Conquer Club

rockfist wrote:I do karting and some car racing.

I can say without a doubt that most accidents in racing are far less dangerous than accidents on the road. Yes, no amount of safety equipment will save you from certain death in the worst racing accidents, but you are a fucking dumbass of major proportions if you don't wear a seat belt on the road. You don't have drunk drivers, or super tired drivers, or people texting on a race track and you have people who generally know that changing the angle of impact by 15-25 degrees can result in massive differences in G forces. Also you have people that usually always have some measure a little skill called car control. Every race driver with more than 5 races under their belt has been in a spin. I've spun hundreds of times. How many drivers have spun their cars and can have some control during a spin? Most drivers on the road flat panic in an accident.

Also you don't have black ice in racing. No amount of skill can save you from black ice. You can get better at driving in rain, or snow, or on visable ice, but when you go into a turn expecting it to be dry pavement and its ice you are in trouble, especially if you are accelerating or using cruise control. That's my lesson for the day. Never, ever use cruise control in rain, or snow or when there may be black ice.

All that being said, most traffic laws are enforced as revenue generators. The problem is we are far too generous in giving out driver's licenses. 20-40% of the drivers on the road have no business driving. If they didn't have licenses not only would the roads be less crowded but the rest of us could go 100+ mph on highways all the time.

I don't think I've ever agreed with you wholeheartedly before (nothing personal), but YES! There are a ton of drivers that should get out from behind the wheel. I myself don't drive, because I'm crap at it. letting me drive would be a bad move, but being unable to drive is so damned inconvenient that I've spent (in the past) a lot of time money and effort in trying to learn.If I'd carried on I'd have got a licence in the end.
If the system would stop (at least) people who are worse drivers than me from ever ever getting a license, that'd probably save more lives than seatbelts. More importantly, around 10-20% of people would not be allowed to drive, and with more non-drivers other options would have to be put in place.

john9blue wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:i just want to draw attention to this again because it went unnoticed the first time around. apparently john9bue thinks that he's so intelligent he has transcended into invincibility.

Gimme a break. It's called hyperbole. The risk is there for all of us, but the less intelligent you are, the more likely you are to do dumb shit and get yourself killed.

Gotta agree with you there. I was driving to Duluth, MN last weekend for a hockey tournament for my daughter, when we were30kms out of Two Harbours, MN when a logging transport truck in front of us was driving erratically, on the shoulder, swerving. Me and the wife felt uneasy about being so close to him, so I pulled back. Not even 5kms later two logs go flying off of the back of his truck towards us. Because I was smart enough to drop back earlier I was able to avoid being crushed by the logs. Guess a less intelligent person would have had the unfortunate result of having the logs fall on their vehicle.

rockfist wrote:I do karting and some car racing.

I can say without a doubt that most accidents in racing are far less dangerous than accidents on the road. Yes, no amount of safety equipment will save you from certain death in the worst racing accidents, but you are a fucking dumbass of major proportions if you don't wear a seat belt on the road. You don't have drunk drivers, or super tired drivers, or people texting on a race track and you have people who generally know that changing the angle of impact by 15-25 degrees can result in massive differences in G forces. Also you have people that usually always have some measure a little skill called car control. Every race driver with more than 5 races under their belt has been in a spin. I've spun hundreds of times. How many drivers have spun their cars and can have some control during a spin? Most drivers on the road flat panic in an accident.

Also you don't have black ice in racing. No amount of skill can save you from black ice. You can get better at driving in rain, or snow, or on visable ice, but when you go into a turn expecting it to be dry pavement and its ice you are in trouble, especially if you are accelerating or using cruise control. That's my lesson for the day. Never, ever use cruise control in rain, or snow or when there may be black ice.

All that being said, most traffic laws are enforced as revenue generators. The problem is we are far too generous in giving out driver's licenses. 20-40% of the drivers on the road have no business driving. If they didn't have licenses not only would the roads be less crowded but the rest of us could go 100+ mph on highways all the time.

gotta say that I agree, also.

I will add that while it is very difficult to deal with black ice, if you watch the edges .. avoid leaf-covered sides, have reasonable speed through curves (slow BEFORE you get to the curve!), etc. you can help avoid them.

One semi-humerous note -- my husband is slightly "chauvanistic" when it comes to driving. If we go anywhere, HE has to drive. Understand, as a fire fighter, he is hardly an amateur driver. None-the-less, when we go to CA, between the 16 lane freeways, the windy logging roads with NO berm, highway 1 with its cliffs on one side and drop to the ocean on the other... suddenly he has no trouble handing me the keys! (in his defense, the highway 1 bit was at least as much his desire to see the scenery)

rockfist wrote:I do karting and some car racing.

