Ben Roethlisburger

PolkThug

Wait til the insurance company gets my report showing how much money they could save if there was a law for all automobile operators to wear helmets.

bobman1235

TroyD wrote:

No, they don't. If you think that they do, you are mistaken.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Roethlisburger didn't have any sort of insurance and no money. What sort of responsibility does he take? It doesn't relieve the meatwagon of the responsibility to come scrape his **** off the sidewalk. It certainly doesn't relieve the hospital and staff of thier responsibility to put humpty dumpty back together again. So, what are his responsibilities again?? Nope, it's mandated by LAW that you have to be treated so, that being the case, it is MORE than acceptable to try and impose some sort of regulation to limit the abuse on that system.

That argument is a crock of shiite and THAT is why we have/need these laws.

NOW, were it a case of if you don't have a helmet/seatbelt and you were treated up to the point of your ability to pay, hey, ride on with your bad self.

You are assuming ALL the responsibility, right??

BDT

You're absolutely right Troy, but by mandating the helmet, aren't you treating a symptom, and not the problem? Isn't the problem that someone is allowed on the road without insurance? People continually bring up how driving is not a right, but a privilage. Rather than mandating every personal safety law, why don't we say that to gain that privilage, you HAVE to be insured. Fully. So that no one is responsible for your injuries but you. THAT's attacking the PROBLEM, not a symptom, and THAT'S what should be done.

Sure there will be those who slip through the cracks, and drive illegally without insurance, and end up being "put back togehtre again" on the gov't dime, but... you can't catch everyone.

Demiurge

TroyD wrote:

Demiurge wrote:

People who don't wear a seatbelt or a helmet assume that responsibilty.

No, they don't. If you think that they do, you are mistaken.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Roethlisburger didn't have any sort of insurance and no money. What sort of responsibility does he take? It doesn't relieve the meatwagon of the responsibility to come scrape his **** off the sidewalk. It certainly doesn't relieve the hospital and staff of thier responsibility to put humpty dumpty back together again.

That argument is a crock of lshit and THAT is why we have/need these laws.

NOW, were it a case of if you don't have a helmet/seatbelt and you were treated up to the point of your ability to pay, hey, ride on with your bad self.

You are assuming ALL the responsibility, right??

BDT

I'll ammend it. They should, and if they don't where does that put us? The court system, and that's where the reform needs to be.

We've got a jacked up mentaility in this society that if you're involved in any sort of accident one party gets to take it in the **** without lubricant, and the other party wins lifes lottery on the backs of some company, or in the long run the general public, and they ruin the other person's life. Seat belt laws do not change this fact, at all. You, and everyone else here know it.

4 years ago I was hit in the back of my car while at a red light by a drunk driver going 35 miles an hour according to the report. She was slamming on her brakes as she sent me flying into cross traffic, and luckiy for me I didn't get t-boned, criticaly injured, or worse -- killed. She jacked up my back real good, and it still hurts, but I accept it as a risk of getting behind the wheel of a car.

My insurance company went after her and we recovered the loss to my vehicle, and I didn't seek any additional pain and suffering ****.

If I wasn't wearing my seatbelt how would that scenario have been any different other than the possibility of greater injury? We can say what if all we want, but it doesn't change a thing. All that matters is that I didn't sue her. An insurance company having to shell out 10-20 thousand more dollars on a single accident isn't what raises our insurance costs in this society, but rather whether or not some **** decides he wants to sue for millions of dollars. Insurance companies do GREAT, and it's not the chump change that's scaring them.

Like I said, your views are backwards in my opinion. The logic simply doesn't flow. How can you deny lawsuits are the problem? Do you really believe it's an extra broken arm?

Skynut

This is the same discussion we had with the smoking ban.

rights of individuals are taken away in the name of the majority. It does not really take a majority to do it though, just the right people complaining to the right people.

We will get no choice unless we can get together and make our voice heard.

