Does anyone have the figures on how much money is wasted each year on the "click it or ticket" program.........
I feel this is by far the biggest waste of money... where the hell are my rights O-o
Don't I have the right to choose whether or not to wear a seat belt, I have heard of many stories of seat belts being responsible for the death of one of the passengers and have heard just as many stories where not wearing a seat belt saved the life of a passenger!
Children should be required by law to have seat belts on this makes sense, but as an adult shouldn't I have the right to choose "if" I live or die.....
Besides all this my votes on the airbags as saving more lives compared to the seat belt. -----
On another note, you can't ride in the back of a truck, what bullshit is that, once again my life, my risk, yet someone else judged that it shouldn't be legal for me to make that choice...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why does the government consider it important, even ticket-worthy, to work to ensure people driving on roads in automobiles wear seatbelts? Can you think of any reasons? It's a serious question.
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
lol I made a connection, does it have something to do with disabilities!? - Edit 1, Police officers usually won't bother pulling you over if no one is wearing a seat belt minus children of course.. I do notice when it's quota time people WILL get pulled over for not wearing them though, and if you are caught breaking another law, not wearing a seat belt is usually bundled in there with the charges...
I'm still failing to see why someone else can decide how I live, or particularly charge me for a choice that only directly effects me...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Besides all this my votes on the airbags as saving more lives compared to the seat belt.
According to the traffic safety expert at the desk next to me, the safest way to be in an accident is airbags + seatbelts, followed by seatbelts with no airbags. The other two options are much less desirable. In some situations airbag with no seatbelt is safer than having neither, but in other types of accidents an airbag with no seatbelt will kill you when you might have survived with neither.
The airbag is designed to work with the seatbelt. If you are not wearing the belt you will hit the airbag too fast, too soon, and at the wrong angle. (You're supposed to hit it when it's fully inflated. If you aren't wearing a seatbelt you can be thrown into it while it's still explosively expanding. And your body will be moving up if you're not belted, so the airbag will hit you lower, at the wrong angle, and with no support behind your head, running the risk of breaking your neck.)
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
meh. If you don't like it you can always move to New Hampshire.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm still failing to see why someone else can decide how I live, or particularly charge me for a choice that only directly effects me...
Have you really asked yourself if this is true or not, or just given it a moment's thought and decided it felt true? (It's clearly not true, btw, you just have to ask yourself what happens after a car accident has occurred if someone is doing the safe-airbags and safety belts-versus whether they're not.)
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: On another note, you can't ride in the back of a truck, what bullshit is that, once again my life, my risk, yet someone else judged that it shouldn't be legal for me to make that choice...
In an accident, you could fly out and injure someone riding a bike.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The freedom of choice argument I get. I disagree, but I get it.
How is it a waste of money though?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would credit the freedom of choice argument more if I felt it applied.
Our roads aren't owned by the individual, nor is their use governed by an individual. They're owned by us, collectively. That means we must collectively decide how they will be used and what rules will govern their use. That further means that sometimes a given individual will not have their way when it comes to those rules. Freedom of choice hasn't been violated, because each individual agrees to all of this when they use the roads. Whether they like it or not. No individual gets to opt out of that, because they didn't, y'know, build or cause to be built that road alone.
quote:Don't I have the right to choose whether or not to wear a seat belt, I have heard of many stories of seat belts being responsible for the death of one of the passengers and have heard just as many stories where not wearing a seat belt saved the life of a passenger!
Put another way, you've got as much right to choose whether or not to wear a seatbelt as the rest of us, and you can exercise that right in the same way. Nobody has the right to just decide on a given day which laws concerning automobiles they're going to obey, though. You're no different from everyone else.
Also, you've simply not heard as many stories of people dying due to seatbelts or living due to not wearing them as you have of people living thanks to wearing seatbelts and dying thanks to not wearing them. You remember the former and not the latter because it's what you want to hear. I wouldn't normally say so, but I'm very confident this is true because as people-particularly dkw-have mentioned, the safety record of seatbelts is decisive, and peoples lives are saved by wearing them every day-and people die not wearing them all the time to.
I'm just wondering if this is going to be another Rawrain special wherein you say some stuff that was just on your mind, suggest that it's valid because it's your opinion, and then go on to ignore the ample factual evidence that your opinion is wrong or suggest you were joking or something. I'm reminded vividly of your thoughts on bicycle helmets.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I was in an accident several months ago that could've killed me if I hadn't been wearing a seatbelt. I was driving along when a van suddenly pulled out in front of me. I checked my blind spot to see if I could move into the left lane to pass, but the van abruptly swerved into the left lane before I could get over. When I looked forward again, I saw that traffic ahead was stopped. I slammed on the brakes, but it was wet, and I skidded. I slammed into the back of a stopped car ahead of me going about 30 miles an hour. My seat belt locked up, and the airbag went off in my face. Even with the airbag but no belt, I could've been seriously injured. An airbag doesn't hold you in your seat. Without those, I very easily could've smashed my head on the steering wheel or gone through the windshield. Instead I walked away without nothing more serious than a sore neck.
When I was a teenager, a girl in my neighborhood was riding in the back seat of a friend's car. They were driving at night and turned down a dead-end street by mistake. The driver turned around but accidentally drove into a ditch on the side of the road that she didn't see. She couldn't have been going more than a few miles an hour. The girl in the back hit her face on the seat in front of her and broke her neck. She died instantly. A shoulder belt could've saved her life.
How's that for a couple of anecdotes, Rawrain? But hey, don't take my word for it. Try doing some freaking research first before you spout off your opinions.
quote:I'm just wondering if this is going to be another Rawrain special wherein you say some stuff that was just on your mind, suggest that it's valid because it's your opinion, and then go on to ignore the ample factual evidence that your opinion is wrong or suggest you were joking or something.
Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing. . . .
