Seatbelts?

[MtnBiker]

The government mandates we wear seltbelts while riding in a private vehicle. Should the government do this and why?

[LiberalNation]

hafta save some people from their own stupidity. No I don't think it should be the law but it does keep all our insurance rates low.

[DannyR]

Insurance payments are only part of it. We as taxpayers usually end up paying their disability for the rest of their lives as well.

[MtnBiker]

hafta save some people from their own stupidity. No I don't think it should be the law but it does keep all our insurance rates low.

hmmm, interesting, why should we save people from their own stupidity? People do stupid things all of the time.

[LiberalNation]

because a special intrest group with money said we should and the feds control the road building money and say we should.

[MtnBiker]

Insurance payments are only part of it. We as taxpayers usually end up paying their disability for the rest of their lives as well.

Ok, this is a condition of socialized healthcare. A burden on taxpayer from the effect of anothers poor decision. As a result the government is given power to mandate if a person wear a seatbelt or not and face fines if not properly following the law.

Should the government be given power to mandate other personal activities that could effect the burden on taxpayers in relation to healthcare?

[Mr. P]

Cuz some folks are too stupid to know what happens if ya don't "Buckle Up" and crash, traumatizing some poor bastard that runs over yer dumb ass.

On the other hand NOT wearing a belt strengthens the gene pool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJHsTxDah8E&eurl=http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/03/09/

[DannyR]

Great vid there. Was that a shot of someone running from the cops, or just being an idiot and passing on the right on a one lane entrance?


Should the government be given power to mandate other personal activities that could effect the burden on taxpayers in relation to healthcare?Within limits.

For instance, you can't always say yes to that question, because at the extreme end of things I'm sure its cheaper to insure young people rather than old ones. I'd rather not have a government mandate against people getting old, aka Logan's Run. ;) But something like wearing a seatbelt, or a motorcyclist wearing a helmet seem reasonable to me.

In general, I think the laws should be geared so that individuals have to pay for their unhealthy behavior or risk not being covered at all. But more likely than not such "sin" taxes end up being used for something entirely different so its not an ideal solution either.

And one could always change the law so that if your injuries result from your own stupidity in not wearing a belt, only you are responsible for your own health care and hospitals won't treat you if you can't pay.

But I wonder if the pro-life crowd would balk at pulling the plug on someone because they couldn't pay their medical bill. Seems a bit heartless to let someone die for one small mistake.

In general the system we have is probably the best compromise and in such issues. I think a vote would probably best serve to judge at what level freedom vs authoritarian rules come into play.

[crin63]

I'm opposed to the government imposing those types of laws on people. If you don't wanna wear a seat belt that should be up to you. If you go through the windshield so be it, you made the choice not some politician.

Just like smoking bans here in California. The government should not be in the business of telling business owners that they cant smoke in their own establishments. The government also shouldn't pay the healthcare costs for smokers.

These types of encroachments in our freedoms just lead to more government control over our lives.

If you wanna live fast, die young and have a good looking corpse the government should not stop you unless you are gonna go out and hurt someone else with reckless behavior.

[Mr. P]

Great vid there. Was that a shot of someone running from the cops, or just being an idiot and passing on the right on a one lane entrance?

Within limits.

For instance, you can't always say yes to that question, because at the extreme end of things I'm sure its cheaper to insure young people rather than old ones. I'd rather not have a government mandate against people getting old, aka Logan's Run. ;) But something like wearing a seatbelt, or a motorcyclist wearing a helmet seem reasonable to me.

In general, I think the laws should be geared so that individuals have to pay for their unhealthy behavior or risk not being covered at all.

And one could always change the law so that if your injuries result from your own stupidity in not wearing a belt, only you are responsible for your own health care and hospitals won't treat you if you can't pay.

But I wonder if the pro-life crowd would balk at pulling the plug on someone because they couldn't pay their medical bill.

Yes, he was running from the cops...here in Atlanta..I-75 I think it was.

[DannyR]

If you wanna live fast, die young and have a good looking corpse the government should not stop you unless you are gonna go out and hurt someone else with reckless behavior.So if you're in a coma because you didn't wear a helmet or seatbelt, you think its ok to pull the plug if you can't pay?

[crin63]

So if you're in a coma because you didn't wear a helmet or seatbelt, you think its ok to pull the plug if you can't pay?

Yep, pull the plug on me. I could be getting medi-cal due to my circumstances but instead I am paying almost $1000 for medical insurance every month for my family.

[manu1959]

why are there no seat belts in public school busses.....trains......

[Mr. P]

why are there no seat belts in public school busses.....trains......

