Texas Seat Belt Law
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=182876
Printed Date: 14 November 2025 at 3:44pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Texas Seat Belt Law
Posted By: DeTrevni
Subject: Texas Seat Belt Law
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:04pm
|
So, a law was just recently passed in Texas saying all passengers in a car MUST wear their seat belt, otherwise, you can get ticketed. Frankly, I see very little justification in this, and am quite against it. I just don't think the government needs to be telling people how to protect themselves. The best way I can figure it, laws are there to protect people from others and the government, not themselves. It's kinda like "Big Brother is Watching." Now, I am not very politically inclined, but it seems like this is little more than revenuing. Just another excuse to write a ticket. Is there some other justification behind something like this that I'm missing? Any of our politically-minded members want to fill me in? Either way, it seems like it could be an interesting discussion. ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell" 
|
Replies:
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:05pm
|
There states without seatbelt laws?
------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:07pm
|
We've always had seat belt laws, but they've been pretty lax. Now, it's a no-questions-asked kinda thing.
------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:12pm
|
There are states without mandatory wearing seatbelt laws? CLICK IT OR TICKET ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:12pm
|
WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH
If you can't handle the rules of driving, don't drive. This isn't even something remotely unfair or illogical, find something else to cry about. |
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:16pm
|
your complaining about something that will save lives? seriously?
------------- 
|
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:17pm
|
/people missing my point
------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:22pm
|
no. i gave you justification, which is exactly what you asked for
-------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:26pm
|
It's to comply with a federal requirement to receive some federal money for highway repair (like drinking ages).
Same issue came up in Wisconsin. ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:27pm
|
No you're missing the point. It is a traffic law that decreases the potential for injury/ death. There's nothing to complain about, nothing. If you complain about having to put on a seatbelt, you are far too lazy to push a gas pedal, let alone steer.
|
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:31pm
|
Okay, first, I DO wear my seat belt. Always. Secondly, my point is whether or not the government has the right to MAKE us. Sure, it saves lives. Sure, that's a good thing. But is it necessarily the gov't's job to tell us to do so? I think mbro is the only one who made a relevant post... ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:43pm
you're an idiot -------------
|
DeTrevni wrote:Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:45pm
No you just have a weird hangup about the government making rules. |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:47pm
|
First they take mah rights tah not wear a seatbelt, next they'll be takin' mah guns. ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:47pm
|
Welcome to the rest of the civilized world, Texas!
------------- 
|
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:54pm
Props for spelling "you're" right. On that note, man people are touchy today... ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:54pm
Let's think long and hard about this: 1) The government hands out drivers licenses, and you get in lots of trouble for driving without them. 2) The government has many other rules and regulations which were created in order to safeguard the users of our roads, namely drivers and passengers. What's your problem again? I'd answer that question, but it'd be harsh, and I think you should perhaps get over the fact that the government makes the rules, and occasionally they do it for your own good. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:57pm
|
I always kinda figured the rules of the road were for the safety of others. Maybe as well as ourselves, but for others. Speed laws, drinking while driving, proper licensing, insurance, it all benefits others. This seat belt thing has no influence on others. Maybe extremely abstractly, like your body could fly out of the windshield and hit someone or something like that...
