What's more dangerous? Not wearing Seatbelts or Seatbelt Traffic Stops

In article .com>,
says...

>In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were
>intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running
>a red light or having an expired tag, those stops were jusitified,
>professionally handled and served their purpose (I became a better
>driver).

You obviously have not ever been through a police roadblock. I have and it
is an intrusion, a waste of my time, and a waste of police resources.

>As with helmets for motorcycle riders, there is NO justifiable reason
>to not wear a seatbelt.

Freedom of choice is a good reason. I personally would not drive without
wearing a seatbelt, but I don't like being told that I have to do it. I'm
an adult who can make my own decisions. I don't need some elected official
who thinks he knows it all telling me what to do.
-----------------
Alex

In article . com>,
says...

>Well, what about parents who do not belt their young children
>in? Those idiots are endangering several lives; they have a legal
>responsibility to provide for their child's safety.

That's different. I say stop those folks.

>Given that, it would seem odd to me if the driver is legally
>required to buckle the children up, but not himself..

Not odd at all.

>Also, non-buckled back seat passengers endanger the lives
>of those in the front seat in a head-on collision (many front
>seat passengers have been killed by flying objects, including
>other people!), and there is also the chance of a front seat
>passenger being thrown out the windscreen, and into the
>other car, killing its occupants too (or being thrown onto
>the road and killing a pedestrian).

If the rear seat belts are lap only, the rear passenger risks doing more
damage by wearing the belt than by not wearing a belt. I don't doubt that
there have been front seat passengers killed by unbelted rear passengers, but
I would think that most of the time the rear passenger will just ram the front
seat back.
--------------
Alex

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article .com>,
> says...
>
> >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were
> >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running
> >a red light or having an expired tag, those stops were jusitified,
> >professionally handled and served their purpose (I became a better
> >driver).
>
> You obviously have not ever been through a police roadblock. I have and it
> is an intrusion, a waste of my time, and a waste of police resources.

If the roadblock was for a valid purpose I would have no problem with
the wait. For example if the police were looking for drunks, a
murderer or were looking for illegally tagged cars, that's ok with me.

>
> >As with helmets for motorcycle riders, there is NO justifiable reason
> >to not wear a seatbelt.
>
> Freedom of choice is a good reason. I personally would not drive without
> wearing a seatbelt, but I don't like being told that I have to do it. I'm
> an adult who can make my own decisions. I don't need some elected official
> who thinks he knows it all telling me what to do.

Many of our so-called freedoms have to be balanced against their impact
on society as a whole. By not wearing a seatbelt or helmet you put
yourself at greater risk of physical damage. If you lived on an island
by yourself and were willing to take that risk, then go ahead. But as
a member of a society if you seriously and permanently injure yourself
then someone else has to pick up the responsibility for your care.
Thus the "right" to do someting stupid like not wear a seat belt is
counterbalanced by the potential impact such behaviour has on society
as a whole.


> -----------------
> Alex

In article .com>, John S. wrote:
>
> Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>> In article .com>,
>> says...
>>
>> >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were
>> >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running
>> >a red light or having an expired tag, those stops were jusitified,
>> >professionally handled and served their purpose (I became a better
>> >driver).
>>
>> You obviously have not ever been through a police roadblock. I have and it
>> is an intrusion, a waste of my time, and a waste of police resources.
>
> If the roadblock was for a valid purpose I would have no problem with
> the wait. For example if the police were looking for drunks, a
> murderer or were looking for illegally tagged cars, that's ok with me.

Which is why government has done that end run, by saying they are looking
for DUI. And people like you trust not only the current government and
police but all future people who may hold those offices or jobs to never,
ever, abuse that power.

> Many of our so-called freedoms have to be balanced against their impact
> on society as a whole. By not wearing a seatbelt or helmet you put
> yourself at greater risk of physical damage.

In a society that values liberty, that arguement is one to justify
tyranny. All it takes to control every facet of everyone's life is to
draw some chain of how it might impact society as a whole. For instance,
if people eat apples then too much land in somebody's opinion will be
used for growing apple trees, so the political system kicks in and
demands that no one eat more than 2 apples a week. I can control
practically any facet of a person's life this way.

Now, to seat belt and helmet laws. The helmet only protects the rider.
There is no reason to mandate it and no clear data that there is even a
benefit. Especially bicycle helmets. I choose not to wear a bicycle
helmet because I studied the varied information on the topic and
concluded that they had several downsides while offering little to no
protection in return. I should be free to make that decision for me.

