy if the government does anything at all to keep people safe. Seat belt laws save lives and the government has a responsibility to enact safety rules on public roads. They've saved mine as a guy who refused to wear one until they mandated it. It's a good thing I didn't roll my car on Normandy Blvd until AFTER the law took effect because I probably wouldn't be here to irritate all you good folks otherwise. Once you're sitting on the interior ceiling of your car and look up to see your children hanging from their seatbelts you get a new appreciation for the value of those things and recognize what they do for the public welfare.
Well I'm sorry you're not responsible enough to consider the consequences of your actions until government forces you to act responsibly. But that doesn't justify the need for government to legislate responsibility. The justification to create legislation isn't to protect you, provide for you, or make you act morally/responsibly. The only justification to create legislation is to protect the property or life of another individual, if you want a society to legislate responsibility you're not a conservative.
I wonder what's your stance on welfare if you appreciate government legislating responsibility surely you must support government legislating people responsibility feed themselves, after all many people don't have the good common sense on how to feed themselves so surely we need laws dictating what you can eat, how much you can eat.....
it seems to me you're fine and dandy with government so long as you personally see a reason for it.
Quote:Running any machine at near capacity is going to cause it to overheat.
Furthermore making cars that can't go over a certain speed limit would do nothing to decrease the need for speed limits. After all the speed limit in a school zone is not the same as the speed limit on the interstate. And Speed Limits are very much for OTHER drivers safety as well. Not just personal safety.
I asked why we still have cars designed to go over 100 mph as an example of the absurdity of seat belt laws. If the premise is we need government to do ____ to save lives, why the hell are we not requiring speed restrictions, no one is legally going over 100 mph.
Quote:You seem the think that if a person is in an accident while not wearing a seat belt, they are the only one affected. But that's not true. It affects their mother and father, their wife, husband, and children. It affects their friends, and it even affects people who don't know them, because the severity of the injuries puts a strain on the hospital system, causing our insurance rates to go up. Try telling the mother of a teenage girl or boy that there should be no seat belt laws.
And what about if I accidentally run a stop sign and hit someone who is not wearing a seat belt. They could be dead, and I would be headed for a lengthy jail term for, at best, manslaughter. If they had been wearing their seat belt, we exchange insurance information and go on with our lives.
So it's not just the person who is injured who is affected. It's all of us, in a variety of ways. That's why most reasonable people support seat belt laws.
the lack of support for a law does not equate to lack of support for the action. Most people support laws because there laws and for no other reason. We've been conditioned to believe without government society would fall apart.
That's why I laugh when "conservatives" try and tell me they stand for small government.
Quote:Well I'm sorry you're not responsible enough to consider the consequences of your actions until government forces you to act responsibly. But that doesn't justify the need for government to legislate responsibility. The justification to create legislation isn't to protect you, provide for you, or make you act morally/responsibly. The only justification to create legislation is to protect the property or life of another individual, if you want a society to legislate responsibility you're not a conservative.
I wonder what's your stance on welfare if you appreciate government legislating responsibility surely you must support government legislating people responsibility feed themselves, after all many people don't have the good common sense on how to feed themselves so surely we need laws dictating what you can eat, how much you can eat.....
it seems to me you're fine and dandy with government so long as you personally see a reason for it.
I asked why we still have cars designed to go over 100 mph as an example of the absurdity of seat belt laws. If the premise is we need government to do ____ to save lives, why the hell are we not requiring speed restrictions, no one is legally going over 100 mph.
the lack of support for a law does not equate to lack of support for the action. Most people support laws because there laws and for no other reason. We've been conditioned to believe without government society would fall apart.
That's why I laugh when "conservatives" try and tell me they stand for small government.
And with these comments you reveal yourself to be more Anarchist than Libertarian. I try to tell people that there's a difference, but folks like you sure make it hard to believe.
Quote:And with these comments you reveal yourself to be more Anarchist than Libertarian. I try to tell people that there's a difference, but folks like you sure make it hard to believe.
It's a fine line I tend to jump back and forth with it.