------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 10:06pm
|
Can't any of you see the other major benefit? Reduction of injury and death saves MONEY! Less need for emergency services, less tax money that goes towards drivers. But no... it's a commie liberal nanny-state measure because it forces people to do something on government maintained roads. ------------- 
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 10:09pm
|
Pasengers in the back who arent wearing a seatbelt can do some damage in a crash. And it's a pain in the arse to scrape people off the pavement. Saves a bit of hassle for everyone |
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 10:11pm
|
Ah, satire. Okay, I'm sorry guys. I just thought it would make interesting discussion. I guess just flaming. I regret the thread, but hey, what can you do? So, how's the weather? ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: Snipa69
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 10:14pm
|
In this case, think of the benefit of "otheres" to be the loved ones in your life who don't want to see you splattered on the side of the road. The rules of the road are in place to protect EVERYONE, which beleive it or not includes you. Too many times people think "its everyone BUT me who has to follow that rule" and thus, cause accidents. While driving without a seatbelt does not directly cause an accident, it is intentionally puting yourself in harms way. We've had the CLICK IT OR TICK IT law here in WA for many years now and it works. Seatbelt patrols are real and they WILL ticket you if your car even moves an inch and you don't have the belt on, even in a parking lot. Yeah, federal funding plays in as well. But seriously don't look at this as a "Mah gubment woants muh moneyz!" type of thing; it's sad and rediculous. ------------- http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/857/sig9ac6cs1mj.jpg - |
Posted By: Snipa69
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 10:15pm
|
Oh, and today turned in to a nice day. Started out so-so but we are starting to get our nice "fall" weather where it is sunny, but chilly. ------------- http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/857/sig9ac6cs1mj.jpg - |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 10:32pm
|
It was 90 when I showed up in Boston. Hasn't gone above 70 since before the weekend. I have no clue why I came to school here. Well, except for rowing and an education. But seriously, the weather blows. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 10:33pm
|
ITS GON RAIN!
-------------
|
Posted By: Glassjaw
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 12:05am
Should people who ride motorcycles HAVE to wear helmets? ------------- |
Posted By: Brian Fellows
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 1:10am
|
It's not a primary offense in my state. You have to be pulled over for something else in order to get a ticket for it. I'm pretty sure across the river in Iowa, it's a primary offense, though. |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 1:15am
|
EVERYONE LOOKS LIKE ANTS
------------- 
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 1:56am
|
I almost never buckle my seat belt in my roommates car. It's weird...because I use a seat belt in every other car. I think seat belt laws are a little silly though. If you are going slow enough for a cop to see your seat belt isn't on, your chances of an accident are rather low. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Robot
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 2:00am
|
I kinda always looked at seatbelt laws as harm reduction laws so that instead of someone possibly getting into a crash and becoming a vegetable(probably a costly situation for the state as well as families), they have a lesser chance of it happening.... I question my reasoning though, as I was recently in a car crash and suffered a bit of brain damage from ze accident. Although I did have a seatbelt on and am not too much of a vegetable(maybe a couch potato), so maybe that works as far as a reasonable answer? Chikun, out |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 3:51am
SPACE WEATHER! Also, DeTrevni, stupid idea to start a thread about this here. Maybe you should try the topic out on a Texas related forum. The rest of us have been living with these laws, and those retarded click it or ticket ads, for a good while now. What does Linus think about this law? ------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 4:46am
Absolutely |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 8:15am
|
...Ahem... The justification behind passenger seat belt rules is that during a side collision, a non-seat belt wearing passenger can become a deadly projectile inside the car, killing someone who might even be seat belted. |
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 11:36am
|
I thought for the most part it was a liability issue. Would you rather: A) Get into an accident that was your fault then find out the other driver was not wearing a seatbelt and died. Thus you will be convicted of accidental vehicular manslaughter Or B) Get into an accident that was your fault with the other driver wearing a seatbelt and lives. Thus you would only be ticketed for the accident and the hospital bills? |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 11:38am
Actually, you didn't. You posted this:
Which is a lame rationalization that can be applied to just about anything. Examples:
But he missed the whole capitalization thing while he was presenting his logical and well thought out response.
Big spatula-problem solved. ------------- 
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 1:34pm
|
Yeah its safer to wear a seatbelt or wear a helmet on ur motorcycle, but who said the government got to tell you how to be safe? You dont put any body, other than yourself, at any more risk of harm by not wearing these things. You arn't more likely to cause a car accident if you dont wear a seatbelt or helmet. Like i said, yes, its safer. But its your life, not the governments, and despite what's gone on as of late... We are supposed to tell the government what to do, not the other way around.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. - Ben Franklin
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 2:17pm
We drive on government maintained roads. The rules are written by people that society has voted for. There is nothing undemocratic about this. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 3:15pm
|
How many accidents have you been to where someone was ejected?