Seatbelts. Seatbelts are made to keep the driver at the controls as much
as they are made to protect him from injury. The injuries of another
driver due to his choice is not an issue for me, what is an issue is
remaining in control of the vehicle. That is where it may be regulated
just as the headlamps, taillamps, emmissions, etc are. I see a seatbelt
as a mechanical fastener in the control system of the automobile, much
like the bolts that hold the steering column in place.


> If you lived on an island
> by yourself and were willing to take that risk, then go ahead. But as
> a member of a society if you seriously and permanently injure yourself
> then someone else has to pick up the responsibility for your care.

Why?

> Thus the "right" to do someting stupid like not wear a seat belt is
> counterbalanced by the potential impact such behaviour has on society
> as a whole.

There is no right to have someone pick up the responsibility for mine or
anyone else's care. That is not a right, can never be a right because it
is demanding service from another citizen. Rights stop where you do.

BTW, you might want to google on the severe and/or life-changing injuries
that motorcycle helmet wearers get instead of just dying without the
helmet.

If health care costs (money and labor) were the real concern, then we
should simply encourage that riders die instead of living with severe
injury or having the expensive care to repair a severe injury. Because
simply, dying is the cheapest option. Obviously then it's about trying
to make it so people have what is thought to be the best chance of
living, and not what is cheapest. The cost arguement simply doesn't hold
together when it's cheaper to die than be injured.

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, John S. wrote:
> >
> > Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> >> In article .com>,
> >> says...
> >>
> >> >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were
> >> >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running
> >> >a red light or having an expired tag, those stops were jusitified,
> >> >professionally handled and served their purpose (I became a better
> >> >driver).
> >>
> >> You obviously have not ever been through a police roadblock. I have and it
> >> is an intrusion, a waste of my time, and a waste of police resources.
> >
> > If the roadblock was for a valid purpose I would have no problem with
> > the wait. For example if the police were looking for drunks, a
> > murderer or were looking for illegally tagged cars, that's ok with me.
>
> Which is why government has done that end run, by saying they are looking
> for DUI. And people like you trust not only the current government and
> police but all future people who may hold those offices or jobs to never,
> ever, abuse that power.
>
> > Many of our so-called freedoms have to be balanced against their impact
> > on society as a whole. By not wearing a seatbelt or helmet you put
> > yourself at greater risk of physical damage.
>
> In a society that values liberty, that arguement is one to justify
> tyranny. All it takes to control every facet of everyone's life is to
> draw some chain of how it might impact society as a whole. For instance,
> if people eat apples then too much land in somebody's opinion will be
> used for growing apple trees, so the political system kicks in and
> demands that no one eat more than 2 apples a week. I can control
> practically any facet of a person's life this way.

Do a websearch for reductio ad absurdum and note how the definition
applies to your last statement.


>
> Now, to seat belt and helmet laws. The helmet only protects the rider.
> There is no reason to mandate it and no clear data that there is even a
> benefit. Especially bicycle helmets. I choose not to wear a bicycle
> helmet because I studied the varied information on the topic and
> concluded that they had several downsides while offering little to no
> protection in return. I should be free to make that decision for me.
>
> Seatbelts. Seatbelts are made to keep the driver at the controls as much
> as they are made to protect him from injury. The injuries of another
> driver due to his choice is not an issue for me, what is an issue is
> remaining in control of the vehicle. That is where it may be regulated
> just as the headlamps, taillamps, emmissions, etc are. I see a seatbelt
> as a mechanical fastener in the control system of the automobile, much
> like the bolts that hold the steering column in place.

It is an issue for most of us because we pay for that drivers
shortsighted and childish behaviour.


>
>
> > If you lived on an island
> > by yourself and were willing to take that risk, then go ahead. But as
> > a member of a society if you seriously and permanently injure yourself
> > then someone else has to pick up the responsibility for your care.
>
> Why?

Are you asking why does someone else pick up the cost of injuries? You
apparently don't use insurance, hospitals and doctors. If you did you
would realize that to the extent that to the injuries are covered under
insurance premiums will rise. To the extent they are not someone else,
usually local tax payers gets to pay for the cost of caring for that
crippled individual for the rest of his life.
>
> > Thus the "right" to do someting stupid like not wear a seat belt is
> > counterbalanced by the potential impact such behaviour has on society
> > as a whole.
>
> There is no right to have someone pick up the responsibility for mine or
> anyone else's care. That is not a right, can never be a right because it
> is demanding service from another citizen. Rights stop where you do.
>
> BTW, you might want to google on the severe and/or life-changing injuries
> that motorcycle helmet wearers get instead of just dying without the
> helmet.
>
> If health care costs (money and labor) were the real concern, then we
> should simply encourage that riders die instead of living with severe
> injury or having the expensive care to repair a severe injury. Because
> simply, dying is the cheapest option. Obviously then it's about trying
> to make it so people have what is thought to be the best chance of
> living, and not what is cheapest. The cost arguement simply doesn't hold
> together when it's cheaper to die than be injured.

