where do they get this stuff?

[mswaim]

Ohh Lord :rollseyes You know, there is a VERY huge difference in BILLIONS of dollars in political "influence" money, and a couple million for a Geico commercial. Surely you see the difference.......Do you really think for 1 second of your existance that high paid insurance CEO's could give a rats ass about Joe Shmoe being thrown from a car and seriously or fatally injuring himself? Why yes, yes they do, for one reason and one reason only.....MONEY, plain and simple.......

The problem is you are debating an issue that does not exist in the Law Enforcement community. We scrape up knuckleheads who refuse to wear thier seatbelts every day. I don't give a crap if the law was written by insurance companies or the legislature, it is the Law and our job is to enforce it. If you don't like that fact, fine - buy a motorcycle. But get a helmet, I've scraped enough brain matter off my boots at their crash scenes too.

 

[OhOneSnake]

I think the issue of personal rights is important, but we also need to think about the kinds of rights we give up as individuals for the good of the whole.

Mswain, in your experiance, would you say that accidents where both parties wore their belts, and were mostly uninjured cost the taxpayers less money due to less resources needing to be deployed, and less time taken, or would you say that the full gambit is thrown at every accident?

I'm guessing the total bill is less at the scene of a belted accident.
Nitemare GT, save me money, wear your belt.

 

[NiteMareGT]

You see guys, the issue isn't that seatbelts don't save lives, because they do. Do I wear mine?...absolutely. Should I be TOLD to wear my seatbelt or else?.....absolutely NOT !! For anyone here to believe that they were put in place solely to save lives is a complete lack of knowledge of the picture as a whole. Why isn't drinking yourself to death illegal? Why isn't skydiving illegal? Why isn't swimming with sharks illegal? Why isn't being underpaid, and working 16-20 hour days to help your family make it through, until your heart explodes at 55, illegal? Why isn't hunting illegal? There are several things you could list here that would save lives if laws were imposed, but ofcoarse, they're not. I'll tell you exactly why these are legal, and not wearing your seat-belt isn't. It's because the number of fatalities in the examples listed above are of a miniscule number, compared to the number of cars/drivers on the road everyday. And so, mandating a law that affects all of these drivers on a day to day basis saves insurance companies, millions, if not billions of dollars each year in claims and law-suits, not to mention the revenue generated from offenders for the judicial system. The big money invested by the insurance companies to the election campaigns helps insure that their wants and needs are attended to, plain and simple.

 

[mswaim]

You see guys, the issue isn't that seatbelts don't save lives, because they do. Do I wear mine?...absolutely. Should I be TOLD to wear my seatbelt or else?.....absolutely NOT !! For anyone here to believe that they were put in place solely to save lives is a complete lack of knowledge of the picture as a whole. Why isn't drinking yourself to death illegal? Why isn't skydiving illegal? Why isn't swimming with sharks illegal? Why isn't being underpaid, and working 16-20 hour days to help your family make it through, until your heart explodes at 55, illegal? Why isn't hunting illegal? There are several things you could list here that would save lives if laws were imposed, but ofcoarse, they're not. I'll tell you exactly why these are legal, and not wearing your seat-belt isn't. It's because the number of fatalities in the examples listed above are of a miniscule number, compared to the number of cars/drivers on the road everyday. And so, mandating a law that affects all of these drivers on a day to day basis saves insurance companies, millions, if not billions of dollars each year in claims and law-suits, not to mention the revenue generated from offenders for the judicial system. The big money invested by the insurance companies to the election campaigns helps insure that their wants and needs are attended to, plain and simple.

The answer to your question is very simple. Operating a motor vehicle in this country is a privilege, not a right. As a privilege, it is regulated by every state through various laws, statutes and licensing requirements. Since almost everybody operates a motor vehicle, its safety devices will always over-shadow those required by sky divers, etc.

Seat belts, air bags, child safety seats, etc. all have played a role in minimizing injuries/deaths generated over the years as automobiles evolutionized. As more and more vehicles share the roads, the requirements increase. I don't give a crap if it is the insurance agencies pushing the reforms or not, they are badly needed.

BTW - I want those insurance companies to profit, many of my investment portfolios contain stock in them!!! :beer:

 

[mswaim]

I think the issue of personal rights is important, but we also need to think about the kinds of rights we give up as individuals for the good of the whole.

Mswain, in your experiance, would you say that accidents where both parties wore their belts, and were mostly uninjured cost the taxpayers less money due to less resources needing to be deployed, and less time taken, or would you say that the full gambit is thrown at every accident?