If you remember we used to have a right to keep and bear arms, now we do not. Most of us do but many have had that right stripped because laws were passed that made that possible.
We also are limited in what arms we can keep and when we can bear them.
This concept would have been absurd to our founding fathers but yet it happened.
The people of this country have been stripped of their right to defend themselves against our government should it be necessary again.
A very strategic move on behalf of our government in the name of protecting it's people.
Is it bad? I hope not because it is too late to change it.

What happens to alcohol and tobacco? Both are notorious for deaths but both are still legal.

What about the search and seisure rules? Perhaps someone comes along and passes a law that makes it ok for the police to enter your home anytime they want to.
They can not sieze anything legal only the illegal.
Many people would think that is ok since they do not do anything illegal and it would be a law that would get more criminals off the street.

The slippery slope is very real to me, I believe that we as a society would be astounded by the laws that will be affecting future generations.

We would sit back and say "how did that happen?"

brettw22

JHC.......if safety is the goal, who the **** cares whether the idea for the law/rule comes from an ordinary public person or someone in congress.

Laws don't spontaneously create themselves. They happen by way of people typically acting in a way that requires a rule/law to modify their behavior.

I say make a helmet law, and if people want to break it, have an opt out clause where people can just shovel you off the highway and onto the shoulder so we dont' have to be otherwise bothered with your choice.

TroyD

bobman1235 wrote:

You're absolutely right Troy, but by mandating the helmet, aren't you treating a symptom, and not the problem? Isn't the problem that someone is allowed on the road without insurance? People continually bring up how driving is not a right, but a privilage. Rather than mandating every personal safety law, why don't we say that to gain that privilage, you HAVE to be insured. Fully. So that no one is responsible for your injuries but you. THAT's attacking the PROBLEM, not a symptom, and THAT'S what should be done.

Sure there will be those who slip through the cracks, and drive illegally without insurance, and end up being "put back togehtre again" on the gov't dime, but... you can't catch everyone.

No, the REAL problem is stupidity. THAT one we can't cure.

We DO mandate in most states that people have to be insured, however, that doesn't mean everyone is.

Face it, a helmet law is not terribly invasive on either privacy or freedom. The benefits FAR outweigh the costs and there is no arguing that point, IMHO.

BDT

PhantomOG

Skynut wrote:

...The slippery slope is very real to me, I believe that we as a society would be astounded by the laws that will be affecting future generations.

So then you must be on the other side of the slippery slope, right?? You must be all for legalized drugs of all kind (hey, let's put MJ vending machines in high school hallways!!!), legalized prostitution without limits of any kind (too bad your kids school is in the red light district huh?), no limitations on weapons (my neighbor has a nuke pointing at my house cuz he's pissed my dog barks too much), legalized gambling anywhere and everywhere, removal of speed limits and most other "frivoluos" driving rules, removal of a minimum wage, removal of ALL OSHA rules for workplaces... the list goes on and on.

Do I think the above is true?? Absolutely not. We are NOT at the pinnacle of a mountain and about to fall into a completely oppressive society with no free will. And likewise, we are NOT about to return to a wild wild west society where whoever shoots fastest is always right. Presenting these kinds of arguments is completely antagonistic and does nothing to help anything. I have faith in the democratic process and enough faith in my fellow citizens that through the democratic process neither outcome will ever happen.

brettw22

Skynut wrote:

If you remember we used to have a right to keep and bear arms, now we do not. Most of us do but many have had that right stripped because laws were passed that made that possible.
We also are limited in what arms we can keep and when we can bear them.
This concept would have been absurd to our founding fathers but yet it happened.
The people of this country have been stripped of their right to defend themselves against our government should it be necessary again.
A very strategic move on behalf of our government in the name of protecting it's people.
Is it bad? I hope not because it is too late to change it.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that semi or fully automatic weapons didn't exist when the constitution was written. With a change in times comes a change in laws. To believe that we're the same country today as we were then (or even 10 years ago) is naive.

