ATV, jetski, and convertible owners...

TroyD

The logic is that in America freedom to make good and bad choices that physically impact the victim or benefactor who made the particular choice is something we need to cherish. That's what sets us apart from socialist governments, which is where we're slowly slipping towards

Actually, that's not true and you cant even divine that one out of the intent of the constitution. The founding fathers weren't anarchists, there has to be some level of regulation and the founding fathers stipulated for that. That's at a macro level. On a micro-level, when it comes to basic consumer safety, the seatbelt law, started in 1966, I believe that all cars must have them. Mandatory use laws started popping up in the last decade or so. Ok, so what other laws beyond that have we seen? Child safety seats? I'm trying to see the slide to socialisim in the car safety arena but other than personal restraint, I don't see it.

Motorcycle safety, same thing. I don't see any big push from anywhere to mandate protective clothing or what have you. So, you can cry gov't intervention all you like but, other than mandatory helmets...it just hasn't borne out that way at all.

What's no big deal to you is a big deal to a lot of people who see where it's all going.

It's no big deal to me if some dumbass wants to be road pizza. However, it's not that simple. Too many people are affected by the consequence of that decision. To say that the rider bares the ultimate responsibility is crap, if you assume room temperature, who takes care of your other responsibilities?? Someone (many actually) get left holding the bag. So far, there has been no credible argument suggesting otherwise.

From a cost perspective seatbelts and helmets have no bearing on insurance costs beyond the lawsuits, which is really where we should all be focused.

This holds no water either. It's a well documented fact that treatment is less costly for those that wear seatbelts and helmets. That's not open for debate. Now, your insurance premiums over a lifetime will NEVER cover that amount. Now, if every red cent of that came from YOUR pocket, I would have no issue. However, the fact remains that others bear the responsibility for YOUR decison. There is NO logic around that. As such, you can't honestly say, "I bear the responsibility"

We're a society becoming completely devoid of personal responsibilty, and as a result we're slowly becoming devoid of personal freedom.

That's crap too. Unrestricted freedom has NEVER been a fundamental value. We obviously disagree on the amount of restriction, however, again, I don't see a helmet law as being aggregious. It's not taxation without representation. Apples and oranges.

There's nothing wrong with the law itself, but rather what it means, which is the point you've chosen not to grasp over and over again.

I grasp the concept quite well, thank you. However, I can't quite connect the dots between a mandatory helmet law and an impending Bolshevik revolution. If you do, we obviously don't agree on the soundness of our society.

BDT

PolkThug

So, basically, some people are in favor of requiring safety precautions against likely dangers and some are not.

/thread

ohskigod

I dont look at it as a big government conspiracy thing. Motorcycle and ATV? wear a helmet. If you saw the things I have seen, believe me, you'd wear an effin helmet.

ATV?, yeah I wear a helmet. Every guy I ride with wears a helmet, and they're frikkin lunatics

Watercraft? nah, I aint going fast enough to where surface tension of water is a huge issue, in terms of cracking your cranium.

Convertible? no helmet, but I dont even look at a convertible without thinking seatbelt. 3X's more imprtant in a convertible than a regular car to put your seatbelt on. you WILL fly through the air with the greatest of ease if you crash, often with very bad results

steveinaz

The day we start sacrificing our freedoms in exchange for security, we become a socialist society. Freedom carries a price; personal responsibility. You can do what you want, but it's on you when it goes bad. If you think that's not the way it works, then you're talking about another issue: FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS. That's another pet peeve of mine and the main reason this country is going to ****. We're letting insuranace companies and lawyers dictate our freedom/lifestyles, and re-write our constitution---who do you think puts this crap in peoples head that the reason their rates are so high is because someone else is doing this unsafely. ****. It's all about the green backs. Wake up and smell the coffee. Big business has YOU rallying their cause, and they're lovin every minute of it.

ohskigod

I really dont equate the helmet law with sacrificing freedom. It just doesnt push my button. I will roll with you on the frivlous lawsuit thing

I recently heard of a lawnmower company getting sued for a kid getting killed by a mower, because the rider tried to go up a hill and failed (a big riding mower no no, at least with kids around) the mower rolled back into the kid. kid died. mower company on the hook for 2 million for not making a mower who's blades stop automatically when it rolls backwards. of course, a mower like this does not exist.

bobman1235

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

PolkThug

Ben Franklin!

