Why have a seat belt law for adults?
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 497
From: Cupertino, CA
Car Info: '12 FXT Touring
Obviously this nation has a problem. People are too fat and healthcare charges more on everyone else to take care of fat peoples problems. They dont have real jobs, America doesn't have real jobs, service sector jobs seriously creates a detriment to society... and snowballs into killing what men were back some odd decades ago.
Lazy, obese, fat, hell yea I'm pissed when I see fat people. Anywho, as some of the above responses cited. The judicial system is scroomed, and fail lawyers come out with things to punish people. Have to protect their own "liability" even if the person is dumb beyond their own accord.
Lazy, obese, fat, hell yea I'm pissed when I see fat people. Anywho, as some of the above responses cited. The judicial system is scroomed, and fail lawyers come out with things to punish people. Have to protect their own "liability" even if the person is dumb beyond their own accord.
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,670
From: East Bay / Pomona
Car Info: '02 PSM WRX
If we don't have a law requiring them, then people will sue because we don't have a law about it.
"My husband was an idiot and didn't wear his seatbelt while driving drunk and now he is dead because he crashed into a crowd of people and was launched out of the windshield. He wouldn't have died if there was a law."
"My husband was an idiot and didn't wear his seatbelt while driving drunk and now he is dead because he crashed into a crowd of people and was launched out of the windshield. He wouldn't have died if there was a law."
As well as car companies are probably protecting themselves as well. Think of all the morons that would sue car companies because "this person died in your vehicle, obviously it wasn't safe enough."
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 22,776
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
More messes for EMTs to clean up. Costs money to remove the law (I'm guessing). Increases revenue lost by those ****ers that skirt paying sales tax via amazon and the like.
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,312
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2011 WRX hatch gray
What do you think will happen to your private health insurance premiums when other people on the same plan are injured or are unhealthy and require medical attention? The exact same thing that will happen to your taxes with public health care... The only difference being that you no longer have a money hungry corporation deciding what/if/why/when you get your healthcare and when to drop you from the policy entirely if you're costing them too much.
Sorry this is way off topic, so I'll stop there
-- Ed
Sorry this is way off topic, so I'll stop there
-- Ed
It's not cut and dry that legislation solves this, but it at least gives a financial motivation to the individual driver to buckle up... to avoid a ticket.
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 497
From: Cupertino, CA
Car Info: '12 FXT Touring
Actually, this is very on topic. The additional medical coverage for an injury that is as easily prevented as buckling up is motivation to want as many people to buckle up as possible.
It's not cut and dry that legislation solves this, but it at least gives a financial motivation to the individual driver to buckle up... to avoid a ticket.
It's not cut and dry that legislation solves this, but it at least gives a financial motivation to the individual driver to buckle up... to avoid a ticket.
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,312
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2011 WRX hatch gray
This isn't always about a lofty ideal... it's also about reducing negative residual impact (usually fiscally).
You can't legislate everything. You also can't have no legislation. Anyone on either extreme is a nut-job. So using extremist arguments is both pointless and stupid.
We debate the gray area in-between as that's where different opinions have different ideas of where the balance is. In regards to legislation, there will always be those who believe the balance should be higher and those that believe it should be lower; relative to any random individual. So discussions should be centered around weighing the various aspects of the issue... not just automatically pushing for far RIGHT or far LEFT.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,228
From: 631 Railroad Ave. Fairfield, CA
Car Info: A Laptop
Where we choose it to end.
This isn't always about a lofty ideal... it's also about reducing negative residual impact (usually fiscally).
You can't legislate everything. You also can't have no legislation. Anyone on either extreme is a nut-job. So using extremist arguments is both pointless and stupid.
We debate the gray area in-between as that's where different opinions have different ideas of where the balance is. In regards to legislation, there will always be those who believe the balance should be higher and those that believe it should be lower; relative to any random individual. So discussions should be centered around weighing the various aspects of the issue... not just automatically pushing for far RIGHT or far LEFT.
This isn't always about a lofty ideal... it's also about reducing negative residual impact (usually fiscally).
You can't legislate everything. You also can't have no legislation. Anyone on either extreme is a nut-job. So using extremist arguments is both pointless and stupid.