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I was in an accident several months ago that could've killed me if I hadn't been wearing a seatbelt. I was driving along when a van suddenly pulled out in front of me. I checked my blind spot to see if I could move into the left lane to pass, but the van abruptly swerved into the left lane before I could get over. When I looked forward again, I saw that traffic ahead was stopped. I slammed on the brakes, but it was wet, and I skidded. I slammed into the back of a stopped car ahead of me going about 30 miles an hour. My seat belt locked up, and the airbag went off in my face. Even with the airbag but no belt, I could've been seriously injured. An airbag doesn't hold you in your seat. Without those, I very easily could've smashed my head on the steering wheel or gone through the windshield. Instead I walked away without nothing more serious than a sore neck.
The thing about this is, someone could argue with it, suggesting that seatbelts aren't so great, that they're not so safety-makin' or something. It'd be foolish because it's so inaccurate, but someone could be stubborn enough to take a crack at it.
But as for your anecdote, the really important-for this 'why can't I not wear it' argument-is the question 'what happened after the accident'? Who came to the scene? Ambulances, fire trucks, paramedics, police officers? Was traffic impeded as a result of the accident, were commuters inconvenienced? Would any of that have been greater or less if someone had been badly injured or killed?
The obvious answer to all of those questions is 'yes' and 'greater' (to Rawrain, obviously-not takin' issue with your post, Jon Boy). So you might be welcome to not wear a seatbelt on a stretch of road you built on land you own that's driven on only by you, but not on roads used by, y'know, other people.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Children should be required by law to have seat belts on this makes sense, but as an adult shouldn't I have the right to choose "if" I live or die.
quote:I'm still failing to see why someone else can decide how I live, or particularly charge me for a choice that only directly effects me...
Here's something to think about. You seem to accept that we can force children to do certain things, not just as parents, but by law. Even if an action would only affect them (whether any action truly only affects one person is a whole other matter). Why? Presumably it has something to do with their cognitive capacities and decision making correct? I mean, it's not just in virtue of an arbitrary age delineation that we believe we can do this.
Well, if that's the case, and we know that human adult psychology is such that we are susceptible to poor decision making and cognitive deficits, why is that you categorically have a problem with any laws that dictate or restrict what we can and can't do? What is it about the adult brain that is so drastically different that it changes the entire morality of these laws for you?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
My second cousin was killed in an automobile accident because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. He'd been sitting the backseat and went headfirst through the windshield. His body was so mangled that they had a closed casket funeral. The three other occupants of the vehicle were wearing seatbelts and survived.
I very much agree with Rakeesh's argument regarding the collective ownership of our roads. Guess what? It is within your rights to not ride in a car at all if you don't like the seatbelt laws. Get a job close to wear you live. Ride the bus to work. Or take a bicycle (but please wear a helmet or are lots of people killed by wearing helmets?)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm just wondering if this is going to be another Rawrain special wherein you say some stuff that was just on your mind, suggest that it's valid because it's your opinion, and then go on to ignore the ample factual evidence that your opinion is wrong or suggest you were joking or something. I'm reminded vividly of your thoughts on bicycle helmets.
You were wondering that? I just took it as a given.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Why do law officers want members of the public to wear seatbelts? So they won't have to a) pick up the pieces, b) notify the victims' relatives and c) relive the images later in their minds.
About 95 percent of the fatal accidents I've read about or heard about at work (newspaper) involve people who didn't wear seatbelts.
A young man I know was in an accident - he was badly injured, a friend was hurt, but a young woman in the vehicle was killed - not wearing a seatbelt. The pickup went down an embankment next to a bridge over railroad tracks and ended up on the tracks. Another case: a 15-year-old driving on a school permit had passengers (illegal) and not everyone was wearing a seatbelt - one boy died in the crash. Another one from my area - the article says three of the four teens in the car weren't wearing seatbelts. Pregnant mom killed in crash.A survivor, with horrific injuries.
One thing - a seatbelt should at least keep you in the vehicle. Even if you survive being thrown from a car during an accident, it's not going to be a fun recovery.
All of these are what keep me wearing seatbelts 99.99% of the time. About the only time I don't is driving one block away from my house, and to be honest I wear my seatbelt about 99 times out of 100 on that trip, as well.
But if someone doesn't want to wear their seatbelt, they have to accept all the consequences: possible death, major injury, their family's loss of a loved one, and a fine if caught. We all have a choice, and we have to live with the results of our actions.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I've also heard equally compelling arguments for the theory that the war on drugs is the biggest waste of taxpayers' money. I disagree, but the researcher cited quite a few verifiable facts regarding the money shoveled into the fire vs the fact that drug use has consistently risen.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
From the second link:
quote: More than 90 percent of all motorists believe safety belts are good idea, but less than 14 percent actually use them
I find this unbelievable. I don't know anyone who doesn't use a seatbelt anymore.
quote: One out of every five drivers will be involved in a traffic crash this year.
Also dubious. What does "involved" mean? I might, *might* buy that one out of 5 people will be present at a crash in any given year, including bus passengers, car passengers, passersby, and others. But 1 out of 5 people crash every year? That would be, what, 4 million crashes a year in California? Almost 11,000 per day? Somehow I doubt that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I would credit the freedom of choice argument more if I felt it applied.
Our roads aren't owned by the individual, nor is their use governed by an individual. They're owned by us, collectively. That means we must collectively decide how they will be used and what rules will govern their use. That further means that sometimes a given individual will not have their way when it comes to those rules. Freedom of choice hasn't been violated, because each individual agrees to all of this when they use the roads. Whether they like it or not. No individual gets to opt out of that, because they didn't, y'know, build or cause to be built that road alone.