Make no mistake id be perfectly happy with a volunteerism society but it's not realistic, pointing our nanny state laws regardless of how helpful are all the same isn't anarchism it's consistency. The problem with conservatives is consistency, small government unless you want to smoke dope act stupid or hire a prostitute then damn it we need laws!
Bet you had a problem with New Yorks big gulp law, yet the seat belt law is the same damn thing.
Quote:It's a fine line I tend to jump back and forth with it.
Make no mistake id be perfectly happy with a volunteerism society but it's not realistic, pointing our nanny state laws regardless of how helpful are all the same isn't anarchism it's consistency. The problem with conservatives is consistency, small government unless you want to smoke dope act stupid or hire a prostitute then damn it we need laws!
Bet you had a problem with New Yorks big gulp law, yet the seat belt law is the same damn thing.
No, it's not the same thing. Your use of a highly dangerous motor vehicle on public roads is subject to rules. Seat belt usage is proven to reduce the instances of death during a collision particularly because they permit you to retain control of the vehicle rather than bouncing your dome of the windscreen. I know anecdote isn't data, but when I was a child an elderly woman pulled out across US41on the Bradenton/Sarasota line and broadsided my dad's truck. The old lady, who wasn't wearing a seat belt, smacked her head, locked down on the accelerator and tore back through the highway and ended up inside a restaurant. That's the kind of damage that could've been avoided, and now IS avoided, by the basic rule that everyone wears a seat belt. You can call seat belt laws, speed limits, traffic lights, stop signs, hell, even driving on the right side of the road "nanny" laws, but despite your protestations they are a necessity for a functional society.
And why do you keep throwing around "conservative?" Based on your picture I've been a Libertarian longer than you've been shaving.
Quote:No, it's not the same thing. Your use of a highly dangerous motor vehicle on public roads is subject to rules. Seat belt usage is proven to reduce the instances of death during a collision particularly because they permit you to retain control of the vehicle rather than bouncing your dome of the windscreen. I know anecdote isn't data, but when I was a child an elderly woman pulled out across US41on the Bradenton/Sarasota line and broadsided my dad's truck. The old lady, who wasn't wearing a seat belt, smacked her head, locked down on the accelerator and tore back through the highway and ended up inside a restaurant. That's the kind of damage that could've been avoided, and now IS avoided, by the basic rule that everyone wears a seat belt. You can call seat belt laws, speed limits, traffic lights, stop signs, hell, even driving on the right side of the road "nanny" laws, but despite your protestations they are a necessity for a functional society.
And why do you keep throwing around "conservative?" Based on your picture I've been a Libertarian longer than you've been shaving.
So society couldn't function without seat belt laws now? Your dependency on legislation to maintain a functioning society in combination with your for interventionist ideology would make you one confused libertarian.
I don't have any desire to get into a ideological pissing match with you. Regardless of where you align yourself with politically I disagree with your stance on these necessary legislative requirements to keep society functioning. I find myself wondering why exactly you dislike Obama so much he also agrees with your ideology governments role is to keep society functioning just to a larger degree then you perhaps but the ideology is the same, it's called statism.
So.... I guess this went political. Thanks for moving it mods.
Quote:Agreed, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of legislating responsibility. Seat belt laws are just revenue streams on the public, click it or ticket might as well be a fund raiser for the local county.
Here mr jones enjoy your new car we built to go 140 mph but hot damn wear that seat belt or we're going to fine you! Cause government cares about you America!
This is one of the arguments where the libertarian viewpoint kind of goes off the rails to most people both right and left. Don't stop being you :thumbsup:
Quote:This is one of the arguments where the libertarian viewpoint kind of goes off the rails to most people both right and left. Don't stop being you :thumbsup:
Hey I never claimed to be mainstream lol
Quote:Hey I never claimed to be mainstream lol
Just a little off the reservation at times. Good thing you have your own compound
Carlo, that was an ad correct? I'm not interested in the possibility of it happening or at least that isn't what I was asking, but the actual stats that show drivers without seat belts are killing other people because they fly through the window. I understand the possibility of it happening, but would like to see the actual numbers.
flsprtsgod, like to see that data. I tried finding it, but didn't have any luck. Without data your argument is just conjecture.