I can say without a doubt that most accidents in racing are far less dangerous than accidents on the road. Yes, no amount of safety equipment will save you from certain death in the worst racing accidents, but you are a fucking dumbass of major proportions if you don't wear a seat belt on the road. You don't have drunk drivers, or super tired drivers, or people texting on a race track and you have people who generally know that changing the angle of impact by 15-25 degrees can result in massive differences in G forces. Also you have people that usually always have some measure a little skill called car control. Every race driver with more than 5 races under their belt has been in a spin. I've spun hundreds of times. How many drivers have spun their cars and can have some control during a spin? Most drivers on the road flat panic in an accident.

Also you don't have black ice in racing. No amount of skill can save you from black ice. You can get better at driving in rain, or snow, or on visable ice, but when you go into a turn expecting it to be dry pavement and its ice you are in trouble, especially if you are accelerating or using cruise control. That's my lesson for the day. Never, ever use cruise control in rain, or snow or when there may be black ice.

All that being said, most traffic laws are enforced as revenue generators. The problem is we are far too generous in giving out driver's licenses. 20-40% of the drivers on the road have no business driving. If they didn't have licenses not only would the roads be less crowded but the rest of us could go 100+ mph on highways all the time.

Agreed 100%.

Timminz wrote:

rockfist wrote:I do karting and some car racing.

I can say without a doubt that most accidents in racing are far less dangerous than accidents on the road. Yes, no amount of safety equipment will save you from certain death in the worst racing accidents, but you are a fucking dumbass of major proportions if you don't wear a seat belt on the road. You don't have drunk drivers, or super tired drivers, or people texting on a race track and you have people who generally know that changing the angle of impact by 15-25 degrees can result in massive differences in G forces. Also you have people that usually always have some measure a little skill called car control. Every race driver with more than 5 races under their belt has been in a spin. I've spun hundreds of times. How many drivers have spun their cars and can have some control during a spin? Most drivers on the road flat panic in an accident.

Also you don't have black ice in racing. No amount of skill can save you from black ice. You can get better at driving in rain, or snow, or on visable ice, but when you go into a turn expecting it to be dry pavement and its ice you are in trouble, especially if you are accelerating or using cruise control. That's my lesson for the day. Never, ever use cruise control in rain, or snow or when there may be black ice.

All that being said, most traffic laws are enforced as revenue generators. The problem is we are far too generous in giving out driver's licenses. 20-40% of the drivers on the road have no business driving. If they didn't have licenses not only would the roads be less crowded but the rest of us could go 100+ mph on highways all the time.

Agreed 100%.

Amen

Worth posting this as an aside. Best advert I've ever seen for the use of seatbelts (and finally one that doesn't go for shock value):

On Youtube:
Embrace Life Campaign

Symmetry wrote:Worth posting this as an aside. Best advert I've ever seen for the use of seatbelts (and finally one that doesn't go for shock value):

On Youtube:
Embrace Life Campaign

Everyone understands seat-belts keep us safer. It's the lengths the enforcement officers are going to ticket people and the amount of the fine itself that is the issue, as far as I am concerned

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Worth posting this as an aside. Best advert I've ever seen for the use of seatbelts (and finally one that doesn't go for shock value):

On Youtube:
Embrace Life Campaign

Everyone understands seat-belts keep us safer. It's the lengths the enforcement officers are going to ticket people and the amount of the fine itself that is the issue, as far as I am concerned

Well it was an aside.

I think the ad kind of does a good job in pointing out that failing to wear a seatbelt doesn't just make us safer (I'm not sure on what you mean by us- it covers a lot of ground). It makes everyone involved in an accident better- the driver, the family, the other drivers involved, the ambulance crew, the tax payers for the road and maybe the healthcare.

So yeah- I think it depends on whether "us" equals "me" or "us generally".

Anyway- I think the rest of your argument has a good point. The issue of whether the fine itself is fair. I don't think it's fair to target the lengths that officers go to in targeting criminals. Either it's wrong and dangerous, or it it's not.

Personally, I think the way we evaluate and pay police officers is just wrong. Traffic incidents, lessoning of penalties should be the assessment, not numbers of tickets and other rather irrelevant data. In fact, if an area has too many tickets, then it means something is wrong with the signage, the design of the road, etc. When officers have "quotas", even "unofficial" quotas (nothing written down, but supervisors who tend to see that as a measure of effectiveness, even if the written policy is counter), it tends to make officers act unreasonably.