It's typical of a very young person to not want to accept that "freedom of choice," is not an absolute term, and that neither does it constitute any absolute right. So to him, the choice to drive on a public road is obvious, but the loss of choice as to *how* he does this is less clear, logically. That this freedom of self-determination is exercised, and limited, collectively is unacceptable or incomprehensible to a person who has, say, never voted, never paid taxes, never had a job, and never participated in a political process. Or to a person who has done these things without the willingness to accept the result that is not to his liking, as being that of a process in which he had a real part.
Personally, I think that's one reason why having a driving age lower than the voting age doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I didn't have any accidents when I was a minor- but that wasn't for lack of opportunity. I did always wear a seatbelt, though. Still, considering my high school carried about a 1-driving-death-a-year average (for 1000 students) I'm surprised there wasn't more support there for a higher driving age.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Don't want to wear seat belts? Drive a car made before 1959. Easy peasy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm going to offer what I feel is the most fair point/counterpoint in the seatbelt discussion.
First, an essay from Derek Kieper, a 21-year-old senior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, written on September 17th, 2004.
quote:Individual rights buckle under seat belt laws
I’m from the school of thought where everyone should have the right to do as they please as long as they are not infringing on the rights of other people. This comes from the political philosophy that inspired our founders and freedoms.
The duty of government is nothing more than to make sure everyone’s rights are protected and not infringed upon. Uncle Sam is not here to regulate every facet of life no matter the consequences.
No law, or set of laws, has made the government more intrusive and ridiculous than seat belt legislation. Nothing is a bigger affront to the ideas of freedom, liberty, yada, yada, yada. Whether you are a pinko liberal or a right-wing whack job, there are plenty of reasons for just saying to hell with seat belt laws.
Democrats and Republicans alike should stand together to stop these laws that are incongruous with the ideals of both parties.
For Republicans, seat belt laws represent an enormous cost to the federal government. Perhaps the amount of money we spend on safety belts pails in comparison to our defense budget, but it still seems to be a ton of money to make a choice for a person.
The government budgets $13.4 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration through the U.S. Department of Transportation for educating the public about safety belt laws.
Remember the “Click It or Ticket” commercials you saw on TV this summer during the tourist season? Well, the government wasted millions on those ads to make sure you knew officer Joe Friendly was going to be pulling you over for not wearing your seat belt.
The government also dispenses $25 million in grants to local law enforcement to increase the usage rate of seat belts. Even the Lincoln Police Department got a grant to help enforce the safety belt laws – lucky us.
Most ridiculous, though, is the $100 million doled out to states that have primary seat belt laws – these are the laws that say you can be pulled over for simply not wearing your seat belt.
If one is doing the math, that is more than $138 million spent on seat belt laws. But the kicker is this: It is estimated, by researchers for Congress, that only 6,100 lives are saved per year because of new seat belt wearers. Moreover, the increase in the percentage of those who wear seat belts has leveled off.
As laws become increasingly strict for seat belts, fewer people will respond positively by buckling up in response to the laws. There seems to be a die-hard group of non-wearers out there who simply do not wish to buckle up no matter what the government does. I belong to this group.
For the states’ righters of the right, this legislation represents another attempt by the federal government to step on the toes of the states. Not only does the federal government currently fund grants to increase usage, but bills are being debated that would punish those states that did not have seat belt laws, by withholding funding – usurping the right of the state to decide its own safety laws.
What frightens me more about safety belt laws is the intrusion they represent to Americans. Democrats should take notice. Choice is an important aspect of freedom – choice to do as I see fit with my body and being.
Yet, the government has decided that I do not have the choice to drive around without my seat belt. It is my choice what type of safety precautions I take. It is ridiculous to legislate actions that have no immediate effect on other individuals.
Telling me to wear my seat belt is the same as making sure I have some sort of proper education before diving into a swimming pool. If I want to dive in without knowing how to swim, that is my right. And if I want to be the jerk that flirts with death and rides around with my seat belt off, I should be able to do that, too.
If we regulate decisions that are personal and deal with safety, we very soon may be confronted with a slippery slope of legislation. What is next? Helmet laws for walkers? Kneepad regulations for office government interns? Or perhaps some sort of mandate for protective headgear for golfers will hit the law books in the future.
What should be most scary for those who love freedom and privacy is the government’s consideration of a bill to punish all states that do not have primary seat belt laws.
Officers have enough reasons to pull us over in the first place. This just allows them to pull people over and give us citizens a good shakedown whenever we want. Does anyone else see a problem?
I’m sure college students would love to be pulled over and asked by the cops why they were not wearing their safety belt, and then maybe the police can catch a whiff of something – that may or may not be there – and searching ensues.
I can see now officers not being able to see your buckled belt as they pass you at night – because it is dark – so they pull you over to make sure. Simple enough, police do not need another reason to pull anyone over; they do it enough as it is.
All those who want the choice not to click have a few options. One is exempt with a doctor’s note, or if pregnant. Or you can move to New Hampshire, the only state without a seat belt law. New Hampshire might be my bastion of choice some day, but for now I am stuck in Nebraska.
I just wish we could keep the government out of our pocketbooks and out of our personal decisions.
Second, an article from the Lincoln Journal Star on the fourth of the following January.
quote:Kieper, a 21-year-old senior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, died early Tuesday morning when the Ford Explorer he was a passenger in travelled off an icy section of Interstate 80 and rolled several times in a ditch. Kieper, who was riding in the back seat of the Explorer, was ejected from the vehicle.
Two others in the vehicle, including the driver, Luke Havermann of Ogallala, and the front-seat passenger, Nick Uphoff of Randolph Air Force Base in Texas, sustained non-life threatening injuries. Havermann and Uphoff, both 21, were being treated at BryanLGH Medical Center West.
"At this point in time, I'm in shock," Kieper's father, Paul Kieper, said in an interview Tuesday. "He was a bright young boy, a 4.0," Paul Kieper said. "He loved to be silly. He loved to debate."
