Seat Belts and Individual Freedom

B

butch50

New member
Let me try it this way:

1. Everyone of the age of majority should have the "choice" to wear seat belts or not to wear seat belts. Under the age of majority it is their parents choice. There should not be a law enforcing the use of seatbelts.

2. However, if someone wants to choose not to wear their seatbelt, and as a direct result is injured - I do not want to pay for their medical bills out of my tax pocket. With choice comes responsibility. Their stupidity should not become my penalty.

3. Therefore the best methodology would be that anyone who chooses not to wear a seatbelt, and subsequently is injured as a result, must pay for their own medical bills.

4. How in the world though can you make sure that happens?

A: Require drivers that do not want to wear seat belts to pay for a special insurance rider for just such injuries?

B: Require drivers that do not want to wear seat belts to deposit $100,000 in an escrow account for such injuries?

C: Require first responders to make a determination as to whether or not injured parties were wearing seat belts and then to put a tag on them before they are take away to the emergency room and then have the hospital double check that they have the financial means to pay for their treatment? And if they don't have the financial means they do not get treated?

D: Allow police to write very expensive tickets for not wearing seat belts, unless the accused party can show financial responsibility - and those fines go to a fund to pay for emergency treatment of people injured who did not wear seatbelts?

E: Do nothing and allow those who choose not to wear seatbelts and get injured and do not want to pay for the medical costs ride on our tax-paying backs?

This would appear to be a no win situation. I am open to any ideas......
 
Any one driving is paying taxes, so this is not an "us/them" sit.

But what of the fatalities which require no medical attention.

If you had your seatbelt on, you would only have been greviously injured instead of killed.

Which cost society more?


Perhaps limiting speed would save society money as well, only low velocity collisions.
 
You have the choice whetehr or not to wear it now. With that choice, comes responsibility. If you choose not to wear, you face a miniscule fine, and a chance to die in a minor collision. Thats the choice, and thats the way I like it. I dont care if you wear it or not, but if I catch you, its 20 bucks.

Under the age of majority it is their parents choice
Click to expand...

This is lunacy. Under age, you gotta wear it. Period. When I stop cars with little kids unrestrained, I start selling safety. Every infraction I can write for, I do. If its an infant, the car does not leave until a car seat is found and used. Period.

I go to garage sales and such, and keep a small supply of car seats at my PD for those cases that you can tell they dont have the money. I understand being broke, buy I cant abide being stupid.
 
Better, Thanks.

I love it. Lets see how else we might save tax dollars while protecting people from themselves.

It is estimated that Obesity costs Americans $102 Billion per year. http://www.obesity.org/treatment/cost.shtml
Obesity costs are 800% higher than the cost of Seatbelt Noncompliance. http://www.nsc.org/partners/costs.htm

That's right, people, do the math on a Population of 296,763,843:

- Seatbelt Non compliance costs individuals, insurers and The State approximately $48.18 for every man, woman and child per year.
- Obesity costs those same groups a WHOPPING $343.71 per American....and that's EVERY YEAR!

Obesity is a preventable condition predicated on individual choices except for a minor percentage of cases involving medical disorder. And who pays the tab? YOU DO. I propose we regulate Obese People. Think what each of us can do with that $343 per year?

Obesity is a violation against the collective good that may easily be spotted. Charts for determining healthy weights for men and women, based on height are no more complicated than Sales Tax Tables. Here's how The Program would work:

- Obese persons on Public Assistance would see their Food Stamp Rations cut with review of their weight and status every 6 months.

- Fast Food franchises would be required to collect an additional 15% tax, known as the O-Tax so as not to insult anybodys sensibilities. This regardless of a person's weight.

- Health Insurance would be required to be in place for all fat people, when application is made for a drivers license; this is a fair incentive for those who wish the Privilege of accessing the highways.

- Restaurants would be required to levy a special 15% Obesity Tax on all patrons who do not present with an Valid Health Insurance Card; in this way, poor eating habits will not result in a burden on the rest of us.

- Most important in obesity is education of our Children. Parents who raise Fat Children simply perpetuate the Cycle of Obesity. The Child Obesity Program (COP) would be administrated thru our school PhysEd Depts. At the beginning of each School Year, violators identified by COP will be given weight goals and training to assist them in improving their weight. Failure to meet those goals will result in fines levied on the Parents. Continued Failure to Improve will result in children being relocated by COP, to protective shelters where proper nutrition and exercise is encouraged.

Coming soon to a Socialist Forum near you:
- The cost of smoking
- The cost of drinking
- The cost of Firearms Ownership


Together we can change the World. It Takes a Village
:rolleyes:
Rich
 
one point: not wearing a seatbelt endangers other drivers on the road.

Without being properly strapped in, you are less able to control your vehicle, and this may result in an accident, or a more severe accident.
 
Seems to me that the 'cost to society' argument can be used to justify just about any social engineering idea big brother comes up with. I am not the kind of guy who likes to be TOLD what to do.