It's not just to save the persons life (though that's a big component). Do you realize how great the cost is if someone is ejected and gets a head injury, let alone be a vegetable / in a coma for days, weeks, or months? Not just monetarily, but in emotional and social impact. Just wear the belt. ------------- 
|
Posted By: oreomann33
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 3:24pm
|
I always think of this commercial from drivers ed. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 3:34pm
|
[QUOTE=Linus]It's not just to save the persons life (though that's a big component). Do you realize how great the cost is if someone is ejected and gets a head injury, let alone be a vegetable / in a coma for days, weeks, or months? Not just monetarily, but in emotional and social impact.
As was mentioned in another thread (the one about the AP photo of the dying Marine I believe) with freedom comes responsibility. That is, if one exercises the right to not wear a belt/helmet then they are taking responsibility for the consequences of those actions. (I.e. becoming road pizza or a drooling vegetable destined to spend the rest of their existence in adult diapers.) Part of accepting those consequences is not expecting others to pay for the results of one's own stupidity. With all the fans of evolution on here, you would think no one would have an issue with activities that allow stupid people to remove themselves from the gene pool. Just wear the belt. I always do./QUOTE] -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 4:13pm
| I've never understood the seatbelt issue, why is it a chore to just put it on? I don't even think about it, it's just a reflex for me. I honestly don't see why some people have to complain about it. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 4:23pm
|
Mack, I am in total agreement that you live with consequences... but it's not only the person refusing to wear the belt that has consequences.
You're taking an ambulance, and possibly an Engine as well, out of service while they either scoop your brains up or transport you to the hospital. That's between 2-6 people that could be on another call, not being able to be. If you DO survive the initial crash, you get taken to the hospital. There will be atleast 4 nurses and 2 doctors dealing with you inside the ER alone. Then on to the ICU, with even more nurses. Not to mention the CT's and MRI's they have to do, and bring in a neurologist to his expertise on the situation. God forbid you don't have insurance and your family is unable to pay, so now you're in the ICU sucking up funds that the hospital has to make up somewhere, be it raising cost, or laying someone off eventually. If you are able to eventually move out of the ICU to a long term care facility, that's even more resources wasted on an idiotic decision. Plus, you family has to now life with a brain dead family member. Yes, this is the "worst case" scenario when it comes to being in an accident without a seat belt, and yes, this can still happen WITH a seat belt, but the point of it is if you don't make the effort to be safe, why should we waste our resources? EDITED for horrible spelling. Holy cow. -------------
|
Posted By: Yomillio
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 6:10pm
To add to what Linus said, since no one has acknowledged it. Also, I don't want to pay higher rates because the hospital had to work to put your face back together and you didn't have the money. ------------- 
http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=172327 - Forum XBL Gamertag Collection |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 6:21pm
|
I feel the need to point out once again that this does not just involve government intervention into the safety of just one person. In a very bad side collision, an un-seat belted passenger can become a projectile and injure/kill the driver. Not wearing a seat belt in the passenger seat is not just going to potentially hurt the passenger. |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 6:43pm
-------------
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 7:14pm
|
Should have made a poll, how many people wear their seat belts?
-------------
|
Posted By: pb125
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 7:19pm
|
What a silly thing to complain about. Where your damn seatbelt. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Yomillio
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 7:21pm
-------------
http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=172327 - Forum XBL Gamertag Collection |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 7:43pm
Depends on the state. All states I know of are one of 2 flavors: #1) All people in a vehicle have to be belted. If someone isn't belted, the driver and/or passenger can get a ticket. #2) All people in the front seat, and anyone under a the age of 16/18 in the backseat, has to have a seatbelt. If you're over the certain age, and in the back seat, you can opt to not wear a belt. I don't know of a single states that says ONLY the driver has to have a belt. -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 9:32pm
|
I dont think its a chore to put it on, I personally wear it everytime i get into my car.