I also fully agree with those who have asserted our education of drivers is a big fail. I was fortunate to go to a school that offered comprehensive driver's education (it was mandatory in my CA school) AND to have a father who is himself a skilled driver to teach me.

That said, tickets do motivate people to drive better. They should not be the primary method of control, but should operate to penalize the worst drivers and to act as a kind of control on those who might otherwise be worse drivers.

Phatscotty wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:you are projecting, and I'm tellin ya you are missing the point. I adressed your statement about injury and death at the bottom of the first post in the thread, if you could please stop reading "some" of the post or "some" of the article....

If you are so in love with the seat belt law, then why did the state have to lean so heavy on the promise that a seatbelt ticket won't be a primary offense to get it passed as a secondary offense????

This is a law they said they wouldn't pass. Of course, at least 1 person takes offense to that. call it what you want

Wyoming already has a seatbelt law because too many idiots kept dying because they did not buckle up. Some still do, but not the numbers that were dying before (this goes for the I-80 and I-25).

how many people died in wyoming because they werent wearing their seatbelt?

too many, if any

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Worth posting this as an aside. Best advert I've ever seen for the use of seatbelts (and finally one that doesn't go for shock value):

On Youtube:
Embrace Life Campaign

Everyone understands seat-belts keep us safer. It's the lengths the enforcement officers are going to ticket people and the amount of the fine itself that is the issue, as far as I am concerned

That is the issue with every crime...the law often matters little compared to how it is enforced, and typically the laws being enforced is a political decision..if there is public outcry, attention goes from one crime to another...

this is not a sweeping change, but a change in percentages...

In this case, as in the case of any crime, a person can very easily, and very visably avoid any interaction with a police officer, by simply obeying the law, which they agree to do by getting a drivers license and driving on a public road. They can also not drive in a car and will not be harassed either.

Not wearing seat belts costs money and costs lives. If every buckled up, drove the speed limit, stopped at reds, stop signs, and used directionals, and most importantly didnt abuse substances while driving, more people and more families would be alive. That is not some nazi dream, its simply civilization. People obeying laws which protect its citizens.

And while seatbelts do seem to be a solo event, consider the accidents where the people in the front wear those, someone in the back doesn't wear his, and his body hits them so hard as to kill the law abiders. Granted, that is more the responsibility of the driver, but the passenger is ultimately responsible for breaking the law, and resulting in someones death.

There's simply nothing wrong with enforcing this law, as long as it is only people actually breaking the law that are pulled over.

The thing is, there are about 3000 other reasons a cop can pull you over for, and chances are, you are giving him one of those reasons at any given time. For the most part, people are left alone, but now people are outraged over pointless motor vehicle deaths, that are easily avoidable, and political pressure has been increased in order to save some lives.

There are millions of cars on the road. They offer us convenience, utility, freedom and fun, but they are not toys, and the laws of the road need to be respected, because they are not ours as an individual to decide which laws to follow, and which to not follow.

In any case, if the police go to far, too often, there is always political backlash by mainstream public, so, if there is not enough backlash, then it means most people are perfectly fine with it.

You simply cant go into court, and use as your defense, that Yes, I was breaking the law, but the police are enforcing it too much. Its ridiculous.

Not to confuse my perfectly valid argument above...personally, I find police are very lax in enforcing most driving laws. Typically the entire highway will be breaking the speed limit, but only the ones doing so by a good margin are dealt with. The reason insurance rates go up so much for tickets, is because you actually have to be a pretty bad driver, or pretty lucky to actually get one. Most people are probably guilty of a moving violation or two every day, but most people dont get pulled over once a year, and certainly dont get a ticket every year.

This of course changes from region to region, but we are at 2010. We are no longer barbarians swinging clubs. We live in a country will millions of other people, and have spent quite a bit of time passing laws to make them safer. Complaining that those laws are actually enforced, is understandable, but naive, and perhaps even counter productive.

If people put on their seatbelts as the law requires, and the cops continue to harass them for other things, get back to me...but you wont have to, because everyone will. But anyone who follows the law, and wears their seatbelt, just isnt going to feel any pity for someone who got a ticket, for not wearing theirs. All they had to do was put it on.