In article .com>, John S. wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article .com>, John S. wrote:
>> >
>> > Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>> >> In article .com>,
>> >> says...
>> >>
>> >> >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were
>> >> >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running
>> >> >a red light or having an expired tag, those stops were jusitified,
>> >> >professionally handled and served their purpose (I became a better
>> >> >driver).
>> >>
>> >> You obviously have not ever been through a police roadblock. I have and it
>> >> is an intrusion, a waste of my time, and a waste of police resources.
>> >
>> > If the roadblock was for a valid purpose I would have no problem with
>> > the wait. For example if the police were looking for drunks, a
>> > murderer or were looking for illegally tagged cars, that's ok with me.
>>
>> Which is why government has done that end run, by saying they are looking
>> for DUI. And people like you trust not only the current government and
>> police but all future people who may hold those offices or jobs to never,
>> ever, abuse that power.
>>
>> > Many of our so-called freedoms have to be balanced against their impact
>> > on society as a whole. By not wearing a seatbelt or helmet you put
>> > yourself at greater risk of physical damage.
>>
>> In a society that values liberty, that arguement is one to justify
>> tyranny. All it takes to control every facet of everyone's life is to
>> draw some chain of how it might impact society as a whole. For instance,
>> if people eat apples then too much land in somebody's opinion will be
>> used for growing apple trees, so the political system kicks in and
>> demands that no one eat more than 2 apples a week. I can control
>> practically any facet of a person's life this way.
>
> Do a websearch for reductio ad absurdum and note how the definition
> applies to your last statement.

It's quite absurd to suggest that if there is an impact to society
as a whole it should be subject to control. That was the point. If you
don't like my method of demonstrating it, oh well.

>> Now, to seat belt and helmet laws. The helmet only protects the rider.
>> There is no reason to mandate it and no clear data that there is even a
>> benefit. Especially bicycle helmets. I choose not to wear a bicycle
>> helmet because I studied the varied information on the topic and
>> concluded that they had several downsides while offering little to no
>> protection in return. I should be free to make that decision for me.
>>
>> Seatbelts. Seatbelts are made to keep the driver at the controls as much
>> as they are made to protect him from injury. The injuries of another
>> driver due to his choice is not an issue for me, what is an issue is
>> remaining in control of the vehicle. That is where it may be regulated
>> just as the headlamps, taillamps, emmissions, etc are. I see a seatbelt
>> as a mechanical fastener in the control system of the automobile, much
>> like the bolts that hold the steering column in place.

> It is an issue for most of us because we pay for that drivers
> shortsighted and childish behaviour.

Rather non-responsive of you. If you are concerned about the costs, leave
the unbelted injured to die on the side of the road or fend for
themselves. The only arguement for seat belts is the inability to prevent
further collisions which cause harm to others. What harm they cause
themselves is of little concern to me.

Of course these same seat belt laws and such probably don't allow for the
use racing harrnesses and other even more effective measures.

>> > If you lived on an island
>> > by yourself and were willing to take that risk, then go ahead. But as
>> > a member of a society if you seriously and permanently injure yourself
>> > then someone else has to pick up the responsibility for your care.

>> Why?

> Are you asking why does someone else pick up the cost of injuries?

I am asking why there is a responsibility for others to pick up the cost.

> You apparently don't use insurance, hospitals and doctors.

The usage of automobile insurance is forced. If you are worried about
your rates going up because of irresponsible people, then I suggest you
deal with your state's insurance board or whatever it's called on that. A
socialized system encourages irresponsible action by some of the members
because the personal costs are less. The knee-jerk reaction is then
one of control. You are demanding control over the costs people you find
irresponsible are placing on the system.

> If you did you
> would realize that to the extent that to the injuries are covered under
> insurance premiums will rise. To the extent they are not someone else,
> usually local tax payers gets to pay for the cost of caring for that
> crippled individual for the rest of his life.

Simple solution. Leave him to die. If you are worried about cost, that is
the cheapest one in dollars to the society. Leave them to die. Or is it
more than money?