I understand how much more likely it is that I will end up dead if i somehow wrap my camaro around a tree if i dont have it on.
But I also don't neccissarily get why they would make a law forcing us to wear them...
Altho the video posted on the last page deffinatly does make sense, that was something i didnt really consider seens how in my exsperiance people are usually alone in the car.
But i do understand your point.
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 10:52pm
Lives, money, and resources. A sizable amount of lives; government and personal money and time is lost every year to car crashes. The more wrecked you are at an accident, the more time it takes to extract you. The absence of seatbelt protection will get you and the others in your car much more banged up than they would be otherwise. I've seen pictures where a guy in the back seat (not wearing belt) pushed a belted person's seat up and his head through the windshield... alive. It is probably one of the most difficult extractions to do and the most time consuming. Think of all the times you've had to stop or slow down on a highway due to car crashes that require tons of emergency vehicles and personnel. Think of how risky it is for emergency services to spend more and more time on the road trying to extract people with complicated injuries because their bodies were flung around the cabin. Think of how risky it is for a medevac chopper to go to and from an accident site and how much money and how many of those lives could be saved if they never had to respond to dumbasses who don't wear their belts. -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 11:14pm
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 11:35pm
|
So, even though you quoted TWO post saying at how the cost is laid on people that do things correctly, you still quote, and agree with, a post that says all the cost is on the non-seat belt wearer?
Again: Every time the tone goes out, and an ambulance / engine / police car has to respond to a crash with ejection, that's money. Every time an EMT or medic has to assess a person lying 100 feet from their car, that's money. Every time a new bag of kitty litter has to be bought after emptying it at the last crash soaking up blood and brains, that's money. -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 11:48pm
|
well I quoted tolgak's to respond to it... and Mack's was also a responce to Linus, i guess i just messed up my quotes, so it broke those two up.
But anyway. The cost is on the non seatbelt wearer actually...(granted, not all of it, but the majority) Dunno if you've ever had to be rushed to the hospital for emergancy care but despite the fact that you could've died, they still send you an awesome bill.
Yeah, they hafta spend money to send somebody out... but as I recall thats a good portion of why we pay taxes. You are more likely to choke and die if you don't chew your food enough, that'll cost the government money to send out police cars and all that fun stuff! No laws about minimum food chewing requirements tho...
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 11:56pm
To expand upon that: Every time a rescuer gets hit by a car, that's a life. Every time ER personnel are busy with such patients when criticals come in those are lost lives. Every time a chopper falls from the sky carrying those patients, those are more lives. The guy who doesn't wear a seatbelt doesn't bring much on himself. He brings on to others what they don't deserve. The most resource heavy and dangerous operations are highway rescue, and such ops happen dozens of times a day across the country. If everybody wore seatbelts, so many less lives would be lost each year, and a whole lot less money spent. -------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 12:08am
|
Seatbelts are often used as excuses to pull people over for more serious crimes.
-------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 12:08am
|
Do those people not realize they put themselves at risk when accepting the job?
I totally agree, its extreamily unfortunate that people loose their lives that way... Its sad.
But people haft to accept the risks that come with what they are doing, they don't have to work as a helecopter pilot for a hospital if they choose not to.
edit: I'm a bit of a spelling failure.
 |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 1:01am
|
You do realize it is have to, not haft to, right? Also, from the other side of the debate, non belted drivers do offer job security for you EMT folks. -------------
|
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 1:06am
|
I'm shocked. This... picked up... ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 1:13am
Correct... I do risk my life every time I step in to an ambulance. I guess that gives me more right to demand people do more to protect themselves from needless trauma, does it not? -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 1:50am
|
Like I said linus, I understand the reasons why its important to wear the seatbelt.
