Seat Belts and Air Bags

[auditor0007]

I have no problem with the Government saying that Helmets, seat belts, and Airbags save lives.

I have a problem with the Government requiring their use or else they will punish you for not doing what they want.


Personally, I rarely ride without a helmet on. But I don't want, as happened, to be given a ticket for moving my bike from the garage to the end of drive without a ticket. ( I fought the ticket and won. The cop admitted he didn't see me on the road, but then I also had two witnesses. )

But if I should decide to ride without a helmet on, that is my right. I am well over the age of adulthood and am able to make such decisions for myself.

I agree that you should be permitted to ride without a helmet, so long as you pay for additional insurance to cover the cost of your medical care if you are seriously injured. Why should everyone else have to pick up the cost of your bad judgement?

I am already required to carry insurance.

Tell me, should the Government inventory what food you have in your house and what you eat on a daily basis because it knows what is good for you?

Do you want the Government to come and weigh you every month and if you, according to them, weigh too much or too little, punish you for it?

When does my right to live my life as I want become your business?

If you live in a state that permits you to ride without a helmet, then insurance rates have already been adjusted to take that into account. If you choose to ride without a helmet in a state that requires you to wear a helmet, insurance rates are based on the fact that you are wearing a helmet. Therefore, if you are injured in an accident when not wearing your helmet, the insurance company may not even cover you. Either way, if your injuries are worse due to your not wearing a helmet, the cost is passed on to everyone else. This is the same as requiring you to have insurance in the first place, and it is the reason it is everyone's business, because your decisions effect the cost to everyone else.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The use of seatbelts and helments should be something the insurance companies police, not the government.

Does that mean State Farm will arm their agents with ticket books and patrol our roadways? "Get a ticket, pay a fare increase"

 

[OriginalShroom]

Doing so may not impact you alone. I worked with a women whose 16 year old son was fatally injured when a car ran a red light and knocked him off his motorcycle. He was not wearing a helmet and he lived for several months in a comma before he died. His mom and dad rented a camper and lived on the hospital grounds for the time. She was never the same. You and your family are lucky you only got a ticket.

So I should live in a bubble wrapped box for the rest of my life because someone else had a problem?

At what point does the Government intrusion into our private lives becomes too much?

You have Bloomberg rationing soda size and if women can get formula in hospitals after giving birth. Do you want him in your kitchen also?

A classic Slippery Slope illogical argument. You can ride your bike and drink a 64 oz coke in one hand and a smoke in your other for all I care, doing so will likely not put two dozen others or more at risk.

I notice you failed to answer the question I posed, rather you decided to deride my post.

At what point does Government intrusion into our lives become too much?

 

[g5000]

A government requirement for one thing was used to justify the more government requirements in the opening post. "The government requires X, so why shouldn't it require Y?" Thus proving exactly why free thinking people opposed X in the first place. Because it leads to this very kind of justification for the next government rule.

And the next, and the next, and the next.

Then one day down the line, "...so why shouldn't it require you to use only two squares of toilet paper when you take a shit?"

 

[Spoonman]

Both seat belts and air bags as well as helments required for motorcycle riders and passengers were decried as big government interference.

Does anyone doubt they save lifes and the cost for medical care?

Did anyone claim these examples were a panacea for all fatal vehicle accidents?

Do all state governments require a driver's license? Do all states require the owner of a vehicle carry insurance on each vehicle owned?

So, what's the big deal for each state to choose whether a person who wishes to own, possess, or have in their custody and control a firearm be licensed and insured?

The USSC has ruled that the Second Amendment has limits, correct?

Gun owners will still retain the freedom to move to a state which decides not to regulate gun owners, correct?

Discuss rationally; remember there are new and IMO appropraite rules for posting on the Politics Forum.

so if a state decides they are going to limit freedom of speech our attitude should be well we are free to move to another state? and everyone will be ok with that? if a state decides some men are created more equal than others, those who are less equal would be free to relocate.

Remember to be rational. Speech can be restricted. Doubt me? Next time you fly tell the flight attendant you are pissed and want to bomb their planes. but you still have the right to tell them that, just not on the plane. so you can't go waving a gun around a school, but you can't limit on personal property

Driving is not a constitutional right. owning a firearm is and should not be restricted.