Skynut

Ben Franklin would have been kept from flying his kite in this day and age because it was unsafe to fly a kite during a storm. We would have never discovered electricity.
He would need a helmet.

Demiurge

TroyD wrote:

Actually, that's not true and you cant even divine that one out of the intent of the constitution. The founding fathers weren't anarchists, there has to be some level of regulation and the founding fathers stipulated for that. That's at a macro level. On a micro-level, when it comes to basic consumer safety, the seatbelt law, started in 1966, I believe that all cars must have them. Mandatory use laws started popping up in the last decade or so. Ok, so what other laws beyond that have we seen? Child safety seats? I'm trying to see the slide to socialisim in the car safety arena but other than personal restraint, I don't see it.

Why do you keep mentioning the Constitution, Troy? Was I citing it? Maybe youview socialism as the backbone of America, personally I don't.

It's amusing to me that you'd equate being against a seatbelt law as being in favor of anarchy. Quite the little stretch, no? The point is what is and what isn't necessary, we in this country have always been on the side of as little laws as possible. Less government, and less intrusion into our lives the better. You don't even question this in this instance because your personal emotion can't differentiate between what's a necessity and what is not, and that's the problem.

What else have we seen? Child Safety seats? You effin' joking around here?

Here's the link the a government website on just the FEDERAL Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations:

The United States of Safety Town

This is just one small smudge of our society going this direction, it hasn't stopped at cars. Having standards is great, but driving up costs and being overbearing with someones choices for safety is uneccesary. That's not to mention all of the groups pushing to make safety features on high end luxury cars mandatory for all cars. Why?

TroyD wrote:

Motorcycle safety, same thing. I don't see any big push from anywhere to mandate protective clothing or what have you. So, you can cry gov't intervention all you like but, other than mandatory helmets...it just hasn't borne out that way at all.

They address motorcycles in the above link as well.

TroyD wrote:

It's no big deal to me if some dumbass wants to be road pizza. However, it's not that simple. Too many people are affected by the consequence of that decision. To say that the rider bares the ultimate responsibility is crap, if you assume room temperature, who takes care of your other responsibilities?? Someone (many actually) get left holding the bag. So far, there has been no credible argument suggesting otherwise.

Do you have insurance? Life, health, auto? Why are you paying that insurance? I rest my case.

If you're so in fear of leaving someone else holding the bag you might want to think twice about walking out of your front door everyday.

TroyD wrote:

This holds no water either. It's a well documented fact that treatment is less costly for those that wear seatbelts and helmets. That's not open for debate. Now, your insurance premiums over a lifetime will NEVER cover that amount. Now, if every red cent of that came from YOUR pocket, I would have no issue. However, the fact remains that others bear the responsibility for YOUR decison. There is NO logic around that. As such, you can't honestly say, "I bear the responsibility"

It's becoming apparent you're not interested in reading what people have had to say so far, or you'd have already seen the following. The costs of insurance come from the multi-million dollar frivolous law suits by a-holes that think because they got in an accident they deserve to win lifes lottery. Who pays for that? YOU. You're paying for that a hell of a lot more than you're paying for some guy who made your insurance premiums go up 3 cents because he didn't wear a helmet.

Insurance is there in case you ever need it, and you hope you never do. You're throwing your money into a big gigantic fund. While you may never get in an accident someone else my get in 5. His premiums will go through to roof, and if it starts affecting the insurance agency your premiums might start to go up. Tough titties, find a new insurance agent.

Can you explain to me why safety regulations have increased, but insurance rates have completely exploded? What are those safety regulations doing? Absolutely NOTHING. It's the law suits, but you won't even allow that argument into this debate since you'd rather say "I haven't seen one logical argument," and blah blah blah.

TroyD wrote:

That's crap too. Unrestricted freedom has NEVER been a fundamental value. We obviously disagree on the amount of restriction, however, again, I don't see a helmet law as being aggregious. It's not taxation without representation. Apples and oranges.

We're not becoming a nation devoid of personal responsibility? Really? I wish my part of the country was more like yours.