And I do understand your side of the argument, I just think its wrong for the government to take it upon themselves to force people to wear it.
If I do wrap my camaro around a tree tomorrow, and I for some reason didn't have my seat belt on and died, yeah, that would suck. I wouldn't want my family to go through that, and I wouldn't want the EMT's and doctors and police officers, etc to have to go through the trouble of cleaning all that up.
But I also knew full good and well what could happen as soon as I got in the car. If I choose to be an idiot... that's my right to do so. I realize the consequences of my actions.
No thats not fair for you as an EMT, but you also accepted that when you accepted the job. Don't get me wrong, i would never want to hear that anything happened to you or anyother emergency worker, cop, construction worker, etc. I hate hearing about it when it does happen...
Honestly I am torn on this issue, but the only thing that makes me take the stance that I do is personal liberty. The Constitution is the absolute highest law in the land. And is the Constitution not primarily about personal liberties? If i were a soldier in the army, or a police officer, would I really want weapons of any kinda available to the general population? No, I (personally) wouldn't. But its our right as a people and as individuals to have, own and opperate weapons of several varieties.
It's not that I feel it's important that we don't have to wear a seatbelt, frankly, you are a bit of an idiot if you don't. What is important to me is the fact that we as a people should have the right to choose.
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 2:16am
|
Hey, I get where you're coming from as well. I'm a conservative, and as such, tend to be against any government intervention in peoples lives unless their choices affect others in a negative fashion. -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 4:03am
|
I honestly DON'T get the big deal. What is so insidious about them mandating it?
You've even said you force people in your car to buckle up, so how is it very different to the goverment doing it? It now means you can end fox argument by saying "it's the law". I see it as another driving law. There are hundreds of them. Most of them good. Speed limits, towing limits, weight limits, capacity limits, following distances and the like. HOW is it a bad thing that seatbelts are now required? Personally I've had to take avoiding action at 120kph when the vehicle in front of me clipped the barrier and rolled, ejecting the un secured passengers. It isn't easy missing the other traffic on a 4 lane dual carriage way, the barrier, parts of the rolling vehicle, the vehicle and now flying boddies. Add to that the extra safety features that only work in conjunction with a safety belt, wearing one is common sense. However 32 years on planet Earth has taught me common sense isn't. After 4 pages i still don't get WHY having something that is so patently good made into law is a bad thing. I can't agree it is micro management. I can't agree it is another small unnoticed attack on your rights or liberties. I can't agree it is a gateway law that will lead to goverment oppression of the population. I can't agree that it is the goverment passing "acceptable" legislation to eventually pass something more insidious once people get used to the idea of the goverment being in control of the little things. What is the issue? |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 8:40am
Soldiers understand the risks of what they're doing; so is it alright to send them to more wars? Police officers understand their risks; does it mean we shouldn't use other means to reduce violent crime? The point here is: the safety of many people is lost because of one idiot's discomfort with a seatbelt. Among those are not only people who have accepted the risks of their job, but those that have not willingly placed themselves in harm's way. In paintball, consider the barrel bag as a seatbelt. We all accept the risks of running around a staging area with no masks on, yet we still force people to have their guns bagged, saftied, and pointed at the ground. The guy who doesn't use his safety measures eventually discharges a shot. It's someone else who gets punished for another person's freedom, and it's not a crime. It is not a constitutional freedom if it directly reduces the freedom of others. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 9:31am
|
It's not a Constitutional freedom if it's not in the Constitution ;) -------------
|
Posted By: Hairball!!!
