Seat Belt Laws: At Any Cost

Its mandatory so that when some knucklehead wrecks into you, you dont have to spend the rest of your life lying in your own waste while drooling and can actually get decent medical care.
Click to expand...
Not to mention, the "knuckleheads" can continue to procreate as a result, infesting your world with more little "knuckleheads" cut from the same genetic cloth and driving your insurance premiums up for generations with their continued "knuckleheadedness". :rolleyes:
Rich
 
Not to mention, the "knuckleheads" can continue to procreate as a result, infesting your world with more little "knuckleheads" cut from the same genetic cloth and driving your insurance premiums up for generations with their continued "knuckleheadedness".
Click to expand...

:D

They wont get it, it makes too much sense, and takes some control away form the LEO's
 
Why is it, Wildcard, that even though the crux of this thread has been defined by several people, several times, you still try to twist it to your own personal agenda, which is clearly cop bashing, several times over? Your attacks are insulting and detrimental to an interesting and enlightening thread that for the most part has remained civil, and they contain no intelligent or beneficial input whatsoever.
 
Please note that I'm not saying having insurance is a bad thing. Just asking why it is mandatory and who actually benefitted...
Click to expand...

If you or a family member travels to state where it's not mandatory and you're maimed or permently incapacitated by an uninsured driver, you'd understand why mandatory insurance is a good thing and who really benefits from such laws. Insurance laws are pretty lax here in NH and I know of few people who have had their lives destroyed, not only because of the injuries they sustained but because of the financial burden of the hospital bills because the jerk that hit them didn't have insurance.
 
good.gif
 
ATW525 said:
I know of few people who have had their lives destroyed, not only because of the injuries they sustained but because of the financial burden of the hospital bills because the jerk that hit them didn't have insurance.
Click to expand...
ATW-
Fact is, lives are destroyed every day for all manner of cause.....from self infliction to simple bad luck. But, having come out of a career in the Health Insurance business, I'm now real curious: the destroyed lives that you reference....didn't THEY have insurance? If so, explain the mechanism by which their hospital bills were denied.
Rich
 
"Simple bad luck", like an adverse reaction to OC? Gee I wonder if he had insurance.

Rich, I'm still waiting for that list of laws that YOU referenced, the ones that REQUIRE us to arrest somebody, or are you gonna back down from all my challenges?
 
Rich Lucibella said:
- Seat Belt Laws
- DUI Roadblocks
- Seatbelt Roadblocks
- Insurance Stops
- Papers Please Stops
- No Knocks
- Zero Tolerance
- The War on Some Drugs
- The War on Terrorism
- The War on [Insert Noun Here]
- The Patriot Act
- The Patriot Act II
- The TSA
- Kelo
- Hiibel
- Raich
Click to expand...

Rich,

I don't see how you can think DUI roadblocks is a bad idea. Are drunk driver really only hurting themselves? Tell that to the thousands of people who lost a loved one to a drunk driver. Without the roadblocks, people would think they could get away with driving under the influence. "Ah, I'm fine. I only had a few drinks..." Do you believe that most drunk people will make responsible decisions.

The war on some drugs... Which ones are you talking about Rich? Marijuana? Sure, some countries have legalized it. Its not supposed to really be addictive. Now we have to worry about driving under the influence of marijuana as well? Great! Do we really want to say that smoking marijuana is acceptable. Do we want a nation full of pot heads? There are also heath risks involved such as lung cancer as well as other things I can't think of right now (pot damages your memory by killing brain cells :eek: :p ) but you just might think that is a nanny law as well. You didn't clarify if the war o drugs referred to personal use or the trafficking of drugs. I sure a heck hope you don't think the trafficking of drugs should be ignored.

The war on terrorism and the TSA... Sure. Lets just let our guard down and have Al Quaeda ram another plane up our butts. How about we don't even have customs inspections while were at it. Heck... we can even help the terrorists carry the nukes in. Please get real here.

Rich, save yourself some money by not ever trying to get into politics. Your ideas about stupid aws are just a little whacked. Also, please excuse my ignorance as I have no clue what the last three item you listed mean.
 
Sendec,

Thanks for answering :) (that's all I wanted).

Wayne

*Oh, I'm bowing out of this one for now, better debaters than I are doing a great job :).
 
Stephen-
OK-
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt. For argument sake, let's take out those you don't object to:
- DUI Roadblocks
- The War on Some Drugs
- The War on Terrorism
- The TSA

Kinda sorta still leaves us with:
- Seat Belt Laws
- Seatbelt Roadblocks
- Insurance Stops
- Papers Please Stops
- No Knocks
- Zero Tolerance
- The War on [Insert Noun Here]
- The Patriot Act
- The Patriot Act II
- Kelo
- Hiibel
- Raich

Pick your poison.

As to politics, I'm sorta kinda already involved. But you're quite correct; the success formula is to promise to pass more laws to pre-emptively regulate the personal behavior of "those people"....until, of course, "those people" becomes you. ;)

Kindly Do Not attempt to hijack the thread into individual discusions of each of these laws. They were provided in response to a query. Individual discussions of each will require separate thread for each.
Rich
 
ATW-
Fact is, lives are destroyed every day for all manner of cause.....from self infliction to simple bad luck. But, having come out of a career in the Health Insurance business, I'm now real curious: the destroyed lives that you reference....didn't THEY have insurance? If so, explain the mechanism by which their hospital bills were denied.
Rich
Click to expand...

No, not everybody has health insurance. Unless it's provided by work, it's prohibitively expensive for many young people, especially women.