Capt. Joe Lefler of the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office said Havermann was driving the Explorer east on the interstate near Northwest 48th Street when the vehicle went out of control on the ice-covered road. He said the vehicle travelled into the south ditch and rolled several times.
Derek, who was thrown from the vehicle, was not wearing a seat belt, Lefler said. He said Havermann and Uphoff were wearing seat belts at the time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oops, wait. That wasn't fair at all. Wear your seatbelts, dummies.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Those who give up liberty for safety's sake deserve neither!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If you don't wear your seat belt, my insurance premiums go up. I pay for your freedom.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If you don't wear your seatbelt and you die, that makes traffic a whole lot worse than if you just minor injury. So, your choice affects me and a whole bunch of other passengers. Also, if we are in an accident and you die that is a whole lot more traumatizing for me, extra cost in therapy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
who is the government to tell me whether or not I have to wear a seatbelt when I'm driving on their roads? Or use headlights in the dark? Or make me take a test that determines whether or not I have learned and/or are still able to drive?
I'm an island unto myself, 'society,' obviously the solution is to privatize roads and sidewalks.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: who is the government to tell me whether or not I have to wear a seatbelt when I'm driving on their roads? Or use headlights in the dark? Or make me take a test that determines whether or not I have learned and/or are still able to drive?
I'm an island unto myself, 'society,' obviously the solution is to privatize roads and sidewalks.
I think you're missing the point that using headlights in the dark and proving you're capable of driving is for the safety of others, while not wearing a seatbelt only endangers yourself.
The most valid argument for making it a law to wear a seatbelt is "Why do law officers want members of the public to wear seatbelts? So they won't have to a) pick up the pieces, b) notify the victims' relatives and c) relive the images later in their minds." and insurance premiums going up for others. Other than that, I do think it's not the government's responsibility to protect you from your own bad decisions that only directly endangers yourself. Should the government also make it illegal to be in the sun without wearing sunblock? It causes skin cancer. What about obesity? Should it be mandatory to exercise regularly and criminalize unhealthy foods? Obesity problems costs taxpayers plenty of money.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Gaal, samp was being sarcastic.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I got that, but I thought he was being sarcastic in trying to point out that if the government shouldn't be able to tell you to wear a seatbelt then they shouldn't be able to tell you not to do anything that causes any sort of danger.
I just read his previous post with the point/counterpoint articles and I think Derek Kieper made my point much better than I did. The fact that he died from not wearing a seatbelt isn't a counterpoint because he never tried to state that wearing a seatbelt isn't important to safety. Just that it's not the government's responsibility to regulate it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's interesting how, when a decision is made that is somehow objectionable, it becomes 'the government' that is making that decision. When one agrees with the decision, though, it's generally 'the people' or 'we' who is making it.
Anyway, as for Kieper, it is an interesting counterpoint that insofar as his decision not to drive safely and his arguments in favor of driving unsafely (I'm not sure if that rhetoric was actually sincere, btw, it sounds so ridiculous), he was deeply stupid.
The most valid argument for legislating seatbelts isn't that not doing so becomes an inconvenience to law enforcement. It's that not doing so is provably more dangerous and harmful, and that causes a greater drain on public resources-not just private insurance premiums.
The roads don't belong to individuals. We, as a society, built the roads. We're allowed, morally speaking, to decide how they should be used. There is no immorality or infringement on freedom to say, "OK, we've built this transportation infrastructure, now we're going to manage it with an eye to minimize death and maiming and expenditure."
Food and sunblock don't come into it. They're completely different issues. Though, really, it does say something about our strange society where it's heinous to incentivize healthy living with any sort of government power, but acceptable for the government-by, of, for, etc. the people-to have nothing to say at all, to even suggest, with regards to things that will kill us and make our lives less enjoyable and healthy.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"Food and sunblock don't come into it. They're completely different issues."
Why? You say "It's that not doing so is provably more dangerous and harmful, and that causes a greater drain on public resources-not just private insurance premiums." so my question is where do you draw the line? Why is it okay for the government to legislate seatbelts but not every other form of danger an individual can put themselves in?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I thought I already addressed that question, but I'll try again. The justification for legislating this matter isn't because it's dangerous, it's because it's dangerous and will then go on to cost the people more money in a very direct, clear-cut way.
Things become hazier when you start talking about sunblock and obesity. For example, people who are obese are provably likely to have a variety more health problems, and that will cost the people they share insurance with more money. For a whole lot of Americans, though, that's a private matter.
Another difference is that the time a police officer, firefighter, or paramedic is responding to a serious injury or death on the road due to lack of seatbelts, that's time they aren't spending patrolling a high-crime neighborhood, waiting in the firehouse to respond to calls, or aiding firefighters, cops, and people when they get hurt.
Anyway, as to the broader question of where the line should be drawn, it's already beginning to be drawn indirectly for things like healthcare. People who live healthier lives are, gradually, getting better deals in some case. But my personal answer as to where the line should be drawn is that government-us-should, at a minimum, incentivize behavior that lets us live and be productive and happier for a longer time, and disincentivize behavior that does the opposite.
That's one reason I don't get outraged when I hear about a city having the gall to insert itself into a McDonald's menu, for example.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Not wearing a seatbelt can endanger other people if you are in an accident. Anything loose - including people - can be a danger to the other people in the vehicle.
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Other than that, I do think it's not the government's responsibility to protect you from your own bad decisions that only directly endangers yourself.
I could say 'I'm fairly sure that we can compromise' and say you should be perfectly allowed to go seatbelt free. Caveat being, you can make this decision for yourself on your own non-public roads on your own land.
