Embrace life, always wear your seatbelt

[Kasanova 2]

I like wearing my seat belt, it makes me feel more safe and very comfortable. I also require any person as my front seat passenger to wear one as well and any young kids in the back. I don't think it'll be pretty hitting the dash board and windshield at 55+

 

Sent from my LT28at using Tapatalk 2

[bulpup 98]

Insurance companies wrote the law by force of lobbying.

 

All that rights stuff is interesting discourse, but when it comes to seat belts its irrelevant. Its about the boat loads of cash someone else has to pay out for you.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[this_is_nascar 162]

Yes, Absolutely. It bothers me to no end when I see kids jumping and climbing all over a moving vehicle. Being a parent I can honestly say that I do and will require my child(ren) to wear one until they are living on their own. As far as requiring an adult, I can't believe i'm going to say this but yes, I think the seatbelt law is a good law. Also without opening myself to public stoning. I agree with the helmet law for motorcycles. Saved my life or at the very least my quality of life. Just this guys opinion.

 

 

I actually agree with you concerning seatbelts and helmets. Driving is a privilege and not a right. If that "privilege" comes with rules, then so be it. You can choose not to participate in driving if you're unwilling to obey the rules. I'll go a couple steps further and say that I wish they would enforce the "no being on the cellphone" laws that we currently have. It's the absolute biggest distraction we have on the roads. I'd also like to see laws put in place (and enforced, since without enforcement, laws mean nothing) to ban driver's eating, shaving, reading, etc while in transit.

 

Flame-Suit = ON.

[brocglock23 4]

[

These are all laws that are there to protect other people on the road and not just you, the difference is seat belt laws do not directly protect anyone but the person forced to wear a seat belt. It is wrong for the government to protect you from yourself.

You NOT wearing your seatbelt in your car does possibly protect other drivers. If you get thrown from your car and I get into an accident trying to avoid you....... well let's just say I would really wanna kick ya in the balls if you survived.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

The liberal mentality that has ruined this nation. What else do people "need" to be told?

 

I'm with Ray on this.

 

I knew I liked you, we think alike.

 

You don't want to wear a helmet? fine, not my head.

 

What's next, helmets in cars? Afterall, it could save your life. And if we could save just one life, then it's worth it right?

[halbautomatisch 60]

[ You NOT wearing your seatbelt in your car does possibly protect other drivers. If you get thrown from your car and I get into an accident trying to avoid you....... well let's just say I would really wanna kick ya in the balls if you survived.

Well, you have me there................ in this example of one extraordinarily remote possibility that 99.99999999% of the population will never encounter............

[brocglock23 4]

I knew I liked you, we think alike.

 

You don't want to wear a helmet? fine, not my head.

 

What's next, helmets in cars? Afterall, it could save your life. And if we could save just one life, then it's worth it right?

While I respect you're opinion have you tried to look at it this way. The 2A gives you the "right" to bear arms. The "privilege" of driving comes from regulations and laws decided on by a democracy.

Well, you have me there................ in this example of one extraordinarily remote possibility that 99.99999999% of the population will never encounter............

"According to SafeRoads.org, every year, nearly 9,000 people are killed and another 20,000 are injured in partial or total occupant ejection accidents. Over the last 25 years, more than 200,000 people were killed in occupant ejection car accidents. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that about 28 percent of all fatal injuries suffered in car accidents involve occupant ejection and about 75 percent of injured victims who are completely ejected from the vehicle suffer fatal injuries." Point taken..... Appox 30K people a year is a small percentage. Somebody being thrown from a car and ending up on a roadway is a rare possibly. People always land away from others so no inconvenienced is caused.

[halbautomatisch 60]

Are we really comparing our actual freedom as a country to seat belt laws? Soldiers are fighting so I don't have to wear my seat belt?

 

This conversation is ridiculous. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that death risks for a driver wearing a lap-shoulder seat belt are reducing by 48 per cent. The same study indicated that in 2007, an estimated 15 147 lives were saved by seat belts in the United States and that, if seat belt use were increased to 100 per cent an additional 5024 lives would have been saved.[www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811206.pdf] How can you logically argue those statistics? I have no argument with the statistics, it's a proven fact, seat belts save lives and I advocate everyone SHOULD wear them, but the government has no business COMPELLING people to wear them. If you feel that strongly about it, start a public service campaign, and I will applaud you.

 

I understand that people don't want the government to tell you what to do, but there are people out there that aren't intelligent enough to make simple decisions for themselves. And it's not just protecting you from yourself, as you have repeated. It's protecting me when I hit you, you get ejected and die, and your family sues me, or I get charged with vehicular manslaughter, on top of the emotionally damage. In a lawsuit, the victim not wearing a seat belt would be a mitigating factor. If you are getting sued (assuming the suit has any merit), or are being criminally charged it would be because you have done something negligent or worse that has nothing to do with the victim making bad choices.