I digress again... my point on this one was more...I only started wearing my seatbelt once it was clear I might very well get a ticket for it. In my truck its difficult to worry too much, as stupid as that is, so mostly only wore it on the highway, and in any car I was in, but now, I dont want a ticket, and certainly dont feel like chatting with a cop, so I wear my seatbelt...and as an added convenience...wont hit my airbag travelling at 200mph too quickly and snap off my neck....or wont be as likely to do so.

Symmetry wrote:Worth posting this as an aside. Best advert I've ever seen for the use of seatbelts (and finally one that doesn't go for shock value):

On Youtube:
Embrace Life Campaign

Jesus. Pure brilliance.

AAFitz wrote:Not to confuse my perfectly valid argument above...personally, I find police are very lax in enforcing most driving laws. Typically the entire highway will be breaking the speed limit, but only the ones doing so by a good margin are dealt with. The reason insurance rates go up so much for tickets, is because you actually have to be a pretty bad driver, or pretty lucky to actually get one. Most people are probably guilty of a moving violation or two every day, but most people dont get pulled over once a year, and certainly dont get a ticket every year.

This of course changes from region to region, but we are at 2010. We are no longer barbarians swinging clubs. We live in a country will millions of other people, and have spent quite a bit of time passing laws to make them safer. Complaining that those laws are actually enforced, is understandable, but naive, and perhaps even counter productive.

If people put on their seatbelts as the law requires, and the cops continue to harass them for other things, get back to me...but you wont have to, because everyone will. But anyone who follows the law, and wears their seatbelt, just isnt going to feel any pity for someone who got a ticket, for not wearing theirs. All they had to do was put it on.

I digress again... my point on this one was more...I only started wearing my seatbelt once it was clear I might very well get a ticket for it. In my truck its difficult to worry too much, as stupid as that is, so mostly only wore it on the highway, and in any car I was in, but now, I dont want a ticket, and certainly dont feel like chatting with a cop, so I wear my seatbelt...and as an added convenience...wont hit my airbag travelling at 200mph too quickly and snap off my neck....or wont be as likely to do so.

I have been stopped by police officers two times in which I was not at fault.

The first instance I made a right turn on red (no signs posted that I could not make such a turn). A police officer pulled me over in the parking lot of a convenience store and indicated that I made a right turn on red. I indicated that there was no sign telling me I could not make such a turn. He told me that people crossed that street and that it is dangerous to make a right turn on red. I indicated that no one was crossing the street (probably because the light was red). He let me go without a ticket. Now, it was 10 at night on a Saturday and I was in a college-area, so perhaps the police officer thought if he stopped me, I'd be drunk or else an underage drinker. That being said, it was not a valid stop, so even if I had been drinking or underage or over the limit, he would not have had criminal recourse.

The second instance, I was driving home from Acme and I was pulled over. I did not know why I was pulled over because I was going under the speed limit (traffic) and had made no other traffic violations. The police officer indicated that my right tail light was out. I indicated that I did not know that and would fix it the next day (I did). The officer proceeded to write me a $135 ticket. Now, this was a valid stop and a valid ticket; however it boggles the mind that I did not receive a warning that my tail light was out, rather than a $135 ticket.

I mention these in response to Fitzy because he apparently believes that, "[i]f people put on their seatbelts as the law requires, and the cops continue to harass them for other things, get back to me...but you wont have to, because everyone will." I think the police, especially police in rural and suburban areas, have a mandate to collect money for the local jurisdiction and/or to "profile" (by race of by age); thus, the two instances above.

I can provide other stories, including a racial profiling story, if those are necessary.

Afitz, I don't particulary disagree with anything you are saying. I am only chapped for a few reasons, posted other place on other pages

- My state was already over 90% compliant with seatbelt use

- There were never any seat-belt stings before there was a budget deficit

- The fee ($75) applied to the actual seat belt ticket is subject to change, and I will bet you anything I own that fee will only go up unless we get an independent governor again.
- The State said THEY WOULDNT DO THIS!

Like I have said, I understand the safety issues. However, my main point is that the line for being pulled over, a driving record check, a warrant check (one day a credit check?) and stopping you dead in your tracks no matter what you were doing......has gotten a LOT easier for the common man to cross. Heaven forbid you "possibly" smell like beer, smoke, or are wearing a lot of jewelry.

-

Phatscotty wrote:Afitz, I don't particulary disagree with anything you are saying. I am only chapped for a few reasons, posted other place on other pages

- My state was already over 90% compliant with seatbelt use

- There were never any seat-belt stings before there was a budget deficit

- The fee ($75) applied to the actual seat belt ticket is subject to change, and I will bet you anything I own that fee will only go up unless we get an independent governor again.
- The State said THEY WOULDNT DO THIS!