My wife has trained me to always and I mean always wear a seatbelt. Nagging wife....OK, pushy .gov using threats and punishment not OK.

Shawn

BTW here in WA its 101$ for a seatbelt violation. Seems more of a revenue raising device to me!
 
I would be interested to see stats on whether driving fatalities and injuries decreased when states instituted mandatory seat belt laws. Is it really an imposition on people to require them to do something common sense dictates they ought to do anyway?
As far as obesity goes, yes obesity is very costly. Most medical care is spent on conditions that could easily have been avoided had the patient taken some interest in his own health. I remember my father once quoting a statistic that maintained that if we fired all the doctors and nurses in America and spent the money on anti smoking programs instead the death rate would still drop.
My medical insurance goes up every year, in no small part because people in the pool are having problems because they are overweight. Is it fair that I should subsidize that? No. Some companies have begun putting the onus on workers to lose weight to lower health care costs. It works. People do respond to peer and financial pressures.
 
Rabbi-
Exactly. Fat People Cost.

And what about gun owners?
- The cost to society of LEGAL firearms accidents and crimes is HUGE.
- Even those not involved in accidents or crime pour tens of thousands of pounds of toxic Antimony and Lead into Mother Earth every year. This gets into the water supply and the environmental cleanup costs are astronomical, not to mention the health costs.

Now I'm not saying we should ban guns or shooting. I'm just looking for some Common Sense restrictions:
- Mandatory training and licensing. If we can do it with autos, why not dangerous firearms?)
- "Green" ammunition only for non-LEO's
- Bans on guns known to be favored by criminals (we can let the Staffers create The List).
- Cap on the number of guns you can own.
- Reasonable regulation as to safe carry methods, safe storage and the like.
- Cap on the number of bullets or reloading components you can purchase each year.
- Cap on guns with an effective range of more than 100 yards (except of course for Law Enforcement).
- Yearly checks of gun owner Heavy Metal Blood Levels. Once exceeded, you can no longer possess a firearm. I don't want to pay for your Lead Toxicity bills.

This is getting fun. A Blueprint for the New Millenium.
Next we'll do SUV's, trucks and autos capable of traveling in excess of 75 MPH. Talk about creating a danger to others, wow!
Rich
 
I fail to understand how I am less able to control my vehicle if not strapped in. I have no trouble controlling my Bike, my boat. As a matter of fact it is illegal to strap myself to my bike. We can just throw helmet laws in here to. This is something that pisses me off. Its illegal to wear one in a car because it blocks your vision. Now dont get me wrong I got no problem wearin a helmet, I think a person would be stupid not to, but it aint the govts job t make me.E
 
Rabbi:
You're right, it's not equivalent. Firearms are FAR more expensive to society than seatbelt violators.

Since virtually every gun begins its life legally, there are no injuries or deaths that can be attributed to "illegal" guns, except by the negligence of a legal owner at some time in that gun's life. The DIRECT productivity costs alone are $13.4 Billion per year. Within a couple decimal points of the cost of the Seatbelt Noncompliance Scourge.
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html


The American Medical Association puts the Medical cost at $100 Billion per year, 700% Higher than for SeatBelt Outlaws
AMA Stats

Just because you choose to engage in this dangerous hobby, doesn't mean the rest of us should pay for your group's Public Health costs. Nor can you logically dismiss those costs simply because they matter not to you.

Shall we move on to fast, heavy and oversized cars now? ;)
Rich
 
Hey Rich dont forget.
smoking, high school sports, parachuting, swimming pools, bicycles(big one)
lawn mowers.
If we ban or regulate everything we will surely be safer, right?
Oh wait, I guess we'll just sit around and get fatter.
 
Completely aside from the "cost to society" argument, Butch's post is based on a false premise:

Unlike something like motorcycle helmets, seatbelts are not solely protective devices for the person wearing them. Seatbelts increase the control by the driver during an accident. And seatbelts prevent bodies from becoming ballistic weapons inside the vehicle.


Not wearing a seatbelt presents an increased risk to the lives of other people on the road with you. You don't have a right to endanger others.
 
Not wearing a seatbelt presents an increased risk to the lives of other people on the road with you.
Click to expand...
Not much, I bet. Would you care to provide some evidence or should we just take your word on that?

Dangerous drivers who don't wear seatbelts eliminate themselves from the population... many after only one accident. Compare this with dangerous drivers who do wear seatbelts, who may be around to cause accident after accident. Even if the average driver is better at dealing with accidents when strapped in, which I doubt, it doesn't necessarily follow that seat belts reduce the overall vehicle casualty rate, much less that they reduce the casualty rate for innocents.

Not locking up guns presents an increased risk of the guns being stolen and used in a violent crime. You don't have a right to endanger others. Lock up your guns, or the government will lock you up. :rolleyes:
 
What about that costliest hobby of all...

Living.

If everyone were to simply quit living, the cost of every to everyone else in society would go down dramatically.

It would also make the environmentalists very happy.

I wear a seatbelt at all times, law or no law.