 

Motorcycles are not dangerous, people are. A motorcycle has never killed anybody, the people riding them have killed themselves, or the people driving that caused the accident have killed them. So if you blow a tire riding a motorcycle at high speed the result in most cases will be the same as when the same happens when driving a car in most cases? NO. Motorcycles by their very nature are more dangerous when something goes wrong.They are not banned, and will not be. Why? because you like riding one? I don't have a problem with motorcycles, I have a problem when logic is applied inconsistently. If safety is the paramount concern, then motorcycles should be illegal and the maximum speed limit for all vehicles should be 20 MPH. Motorcycles serve no (or very little) benefit in a utilitarian society. We, in a free society, allow motorcycles because we value freedom over the common good, seat belt laws and helmet laws run contrary to this.

 

And for the handful of people that "would have been killed if they had their seat belt on," so therefore they never wear their seat belt again. The lack of logic defies me, I can't even touch that subject. On this point I will agree with you, a seat belt is statistically more likely to save your life than to cause your death.

[diamondd817 828]

I dont think the State gives a rats ass about your safety, I think they see the no seatbelt ticket as revenue.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

You can tell me until I'm blue in the face about seatbelts and helmets, but you can't FORCE safety on someone. Well, in this state you can I guess.

[pbkid6974 1]

Can someone explain how driving became a privilege and not a right covered under freedom of travel? It is only a privilege because the state makes it one. The only reason to do that it to regulate and make you pay to register. If our was a privilege you wouldn't have to pay for it....

[AverageJoe 95]

You can tell me until I'm blue in the face about seatbelts and helmets, but you can't FORCE safety on someone. Well, in this state you can I guess.

[greatgunstatenj 32]

These are all nanny state measures that are resting on the same slippery slope. The question is, where do you stand on that slope? Some, like rayray are atop the crest of that slope, rejecting any of these measures. You may not agree, but at least it is consistent.

 

That statement is a load of BS. It is not one bit consistent. Being consistent at the top of the slope is, "you can't tell me sh*t because I will do whatever the hell I want, whenever the hell I want". Basically, anarchy - no government oversight. You don't like the government telling you that you have to wear a seat belt yet you have no qualms with having to take a driving test, get insurance, put a cat on your car, obey the speed limit, the list goes on and on - all so you can drive, which is a privilege. Or maybe you do have a problem with all those things? If so perhaps you should realize that even if YOU are smart enough not to kill yourself not everyone else out there is. We all have to share the same streets so perhaps it would be best if those morons were given some guidance so they don't injure, maim, or kill the rest of us.

[woodentoe 14]

That statement is a load of BS. It is not one bit consistent. Being consistent at the top of the slope is, "you can't tell me sh*t because I will do whatever the hell I want, whenever the hell I want". Basically, anarchy - no government oversight. You don't like the government telling you that you have to wear a seat belt yet you have no qualms with having to take a driving test, get insurance, put a cat on your car, obey the speed limit, the list goes on and on - all so you can drive, which is a privilege. Or maybe you do have a problem with all those things? If so perhaps you should realize that even if YOU are smart enough not to kill yourself not everyone else out there is. We all have to share the same streets so perhaps it would be best if those morons were given some guidance so they don't injure, maim, or kill the rest of us.

 

So, you're in favor of restricting certain behavior in the interest of the collective public good? ok. That's cool, too.

[greatgunstatenj 32]

Can someone explain how driving became a privilege and not a right covered under freedom of travel?

 

Because courts have allowed laws requiring licenses, registration, etc. It's all about how you interpret "freedom of movement" a concept which predates the automobile.

[greatgunstatenj 32]

So, you're in favor of restricting certain behavior in the interest of the collective public good? ok. That's cool, too.

 

No I prefer we all don loincloths and run wild like a bunch of savages, every man for himself. Alas, I'm no history expert but the history I have studied has lead me to believe without some sort of law and order a civilized society cannot be maintained.

 

Furthermore, I'm not even sure what you are trying to say with your post, it seems rather obtuse. Are you not in favor of restricting certain behaviors in the interest of the collective good? Is anyone on this forum not in favor of that? What about rape, theft, murder? Should we restrict those behaviors? Or are you saying that we don't need the government to restrict them because as a society the people [or person] involved could deal with those situations in their own manner?

[pbkid6974 1]

 

 

Because courts have allowed laws requiring licenses, registration, etc. It's all about how you interpret "freedom of movement" a concept which predates the automobile.

 

Kinda like how people interpret the second amendment. Which predates semi auto guns and pretty much everything else we shoot these days... Therefore people should only be allowed to own muskets....

 

/sarcasm

[greatgunstatenj 32]

Kinda like how people interpret the second amendment. Which predates semi auto guns and pretty much everything else we shoot these days... Therefore people should only be allowed to own muskets....

 

/sarcasm

 

 

Yes, only muskets Piers.

 

My answer fits for the 2nd as well, the courts have determined, and most sane people accept, that there should be certain limitations. Such as not letting convicted violent felons walk out of jail and into a gun shop to buy a gun. I'm sure we both agree NJ takes it too far but there is no such thing as absolute, that is my point. I was simply answering your question.