Like I have said, I understand the safety issues. However, my main point is that the line for being pulled over, a driving record check, a warrant check (one day a credit check?) and stopping you dead in your tracks no matter what you were doing......has gotten a LOT easier for the common man to cross. Heaven forbid you "possibly" smell like beer, smoke, or are wearing a lot of jewelry.

-

I hear ya, and I understand the frustration, but unless they really start nailing you for things that arent actually illegal...well...they are still only targeting law breakers.

And, again, if a cop wants to pull you over, hes gonna pull you over, and if he wants to do a driving record check or warrant check, he can do that without even pulling you over. Suspicion required for that is pretty minimal. One swerve to avoid a pot hole, manhole cover, or chipmunk is enough....as is saying you did that.

The fact that it is probably more geared towards money making than increased safety per-se is really irrelevant. Better to take the money from the law breakers on the road first. Technically speaking, they are the ones that make them more expensive en masse.

Ok so last night, In Minneapolis, There are sets of 8 squads parked at different locations. At traffic lights, the cops are coming up to all the cars with flashlights and sticking their heads in car windows and writing out tickets as fast as they can.

To some, maybe just a normal night on the streets. But I myself received 3 phone calls (I am the go to guy in this area) warning me about Minneapolis, and numerous posts on myspace and facebook and twitter saying "WTF". There will be a story on it anytime now and I will link it as soon as possible. I'm sure they will call it a "safety sweep"

Show me what a police state looks like
THIS is what a police state looks like

good job you don't look mexican too.

thegreekdog wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Not to confuse my perfectly valid argument above...personally, I find police are very lax in enforcing most driving laws. Typically the entire highway will be breaking the speed limit, but only the ones doing so by a good margin are dealt with. The reason insurance rates go up so much for tickets, is because you actually have to be a pretty bad driver, or pretty lucky to actually get one. Most people are probably guilty of a moving violation or two every day, but most people dont get pulled over once a year, and certainly dont get a ticket every year.

This of course changes from region to region, but we are at 2010. We are no longer barbarians swinging clubs. We live in a country will millions of other people, and have spent quite a bit of time passing laws to make them safer. Complaining that those laws are actually enforced, is understandable, but naive, and perhaps even counter productive.

If people put on their seatbelts as the law requires, and the cops continue to harass them for other things, get back to me...but you wont have to, because everyone will. But anyone who follows the law, and wears their seatbelt, just isnt going to feel any pity for someone who got a ticket, for not wearing theirs. All they had to do was put it on.

I digress again... my point on this one was more...I only started wearing my seatbelt once it was clear I might very well get a ticket for it. In my truck its difficult to worry too much, as stupid as that is, so mostly only wore it on the highway, and in any car I was in, but now, I dont want a ticket, and certainly dont feel like chatting with a cop, so I wear my seatbelt...and as an added convenience...wont hit my airbag travelling at 200mph too quickly and snap off my neck....or wont be as likely to do so.

I have been stopped by police officers two times in which I was not at fault.

The first instance I made a right turn on red (no signs posted that I could not make such a turn). A police officer pulled me over in the parking lot of a convenience store and indicated that I made a right turn on red. I indicated that there was no sign telling me I could not make such a turn. He told me that people crossed that street and that it is dangerous to make a right turn on red. I indicated that no one was crossing the street (probably because the light was red). He let me go without a ticket. Now, it was 10 at night on a Saturday and I was in a college-area, so perhaps the police officer thought if he stopped me, I'd be drunk or else an underage drinker. That being said, it was not a valid stop, so even if I had been drinking or underage or over the limit, he would not have had criminal recourse.

The second instance, I was driving home from Acme and I was pulled over. I did not know why I was pulled over because I was going under the speed limit (traffic) and had made no other traffic violations. The police officer indicated that my right tail light was out. I indicated that I did not know that and would fix it the next day (I did). The officer proceeded to write me a $135 ticket. Now, this was a valid stop and a valid ticket; however it boggles the mind that I did not receive a warning that my tail light was out, rather than a $135 ticket.

I mention these in response to Fitzy because he apparently believes that, "[i]f people put on their seatbelts as the law requires, and the cops continue to harass them for other things, get back to me...but you wont have to, because everyone will." I think the police, especially police in rural and suburban areas, have a mandate to collect money for the local jurisdiction and/or to "profile" (by race of by age); thus, the two instances above.