Anyone who gets into my car with me wears a seatbelt, too. No discussion. Don't want to wear a seatbelt? Don't ride in my car.
 
Without being properly strapped in, you are less able to control your vehicle, and this may result in an accident, or a more severe accident.
Click to expand...

I must second the remark stated above about how this makes it harder to control my vehicle or result in an accident. How does a strap of material make me more likely to control my vehicle or to prevent an accident :confused: .

But, back to the point:

Freedoms makes us less safe (to clarify because this statement may not be read as intended: To have complete freedom, we are free to do stupid things, yet that is what freedom entails, the right to be stupid, thus, we are less safe because we have the freedom to be stupid). If we are free to choose, then we may choose to do something stupid or unsafe with the tools (cars, guns, etc..) that we are able to own and use.

You will never be able to legistrate stupidy. If you could then everyone of us would be either in jail or in a hospital. Hell, if I were fined for every stupid act that I've committed I would be in debt for the rest of my life!

As for the cost to society, there is not real costs because if we were to follow the simple rule of everyone is responsible for their actions then they would be the ones that would have to pay. But we don't, the government has basically said that we, the People, must pay for everyones stupidity whether we like it or not (at gunpoint literally).

I have good medical insurance. You don't have to pay for my stupidity at this moment. Yet even if I lost my insurance, why should you have to pay for what I do? Hell, if you think that society should pay, please paypal me about 1 million dollars asap because as a human, I will do stupid things.

But, I have chosen to do what I do. I smoke (legal for the time being), I drink WAY too much (legal at the moment). I will have problems later on in life (I'm already having problems) but should you pay for my mistakes/stupidity... NO. It's on me to pay my own way.

I have chosen to be stupid, and it is I that should pay the price, both bodily and moneytarily(I think I just made up a word). The same goes for those that don't wish to use seatbelts, helmets, or even fire detectors in their houses. It's their choice to do so, so put the money value on them, make them pay for it.

The same with fat people. If you chose to be fat, then you pay for being fat.

In reality, there is no cost to society for any actions that an individual has chosen for him or herself. Society, through the government, has decided to make a cost to itself via laws, charity, welfare, and regulations regarding such issues.

Let me be a Callous SOB again:

1. No free society programs. You can't pay, you can't play. This would make health care and other needed services more affordable.

2. You decide to do something stupid, your choice as a Free American, no seatbelts, no helmet, no smoke detectors..... no money for you. You either pay to get medical attention, or, well, you die. Unless your family, friends, or chruch wishes to help (or the general public willfully, not at gunpoint of the governments).

3. Ability to pay. Hey, you have long distance on your phone? You have cable tv? You have high speed internet or even internet? You have a computer? You have a tv, radio, a newer type car? Then you better have the ability to pay. These are "perks" and if you don't have the money to pay your own way, then you don't have money for "perks" now do you?

If we got rid of having to pay for all these people that have made mistakes in life that cause them to be homeless, welfare people, people just living off the dole of the others around them, then health insurance would be cheaper, as well as other services that we pay.

I have no problem with helping people, I do have a problem with paying for people that don't wish to help themselves.

You want to be fat, so be it. Pay your own way. You want to smoke, so be it, pay your own way. You want to drink heavily, so be it, pay your own way. You don't wish to use safety gear, so be it, pay your own way.

I smoke, as mentioned, and I drink too much, as mentioned. If I continue on this path I will need that oxygen tank, I will need that liver transplant. What have I done to ensure that I have these options, I have health insurance. Right now it's being paid by my company, if I don't have that later on in life, then it's my responsibility to gain insurance, not yours, not societies, not my family... it's mine and only mine.

If I fail at being able to obtain insurance or a means to pay on my own, then my only option is charity by a non-governmental agency or death. Hey, that's life.

As for children, you have to be a parent. If you're not a good parent then I don't know (I'm not a parent so I can't really comment on the issue). If I were a parent, the safety of my kid(s) would be first issue and they would be in any and every safety device known to man. It's my job, as a parent, to ensure the safety and well being of that child (children). I should have the choice to be stupid with my life, it's my job to ensure that my child (children) have the choice to be stupid with theirs after they have grown.

Wayne
 
Last edited:
It simply amazes me how many people espouse the Classic Liberal Left Social Doctrine of Collective Safety, while wearing a Molon Labe shirt, and somehow believe this grants them claim as rugged individualists or Constitutional defenders.

In fact, the effect is no different than a social liberal cloaked in a Second Amendment tunic. The word "effect" is highlighted for a reason....this is not an indictment of anyone's personality or person; simply an observation of how ineffective it makes you in fighting for any portion of the Constitution other than thru the slogan on your shirt.
Rich
 
Seat belt laws SHOULD be enforced. I sure hope my dad gets slapped with a 500 dollar ticket one of these days so he can wake up and realize he's endangering himself!

People don't realize the consequences of not wearing one, which is why the government needs to step in and protect you from yourself!
 
... and some people will just never get it. :rolleyes:

This isn't about enforcing laws, it's about the laws and the nanny/socialist state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top