Skynut

So then you must be on the other side of the slippery slope, right?? You must be all for legalized drugs of all kind (hey, let's put MJ vending machines in high school hallways!!!), legalized prostitution without limits of any kind (too bad your kids school is in the red light district huh?), no limitations on weapons (my neighbor has a nuke pointing at my house cuz he's pissed my dog barks too much), legalized gambling anywhere and everywhere, removal of speed limits and most other "frivoluos" driving rules, removal of a minimum wage, removal of ALL OSHA rules for workplaces... the list goes on and on.

Do I think the above is true?? Absolutely not. We are NOT at the pinnacle of a mountain and about to fall into a completely oppressive society with no free will. And likewise, we are NOT about to return to a wild wild west society where whoever shoots fastest is always right. Presenting these kinds of arguments is completely antagonistic and does nothing to help anything. I have faith in the democratic process and enough faith in my fellow citizens that through the democratic process neither outcome will ever happen.

So if we can not have all laws we should have none?

PhantomOG

Skynut wrote:

So if we can not have all laws we should have none?

So if we have a helmet law, we should have laws for every other aspect of your life?

The game can be played either way and doesn't help. Each law deserves individual attention and shouldn't be dismissed or advanced based on groundless slippery slope arguments.

steveinaz

How many of you own ATV's, jetski, or a convertible car?

Now, how many of you wear a helmet?

Demiurge

PhantomOG wrote:

So then you must be on the other side of the slippery slope, right?? You must be all for legalized drugs of all kind (hey, let's put MJ vending machines in high school hallways!!!), legalized prostitution without limits of any kind (too bad your kids school is in the red light district huh?), no limitations on weapons (my neighbor has a nuke pointing at my house cuz he's pissed my dog barks too much), legalized gambling anywhere and everywhere, removal of speed limits and most other "frivoluos" driving rules, removal of a minimum wage, removal of ALL OSHA rules for workplaces... the list goes on and on.

Do I think the above is true?? Absolutely not. We are NOT at the pinnacle of a mountain and about to fall into a completely oppressive society with no free will. And likewise, we are NOT about to return to a wild wild west society where whoever shoots fastest is always right. Presenting these kinds of arguments is completely antagonistic and does nothing to help anything. I have faith in the democratic process and enough faith in my fellow citizens that through the democratic process neither outcome will ever happen.

That's just a non-sequitur.

Marijuana vending machines in schools? While I know your point was to show the ridiculousness of the opposite side of the slippery, you miss the point. Smoking a joint in school affects everyone in the vicinity of you. You're essentially 'drunk' (please lets not turn this into a weed debate...).

There's a difference between protecting you from yourself, and protecting society from you. Why are you unwilling to make the distinction?

The only argument that makes sense is the financial impacts, but like I already addressed that here...it has nothing to do with whether or not you have a seatbelt on and everything to do with our sue happy society.

Why were insurance costs much lower in the 80s? Why with all these awesome new government instituted safety regulations are insurance costs so much higher? It's the multi-million dollar lawsuits. Start advocating caps on that **** and then you'll see the costs come down.

Skynut

PhantomOG wrote:

So if we have a helmet law, we should have laws for every other aspect of your life?

The game can be played with way and doesn't help. Each law deserves individual attention and shouldn't be dismissed or advanced based on groundless slippery slope arguments.

I agree we need laws.
I am done.

PhantomOG

There's a difference between protecting you from yourself, and protecting society from you. Why are you unwilling to make the distinction?

I see the distinction, and that's why personally I don't believe a helmet law is *necessary*. I just also happened to believe the slippery slope argument is pure bunk when trying to argue against it.

steveinaz

This recent "fad" of some Americans lately to somehow monetarily connect what other people do to their wallets is not only naive, it's laughable. You can make that correlation to ANYTHING. so it is a MOOT point.