I'm guessing the total bill is less at the scene of a belted accident.
Nitemare GT, save me money, wear your belt.

You are correct, the overall deployment numbers would be less. The subsequent civil costs will also be less.

 

[Lawman85]

You see guys, the issue isn't that seatbelts don't save lives, because they do. Do I wear mine?...absolutely. Should I be TOLD to wear my seatbelt or else?.....absolutely NOT !! For anyone here to believe that they were put in place solely to save lives is a complete lack of knowledge of the picture as a whole. Why isn't drinking yourself to death illegal? Why isn't skydiving illegal? Why isn't swimming with sharks illegal? Why isn't being underpaid, and working 16-20 hour days to help your family make it through, until your heart explodes at 55, illegal? Why isn't hunting illegal? There are several things you could list here that would save lives if laws were imposed, but ofcoarse, they're not. I'll tell you exactly why these are legal, and not wearing your seat-belt isn't. It's because the number of fatalities in the examples listed above are of a miniscule number, compared to the number of cars/drivers on the road everyday. And so, mandating a law that affects all of these drivers on a day to day basis saves insurance companies, millions, if not billions of dollars each year in claims and law-suits, not to mention the revenue generated from offenders for the judicial system. The big money invested by the insurance companies to the election campaigns helps insure that their wants and needs are attended to, plain and simple.

You debated yourself in this post... and won... I think....
mswain answered this one well. Driving is a privilege, not a right, therefore you have to abide by the rules of that state in order to be issued a driver's license. If you don't like the rules of that state, go elsewhere, or write your representatives to get the law changed. Those are your only options.

 

[samill2]

You debated yourself in this post... and won... I think....
mswain answered this one well. Driving is a privilege, not a right...QUOTE]

This is exactly my point. Anyone who sees these seat belt laws for what they are (revenue generators) should be writing their representatives about it. Again, if it was about peoples' safety, there'd be a $10,000 fine for every infraction. Everyone would wear their belt - state would get no money. It's about revenue generation. Cops that take overtime to work "click it or ticket" are just contributing to the problem.

You wanna serve and protect? Stop looking into my car with NV scopes and scope out some crackhouses or patrol some dark alleyways or something. Just because it's your job doesn't mean you have to mindlessly take extra money for doing something that contributes to the erosion of our freedoms.

BTW - one of the greatest men I know - my father - was a cop for ten years.

 

[OhOneSnake]

if it was about peoples' safety, there'd be a $10,000 fine for every infraction. Everyone would wear their belt - state would get no money.

No, with that ridiculous fine, people would get the tickets and never pay them, then you'd have alot of people with suspended licenses and a city/county/state without the resources to prosecute them all, and it would be like Washington D.C., where no-permit lockups are so prevalent that the person arrested pays-out $75 and goes home before the arresting officer even finishes the paperwork.

 

[mswaim]

You debated yourself in this post... and won... I think....
mswain answered this one well. Driving is a privilege, not a right...QUOTE]

This is exactly my point. Anyone who sees these seat belt laws for what they are (revenue generators) should be writing their representatives about it. Again, if it was about peoples' safety, there'd be a $10,000 fine for every infraction. Everyone would wear their belt - state would get no money. It's about revenue generation. Cops that take overtime to work "click it or ticket" are just contributing to the problem.

You wanna serve and protect? Stop looking into my car with NV scopes and scope out some crackhouses or patrol some dark alleyways or something. Just because it's your job doesn't mean you have to mindlessly take extra money for doing something that contributes to the erosion of our freedoms.

BTW - one of the greatest men I know - my father - was a cop for ten years.

Then he of all people would caution you for demeaning my efforts as an officer simply because I choose to enforce all of the laws, not just the ones I agree with.

BTW - where did you get the idea I sit around all night looking in your windows with night vision equipment? Is that a secret your dad shared with you? Not trying to flame you, but I must assume someone on the inside told you that whopper.

 

[samill2]

Then he of all people would caution you for demeaning my efforts as an officer simply because I choose to enforce all of the laws, not just the ones I agree with.

BTW - where did you get the idea I sit around all night looking in your windows with night vision equipment? Is that a secret your dad shared with you? Not trying to flame you, but I must assume someone on the inside told you that whopper.

