I think it's a question of whether people should be able to risk their own personal safety, and take the chance themselves or not. If people are at liberty to take a risk with their own lives but not of others then there is much more evidence to suggest that seatbelts should be mandatory at the back but not at the front as people at the back can easily crush a front seat passenger to death even at a collision as low as 30mph.
seat belt laws !!!!!!! argh!!!!
by heathen 47 Replies latest social current
-
-
NeonMadman
I think seatbelt and helmet laws are one place where natural selection can still play a role. Anyone stupid enough not to wear one should be given every opportunity to express their freedom and not pass their genes on to the next generation.
Amen, Abaddon!
After reading many of the comments on this thread, I can only conclude that hang gliding, sky diving, playing football and not brushing after every meal should all be illegal, since they are bad for us (or potentially dangerous), and we need the government to be our mommy and daddy and make laws to force us to do things that we are too stupid to do for ourselves.
Of course everyone should wear a seat belt! Of course people should avoid dangerous activities! Of course we should brush after every meal! But do you really want the Dental Police coming to your house to check whether you've done a good enough job brushing or whether you should be fined for not brushing? After all, your dental hygiene affects others, too - they have to smell your bad breath and look at your rotting teeth! Shouldn't there be a law making brushing after meals mandatory? It's only common sense, after all!
For anybody who has missed the irony in my above comments, I do not believe that we need laws to enforce personal safety measures simply because they are a "good idea". The purpose of government should be to maintain order in society and provide certain essential services, not to nursemaid us through life.
And besides that, I'm not too crazy about the idea that driving should be a "privilege." It's OK to tax me to death to pay for the roads and their attendant expenses, but then it's a "privilege" that I should be allowed to drive on the same roads I'm paying for? I think the only reason that government has classed driving as a "privilege" rather than a "right" is that, if it were a right, they would have to go through due process to take away or restrict anyone's right to drive. As it is, government can (and sometimes does) act in a completely arbitrary manner in administratively restricting someone's "privilege" to drive. Bottom line: more power for the government, less freedom for us!
-
maxwell
And besides that, I'm not too crazy about the idea that driving should be a "privilege." It's OK to tax me to death to pay for the roads and their attendant expenses, but then it's a "privilege" that I should be allowed to drive on the same roads I'm paying for? I think the only reason that government has classed driving as a "privilege" rather than a "right" is that, if it were a right, they would have to go through due process to take away or restrict anyone's right to drive. As it is, government can (and sometimes does) act in a completely arbitrary manner in administratively restricting someone's "privilege" to drive. Bottom line: more power for the government, less freedom for us!
I ride a bicycle or walk many places in the city, and I have interest in privileges and rights of use of the roadway. Since streets and roads are generally thought of as public rights of way, it should be everyone's right to use them, but certain methods of use may have to be restricted. Before there were cars or bicycles, everyone had the right to use to the roads to move about. When cars came along, it quickly became obvious that they are much more dangerous given their speed and weight. Horses and carriages were dangerous as well given their weight, but they never had as much speed. Since cars are so dangerous, the privilege to operate such a machine should be restricted to those who can do so responsibly. Sometimes that isn't the case. It's not very hard to get a license. Also while people had the right to use the roads to travel using means other than cars in the past, those rights have been restricted or removed to facilitate the privilege of using an automobile. Sidewalks, if they exist, are usually narrow little slivers of concrete and are often not maintained. Right of way in practice is often deferred to the largest and fastest road users. In the city I live in, every day I see people running across crosswalks when they have the walk signal, because they feel they need to hurry and let the all important car make their right turn. The fact that some car drivers are aggressive or nasty contributes to this feeling. Same thing happens at crosswalks that aren't at lights where the laws in every state say you must yield to or stop for pedestrians.
Our ironically named freeways, require an entry fee of at least the cost of a car, since they are restricted to motor vehicles. Interstate highway use should be restricted to cars. That's their purpose. They were built specifically for cars. But still its a kind of doublethought to think of them as freeways when you consider the requirements (financial and skillwise) to use them. So I suppose, I'd have to agree that there is less freedom, but not just for people who wish to drive automobiles. Sometimes the freedom of non car-driving public road users is restricted to facilitate the privilege of driving a car. And I think it should remain a privilege because of the inherent danger in that mode of transportation and so that freedoms of other road users can be maintained.
-
heathen
Neonmadman--------- That's a very humorous assesment of the situation . It's like what next do we all need crossing guards to cross the street like they have at the public schools??? I sure hope they don't have a dental hygien police .
maxwell ------- that sounds like another thread there. Should driving be a right or a priviledge ???????????? I think it should stay as a priviledge that way we don't have see and eye dogs driving the blind people around .lol
-
undercover
The CO at the last visit I went to mentioned dangerous activities; skydiving, parasailing, bungee jumping and then after a pause, motorcycle riding. There are a couple of brothers in the hall that ride. It was a sly way of condemning that activity by throwing it in with other more dangerous activities. Riding in a car is dangerous, why not list that. So is riding in a plane. Or playing with matches. The list goes on and on. Here is the WTS again trying to dictate what is and is not acceptable for "Christians".
The same with seat belt and helmet laws. Why limit it to that? Why not make it a law that you have to wear pads when rollerblading? Where and when does it stop? I'm an adult. I can decide when I want to wear a seat belt or a helmet. I don't need the government telling me that I "have" to. Laws for children wearing them is ok but for adults, let us decide.
-
Hamas
Just put the Star of Islam in your car window and you will be ok. The cops won't stop you.
lol @ English 'racial equalities' going overboard.
-
Panda
Don't the insurance companies really love it when folks don't buckle up.
"Oh you didn't have your seat belt on! Well no benefits for you!" they say as you are wheeled into the OR. I live in a very rural community and pretty much no one over 40 buckles up. What does that mean ???
-
teenyuck
Don't the insurance companies really love it when folks don't buckle up.
"Oh you didn't have your seat belt on! Well no benefits for you!" they say as you are wheeled into the OR. I live in a very rural community and pretty much no one over 40 buckles up. What does that mean ???
Panda, even if you are in an accident and were not wearing a seat belt, they will cover the expenses. However, getting your policy renewed or even getting another policy will be difficult. You will pay a large premium. You could lie and say it was the only time you did not wear it. Why should the insurance company believe you? Your risk factor goes up, so the price goes up.