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 3:32pm
I think the point is that mandating what is essentially a personal choice can be a slippery slope. Sure, seatbelts save lives, save healthcare dollars, etc. But what might be the next choice that a law makes for us? Maybe personal automobiles will be outlawed, since they pollute and are an iefficient mode of transportation. Food choice, clothing choice, and so on, made for us by the government. I know those are extreme examples, but the door has long since been opened to have our personal choices influenced or even removed by the government. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 3:35pm
A seatbelt shouldn't be a personal choice though. It is using the vehicle properly, and you should do so in order to be allowed to use the road. You might think your tires are personal choice, but not all tires are road legal, why not cry about the government intruding then? Are headlights a personal choice? No, they're using a vehicle properly. |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 3:56pm
It's far from a personal choice if it significantly increases the risk of getting many other people killed. It's the point I've been trying to make. Even if you leave the rescuers out of the argument, you are still putting a ton of other people at risk if you crash without a seatbelt on. We don't allow gross negligence in this country, and not wearing a seat belt is exactly that. -------------
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 4:34pm
| I don't know if this has been mentioned but at the end of the day your insurance will be void if your not wearing a seatbelt. |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 5:08pm
|
I think we've gone over this before: Your personal choice ends at the point where it infringes on the safety of others. Period. End of story. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 5:13pm
Thank you. It's perhaps the most elegant way to put this. -------------
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 6:36pm
Actually, it gives you the right to move into a safer profession if you so desire. It gives you no right to tell others what to do.
Slippery slope . . . pffft . . . it's not like the http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-12-04-trans-fat-ban_x.htm - government is going to start telling us what we can or can't eat next. -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 6:40pm
| lol, that made me laugh mack |
Posted By: Hairball!!!
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 7:16pm
Not wearing a seatbelt is not widely viewed as gross negligence. It is not widely viewed as being dangerous to others. Regardless of the effect on others, it's viewed as a personal choice with consequences limited to the individual. It doesn't matter what experiences you've had or what facts you can come up with on the issue (have there been any posted in this thread?), until you convince the general population that not wearing a seatbelt affects more than just the individual in question, it's still viewed as a personal choice. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 7:24pm
Luckily, the law backs me up on forcing my views on others if I deem necessary for the safety of myself or the public. -------------
|
Posted By: FarSeer
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 7:32pm
|
I found this interesting thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=88653 - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=88653 ------------- http://tbish.webs.com/tippy.html - My E-Bolted 98 |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 7:33pm
|
How do you risk yourself by getting into an ambulance? Seems like one the safest jobs ever. You don't go into fires. You don't confront guys with guns. If you are hurt you are surrounded by trained professionals. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 7:42pm
|
You're kidding me, right?
Medical professionals have a much higher percentage of assault at work then even police officers. Those guys with guns... who do you think treats them when they get tazed or shot? Who do you think deels with the drunk guy that got his face clobbered in at the bar? Who deals with the psych pt who slits her wrist? Who deals with the vehicle on the side of a highway, with cars passing by at 70+ mph? In fact, just in February, an EMT was shot and killed at a patients house. Even with that, the vast majority of deaths in EMS, as also in police, are traffic accidents. -------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 7:49pm
|
I guess going to the bar is also dangerous if you can get your face clobbered. the psycho who slits her wrist is probably not doing anything harmful seeing as how she slit her damn wrists. I guess I deal with risks too when I change my own tire. Just last week a man was shot and killed in the middle of a street. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 7:54pm
|
Yup, doesnt make ti any less dangerous for us.
So you think just because someone hurt themselves, all the 'bad blood' will leave their body and they will return to normal, sane, compassionate people? Yea, you are in danger, but I bet you don't have to change your tire 3 times a day, and you have the luxury of not having gawkers trying to get a peek at the accident. Yea, and who do you think treated that man that was just shot in the ghetto? It's not unheard of for a paramedic to be working on a shooting victim, and the shooter comes back to finish the job. -------------
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 8:00pm
How does this apply to you? -------------
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 8:52pm
doesn't put you in more danger than anyone else. of course you will disagree about that, but you can get killed no matter what you're doing. thats like saying a bank worker is at a higher danger level than someone who does not work in a bank due to robberies. yea it happens, but not that often -------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 8:59pm
The same way another EMT being shot applies to Linus. A random incident. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 9:01pm
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 9:31pm
That's because they keep annoying other people by trying to tell them how to live their lives. 