I can provide other stories, including a racial profiling story, if those are necessary.

I agree. Many areas use selective enforcement as a way of boosting revenues. Daphne Alabama, for example used to be known as a speed trap. If you drove with a local liscense plate, you were usually OK, but anything out of state.. watch out!

hi

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Driving a car is subject to regulations.
One of those is to do with wearing a seat belt.
If that's liberal craziness, then so are all speed limits, anti-drunk driving laws, and traffic lights.

DRIVER'S SEAT BELT, DRIVER'S CAR, DRIVER'S LIFE! The things YOU mentioned effect OTHER PEOPLE!

Actually, you're wrong. You not wearing a seatbelt effects other people.

Let's say someone runs a red and slams into your car. Since you weren't wearing a seatbelt, let's just say you die. Then the perpetrators charges will be even more severe, but had you been wearing your seatbelt, you'd have most likely lived and the punishments for others wouldn't be as severe.

Of course, one can say that that guy shouldn't have run the red, but accidents happen, so wear your seatbelt. It does effect other people's lives.

ARGUMENT FAIL!


As if people don't die WEARING THEIR SEAT BELT. I do not need the government trying to "help" me not die. (by taking my money especially) It's a little thing called l-i-b-e-r-t-y. And as long as I'm not harming other people, BACK OFF. How many people die every year do to DRUNK DRIVING? Yet they are taxing the pig snot out of cigarettes but not ALCOHOL. Then we have all the medical problems that arise from drinking.... still you can buy a case for $10. Please, just let the people have liberty and the government can get back to Trillion dollar bailouts that we the people did not approve of yet our grandchildren will have to pay for...... all in the name of "SOCIAL JUSTICE".

You have yet to counter my argument properly, and you're most likely trolling. All you've done is twist my argument into something else and then went on nonsensical rant about liberty, rights, justice, and taxation.

The bottom line is, now, my state gov't is dependent on traffic tickets. Of course, we don't want to hurt education, do we??? The new rule in MN is that if a cop pulls you over, HE/SHE MUST WRITE A TICKET!. There are no more warnings.

Arguments can and have went both ways. The topic is DRACONIAN ENFORCEMENT, even more so today in Minnesota

Thank you all for participating. It really has been interesting.

UPDATE: In Minnesota we have repealed the part of the law that allows law enforcement to set up seat belt stings. Major victory here

Also, for states that have camera radar enforced tickets, look how these guys are fighting back, within the law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGPt-AzyTcg

Power to the People

Phatscotty wrote:UPDATE: In Minnesota we have repealed the part of the law that allows law enforcement to set up seat belt stings. Major victory here

Also, for states that have camera radar enforced tickets, look how these guys are fighting back, within the law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGPt-AzyTcg

Power to the People

Fine, as long as the rest of us don't have to pay your medical bills when you get in an accident and don't have to support you and your kids if you become disabled.

OOOOOPS... we do. So, as long as we have to subsidize medical costs (insurance rarely covers everything in an accident), and potentially subsidize your disabilities, the state has the right to tell you to wear a seatbelt.

Reversing this law is not "power to the people", its "power to the stupid".

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:UPDATE: In Minnesota we have repealed the part of the law that allows law enforcement to set up seat belt stings. Major victory here

Also, for states that have camera radar enforced tickets, look how these guys are fighting back, within the law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGPt-AzyTcg

Power to the People

Fine, as long as the rest of us don't have to pay your medical bills when you get in an accident and don't have to support you and your kids if you become disabled.

OOOOOPS... we do. So, as long as we have to subsidize medical costs (insurance rarely covers everything in an accident), and potentially subsidize your disabilities, the state has the right to tell you to wear a seatbelt.

Reversing this law is not "power to the people", its "power to the stupid".

"this" is about reversing seat belt stings.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:UPDATE: In Minnesota we have repealed the part of the law that allows law enforcement to set up seat belt stings. Major victory here

Also, for states that have camera radar enforced tickets, look how these guys are fighting back, within the law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGPt-AzyTcg

Power to the People

Fine, as long as the rest of us don't have to pay your medical bills when you get in an accident and don't have to support you and your kids if you become disabled.

Wait - according to you in assorted other posts,"the rest of us" are already paying your (children's) medical bills.

Do you support a reproductive ban on people at or below your income bracket so "the rest of us don't have to pay your medical bills?"

(Personally I don't as I believe bodily/reproductive integrity is the second most important right after the right to suicide, just wondering if you do.)