That's not the issue, owning a firearm is restricted in some way today, and the USSC has ruled some restrictions are constitutional. yes, they also ruled corporations were people. because they rule something does not make it right. and that has nothing to do wit hthe fact that driving is not a constitutional right an owning a weapon is.

I guess we should also have a background check to vote and someone should determine whether that individual is fit to vote. and that voter should pay a fee for the right to excercise his constitutional right. Hyperbole isn't rational, it's rhetorical.

The issue of voting rights has been suppressed in the past and our Constitution has been amended to protect the right to vote.
the constitution was written to protect our right to bear arms
as long as we are applying regulations and restrictions equally here

Bannans and Borscht

apples and oranges

 

[Spoonman]

So I should live in a bubble wrapped box for the rest of my life because someone else had a problem?

At what point does the Government intrusion into our private lives becomes too much?

You have Bloomberg rationing soda size and if women can get formula in hospitals after giving birth. Do you want him in your kitchen also?

A classic Slippery Slope illogical argument. You can ride your bike and drink a 64 oz coke in one hand and a smoke in your other for all I care, doing so will likely not put two dozen others or more at risk.

I notice you failed to answer the question I posed, rather you decided to deride my post.

At what point does Government intrusion into our lives become too much?

becasue this is just a troll post, my opinion verses yours. and that is how it will go on

 

[Wry Catcher]

People are killed with knives every day. Should you have to have a license to own a knife and insurance?

Get real.

Get rational.

 

[Mr Natural]

The use of seatbelts and helments should be something the insurance companies police, not the government.

Does that mean State Farm will arm their agents with ticket books and patrol our roadways? "Get a ticket, pay a fare increase"

No.

The insurance companies should base their policies on the use of seatbelts and helmets.

Unless, of course, the policy holder doesn't object to buying the policy that doesn't require their use and pays the extra premium.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I agree that you should be permitted to ride without a helmet, so long as you pay for additional insurance to cover the cost of your medical care if you are seriously injured. Why should everyone else have to pick up the cost of your bad judgement?

I am already required to carry insurance.

Tell me, should the Government inventory what food you have in your house and what you eat on a daily basis because it knows what is good for you?

Do you want the Government to come and weigh you every month and if you, according to them, weigh too much or too little, punish you for it?

When does my right to live my life as I want become your business?

If you live in a state that permits you to ride without a helmet, then insurance rates have already been adjusted to take that into account. If you choose to ride without a helmet in a state that requires you to wear a helmet, insurance rates are based on the fact that you are wearing a helmet. Therefore, if you are injured in an accident when not wearing your helmet, the insurance company may not even cover you. Either way, if your injuries are worse due to your not wearing a helmet, the cost is passed on to everyone else. This is the same as requiring you to have insurance in the first place, and it is the reason it is everyone's business, because your decisions effect the cost to everyone else.

You didn't answer my question.

I am not surprised, those who want to restrict other people's rights because they know what's best for those other people rarely will admit that their is a limit to just how much of another person's life they can regulate as long as they can justify it as "being for their own good" or "It impacts other people's lives".

 

[Spoonman]

People are killed with knives every day. Should you have to have a license to own a knife and insurance?

Get real.

Get rational.

follow your own advice

 

[OriginalShroom]

A classic Slippery Slope illogical argument. You can ride your bike and drink a 64 oz coke in one hand and a smoke in your other for all I care, doing so will likely not put two dozen others or more at risk.

I notice you failed to answer the question I posed, rather you decided to deride my post.

At what point does Government intrusion into our lives become too much?

becasue this is just a troll post, my opinion verses yours. and that is how it will go on

And it is that "Opinion" that those in Government use to justify their actions to regulate our lives.

You want to regulate my life more and more because it is "for my own good" or because "impacts my life" and soon there are more and more laws and regulations being put into force because your "Opinion" was used to justify it.

The rallying cries of "It's for the Children" or "It's for Grandma and Grandpa" are just two excuses used to restrict my rights. It's not "For the Children" or for "Grandma and Grandpa". It is for the power it gives you over other people's lives.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A classic Slippery Slope illogical argument. You can ride your bike and drink a 64 oz coke in one hand and a smoke in your other for all I care, doing so will likely not put two dozen others or more at risk.

I notice you failed to answer the question I posed, rather you decided to deride my post.