I'm a big proponent of the whole personal responsibility thing as well. But when a person's decisions can affect a large number of other people and come packaged as the result of such an already regulated public infrastructure and service — in this case, the most notably potentially fatal one, by far — I fully support legislation to regulate those issues (this is why, mind you, I think similar attempts at using 'it's not the government's responsibility to protect you from your own bad decisions' are equally invalid when applied to other things like 'therefore I should be allowed to carry my firearm to school!'). If you could show me that you getting into an accident, while not wearing your seatbelt, will have zero effect on me, then fine. But the truth of it is that purposeful noncompliance of seatbelt laws cause much more serious injuries to people leading to more money spent on health care, higher premiums, etc.
quote:I just read his previous post with the point/counterpoint articles and I think Derek Kieper made my point much better than I did.
Really? Because he was marketing some pretty facile, adolescent personal rights dogma there. It's flawed even before we come to the universal irony part where his libertarian crusade turned him into road meat.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm just wondering if this is going to be another Rawrain special wherein you say some stuff that was just on your mind, suggest that it's valid because it's your opinion, and then go on to ignore the ample factual evidence that your opinion is wrong or suggest you were joking or something. I'm reminded vividly of your thoughts on bicycle helmets.
I was just thinking how similar gases and liquids are, and concluded in my own right they are the same thing
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm a big fan of personal freedoms. I also don't mind seat belt laws. Some of it is that the road system is a public good, regulated by public standards, but mostly because driving an automobile is inherently dangerous. When we have necessary and beneficial inherently dangerous activities, like construction work, mining, air travel, etc, ad nausium, I really do not mind the government stepping in and declaring "*This* is the safe way to do it, so do it *this* way." That these standards are enforced by fines much more then jail time speaks to how wonderfully subtle our government's hand can be. You -can- break the safety rules, but not only is it stupid (unsafe), but costly (fines).
This is not our government requiring us to do stupid things with unfairly harsh punishment. This is not an issue of freedom.
You are free to:
• Not drive • Build your own roads • Live in New Hampshire • Drive a car made before 1959 • Not wear your seat belt and pay the fine Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
• Not wear your seat belt and be willing to accept all consequences, including paying a fine, your own injury or death, and the injury or death of other(s) in your vehicle caused by your body flailing around during an accident.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I thought I already addressed that question, but I'll try again. The justification for legislating this matter isn't because it's dangerous, it's because it's dangerous and will then go on to cost the people more money in a very direct, clear-cut way.
Things become hazier when you start talking about sunblock and obesity. For example, people who are obese are provably likely to have a variety more health problems, and that will cost the people they share insurance with more money. For a whole lot of Americans, though, that's a private matter.
Another difference is that the time a police officer, firefighter, or paramedic is responding to a serious injury or death on the road due to lack of seatbelts, that's time they aren't spending patrolling a high-crime neighborhood, waiting in the firehouse to respond to calls, or aiding firefighters, cops, and people when they get hurt.
Anyway, as to the broader question of where the line should be drawn, it's already beginning to be drawn indirectly for things like healthcare. People who live healthier lives are, gradually, getting better deals in some case. But my personal answer as to where the line should be drawn is that government-us-should, at a minimum, incentivize behavior that lets us live and be productive and happier for a longer time, and disincentivize behavior that does the opposite.
That's one reason I don't get outraged when I hear about a city having the gall to insert itself into a McDonald's menu, for example.
Fair point. But I still don't see why obesity and sunblock is a hazier issue. Both can cost people more money in a direct way. Not wearing sunblock while in the sun can cause skin cancer which costs money and will take hospital time away from people that are suffering from unpreventable diseases. I can think of too many ridiculous situations that the government can legislate to save us money while infringing on our personal liberties to accept seatbelts being legislated but not everything else.
"But the truth of it is that purposeful noncompliance of seatbelt laws cause much more serious injuries to people leading to more money spent on health care, higher premiums, etc. " So the bottomline of your argument seems to be that our personal decisions can be regulated by the government if it saves other people money.
Stone_Wolf_ I'm not sure if you read any other posts in this thread because you are pretty much repeating what has been said since the beginning of it.
"• You are free to:
• Not drive • Build your own roads • Live in New Hampshire • Drive a car made before 1959 • Not wear your seat belt and pay the fine"
Sure, and I suppose I'm also free to commit murder and then go to jail for it. I guess the government can force us to do whatever it wants and we'll always be free since we can just disobey those laws and suffer the punishment.
For the record, I always wear my seatbelt Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I read every single post, before I posted...I was gathering all the options into one place...two of which I suggested...
What I was suggesting wasn't simply that we are free because we can just take our lumps, but that a fine is the most gentle enforcement that a government can levy against its citizens, and if you feel that strongly about it that seat belt laws are "repressing you" then here is a list of things you can do about it.
Public safety is a legitimate place for the government's voice to be heard. The fact that the government encourages citizens to eat healthier and the use of sunscreen (Canadian and Australian Governments I found examples of, there is likely one for the U.S., but I didn't see one) speaks to the idea. That your skin and stomach are not public property is a likely reason they only encourage and not enforce.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
As a slightly different perspective: I know someone who's a first responder (firefighter paramedic.) She quite often, when asked, "why should I have to wear a seatbelt/helmet" responds something like this: "Because it costs the rest of us a lot of money and I find it personally gross when I have to respond to your brains splattered on the road. I have to go touch you when you're like that, to make sure you're dead. Then, we have to take the time to secure the scene, so the police can come, and do an investigation, and the insurance companies do theirs too, and then the crew that cleans human remains off the roads has to come and scrape you up, and then there's transport costs to the morgue, where they have to do an autopsy, and if you didn't have good life insurance, we might end up supporting your dependents, too. Please just do it."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm still failing to see why someone else can decide how I live, or particularly charge me for a choice that only directly effects me.
The idea that wearing a seatbelt only affects you is a fallacy -- but I think that's already been covered pretty thoroughly. Seatbelts certainly aren't the only example. In our complex society, there are very few choices don't affect others, which its why its important to weigh the benefits of any regulation against the burden it imposes and loss of liberty.