I've noticed on this forum that:

-some of you are a little overweight...that cost me money
-some of you wear glasses...that cost me money
-some of you have poor driving records...that cost me money
-some of you shoplift....that cost me money
-some of you have below average credit ratings...that cost me money
-some of you live in hurricane and flood zones...that cost me money

shall I continue? I've got a couple thousand more of them...

Do you really think, if all the states in the union passed a helmet law tommorrow, that YOUR insurance premium would go down even 1 cent?

I've got a bridge for sale....

Skynut

I am getting a built in pool installed at my house.
My kids are 10 and 14 years old and know how to swim.
I have to have an alarm on all my doors and gates that go to my backyard.
I would have to have these alarms installed even if I lived alone.
I have not had them put on yet but they have to be there and working before the final signoff.
The alarm can be turned off for one pass through at a time I believe so I have to hit a button so I can go out without hearing it but when I come back inside it will screech until I can turn it off. Everytime I go through a gate or a door that leads to my backyard.
This is to protect who?
Me from lawsuits I guess but it seems silly to me that a law has been made that will make me put alarms on my back yard to keep out intruders.
I also have to reverse the way my gate swings. Why? I do not know. They say it makes it harder for a kid to climb up and get the gate open.
Why is it that laws to protect criminals are being imposed on me?

Skynut

I should be allowed to sue the parrents as soon as the bill for cleaning their dead child from my pool arrives.

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote:

This recent "fad" of some Americans lately to somehow monetarily connect what other people do to their wallets is not only naive, it's laughable. You can make that correlation to ANYTHING. so it is MOOT point.

I've noticed on this forum that:

-some of you are a little overweight...that cost me money
-some of you wear glasses...that cost me money
-some of you have poor driving records...that cost me money
-some of you shoplift....that cost me money
-some of you have below average credit ratings...that cost me money

shall I continue? I've got a couple thousand more of them...

Do you really think, if all the states in the union passed a helmet law tommorrow, that YOUR insurance premium would go down even 1 cent?

I've got a bridge for sale....

If the financial stakes are what their arguments are all about, you're right on. Insurance premiums wouldn't budge one iota, in fact they've skyrocketed in lieu of The United States of Safety Town coming to fruition.

It's all about the lawsuits.

Skynut

Perhaps we could pass a law that keeps people from entering your property without permission.

steveinaz

disregard.

ND13

I know what this thread needs...................MORE COWBELL!!!!











It worked to diffuse the other thread, so I thought I'd try it again

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote:

disregard.

Waaa, that was perfect.

petrym

what this thread needs it to be cut off...

Let's sum it up...
Some motorcyclist ran into some old lady or some old lady ran into a motorcyclist. Lady in steel cage not wearing helmet: not injured. Motorcyclist not in steel cage or wearing helmet: laceration to back of skull, multiple facial fractures, broken nose, broken upper and lower jaw held in place by screws and 2-inch titanium plates. Wounded egos and feelings in the Polk Audio forum. :eek:

End it with ND13's... MORE COWBELL!!!

Clank, clank, clank, clank, clank, clank, clank, clank, clank, clank, clank.

Demiurge

It's one of the few that doesn't need to be shut down. It's been pretty civil little argument. :cool:

petrym

Clank?

Demiurge

petrym wrote:

Clank?

Flat tire? Different thread.

F1nut

Demiurge wrote:

I know for a fact one of the seatbelt gurus here smokes.

Unfortunately that's not the discussion!

Demiurge

schwarcw

So, anyone know how Ben is doing today?:D

F1nut

Nice edit, Demi.

The fact remains tobacco is legal, albeit where one can use it has become restricted. Driving without your seatbelt on is illegal all the time.

In fact, if the laws and enforcement about underage smoking were what they are today I seriously doubt I would have ever started and I wouldn't have to struggle with the addiction.

Furthermore, I wouldn't mind if tobacco AND alcohol were illegal. Nothing good comes of either.