I am completely inflexible on me view on mandatory insurance and I am not going to get into a protracted argument about it. I can not see how letting people drive without insurance is a good thing.
 
Well this:
No, not everybody has health insurance. Unless it's provided by work, it's prohibitively expensive for many young people, especially women.
Click to expand...
directly conflicts with this:
I can not see how letting people drive without insurance is a good thing.
Click to expand...

If the "victims" were driving without insurance, they violate the very laws you insist upon and THEY might very well have been the cause of YOUR "life destroyed", were you not carrying insurance also. According to your statements they're not "victims" at all. They're subjects, to be controlled "for the common good". Mao spoke similarly.
Rich
 
"it is about laws that demand that LEO's arrest and detain for the most absurd infractions."

Your words, Rich. So what are these absurd infractions that the law DEMANDS we arrest for, huh? Cite me some statutes.

So, you are some kind of insurance guy, huh?
 
If the "victims" were driving without insurance
Click to expand...

1. Health insurance and auto insurance are two different things.

2. the victims of reckless and irresponsable drivers aren't always driving a vehicle themselves... quite often they're not even in a vehicle at all.
 
Hey Rich,

Whats the deal? We can't PM you?

What part of South Florida are you from? Do you do any organized range nights? That would be pretty darn cool if you did. I'm sure you'd bring some fun toys to play with as well! What ranges do you go to? Lets try and set something up.

In response to your last post...

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt. Arguing those points would pretty much be a losing battle for most people on this board... except for the pot heads that is.

-Seatbelt laws and seatbelt road blocks pretty much go together (like peas and carrots). I guess if you want to live on the edge, than you aren't really harming one other than potentially yourself. This is clearly a "nanny law" but the intent is good (to save live... not to increase revenues!)

-Insurance stops and Papers stops can probably be lumped together as well. In Florida, I think the minimum requirement is personal injury protection (PIP) and liability insurance for the other party's vehicle. I would be mad as hell if someone rammed me and the didn't have either coverage or the money to fix it. What if they don't even have anything to sue for? I hate to think that I would have to pay for my own car to get fixed even though it was not my fault. I guess thats why the police always ask for insurance when they write tickets. As for papers, how would you crack down on stolen vehicles? Say the guy slaps on a tag from another car and does not violate and traffic laws. Would he ever get caught (assuming the car was a common car and it was not equipped with Lojack? Maybe the police should just go around looking to see if the VIN numbers match the license plates. As for registration, what if Florida did not renew registrations for people who don't pay their fines. Would that type of enforcement even work. Then we could have a debate as to whether or not someone should be stopped for driving with an expired plates or registration.

I think the Patriot acts should be thrown in with my response to the war on terrorism. We have a billionaire scheming up ways to kill Americans. Why don't we just let the different intelligence agencies keep doing what they were doing. We saw how well that worked. There may be a loss of privacy but our nation is safer as a result of it.

-As for no knocks, zero tolerance, The war on [insert noun here], Kelo, Hiibel, and Raich. Please explain. The last three sound German.

So lets see... the only law where you are not harming anyone else (or protecting other people from injury, be it physical or financial) is the seatbelt law. You are the publisher of a magazine so you should have the money to either pay the fines, fight it out in court, or fight to get it repealed. Just don't "resist" if a police officer tries to arrest you if you choose not to do anything about the tickets! :eek:
 
sendec-
You're doing it again.
I provided you a laundry list of laws that can put you in jail for the most "absurd infractions". Agree or disagree at your own "internet handle's" peril.

Meantime, deep breaths please. ;)

ATW525 said:
the victims of reckless and irresponsible drivers aren't always driving a vehicle themselves... quite often they're not even in a vehicle at all.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. You weren't really talking about "several people you know who's lives were ruined" by operators without insurance; you were just talking about the subset of those ruined lives who were pedestrians without health insurance. OK, that's believable....if I squint real hard.

How about me, though? I live on the ocean in Palm Beach. Hurricane Alley, USA. Yet the best insurance I can get includes a 40% Wind Deductible. Shouldn't someone protect me from my neighbors' flying roof tiles? I mean, shouldn't THEY have full coverage for MY protection? Or, perish the thought, should I simply live with the facts that life is dangerous and that I make my own choices?

Rich
 
Sendec, I gave you a website to check. Using that, you could easily verify or disprove what it said and what I said. You didn't bother. Your retort, besides bordering on argumentum ad hominem, was a nonsequitur, as you failed to answer either of the questions posed to you. You expect others to answer your questions, yet you fail to give the same curtesy.

ATW525, your use of the social costs argument is a logical fallacy of debate to throw off the conclusion of the actual cause: argumentum ad consequentiam, Appeal to consequences. As Rich has already answered, using the social costs argument opens the door to ever more control.

To the both of you, the actual cause of these laws, and in specific the mandatory seat belt laws, are the insurance industry. The facts were and are, that fatalities were already dropping before the mandatory laws were enacted, and this was because seat belt usage was actually climbing. But let's never allow facts to confuse our emotional arguments.
 
To the both of you, the actual cause of these laws, and in specific the mandatory seat belt laws, are the insurance industry. The facts were and are, that fatalities were already dropping before the mandatory laws were enacted, and this was because seat belt usage was actually climbing. But let's never allow facts to confuse our emotional arguments.
Click to expand...

If that is true, then it follows that the warrant was issued in order to protect the insurance industry's profits, yes?
 
Quite frankly the depths of selfishness this thread is sinking towards are making me sick, and I already said I have no intention of getting into a protracted arguement on this particular subject. I already stated my position on the subject, and don't intend to continue discussion in this thread any further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top