My father - a great man - understood the difference between enforcing every little piddly law and serving the public interest. If you didn't have your seat belt on, he may roll down his window and say "seatbelt on, NOW" or something to that effect but he didn't make it a point to go looking for the hardened criminal nonseatbelt wearers. [/sarcasm]

I assure you, it's not a "whopper." http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/lo...un07,1,1820220.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

 

[mswaim]

My father - a great man - understood the difference between enforcing every little piddly law and serving the public interest. If you didn't have your seat belt on, he may roll down his window and say "seatbelt on, NOW" or something to that effect but he didn't make it a point to go looking for the hardened criminal nonseatbelt wearers. [/sarcasm]

I assure you, it's not a "whopper." http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/lo...un07,1,1820220.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

Don't measure my (or other officers) abilities, actions and ideals by those of your father. My career surpasses his by 20 years, he might have found it effective to sit in his unit and ask for compliance, however that is not what the legislature's intent was. Yes, the spirit of the law is to gain compliance, however that method will fail miserably in any of the areas I have worked.

As stated before many times, this issue is not up for debate, nor is it an infringement on your rights. In fact, there is a very real, personal choice involved.

If you don't want to be told to wear a seatbelt, no problem. Park your car and walk, it's that simple.

 

[XtremeAceX]

Don't measure my (or other officers) abilities, actions and ideals by those of your father. My career surpasses his by 20 years, he might have found it effective to sit in his unit and ask for compliance, however that is not what the legislature's intent was. Yes, the spirit of the law is to gain compliance, however that method will fail miserably in any of the areas I have worked.

As stated before many times, this issue is not up for debate, nor is it an infringement on your rights. In fact, there is a very real, personal choice involved.

If you don't want to be told to wear a seatbelt, no problem. Park your car and walk, it's that simple.

Im not arguing with anybody, i only mean this as a question. But why can people get tickets for not wearing a seatbelt? it's their lives that they are risking.. whether they have it on or not has nothing to do with whether or not they are going to crash or hurt somebody else.. just themselves. Like i said before, im not arguing, just a question i dont know the answer to

 

[OhOneSnake]

Im not arguing with anybody, i only mean this as a question. But why can people get tickets for not wearing a seatbelt? it's their lives that they are risking.. whether they have it on or not has nothing to do with whether or not they are going to crash or hurt somebody else.. just themselves.

Read Above: You're ability to maintain control of your vehicle during accident avoidance is diminished if you're not properly restrained in your seat (ie: seat-belt).

 

[XtremeAceX]

Read Above: You're ability to maintain control of your vehicle during accident avoidance is diminished if you're not properly restrained in your seat (ie: seat-belt).

Thanks :beer:

 

[FordSVTFan]

You debated yourself in this post... and won... I think....
mswain answered this one well. Driving is a privilege, not a right...QUOTE]

This is exactly my point. Anyone who sees these seat belt laws for what they are (revenue generators) should be writing their representatives about it. Again, if it was about peoples' safety, there'd be a $10,000 fine for every infraction. Everyone would wear their belt - state would get no money. It's about revenue generation. Cops that take overtime to work "click it or ticket" are just contributing to the problem.

You wanna serve and protect? Stop looking into my car with NV scopes and scope out some crackhouses or patrol some dark alleyways or something. Just because it's your job doesn't mean you have to mindlessly take extra money for doing something that contributes to the erosion of our freedoms.

BTW - one of the greatest men I know - my father - was a cop for ten years.

If your father was a police officer for ten years then he could tell you, as I and others have said repeatedly, traffic stops lead to many other things. Traffic stops are great for finding driver along the I-95 corridor trafficking drugs from FL to NY. Traffic stops are a great way to find scumbags with outstanding warrants for things like "selling crack", child molestation, rape, murder, etc. So, traffic stops are a good inexpensive way of enforcing other laws.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Im not arguing with anybody, i only mean this as a question. But why can people get tickets for not wearing a seatbelt? it's their lives that they are risking.. whether they have it on or not has nothing to do with whether or not they are going to crash or hurt somebody else.. just themselves. Like i said before, im not arguing, just a question i dont know the answer to

Because driving is a privilege and not a right. That means the state gets to mandate what rules are in place during the operation of a motor vehicle.

Additionally the cost to society when these people are significantly injured in an mva without a seatbelt is great and the general population should bare the cost of your not wearing a seatbelt.

 

[NiteMareGT]

Don't measure my (or other officers) abilities, actions and ideals by those of your father. My career surpasses his by 20 years, he might have found it effective to sit in his unit and ask for compliance, however that is not what the legislature's intent was. Yes, the spirit of the law is to gain compliance, however that method will fail miserably in any of the areas I have worked.