But in the case of seat belts, that analysis is a no brainer. The benefits to both the individual and the community of wearing seat belts are large and well demonstrated and the burdens are pretty minimal.
Seat belts come standard in every car made in the past 50 years so there is no additional expense. It takes less than a second of your time to buckle it. They aren't uncomfortable to wear if they are properly adjusted. In fact, you can barely feel it. Seat belts don't restrict any movement that can be safely made while driving a car. All the other common arguments against wearing a seat belt boil down to "it's safer without" and that's very simply wrong.
So why do you want the freedom to do something that may potentially cost you your life and has little to no pay back? Base jumping, rock climbing, street luge and big wave surfing at least offer an exciting an adrenaline rush and sense of accomplishment in exchange for the danger. What do you get out of not buckling up?
[ September 05, 2011, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
There is no pleasure like thumbing your nose at the Man.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: There is no pleasure like thumbing your nose at the Man.
Which is an argument in favor of the law, not against it.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I have several relatives that are first responders, and they say that the public's interest in you wearing your seat belt go beyond just the expense of YOUR death, etc. (Warning, I have not independently verified this info - just taking their words on it.)
Apparently not wearing your seat belt really does endanger other drivers, thus the public deserves to control it just like it deserves to control speed or driving while intoxicated. Drivers who wear seat belts are more likely to remain in control of their vehicles after minor collisions, and NOT compound minor collisions into major ones.
Imagine: Driver A is driving down the freeway. Driver B does not see Driver A and accidentally cuts into his lane causing the front drivers side bumper of Driver A to hit the rear passenger side bumper of driver B. Since Driver A is wearing his seat belt he receives a seat belt burn on his neck, but is able to get his car back under control and maneuver to the shoulder of the road where he and Driver B (also wearing his seat belt) can exchange insurance and request emergency assistance if needed for whiplash, etc. They can also feel free to curse at their leisure about what this accident is going to do to their schedules and insurance rates.
Or, we could have Driver A and Driver B not wearing seat belts. The impact throws Driver A against his steering wheel where he looses consciousness, causing his car to spin out of control and hit drivers C, D & E. Meanwhile Driver B was thrown around so violently by the impact that his neck was broken, but because he lands in an unfortunate position, his car actually flips taking out driver F.
While this is a made up scenario, it seems plausible enough to me. Seat belts go far beyond personal freedom.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
As far as made up scenarios go, add in a speeding driver, some very wet road conditions, and my car spinning out of control after hitting the wet slope of the shoulder...and you'd have my accident two years ago.
The offending driver, my passenger, and myself were all wearing seat belts and were able to get out of vehicles unassisted before alerting authorities. Since none of us was dead, I had the pleasure of cursing out the speeding motorist until the cops arrived. After giving my statement, the cops remarked how lucky we were. The initial impact was bad enough but because I remained in my seat, I was able to get us off the highway before we were hit by other motorists (including several semi-trucks who had been behind us and didn't even bother to stop after seeing the accident.)
No seat belt burns, no head trauma, just alot of items that found their way out of the backseat and unto the dashboard, and vice versa.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Drivers who wear seat belts are more likely to remain in control of their vehicles after minor collisions, and NOT compound minor collisions into major ones.
I never thought of this, and if there exists some data confirming it, it's the last coffin nail this perennial favorite argument needs.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yep. Drivers who wear seatbelts are more likely to remain IN the vehicle (which is half the battle) and because their seatbelt should stop them from hitting the steering column, they are more likely to be able to react in ways that are helpful in the survival of others. Not just in control of the car- I recently read an account of a firefighter who was moving the family RV to storage when he was hit by a woman running a stoplight. His RV rolled and the cab split from the back- but he was almost unharmed, climbed out, and proceeded to the car- where the woman was unconscious and suffering serious injuries. He stabilized her, evaluated the child in the back seat (unharmed because of proper car seat use- the driver was his nanny), called 911, and held c-spine and monitored her until the ambulances arrived.
Had he not been wearing his seatbelt, not only might he have burdened society with the cost of his death, but hers might have been added.
There are many, many scenarios in which the ability to remain conscious through a crash saves multiple lives.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I like this brochure, which makes that point, among others. Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Oh, and for the Food and Lifestyle comparisons.
The cost for Seat Belt/Click-it or Ticket programs, and the personal cost of buckling up, are minor. The pay out is tremendous. We save far more in many ways then we pay out due to the program, and you will save far more than you pay out by buckling up instead of going un-belted.
Obesity is an expensive problem, but any solution that the government can impose, beyond running ads and trying to teach healthy nutrition, are well beyond the costs it would save. Sure, if we could spend 1 Billion dollars to cut the obesity rate in the US by even 10%, that would be something to consider--assuming there were no other economic costs, but anything from policing what you are allowed to eat to making corn-sweetener illegal will be far more expensive than that, and damage the economy.
See, people in the government do the math.
Which is a phrase I would like to see used more often--"The People in the Government." We are a government of the people, and by the people. The "Government" many swear needs to be removed, downsized, and dismantled are all people, doing there best to do what is right.
You may disagree with what they think is right, but don't demonize them as some non-human "Government".
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I read every single post, before I posted...I was gathering all the options into one place...two of which I suggested...
What I was suggesting wasn't simply that we are free because we can just take our lumps, but that a fine is the most gentle enforcement that a government can levy against its citizens, and if you feel that strongly about it that seat belt laws are "repressing you" then here is a list of things you can do about it.
Why are you quoting "repressing you" as if anyone used that phrase in describing seat belt laws?
quote: The cost for Seat Belt/Click-it or Ticket programs, and the personal cost of buckling up, are minor. The pay out is tremendous. We save far more in many ways then we pay out due to the program, and you will save far more than you pay out by buckling up instead of going un-belted.