I have talked to people that have been ejected from vehicles, and they would later go on to tell me that they wish they had their seatbelts on. Sometimes it wasn't even their fault.
Seatbelts don't only have a negative affect on the driver. Increased injuries from accidents lead to increased insurance rates.
Quote:flsprtsgod, like to see that data. I tried finding it, but didn't have any luck. Without data your argument is just conjecture.
If nothing else, it's common sense. There is a direct correlation between fatalities and speed / seatbelt usages.
NHSTA determined that more than 20 billion is spent every year as a result of traffic fatalities / injuries that resulted from not wearing a seatbelt. Of the 20 billion, more than 70% is paid for by the public.
Click It or Ticket (and other campaigns) began around 1993, and many of the kids that were influence from that time are drivers now. Seatbelt usage from the early 90's was around around 66%. Now it's around 87%. Traffic fatalities had decreased from 37,000-39,000 a year to 30,000-31,000 a year.
If you don't care about the number of lives saved, then the money spent on those that don't should do it.
Quote:If nothing else, it's common sense. There is a direct correlation between fatalities and speed / seatbelt usages.
NHSTA determined that more than 20 billion is spent every year as a result of traffic fatalities / injuries that resulted from not wearing a seatbelt. Of the 20 billion, more than 70% is paid for by the public.
Click It or Ticket (and other campaigns) began around 1993, and many of the kids that were influence from that time are drivers now. Seatbelt usage from the early 90's was around around 66%. Now it's around 87%. Traffic fatalities had decreased from 37,000-39,000 a year to 30,000-31,000 a year.
If you don't care about the number of lives saved, then the money spent on those that don't should do it.
That's an impressive increase in usage! Thanks for sharing the data.
You can't just point to traffic fatalities going down and say look seat belts save lives. For starters the way cars are engineered and made today is completely different from 30 years ago. Any one if the features you could say the same thing look we are doing ___ less people are dying!
Secondly when did the qualification factor for legislation become it Saves lives and money? If that's the qualifier we're using then why the fuss over New Yorks big gulp law? Fat people drive up medical cost and who really needs a soft drink bigger than 32oz? It'll save lives if we can get fat people to drink less soft drinks and it'll save us money on the medical system. It's the same argument, nanny laws are nanny laws.
You certainly can... whether or not you agree with them is on you, not me. It isn't a coincidence that fatalities decreased by approx. 19% while seatbelt usage increase by approx. 21%.
Besides, these fatalities are investigated and they know when seatbelts were or were not used. Additionally, they know when the use of seatbelts would have saved the persons life instead. I also read that, of the approx. 31,000 fatalities, just under 20,000 are not wearing their seatbelts. Seatbelts and speed, Eric.
Quote:Secondly when did the qualification factor for legislation become it Saves lives and money? If that's the qualifier we're using then why the fuss over New Yorks big gulp law? Fat people drive up medical cost and who really needs a soft drink bigger than 32oz? It'll save lives if we can get fat people to drink less soft drinks and it'll save us money on the medical system. It's the same argument, nanny laws are nanny laws.
Just wondering, do you believe in the "right to travel"?
Quote:Just wondering, do you believe in the "right to travel"?
Of course not traveling is a privilege I get where your coming from, in order to use public roads it's perfectly reasonable to have restrictions for the privilege of use.
Some laws are made because some people are too stupid for their own good.
If there was no speed limit, can you imagine what 95 would look like? If there was no seat belt/child seat laws, can you imagine how many kids would die in car crashes?
It's sad some people aren't smart enough to use common sense.
Quote:Some laws are made because some people are too stupid for their own good.
If there was no speed limit, can you imagine what 95 would look like? If there was no seat belt/child seat laws, can you imagine how many kids would die in car crashes?
It's sad some people aren't smart enough to use common sense.
I don't have a problem with requiring parents to make sure their kids are buckled, but when someones of legal age their safety is their responsibility. That's just my view.