>> > Thus the "right" to do someting stupid like not wear a seat belt is
>> > counterbalanced by the potential impact such behaviour has on society
>> > as a whole.

>> There is no right to have someone pick up the responsibility for mine or
>> anyone else's care. That is not a right, can never be a right because it
>> is demanding service from another citizen. Rights stop where you do.

>> BTW, you might want to google on the severe and/or life-changing injuries
>> that motorcycle helmet wearers get instead of just dying without the
>> helmet.
>>
>> If health care costs (money and labor) were the real concern, then we
>> should simply encourage that riders die instead of living with severe
>> injury or having the expensive care to repair a severe injury. Because
>> simply, dying is the cheapest option. Obviously then it's about trying
>> to make it so people have what is thought to be the best chance of
>> living, and not what is cheapest. The cost arguement simply doesn't hold
>> together when it's cheaper to die than be injured.


Exactly.

> If the roadblock was for a valid purpose I would have no problem with
> the wait. For example if the police were looking for drunks, a
> murderer or were looking for illegally tagged cars, that's ok with me.

I would. The fourth amendment trumps anything police need to do. Ever.

On the other hand if somebody just robbed a bank and fled in a car that
looks almost exactly like mine, then I wouldn't blame the police for
stopping me. The one is probable cause, the other isn't.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:59:32 -0800, John David Galt
> wrote:

>> If the roadblock was for a valid purpose I would have no problem with
>> the wait. For example if the police were looking for drunks, a
>> murderer or were looking for illegally tagged cars, that's ok with me.
>
>I would. The fourth amendment trumps anything police need to do. Ever.
>
>On the other hand if somebody just robbed a bank and fled in a car that
>looks almost exactly like mine, then I wouldn't blame the police for
>stopping me. The one is probable cause, the other isn't.

The most amazing part to me is the number of clear violations the
police overlook. Just this week (Monday & Tues so far) in front of
police I've watched people run red lights, run stop signs, have
registrations that expired in 2005, no rearview mirrors (none, inside
or out), and get stuck across an intersection after opposing traffic
had a green light. In every case the cop just kept going.

Yet even though these cops are too busy to stop someone who's right in
front of them and their registration hasn't been renewed in over a
year, they can still get 12 cops to stand around on a Friday night to
check for insurance, registration and seat belts.

Dave

"SD Dave" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:59:32 -0800, John David Galt
> > wrote:
>
>>> If the roadblock was for a valid purpose I would have no problem with
>>> the wait. For example if the police were looking for drunks, a
>>> murderer or were looking for illegally tagged cars, that's ok with me.
>>
>>I would. The fourth amendment trumps anything police need to do. Ever.
>>
>>On the other hand if somebody just robbed a bank and fled in a car that
>>looks almost exactly like mine, then I wouldn't blame the police for
>>stopping me. The one is probable cause, the other isn't.
>
> The most amazing part to me is the number of clear violations the
> police overlook. Just this week (Monday & Tues so far) in front of
> police I've watched people run red lights, run stop signs, have
> registrations that expired in 2005, no rearview mirrors (none, inside
> or out), and get stuck across an intersection after opposing traffic
> had a green light. In every case the cop just kept going.
>
> Yet even though these cops are too busy to stop someone who's right in
> front of them and their registration hasn't been renewed in over a
> year, they can still get 12 cops to stand around on a Friday night to
> check for insurance, registration and seat belts.

They're lazy and worthless.... the whole lot of em.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

John S. wrote:
> Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > says...
> >
> > >In over 40 years of driving I have never felt that the police were
> > >intruding into my life. Even when I got a ticket for speeding, running
> > >a red light or having an expired tag, those stops were jusitified,
> > >professionally handled and served their purpose (I became a better
> > >driver).
> >
> > You obviously have not ever been through a police roadblock. I have and it
> > is an intrusion, a waste of my time, and a waste of police resources.
>
> If the roadblock was for a valid purpose I would have no problem with
> the wait. For example if the police were looking for drunks, a
> murderer or were looking for illegally tagged cars, that's ok with me.

Good for you. Unfortunately, only one of those roadblocks would
actually be allowed by the Constitution of the Untied Snakes. Looking
for "drunks or illegally tagged cars" is NOT a valid use of a
roadblock. That's what's known as a "papers check." IOW, detainment
without probable cause, absent an overriding threat to society.

Now if a police officer spots a car with an expired sticker, or one
that shows signs of being operated by a drunk, and then pulls that car
over, that's a whole different matter - and one that I wholeheartedly
support.

nate