At what point does Government intrusion into our lives become too much?

becasue this is just a troll post, my opinion verses yours. and that is how it will go on

The questioned posed was illogical, that is it was not rational.

If the OP is nothing but an effort to troll, I must have good bait. There is no ratonal reason not to require background checks, licensing and insurance of all who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

If someone has a rational argument let them post it, until then I expect nothing but emotional and sometimes hysterical comments to abound.

 

[g5000]

The use of seatbelts and helments should be something the insurance companies police, not the government.

Does that mean State Farm will arm their agents with ticket books and patrol our roadways? "Get a ticket, pay a fare increase"

It means if you get in an accident and the police report shows you were not wearing a seatbelt, the insurance company does not pay your medical bills.

And yes, if you get a speeding ticket, your rates go up.

 

[Spoonman]

I notice you failed to answer the question I posed, rather you decided to deride my post.

At what point does Government intrusion into our lives become too much?

becasue this is just a troll post, my opinion verses yours. and that is how it will go on

And it is that "Opinion" that those in Government use to justify their actions to regulate our lives.

You want to regulate my life more and more because it is "for my own good" or because "impacts my life" and soon there are more and more laws and regulations being put into force because your "Opinion" was used to justify it.

The rallying cries of "It's for the Children" or "It's for Grandma and Grandpa" are just two excuses used to restrict my rights. It's not "For the Children" or for "Grandma and Grandpa". It is for the power it gives you over other people's lives.

i oppose any government intervention into our personal lives

 

[g5000]

Since children should not be forced to suffer the consequences of their parents' stupidity, I do not object to seat belt and safety seat laws for children.

 

[OriginalShroom]

becasue this is just a troll post, my opinion verses yours. and that is how it will go on

And it is that "Opinion" that those in Government use to justify their actions to regulate our lives.

You want to regulate my life more and more because it is "for my own good" or because "impacts my life" and soon there are more and more laws and regulations being put into force because your "Opinion" was used to justify it.

The rallying cries of "It's for the Children" or "It's for Grandma and Grandpa" are just two excuses used to restrict my rights. It's not "For the Children" or for "Grandma and Grandpa". It is for the power it gives you over other people's lives.

i oppose any government intervention into our personal lives

Really?

Then you don't support Seat Belt laws or Helmet laws.

You don't support Bloomberg's soda rule or his Baby formula rule.

You do support open carry and conceal carry without permits.

You don't support three day waiting periods for the purchase of handguns or background checks.

 

[auditor0007]

I am already required to carry insurance.

Tell me, should the Government inventory what food you have in your house and what you eat on a daily basis because it knows what is good for you?

Do you want the Government to come and weigh you every month and if you, according to them, weigh too much or too little, punish you for it?

When does my right to live my life as I want become your business?

If you live in a state that permits you to ride without a helmet, then insurance rates have already been adjusted to take that into account. If you choose to ride without a helmet in a state that requires you to wear a helmet, insurance rates are based on the fact that you are wearing a helmet. Therefore, if you are injured in an accident when not wearing your helmet, the insurance company may not even cover you. Either way, if your injuries are worse due to your not wearing a helmet, the cost is passed on to everyone else. This is the same as requiring you to have insurance in the first place, and it is the reason it is everyone's business, because your decisions effect the cost to everyone else.

You didn't answer my question.

I am not surprised, those who want to restrict other people's rights because they know what's best for those other people rarely will admit that their is a limit to just how much of another person's life they can regulate as long as they can justify it as "being for their own good" or "It impacts other people's lives".

Your problem to begin with is that you believe it is your right to ride a motorcycle or drive a car. The problem is that right has limits based on your following set rules set up by the state, which is the rest of society. People vote for their government, and if those they vote for say you need to wear a helmet, then by God you do or you don't ride. You see, if you don't follow the rules, they take that privilege away from you.

 

[eflatminor]

Both seat belts and air bags as well as helments required for motorcycle riders and passengers were decried as big government interference.

Does anyone doubt they save lifes

Not your business what another does with his life, as long as he's not hurting anyone else, it's none of your damn business.

and the cost for medical care?

Only in a system where central planners force charity from citizens.

Did anyone claim these examples were a panacea for all fatal vehicle accidents?

No, just more government meddling.

Do all state governments require a driver's license?