I have a problem with the school bus thing. Never heard a good reason. Guessing there is one though..40 kids trapped by belts burn to death?

EDIT: due to damn call...LOL

[DannyR]

I have a problem with the school bus thing. Never heard a go reason. Guessing there is one though..40 kids trapped by belts burn.Most school buses opt for basically a cushion system vs seat belt, so in an accident the kids hit something soft. School buses usually have further restrictions that help limit injuries. Here in Georgia they can't drive faster than 40 mph on non-interstate roads, and only 55 even on interstates. Stopping at railroads, etc. That usually is enough to prevent ejection.

In one of the worst bus crashes here in Atlanta, while 7 people died, I find it amazing that so many survived with as few injuries as they did. The bus hit a concrete barrier, then actually rolled off an overpass and dropped back down onto the interstate. Its amazing more weren't killed, so I think the protections on busses do work to some extent. And it was a charter bus, which isn't as padded up for safety as school buses are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluffton_University_bus_accident

But yes, I believe the reason why they don't have seat belts in buses is because kids might not be able to release them on their own, and an adult might not be able to move all the way through the bus fast enough to do so.

[Mr. P]

Most school buses opt for basically a cushion system vs seat belt, so in an accident the kids hit something soft. School buses usually have further restrictions that help limit injuries. Here in Georgia they can't drive faster than 40 mph on non-interstate roads, and only 55 even on interstates. Stopping at railroads, etc. That usually is enough to prevent ejection.

In one of the worst bus crashes here in Atlanta, while 7 people died, I find it amazing that so many survived with as few injuries as they did. The bus hit a concrete barrier, then actually rolled off an overpass and dropped back down onto the interstate. Its amazing more weren't killed, so I think the protections on busses do work to some extent. And it was a charter bus, which isn't as padded up for safety as school buses are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluffton_University_bus_accident

But yes, I believe the reason why they don't have seat belts in buses is because kids might not be able to release them on their own, and an adult might not be able to move all the way through the bus fast enough to do so.

Yeah, BUT...that wasn't a "school" bus..it was a commercial bus chartered..I'll bet there were seat belts too.

[DannyR]

Yeah, BUT...that wasn't a "school" bus..it was a commercial bus chartered..I'll bet there were seat belts too.As I said, charter bus is usually less padded than a school bus. As for seatbelts, I doubt there were actually. Law doesn't require them in most places. I've done my share of riding with Greyhound, and usually there aren't seatbelts there either:

http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/14801344/detail.html
http://www.ncsbs.org/news-2006/greyhound-investigation.htm

[Mr. P]

As I said, charter bus is usually less padded than a school bus. As for seatbelts, I doubt there were actually. Law doesn't require them in most places. I've done my share of riding with Greyhound, and usually there aren't seatbelts there either:

http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/14801344/detail.html
http://www.ncsbs.org/news-2006/greyhound-investigation.htm

Don't have to wear on in a pick-up in Ga either..they wanna change that..I support the change.

[DannyR]

Don't have to wear on in a pick-up in Ga either..they wanna change that..I support the change.Don't mess with a redneck's truck! :laugh2:

next they'll ban muddin'

[Mr. P]

As I said, charter bus is usually less padded than a school bus. As for seatbelts, I doubt there were actually. Law doesn't require them in most places. I've done my share of riding with Greyhound, and usually there aren't seatbelts there either:

http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/14801344/detail.html
http://www.ncsbs.org/news-2006/greyhound-investigation.htm

Where did you say anything about charter buses? I missed it and haven't read every post.

[5stringJeff]

I don't support mandatory seatbelt laws. And I don't agree with the two main arguments for the law.
Argument 1: people are too stupid to do the right thing, so you have to make them. I disagree with this. People know that seatbelts save lives; they choose not to wear them. That's part of the responsibility that comes with liberty.
Argument 2: taxpayers have to bear extra costs for those who don't wear seatbelts. Well, taxpayers bear the costs for every criminal. Should we make criminals pay for the cost of their trials? Should we make people pay the firefighters when their house burns down? These are ludicrous propositions; police, firemen, paramedics, etc. are all paid for with the tax money collected from all citizens in a city, county, etc.

[DannyR]

Where did you say anything about charter buses? I missed it and haven't read every post.Post 15, the very post you responded to. ;)

From your own post where you actually even quoted it: "And it was a charter bus, which isn't as padded up for safety as school buses are."

We all have our senile moments. :laugh2:

[Mr. P]

Post 15, the very post you responded to. ;)

From your own post where you actually even quoted it: "And it was a charter bus, which isn't as padded up for safety as school buses are."

We all have our senile moments. :laugh2:

That's what I get for posting at the later in the day on Fri while still at work.