Obesity is an expensive problem, but any solution that the government can impose, beyond running ads and trying to teach healthy nutrition, are well beyond the costs it would save. Sure, if we could spend 1 Billion dollars to cut the obesity rate in the US by even 10%, that would be something to consider--assuming there were no other economic costs, but anything from policing what you are allowed to eat to making corn-sweetener illegal will be far more expensive than that, and damage the economy.
If you can back all of those statements up with facts, then I accept I was wrong about my comparisons.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The comparison between driver and passenger behavior on collectively-owned, collectively-managed/maintained and...personal eating habits? That comparison?
There is no slippery slope here. We as a society get to choose the rules by which people can use our roads, in and of itself. The *reason* we make this particular choice-seatbelts-is that not wearing them is provably dangerous and stupid, and has an also proven chance of directly sucking up resources that are in limited supply, such as cops, firefighters, and EMTs. That doesn't just cost money, it can also lead directly to other people dying or suffering because cops and EMTs spent an extra hour mopping up an accident because someone didn't buckle up.
That sets aside the very real (and obvious) possibility of successive accidents if one doesn't buckle up. Now, are you going to insist that needs to be proven, the things mentioned in this post? Or are they quite straightforward and self-evident? Not wearing a seatbelt might not just kill or injure you, but your passengers, people driving near you, and might even cause harm to the people who would've had cop/firefighter/EMT support. Obesity just kills you. Not wearing sunscreen just hurts you.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: If you can back all of those statements up with facts, then I accept I was wrong about my comparisons.
I only have personal stories but really all around the entire country there have to be many cases where a seatbelt has turned a multi hundred of thousand dollar surgery into nothing worse than whiplash and belt bruise. I could give you three of those stories myself just that I know of from one county from one state, so the money we "save" can add up fast.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: You may disagree with what they think is right, but don't demonize them as some non-human "Government".
I often lament the fact that American English favors the collective singular for government, as in "the government *is* working on the problem" rather than "the government *are* working on the problem," as it is often rendered in British English.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Obesity just kills you. Not wearing sunscreen just hurts you.
I suppose the argument runs that obesity *also* has an economic cost and a tax on the system. However, the tangibility of that cost is far lower than that of driving without a seatbelt. What more do people want? It's natural that we address tangible costs with greater ease than intangible ones. Tangible costs often have highly tangible solutions- like a seat belt. It's all very cut and dried.
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Obesity just kills you. Not wearing sunscreen just hurts you.
That's right. If I die of obesity, my family won't grieve over the loss of their husband/father/son/brother. His wife and kids won't miss his income. They won't have to come up with unexpected funeral expenses. They won't struggle to put food on the table. They won't have to give up their home if they can't pay the mortgage.
My death only affects me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Obesity doesn't kill you. Particularly high levels of obesity might, but controlling for fitness and diet, moderate obesity makes you live longer. The rise in obesity in the US is not, in and of itself, a problems; the problems are indicated by the rise in obesity, not manifested in it themselves.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
DSH,
Why on Earth are you rolling your eyes at me? I didn't say one's hypothetical death only affected them. I said that obesity and skin cancer only have the power to kill or maim *that person*. Lack of a seatbelt, however, doesn't-and then there's the other angle of emergency services personnel being allocated to the greater injuries or death that causes. And *then* there's the point that the roads aren't owned by an individual like their skin, belly, or mouths are.
This is pretty straightforward stuff. It's not your road, it's *our* road. That means we get to decide how it's used. In such a group decision-making setting, individuals won't always get their way. Compromise. Built into the system. Fundamentally American.
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
Sorry Rakeesh, that wasn't fair. I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't read your post carefully enough. My response was not intended to be a personal reply to you, but rather a reply to the "My death only affects me" argument that has come up.
I was careless, sorry.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"And *then* there's the point that the roads aren't owned by an individual like their skin, belly, or mouths are."
So by that logic, sunscreen could be required at public beaches?
The argument that wearing a seatbelt physically protects other people seems so weak to me. I'm having trouble picturing an accident where someone gets thrown from their seat fast enough to seriously injure someone else that a seatbelt would have prevented (without stretching my imagination too much). I read the anecdotes but those don't seem common enough to justify forcing everyone to wear one, based on possible physical injuries to others.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did you read that part about people wearing safety belts being more able to stay in control of their car in case of an accident?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Your application of logic is questionable if that is your outcome. Even if those parts are on a public beach, they are still your parts, where as the manner in which you drive and your ability to continue to remain in control of your car after a crash on a public road are rather a matter of public safety.
The argument for seat belts physically protecting others isn't from your flailing body, it's from your car, which you lost control of because your body is flailing around instead of fastened to your seat.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: "And *then* there's the point that the roads aren't owned by an individual like their skin, belly, or mouths are."
So by that logic, sunscreen could be required at public beaches?
No, that logic doesn't follow. One case involves a car. You may want to go back and check your math.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Gaal, I'm really beginning to think you're simply not listening because you've made up your mind. If you don't wear sunscreen at the beach, is a cop going to have to respond to a 911 call to help? An EMT, a firefighter? Once there, will their time spent hinge on whether you wore sunblock?
That aside, and also aside from your strange notion that seatbelts don't increase one's chance of remaining in control of their car in an accident (are you really suggesting that seatbelts have no real impact on that? I just want to be sure), your mention of the beach is faulty already. It is the public's beach, and we *do* have rules about its use, sunscreen not being one of them. Can't drive a car, motorcycle, moped, can't let your pets crap on it, can't littler, can't build a fire, can't snatch sea turtle eggs, can't be nekkid, can't can't can't.
We already, as a group, have decided some things should be allowed on the beach and others not. You're already fine with that, so your objection isn't to the imposition of rules-just rules you disagree with. In which case-democracy in action. Sometimes you won't get your way. It's not a *sign* of anything.