[pbkid6974 1]

I believe every state takes it to far. If you are convicted of a felony you lose you rights. So they wouldn't be able to by guns anyway...

[BlueLineFish 615]

Don't wear them. Thin the herd . D everybody else a favor and remove your genepool from the mix. I don't care.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

asking me to wear my seatbelt is fine, REQUIRING me to wear one is ridiculous

 

+1, same thing for the Lid Law..

[greatgunstatenj 32]

I believe every state takes it to far. If you are convicted of a felony you lose you rights. So they wouldn't be able to by guns anyway...

 

I think you missed the point. Yeah, they do lose their rights...wonder why? Because we wrote that into law. A law that most people think is a good idea. You think just because you're a convicted felon you lose your inalienable right to self defense? Of course not, it is inalienable. However, we've let the law, as written by man, supersede that. We do things like that as a society so society can continue to function in a civilized manner. That's it for me on this one.

[BlueLineFish 615]

I just don't get not wearing something that a majority of the time could save your life. Maybe you think you are a old driver but a lot of other people suck at it. I do both. Personally outside of work I wear it. At work in the police car I don't. Seems not to make sense but in an out a police car, equipment getting caught, need ability to jump out without delay. Need to jump out to possibly avoid gunfire and a seatbelt could slow that down. Unlikely but possible.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Surprised no one mentioned it.

 

You ever see a wreck?? All the bent up crushed car and what not, heck I don't want to be stuck in there, I want to be clear of all that business. LOL

 

Yes folks, that was a joke..

[djg0770 481]

I don't wear a seatbelt because it's cool. I don't wear a seatbelt because the law tells me to. I wear a seatbelt because at my age with kids who are preteens I still am afraid my dad would get out his belt if I didn't wear mine...

 

Really.

 

Funny story, back in 198x (cough) I was pulled over for speeding and the rookie cop was trying to give me a seat belt ticket instead of a speeding ticket and I basically told him to go F himself that I was not going to go home with a seat belt ticket cause my dad would give me hell. I would rather go home with a speeding ticket. My adamant nature regarding the seatbelt thing somehow convinced him to just give me a speeding warning. (Why I will never know).

 

Seriously though, I wear my seatbelt and I wear a helmet when I ride because I want to preserve myself as well as be a good example to my kids, period. Not because of some freaking nanny state law.

 

Let the stupid people do wtf they want. Stop making a rule against everything. First we have no phone while driving, now no texting while driving, no eating while driving, wtf is next? No farting while driving? If so - I'm dead, stick a fork in me, I'm done.

[BlueLineFish 615]

If you actually told me to f myself when I was trying to cut you a break I would just have written you both and been done.

 

 

Regardless...the problem is this. The laws are there to protect OTHER people. The talking/ texting while driving. Those people cause accidents and injure others. If they just injured themselves then fine, Kill yourself and nobody cares. Perfect example is dwi...how many times to you see the drunk survive but others get killed. If your actions only affected yourself then I agree but they don't. The seatbelt thing does. do whatever you want most cops don't enforce it that strictly. Kids need to be belted in. They don't know enough yet. You are responsible to protect them. I will enforce that. You want to kill yourself and your kid to grow up without a mother or father then fine. People don't realize their actions have far more repercussions than just on themselves.

 

Flame suit on

[djg0770 481]

If you actually told me to f myself when I was trying to cut you a break I would just have written you both and been done.

 

He was new and so was I. I agree with your assessment and I am surprised to this day because at the time I didn't think he was trying to cut me a break.

 

Regarding the other items - you and I both grew up fine without seatbelt laws or bicycle helmet laws too. But hell, people had common sense then.

[JamesC 2]

If you actually told me to f myself when I was trying to cut you a break I would just have written you both and been done. Regardless...the problem is this. The laws are there to protect OTHER people. The talking/ texting while driving. Those people cause accidents and injure others. If they just injured themselves then fine, Kill yourself and nobody cares. Perfect example is dwi...how many times to you see the drunk survive but others get killed. If your actions only affected yourself then I agree but they don't. The seatbelt thing does. do whatever you want most cops don't enforce it that strictly. Kids need to be belted in. They don't know enough yet. You are responsible to protect them. I will enforce that. You want to kill yourself and your kid to grow up without a mother or father then fine. People don't realize their actions have far more repercussions than just on themselves. Flame suit on

Is it only affecting the person without a belt? If I'm driving and I hit someone who is driving their car without a belt and they die, isn't my charge now vehicular manslaughter?

[BlueLineFish 615]

I Stated the seatbelt thing only affects the wearer. I was talking about the other things brought up such as talking/ texting while driving

[Soju 153]

Some states don't don't require the use of seat belts or motorcycle helmets. Live free or die. Legislating responsibility doesn't work. Teaching it on the other hand does. But why bother teaching things when there are already laws fort right??? That is what happens. Parents don't bother teaching it because that is the job of the state and the government...how is that working out..