Click It or Ticket Mobilization

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haven't heard about 'black boxes' in cars? They record the car's performance factors (speed, braking, seatbelt use, etc.) on a continuous loop. If you have a wreck, the black box will give up all of the secrets about how fast you were driving, when and how hard you put on the brakes, and so forth. Insurance companies love them because they take all of the uncertainty out of what happened in a wreck.
Click to expand...

Yes, they're wonderful in helping to determine who was at fault in a fatal crash. I can see why generally 50% or so of drivers involved in fatal crashes would not like them though. Personally, I don't care if the government has the authority, with a search warrant, to know how fast I was going, or what my brakes were doing, for the 5 seconds before my car last stopped.

But actually, they don't come CLOSE to taking all the uncertainty out of what happened in a wreck. They just tell you what the brakes and engine, etc. were doing in the 5 or so seconds preceding the crash.
 
They save a lot of lives. Many more than 5 point restraints or roll bars would. I rarely see people killed in roll-over crashes because the car wasn't structurally sound and the roof crumpled.
Click to expand...

I don't seel how you can sit there and say that airbags are needed, because they save lives, and say since five point harnesses cost more money, and won't save as many lives, they shouldn't be mandated.

And I use 'roll cage' as a general term for the entire structure that pretty much puts a layer of protection around the driver. Take a look at a race car sometime, the roll cage is an entire set of bars that help keep the passenger compartment from being crushed inwards in a wreck. They don't just prevent the roof from collapsing inwards. They keep all panels from collapsing inwards. Someone that was hit in the driver's door and died, may have been saved by that roll cage.
 
Personally, I don't care if the government has the authority, with a search warrant, to know how fast I was going, or what my brakes were doing, for the 5 seconds before my car last stopped.
Click to expand...
Yeah, never mind that the government is recording your every move, as long as the legal technicalities are covered. Maybe someone will invent a rectal GPS so that the government can really keep track of everyone all of the time and even know when they're full of it.
 
I don't seel how you can sit there and say that airbags are needed, because they save lives, and say since five point harnesses cost more money, and won't save as many lives, they shouldn't be mandated.
Click to expand...

I never said airbags were "needed" because they save lives. I just said they saved lives. I never said 5-point restraints were more costly either. I don't think people will use 5-point restraints. And the lives saved by 5 point restraints won't be so great in numbers over the numbers saved by regular seatbelts to justify the cost (I'm guessing). There's no effort in strapping on an airbag.

As far as roll cages, lots of car users won't be able to climb through the window like Junior Johnson does.

Personally, I wouldn't care if we went back to the 1960's where there were no airbags and seatbelts were an option and your dashboard was steel, and people were routinely impaled on steering columns. The cars were much cooler then.
 
You don't harm any other person, other than yourself, if you don't wear a seatbelt

WRONG.

If one is not properly strapped in, one can not maintain full driving capability.

But then again, probably 95% of americans would not know oversteer from understeer, and other driving conditions...
 
Yeah, never mind that the government is recording your every move, as long as the legal technicalities are covered.
Click to expand...

They govt. isn't recording your every move, the car you choose to drive is recording the engine speed, status of the transmission and braking for the last 5 seconds the car is on. And the govt. can't download the computer without a warrant.
 
I don't think people will use 5-point restraints.
Click to expand...

Well, we would force them to then (isn't that the point of the thread, forcing someone to wear belts when they don't want to) :rolleyes:

I agree with the people not wanting to climb through windows. I'm sure if you give the engineers over at GM some incentive, they could come up with something, though.
 
Frank,

The simple message is that many people do not appreciate government intrusion on areas that they believe are rightfully their private lives.
 
My point was, you say that you don't think many people would want to wear the 5 point belt. My point is that some people don't want to wear any belt. Some people don't think the 5 point works better than the three point. Some people don't care for taking the time to put on a 5point.

Same thing, some people don't care for the protection of a seat belt. Some don't care to take the time to put one on. Some find them uncomfortable. Whatever the reason, they don't want to wear one. Just like most oeple don't want to wear a firesuit and helmet everywhere. Why should tehy be forced to?
 
The simple message is that many people do not appreciate government intrusion on areas that they believe are rightfully their private lives.
Click to expand...