As stated before many times, this issue is not up for debate, nor is it an infringement on your rights. In fact, there is a very real, personal choice involved.

If you don't want to be told to wear a seatbelt, no problem. Park your car and walk, it's that simple.

Well, you would figure after 30 years of service, which IS a great accomplishment nonetheless, you wouldn't be so anal. You seem so defensive. And, btw, any discussion is ALWAYS up for debate. You think that just because it's "LAW" that the option for debate is closed? Man, you're wrong !!
Listen, wearing your seatbelt is the RIGHT thing to do, period. No one is discounting this. Being TOLD to is where the problem arises. It's just another step in total government control. Taking your guns, and things of this nature, are to follow, later on down the road.
BTW, if I knew that a cop was looking at me with night vision as stated previously, I would shine my laser pointer through the goggles, right into his retina. That is just going way to far, and IS an infringement on personal rights. :nonono:

 

[Lawman85]

Well, you would figure after 30 years of service, which IS a great accomplishment nonetheless, you wouldn't be so anal. You seem so defensive. And, btw, any discussion is ALWAYS up for debate. You think that just because it's "LAW" that the option for debate is closed? Man, you're wrong !!
Listen, wearing your seatbelt is the RIGHT thing to do, period. No one is discounting this. Being TOLD to is where the problem arises. It's just another step in total government control. Taking your guns, and things of this nature, are to follow, later on down the road.
BTW, if I knew that a cop was looking at me with night vision as stated previously, I would shine my laser pointer through the goggles, right into his retina. That is just going way to far, and IS an infringement on personal rights. :nonono:

Your wrong again. NVG's are not an infrinement on personal rights. Now heat sensing vision is.. The Supreme Court has ruled on that. Trust me, the seatbelt law is not the door opening on Nazi Germany. If we all agree that it is the right thing to do, then what is the problem with telling others to do it?

 

[mswaim]

Well, you would figure after 30 years of service, which IS a great accomplishment nonetheless, you wouldn't be so anal. You seem so defensive. And, btw, any discussion is ALWAYS up for debate. You think that just because it's "LAW" that the option for debate is closed? Man, you're wrong !!
Listen, wearing your seatbelt is the RIGHT thing to do, period. No one is discounting this. Being TOLD to is where the problem arises. It's just another step in total government control. Taking your guns, and things of this nature, are to follow, later on down the road.
BTW, if I knew that a cop was looking at me with night vision as stated previously, I would shine my laser pointer through the goggles, right into his retina. That is just going way to far, and IS an infringement on personal rights. :nonono:

Two points; then I refuse to "debate" you any further.

One - The issue of seatbelts is not a discussion, nor a debate. It is the law, and as such is not open to debate at this level. It can only be effectively debated in the legislature.

You choose to refer to me as being "anal" simply because I respect the laws of our Land. I'd rather you think of me as anal and not like your selective enforcement father - nothing worse than someone who enforces the law arbitrarily, based on their own interpretation of the legislature's intent.

Two - By stating that you would commit a felony crime (and severely injure a police officer) utilizing your laser pointer speaks volumes about your character.........if you have any at all.

Gotta wonder what a great man like your father would say about that statement? Pretty sad....................

 

[NiteMareGT]

Two points; then I refuse to "debate" you any further.

One - The issue of seatbelts is not a discussion, nor a debate. It is the law, and as such is not open to debate at this level. It can only be effectively debated in the legislature.

You choose to refer to me as being "anal" simply because I respect the laws of our Land. I'd rather you think of me as anal and not like your selective enforcement father - nothing worse than someone who enforces the law arbitrarily, based on their own interpretation of the legislature's intent.

Two - By stating that you would commit a felony crime (and severely injure a police officer) utilizing your laser pointer speaks volumes about your character.........if you have any at all.

Gotta wonder what a great man like your father would say about that statement? Pretty sad....................

:lol: HAHAHAHA He'd point me in your general direction......and besides, I love playing devil's advocate..... :lol:
How my father got into this, I don't know, because it was someone else here who's father was an LEO. I'm sorry to have thought to insult you, being as your cup overfloweth with such wholesome, law abiding goodness. Sorry Mr. Perfect, didn't mean to infringe upon you, my evilness. You are just a COP, nothing more. Leave the power tripping to the judges.....