(For the record, the reason I'm starting to think you're not listening is because everything I've said here has been mentioned already, some parts repeatedly.)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Can't drive a car, motorcycle, moped, can't let your pets crap on it, can't littler, can't build a fire, can't snatch sea turtle eggs, can't be nekkid, can't can't can't.
The local cops only enforces the no fires for out of towners...it is known locally that if you actually live here at the beach and a cop hassels you for a bon fire, you say you live here and they tell you to make sure to put the fire ALL the way out when done with it.
As to the illegality of nudity on the beach, sometimes I wish this wasn't the case and then I see a half ogre in a thong (male or female) and am reminded why that law exists.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, anti-nudity laws exist to spare you from having to look at ugly people. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
A car is, potentially, a deadly weapon. (Like, if you deliberately hit/run over someone with one- it's assault with a deadly weapon in some jurisdictions, if they don't have vehicular assault.)
It just makes sense to insist that all the many, many people steering deadly weapons not be impaired when doing so, and wear something that could keep them from becoming impaired and help them maintain control should something happen to potentially damage that control.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Yes, anti-nudity laws exist to spare you from having to look at ugly people.
I'm pretty sure those laws were around before I was, so I doubt that your above statement is true. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
SW: take a close look at the part of your post that invited her response, and think a bit about the actual reasons why nudity laws exist.
quote:As to the illegality of nudity on the beach, sometimes I wish this wasn't the case and then I see a half ogre in a thong (male or female) and am reminded why that law exists.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
fugu, my comment was clearly not serious but humorous in nature. My response of taking her comment too literally is intentional and not from a lack of understanding.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I confess to being a bit lost here.
What *are* the actual reasons anti-nudity laws^1 exist and how do they (or public nudity) relate to seatbelt laws?
1) If you had asked me outside this conversation why they exist, I would have answered that due to the variety of nudity (or lack thereof) laws (or clothing laws, including veils) that exist around the world, the laws reflect local cultural attitudes toward the human body. Not sure how this would relate back to seatbelts either.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
It seems to me that nudity laws are the result of cultural taboos, mostly stemming from religious beliefs.
Some folks seem to think that a child or teen is harmed by seeing a naked body. Perhaps because it could encourage lustful thoughts, or because it damages their sexual purity.
I'm not sure if there are purely practical or secular reasons for the taboo. Places where nudity is common or even the standard, such as tribal societies, don't seem any worse for it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh was poking holes in an argument that seat belt laws on public roads are like sunscreen laws at a public beach...by showing that there are laws for conduct, i.e. anti nudity laws.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yeah, maybe I'm a bit slow here, but I'm not sure how that related. There are anti-nudity laws (or bylaws, I think, in many cases) for beaches, there are anti-nudity laws for when you're in the public (i.e. driving). How did the argument about sunscreen and seatbelts relate to nudity in either case?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...your mention of the beach is faulty already. It is the public's beach, and we *do* have rules about its use, sunscreen not being one of them. Can't drive a car, motorcycle, moped, can't let your pets crap on it, can't littler, can't build a fire, can't snatch sea turtle eggs, can't be nekkid, can't can't can't.
It doesn't directly relate...it's just an example Rakeesh gave of rules that apply at beaches, which means that Gaal's example of sunscreen at the beach is not valid.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I meant it as an example of 'we're happy to make laws for public areas already-such as beaches'.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Sam I like the essay quite a bit and the irony that follows is uncanny, I in fact wear a seat belt, I just disagree with the law making consequences for my free choices.
Wearing a seat belt should be only mere recommendation and not a law, that's where I draw a line.
From now on ever one of you has to wear a helmet. elbow and knee pads every single time you -ride a Bike Skateboard Roller blades - or decide to Walk around outside a tree might fall on you
You're no longer allowed to place metal objects higher than your head, because you could get struck by lightning, and if you do any of these things I am going to charge you $500 for endangering yourself.
It's a slippery slope that's what it is /:
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm beginning to think you're being witty, since your reasoning is so silly and irrelevant and you actually include the words 'slippery slope' in your post. If you are, then I'll admit it's going quite over my head (and I suspect several others).
If you're not, though, it appears you've almost completely ignored most of what's been said. You decieded that it's an 'imposition on personal freedom' or something, and that's where your thinking started-and stopped. First, the law makes consequences for personal choices all the time. Second, they're not your roads. They belong to the people collectively, and that means the people get to decide how they shall be used-not every individual according to his whims that day. Third, wearing a seatbelt doesn't just affect you. Fourth, your comparisons to rollerblades, bikes, skateboards, etc. are irrelevant to the biggest reasons we decide people should wear seatbelts on the road in automobiles.
The fines aren't for endangering yourself. They're for potentially, and needlessly, endangering and financially harming everyone else around you. You're welcome to disagree of course, and if you do I'd be interested in hearing why. But hearing that it's just a 'free choice' and a 'slippery slope' are both simply wrong, and in the former case wrong as a question of fact.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
He's just an idiot. What do you want?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rawrain...what are the freedoms you feel are at stake on that slippery slope...considering you do use your seat belt, that isn't your problem, it's that you feel government shouldn't infringe on personal choice (right?), so, what specifically are you worried about?
You gave several examples of what you felt would be bad laws, safety gear while biking/skating etc., but the helmet part of that is already a law (for minors) in quite a few places (13 states with no law, 15 with county laws and 22 states with state laws).
And holding metal objects above your head seems rather silly. Do you have any -real- concerns when it comes to law vs "personal choice"?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Sam I like the essay quite a bit and the irony that follows is uncanny, I in fact wear a seat belt, I just disagree with the law making consequences for my free choices.
I could demonstrate pretty clearly that what you've come up with not only ignores the issues brought up in this thread to keep some measure of validity (in a way which makes you seem very immature), but that you don't even believe it yourself.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)