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 9:33pm
If there is an injury on the side of the road, I have to be at the accident, on the side of the road. If there is no injury, I won't be there. That's why it puts me in more danger then some random person just driving by. They are in a vehicle, surrounded by steel, weighing a few thousand pounds and driving away from the accident. I'm out of my vehicle, on the side of the road where the accident just occurred, in the same conditions that already caused one accident and can cause another. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 9:36pm
Firing a gun within city limits? Speeding in a school zone? Drunk driving? Guess the government should repeal all laws against those, shouldn't they? -------------
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 9:36pm
Try again -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 11:28pm
Does drunk driving put others into more danger of me running into them?
Does me not wearing a seatbelt put others in more danger of me running into them?
Bit of a differance...
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 11:54pm
|
It's not just the people that are involved in the original accident that are in danger, and that's what you are failing to understand.
It's all the responders, and all the bystanders that are driving by. Yes, I know the accident happened, and someone not in the know would argue "You'll be at the accident ejection or not", but there is so much more to it then just being there. And that's just the scene I'm talking about... we've already brought up the hospital and long term arguments. -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 11 September 2009 at 2:15am
|
But no one here has given an evidence WHY it should be a personal choice.
It is a safety device that helps you live more often than it'll put you in danger. It enhances the effect of other safety devices like airbags. Like I said, I can't agree this is a gateway law. It directly keeps you safer, it indirectly keeps others safer. It also doesn't require you to do anything out of the ordinary. It takes what, 1 second to click into your belt? You want to see my pissed off meter hit the roof though? Let me catch sight of a secured adult with an unsecured child in the car, especially in the front seat. When you call them on it, (and I do) they always say something along the lines of "But little Johny complains when he has his belt on". Jeez woman (or man) how much do you think little Johny will complain when he cracks his head open on the dashboard or is flung from the vehicle? And why do YOU have your belt on? Oh because it's the law and because it's safer? Mandating seatbelts does help protect others. And there is no good reason why it should be a personal choice. Strap in. KBK |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 11 September 2009 at 1:20pm
Are you saying I am not a man? ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 11 September 2009 at 1:34pm
|
AHA!
-------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 11 September 2009 at 6:34pm
| Linus, you dont HAVE to be there. thats your choice. |
Posted By: Yomillio
Date Posted: 11 September 2009 at 7:14pm
He personally doesn't. But someone does. What if everyone said, "ehh, not today..." I imagine you'll again say well then its their choice. Its really not. -------------
http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=172327 - Forum XBL Gamertag Collection |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 11 September 2009 at 10:17pm
My bad dood.
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 12 September 2009 at 12:43am
|
Sneaky, it's one thing to risk my life because someone had something unfortunate happen. It's another completely to risk my life because someone made a stupid choice.
But you're right, let's just disband police, fire, and EMS altogether. I mean, who could be so selfish to want to stay just a bit safer when helping strangers? -------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 12 September 2009 at 2:27am
All I meant is that if it really came down to it, you arnt FORCED to do that job. I respect you for the fact that you are willing to do it, but there are other things that you could do if you really really wanted to.
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 12 September 2009 at 3:27am
|
Like spend 2 more weeks in the military?
-------------
|
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 13 September 2009 at 2:02am
|
Well, here's a question: What about my Buick's seat belt? It's nothing more than a lap-belt. If I rear end someone, I'll smash my face into the steering column. If I get t-boned, I'll either be put through the driver window or smashed into the shift knob. If I get rear-ended, I've got no head support, so I could very well break my neck. There is no real safety benefit with those lap belts, other than it will be easier to find my body if I get in a bad wreck. However, since there is no visible shoulder strap, would that mean I'd be getting ticketed a lot more? Old cars with lap-belts or even no belts are actually a fair-sized demographic. What of them?
------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|