Nope. Only if you want to drive on PUBLIC roads.

Do all states require the owner of a vehicle carry insurance on each vehicle owned?

Nope. Only if you want to drive on PUBLIC roads.

So, what's the big deal for each state to choose whether a person who wishes to own, possess, or have in their custody and control a firearm be licensed and insured?

By your own reasoning, the federal government should have NO involvement when an individual purchases a firearm, but states are free to require a license to for a CCW permit, for carry on PUBLIC property. Since states do not require a license or insurance to buy a vehicle, all state background checks and other regulations around the purchase of a firearm would stop. The state would only get involved if an individual wants to use that firearm on PUBLIC property (a CCW), just like a car (a driver's license).

Works for me.

The USSC has ruled that the Second Amendment has limits, correct?

In public places, yes. You want to ban firearms in court houses, that's fine.

Gun owners will still retain the freedom to move to a state which decides not to regulate gun owners, correct?

Correct.

Discuss rationally; remember there are new and IMO appropraite rules for posting on the Politics Forum.

By your rationally presented arguments, you've just kicked the feds out of gun control and ensured anyone can buy a firearm without state involvement unless the state wants to license for public carry.

So...thanks for your support!

 

[OriginalShroom]

If you live in a state that permits you to ride without a helmet, then insurance rates have already been adjusted to take that into account. If you choose to ride without a helmet in a state that requires you to wear a helmet, insurance rates are based on the fact that you are wearing a helmet. Therefore, if you are injured in an accident when not wearing your helmet, the insurance company may not even cover you. Either way, if your injuries are worse due to your not wearing a helmet, the cost is passed on to everyone else. This is the same as requiring you to have insurance in the first place, and it is the reason it is everyone's business, because your decisions effect the cost to everyone else.

You didn't answer my question.

I am not surprised, those who want to restrict other people's rights because they know what's best for those other people rarely will admit that their is a limit to just how much of another person's life they can regulate as long as they can justify it as "being for their own good" or "It impacts other people's lives".

Your problem to begin with is that you believe it is your right to ride a motorcycle or drive a car. The problem is that right has limits based on your following set rules set up by the state, which is the rest of society. People vote for their government, and if those they vote for say you need to wear a helmet, then by God you do or you don't ride. You see, if you don't follow the rules, they take that privilege away from you.

You actually bring up a good point there.

We do not have a "Right" to drive a car or ride a motorcycle or any other form of transportation when used on public property.

The courts have ruled that it is a "Privilege" that can be controlled by that State.

You have a "Right" to walk, and that is about it.

That is until you are told where you have to sit on a bus.. Then suddenly you have "Rights" again.

 

[Pogo]

I have no problem with the Government saying that Helmets, seat belts, and Airbags save lives.

I have a problem with the Government requiring their use or else they will punish you for not doing what they want.


Personally, I rarely ride without a helmet on. But I don't want, as happened, to be given a ticket for moving my bike from the garage to the end of drive without a ticket. ( I fought the ticket and won. The cop admitted he didn't see me on the road, but then I also had two witnesses. )

But if I should decide to ride without a helmet on, that is my right. I am well over the age of adulthood and am able to make such decisions for myself.

I agree that you should be permitted to ride without a helmet, so long as you pay for additional insurance to cover the cost of your medical care if you are seriously injured. Why should everyone else have to pick up the cost of your bad judgement?

I am already required to carry insurance.

Tell me, should the Government inventory what food you have in your house and what you eat on a daily basis because it knows what is good for you?

Do you want the Government to come and weigh you every month and if you, according to them, weigh too much or too little, punish you for it?

When does my right to live my life as I want become your business?

Good questions.
I agree with you about the helmet and seat belt laws. I find seat belts a PITA and would prefer not to bother. If that's irresponsible, it should be my right to be irresponsible, since it affects only me. I can't buy the argument that it makes others pay for my injuries since I don't know a convincing argument that that's true.

I don't think the gummint has a role telling people what foods to not eat, though I definitely think it has a role telling the purveyors of those foods what they can sell as a matter of public health, i.e. the ingredients therein. On the same basis, tobacco should be illegal and cannabis should not.

I can't buy this ridiculous "driving is unconstitutional" canard. Any constitutional right can have regulations that don't violate the spirit, e.g. you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater that has no fire.