Unrestricted feedom? I said we're slowly becoming devoid of personal freedom. As I noted in my last response this has absolutely nothing to do with the restraint it has on our freedoms. It has absolutely nothing to do with the law being good or bad. It has everything to do with government slowly clamping down on us and not allowing us to make both wise and unwise choices. These choices do not affect you to any great degree other than the financial strains on society which is part of being in a society. If that is your concern, the financial strains are caused by the law suits, not by the person who didn't wear a helmet. You might be affected if this is a family memeber, but it's not the governments role to make choices for your loved one.

TroyD wrote:

I grasp the concept quite well, thank you. However, I can't quite connect the dots between a mandatory helmet law and an impending Bolshevik revolution. If you do, we obviously don't agree on the soundness of our society.

BDT

It may be just a different view on the country as a whole. I don't believe personal safety needs to be mandated. We need to have regulations to keep society safe when they are unaware of risk or consequence. Everyone knows what a seatbelt is and what a helmet is. They know they consequences of not wearing one. We need to allow people to make the choice, good or bad.

The socialist commentary is on a scope larger than your seatbelt, which is why the discussion needs to be viewed as such. You need to look at all facets of society. The very fact we've got people in elected office talking about socialized medicine in this country is justification enough for the comment, but it goes far beyond that.

TroyD

Why do you keep mentioning the Constitution, Troy? Was I citing it? Maybe youview socialism as the backbone of America, personally I don't.

I mention the Constitution because you are talking about inherent freedoms, the source for that would be the Constitution. I'm saying that your argument lacks fundamental Constitutional footing. Also, you are the one saying that our current state is to that of socialism. While I am disturbed at some things going on, I don't equate a seat belt law or a helmet law is an evil socialist type restriction. Again, it's well within the purview of the gov't to do so.

It's amusing to me that you'd equate being against a seatbelt law as being in favor of anarchy.

Again, your not reading what I'm saying. You seem to be saying that our American freedoms would dictate that we should be able to do what we want, when we want. That's just not so. I would say that my analogy of anti-seatbelt/anarchy is as valid as your seatbelt/socialism.

Here's the link the a government website on just the FEDERAL Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations

Your link primarily references requirements imposed on manufacturers. Again, you are clouding the issue. You were ORIGINALLY talking about a slippery slope of personal regulation. Again, beyond seatbelts and helmets, I'm just not seeing it. What else in a car, besides wearing a seatbelt, ARE YOU REQUIRED TO DO?? Simple question.

Now, far as the regulations on the manufacturing of cars in terms of gas mileage and so forth, I'm inclined to agree with you.

Do you have insurance? Life, health, auto? Why are you paying that insurance? I rest my case.

If you're so in fear of leaving someone else holding the bag you might want to think twice about walking out of your front door everyday

Again, your not addressing the issue. Just because I'm insured doesn't nor should it give me the right to play Russian Roulette nor should it be a valid
reason to legilate agains Russian Roulette.

If you can't differentiate the inherent risks in normal day to day living and a what we are talking about, then we aren't capable of having an honest debate.

We're not becoming a nation devoid of personal responsibility?

Again, if you splatter your brains on the sidewalk because you weren't wearing a helmet, your span of responsibility DOES NOT END WITH YOU. I'm trying to see why this is such a hard concept to understand.

Can you explain to me why safety regulations have increased, but insurance rates have completely exploded? What are those safety regulations doing? Absolutely NOTHING. It's the law suits, but you won't even allow that argument into this debate since you'd rather say "I haven't seen one logical argument," and blah blah blah.

Because you are talking about tort reform. That and keeping people's skulls together are two entirely different concepts. I agree with you about tort reform.

The socialist commentary is on a scope larger than your seatbelt, which is why the discussion needs to be viewed as such. You need to look at all facets of society. The very fact we've got people in elected office talking about socialized medicine in this country is justification enough for the comment, but it goes far beyond that.

Again, on the society at large issue, I have no doubt that we have common ground. However, that's not what THIS debate started out as. Again, my contention is A MANDATORY SEATBELT/HELMET LAW IS A GOOD THING. IT SAVES LIVES/REDUCES BURDENS ON A NUMBER OF SUPPORT SYSTEMS. IT IS ALSO CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND LAW. You can't argue otherwise. What you are doing is obfuscating the issue.

BDT

Demiurge

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws...you create a nation of law-breakers and then you cash in on guilt."

- Ayn Rand

She sums up in one small paragraph the point, and it's 100% true.