This Is For Conv. Owners
5/24/05 | 09:28 PM
#41
V6 Member
Joined: December 28, 2004
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Originally posted by sonic98gt@May 24, 2005, 1:23 PM
Not to be a jerk, but the comment of "If I want to risk it, so what?" makes sense until you realise that those that don't wear them that get into accidents are injured MUCH more than those that do wear belts. And then the insurance companies have to pay out that much more money. And the they pass that cost on to the rest of us. It's not a "I'm the only victim" situation.
So, I agree. Those that don't want to wear their belts, it's up to them. But they shouldn't complain about getting tickets for it (yes, I read that you DID have yours on, not slamming you personally). Primary infraction, you bet!
Not to be a jerk, but the comment of "If I want to risk it, so what?" makes sense until you realise that those that don't wear them that get into accidents are injured MUCH more than those that do wear belts. And then the insurance companies have to pay out that much more money. And the they pass that cost on to the rest of us. It's not a "I'm the only victim" situation.
So, I agree. Those that don't want to wear their belts, it's up to them. But they shouldn't complain about getting tickets for it (yes, I read that you DID have yours on, not slamming you personally). Primary infraction, you bet!
5/24/05 | 09:36 PM
#42
V6 Member
Joined: December 28, 2004
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Originally posted by KansasCityTim@May 24, 2005, 1:58 PM
You're insane. The amount that insurance premiums would go up across the board in the absence of a primary (or even secondary) seatbelt law would likely be infinitesimal. The fact is, the government wants to hold our hands, tell us how to protect ourselves, and treat us like children. If we want to take a chance with our own lives, then so be it. If you really want to argue the higher injury factor, you could say that those in auto accidents not wearing a seat belt are more likely to end up dead. Then there would be no medical insurance cost. So, one could run the numbers and find out, but it is really quite disingenuous to use insurance numbers to backup a claim that the government should regulate seatbelt usage. Numbers can be manipulated to to prove anything, both sides in most cases.
I am so desperately tired of others, be it the federal or state governments, or other individuals, telling me how to protect myself from myself. We are all capable human beings able to make our own decisions, and if they harm us, so be it. Obviously there is a line to be drawn in buckling in young children, because they don't have the capability to do so themselves. But if I, as an adult, choose not to wear a seatbelt, it should be my prerogative. What's next? Is the government going to outlaw fast food to protect us from it? What about skydiving? That sure sounds dangerous. Maybe we better stop adults from doing that too. I mean, my gosh, they could hurt themselves.
Of course, we know government is not going to outlaw those things. Which leaves us with the question....why seatbelts? Ding, ding, ding. I have an answer: money. Pure and simple. So many people in the US drive, and a great number of them don't wear seatbelts. So, the states have found themselves a new revenue source. That is why we have seatbelt laws. You think the states care about our individual lives over money? Not a chance. If so, tobacco would be outlawed (mind you I think one should be able to kill themselves with tobacco as much as by not wearing a seatbelt). It's all about money. To heck with our personal liberty if there is a buck to be made.
You're insane. The amount that insurance premiums would go up across the board in the absence of a primary (or even secondary) seatbelt law would likely be infinitesimal. The fact is, the government wants to hold our hands, tell us how to protect ourselves, and treat us like children. If we want to take a chance with our own lives, then so be it. If you really want to argue the higher injury factor, you could say that those in auto accidents not wearing a seat belt are more likely to end up dead. Then there would be no medical insurance cost. So, one could run the numbers and find out, but it is really quite disingenuous to use insurance numbers to backup a claim that the government should regulate seatbelt usage. Numbers can be manipulated to to prove anything, both sides in most cases.
I am so desperately tired of others, be it the federal or state governments, or other individuals, telling me how to protect myself from myself. We are all capable human beings able to make our own decisions, and if they harm us, so be it. Obviously there is a line to be drawn in buckling in young children, because they don't have the capability to do so themselves. But if I, as an adult, choose not to wear a seatbelt, it should be my prerogative. What's next? Is the government going to outlaw fast food to protect us from it? What about skydiving? That sure sounds dangerous. Maybe we better stop adults from doing that too. I mean, my gosh, they could hurt themselves.
Of course, we know government is not going to outlaw those things. Which leaves us with the question....why seatbelts? Ding, ding, ding. I have an answer: money. Pure and simple. So many people in the US drive, and a great number of them don't wear seatbelts. So, the states have found themselves a new revenue source. That is why we have seatbelt laws. You think the states care about our individual lives over money? Not a chance. If so, tobacco would be outlawed (mind you I think one should be able to kill themselves with tobacco as much as by not wearing a seatbelt). It's all about money. To heck with our personal liberty if there is a buck to be made.
5/24/05 | 10:37 PM
#43
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: August 16, 2004
Posts: 329
Likes: 32
From: Southern New Jersey
In New Jersey it is a primary offense. My dad is a cop for the city I live in. Every once in a while the state gives grant's out to lacol police to write ticket's for not wearing your seatbelt. Grant pay's for the overtime and so forth. Last time I saw it done was about 6 month's ago and a cop was parked near a busy street corner and every person he saw he waved into a nearby paking lot and wrote them a ticket. There is talk of make the cell phone law a primary offense not a secondary. The law works so great the the day it was enacted I saw three State troopers chating away riding down Rt 55.
5/25/05 | 05:29 AM
#44
Team Mustang Source
Joined: October 13, 2004
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 0
From: MD
Originally posted by exc911ence@May 24, 2005, 6:39 PM
Cops set up road blocks for seatbelt checks here in BC... once they see it on, they wave you past. I always wear my belt but even if I didn't, I'm sure the Poilce have better things to do with their time... you know, like catching criminals and solving crimes? I guess those are outdated concpets these days...
Cops set up road blocks for seatbelt checks here in BC... once they see it on, they wave you past. I always wear my belt but even if I didn't, I'm sure the Poilce have better things to do with their time... you know, like catching criminals and solving crimes? I guess those are outdated concpets these days...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JonathonK
2010-2014 Mustang
102
9/29/15 09:27 AM