You could say that about almost any law the police are bound to enforce. Drug laws? I won't even get into that one. A family member killing a terminally ill relative? Still against the law. Tax evasion? I don't agree with many of the taxes I have to pay. Prostitution? Sounds good to me. Gambling? Why should the casinos make all the money? Liquor? I don't see anything wrong with making and selling my own so that "The Man" doesn't get his cut. A father blowing the the brains out of the guy who raped his 2 year-old daughter in a state without the death penalty? Nothing morally wrong with that in my eyes. Why should it be illegal?

My point is that if you have a problem with a law, take it up with your elected legislative body, not me. I don't have any obligation to ignore laws that some of you don't agree with.
 
My point is that if you have a problem with a law, take it up with your elected legislative body, not me. I don't have any obligation to ignore laws that some of you don't agree with.
Click to expand...
I agree totally with your point. I have expressed displeasure with a law, but I have not called on you to resolve my displeasure. You have chosen to be the cheerleader for the law I dislike, thus inviting vigorous debate. :D

Veering from the discussion of the merits of a law, you raise the intriguing issue of using discretion in the enforcement of laws; care to open a new thread on that topic?
 
I know this is off the topic, but I couldn't help it:

Yeah, never mind that the government is recording your every move, as long as the legal technicalities are covered. Maybe someone will invent a rectal GPS so that the government can really keep track of everyone all of the time and even know when they're full of it.
Click to expand...

Rectal would be too easy to get out. A company near where I work has chips to store all your personal info under your skin. It's marketed more widely for pets than for people. But they don't have GPS. I have to wonder how long it will be they develop something to do that.

I don't think we'll see it in my lifetime, but I think everyone will have a chip by the end of the century. I can just see some kid disappearing and some Diane Feinstein type up there. "We put chips in our pets, but not our children." Soon enough it will be child endangerment not to have a chip in your kid, and after a couple of generations we'll all get used to it.

Guns, of course, will be illegal by then. We'll be much too civilized for that.
 
Seatbelt law?

Good idea. It's always a good idea when the gov't decides what is good for us.

If no one drives without a seatbelt, there will be no deaths from car accidents. Lives will be saved. We need a law for that.

If there are no firearms there will be no deaths from firearms accidents. Lives will be saved. We need a law for that.

As for the bacon eaters: We should outlaw bacon, wine, peanuts, fast food, eggs, milk, grains, processed foods, beer, pork, organic foods, fish, strawberries, dairy products, coffee, water, red meat, lettuce, chicken, any vegetable or fruit grown outside, and tea, because they've all been found to be bad for you. No one will die from food or water again. Starvation maybe.

Has anyone considered the number one cause of death is living? Besides, if no one ever died, where would you park?

I don't think we need any safety laws except where someone has a responsibility to keep someone else safe. For instance, construction companies should provide railings so people don't fall off buildings, and parents should buckle up their kids.
 
Veering from the discussion of the merits of a law, you raise the intriguing issue of using discretion in the enforcement of laws; care to open a new thread on that topic?
Click to expand...

I was addressing the guys who say that the police have some kind of obligation to ignore certain laws.
 
I was addressing the guys who say that the police have some kind of obligation to ignore certain laws.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous! Police never have an obligation to ignore a law, although I do think they have an obligation to exercise professional discretion in the enforcement of all laws.
 
I'll say it,

As a Us citizen, a LEO has a moral obligation to NOT enforce illeagle laws.

You know the difference!

If you don't, retire...quit...or put on a brown shirt.

This crap of " I didn't make the law I just enforce it" is the same crap that we heard at nuremburg and abu ghrab.

It doesn't cut it
 
Do I think someone who wore a seatbelt should get priority over someone who didn't in a crash that resulted in similar injuries, f a decision had to be made on who to treat first? Absolutely. Actually, if I were in charge, and the injuries were similar, here's what I would base it on if I had to choose between one or the other for first service: Who was at fault, and secondly, who was wearing a seatbelt. What would you base it on?
Click to expand...

Frank, this is why you are not making these decisions. The only triage criteria that is valid is survivability with the available resources at hand. By your "bacon eater" argument, placing a cop with a bullet in his chest at the end of the line would be entirely justified. After all, he voluntarily chose a high risk job, and if you save him, he is likely to just go out and get shot again, right?

Fault in an auto accident and seatbelt useage should not be criteria on who will recieve medical attention any more than whether they vote Republican or Democrat, or were driving east or west, or riding in a Buick or a Ford.

Life and death decisions that affect entire families demand more maturity of thought. Keep handing out tickets for click it and ticket programs and leave triage to the professionals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top