We debate the gray area in-between as that's where different opinions have different ideas of where the balance is. In regards to legislation, there will always be those who believe the balance should be higher and those that believe it should be lower; relative to any random individual. So discussions should be centered around weighing the various aspects of the issue... not just automatically pushing for far RIGHT or far LEFT.
-- Ed
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 497
From: Cupertino, CA
Car Info: '12 FXT Touring
Where we choose it to end.
This isn't always about a lofty ideal... it's also about reducing negative residual impact (usually fiscally).
You can't legislate everything. You also can't have no legislation. Anyone on either extreme is a nut-job. So using extremist arguments is both pointless and stupid.
We debate the gray area in-between as that's where different opinions have different ideas of where the balance is. In regards to legislation, there will always be those who believe the balance should be higher and those that believe it should be lower; relative to any random individual. So discussions should be centered around weighing the various aspects of the issue... not just automatically pushing for far RIGHT or far LEFT.
This isn't always about a lofty ideal... it's also about reducing negative residual impact (usually fiscally).
You can't legislate everything. You also can't have no legislation. Anyone on either extreme is a nut-job. So using extremist arguments is both pointless and stupid.
We debate the gray area in-between as that's where different opinions have different ideas of where the balance is. In regards to legislation, there will always be those who believe the balance should be higher and those that believe it should be lower; relative to any random individual. So discussions should be centered around weighing the various aspects of the issue... not just automatically pushing for far RIGHT or far LEFT.
what set you claim son? lol but really, you have to claim one or the other, kinda like a gang. if you're a repub and i'm a demo, i automatically hate you, no matter if we've ever met before in our lives. at least that's how things seem to me lately.
but i don't see how my lap belt vs shoulder restraint was to either side...? I think it's a valid point. and i don't think extremist arguments are pointless or stupid, maybe just not helpful, but is any of this helpful? not imho.
then, let's weigh the various aspects of the issue. seatbelt laws for adults...
also, political disagreement is healthy and is part of what this country was founded on... jefferson and adams used to absolutely hate each other.
Last edited by NorCalPaintball; Jan 14, 2011 at 04:31 PM.
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 497
From: Cupertino, CA
Car Info: '12 FXT Touring
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,312
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2011 WRX hatch gray
i see your point and do agree... i'm a republicrat and/or a demicran.
what set you claim son? lol but really, you have to claim one or the other, kinda like a gang. if you're a repub and i'm a demo, i automatically hate you, no matter if we've ever met before in our lives. at least that's how things seem to me lately.
but i don't see how my lap belt vs shoulder restraint was to either side...? I think it's a valid point. and i don't think extremist arguments are pointless or stupid, maybe just not helpful, but is any of this helpful? not imho.
then, let's weigh the various aspects of the issue. seatbelt laws for adults...
also, political disagreement is healthy and is part of what this country was founded on... jefferson and adams used to absolutely hate each other.
what set you claim son? lol but really, you have to claim one or the other, kinda like a gang. if you're a repub and i'm a demo, i automatically hate you, no matter if we've ever met before in our lives. at least that's how things seem to me lately.
but i don't see how my lap belt vs shoulder restraint was to either side...? I think it's a valid point. and i don't think extremist arguments are pointless or stupid, maybe just not helpful, but is any of this helpful? not imho.
then, let's weigh the various aspects of the issue. seatbelt laws for adults...
also, political disagreement is healthy and is part of what this country was founded on... jefferson and adams used to absolutely hate each other.
I've voted based on what I felt was right for the times. Sometimes that meant Dem, sometimes Rep.
At any rate, I see you "Drives : 07 wagon" so that trumps all, my subie pignose wagon brother.
Dem's are usually labelled "more legislation" and Rep's are usually labelled "less".
As far as the OP is concerned, I think the dude in the article should get the ruling that he was not wearing the seatbelt he was supposed too. "reasonable" is often implied in laws, so it's probably going to be interpreted, "occupants must wear a (reasonably proper) seatbelt"; where seatbelt is considered a "restraining system". The decorative belt he made is not a restraining system. That's my wild guess.
As for the seat belt law itself, I think posts here have already gone over the major pros, and the cons do not outweigh these. I'd wager the "majority" of Americans" agree seat belts should be required.
Although the devil in us sure would like to see dumb-asses Darwinian themselves with this one. But I'll leave that to be portrayed in dark comedies... oh it has. Heh.
