Seatbelt Laws

[Neil D]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

It was passed to save money. It is all about $$$.It is one thing to sacrifice some liberty for security but it is another to sacrifice liberty so the state can balance its books.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Really?!?!?!??

And here I thought it was about saving people's lives....and the stats that show that wearing a seatbelt really do save lives...I thought it was about being prudent and attempting to save people from the agony of burying thier loved ones prematurely, or kids from being orphaned.

I didn't think money had anything to do with it....I thought it was about common sense, and using a principle to enforce a person to have a better chance of living if s/he should get into an accident...

And who pays the bills when a person gets into an accident? Not the goverment....rather it is the insurance industry....So, it is NOT about the goverment...it is about common sense and the insurance industry....

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

And here I thought it was about saving people's lives.... I didn't think money had anything to do with it....

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Oh yes, ignorance is bliss. Seatbelt laws were not even disguised as being primarily about safety. Do they save lives? Absolutely but that is just a side benefit of them. The purpose for the seatbelts laws was to save money. When it is calculated how many people are on government health insurance the number is baffeling. The poor are on medical assistance and that makes up about 14% of the population. Now add all state, federal, municipal, county and school district employees and we have millions more. Then we have to figure in all the Social Security recipiants. I believe the number is around 45% of Americans are insured by some form of governmental insurance policy. Then we have the uninsured that cost hospitals in unpaid medical bills. So the reason behind seatbelt laws is saving money. And it works! Seatbelts not only save lives, they save a whole lot of money too.

[there buster]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

You decide if this death has nothing to do with seat belts

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I never made such a statement. Please read carefully.

[Neil D]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Oh yes, ignorance is bliss. Seatbelt laws were not even disguised as being primarily about safety.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I thought that the sarcasim came thru, but your insistance that I am ignorant about this is just plain stubborness about your opinion.

As for it being a monetary issue, and that 45% of the public is insured by the goverment, gee, Shane...that is just...well, you are being plain stubborn in your opinion....It continues to be marketed as a safety issue, it was motivated by safety, and yes, there were economics involved...but a govermental monetary issue?...hardly......

[there buster]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

As a democratic voice, . . . we can choose if worshiping Baal should be mandatory.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No, we can't. There's something called the First Amendment. The founders put it there, along with the rest of the Constitution, to prevent what they called "tyrrany of the majority."

Your notion that we can vote to force other people to do whatever 50%+1 choose was repugnant to the founders, precisely because it leads to thinking that, as long as we can get more people on our side, we can force everyone to do what we think is best for them.

But this is contrary to the concepts of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In order to restrict those rights in any way, it's necesssary to show how the exercise of those rights in a particular case infringes those rights for another.

That's another danger in creeping socialism. As the state provides more and more, it thereby recieves the right to regulate behavior.

The state "provides" education, and compels children to attend.

If the state "provides" health care, it will sooner or later dictate practices that reduce costs.

The founders recognized that government was a necessary evil not a benefactor. Every time we lose sight of that, and give government power it does not absolutely need, we move a little farther down the road to tyranny.

It always amazes me that SDA's so concerned about Sunday legislation calmly trade more and more of their freedom for government "benefits."

It's the ultimate form of buying votes, and government uses our own money for the purchase.

I've lived long enough to see significant freedoms sold for a mess of pottage. I get agitated because my children and grandchildren will have to suffer for the short-sightedness of my generation.

At the end of time there will be two groups. One group will say, "I know the will of God, and I'm going to be certain everyone obeys it." The other group will say, "I know the will of God, and I'm going to do my best to obey it."

Every day we are choosing to belong to one group or the other.

[Beryl]

The other group will say, "I know the will of God, and I'm going to do my best to obey it."

And, as I am sure that the will of God is to save lives -- both for now and for eternity, I will willingly obey my government's law that I must wear a seatbelt. I KNOW that it saves lives -- it saved mine!

Beryl

[there buster]

I buckle my seat-belt also, out of choice.

That doesn't change the fact that the law is both dangerous and wrong. After all, do we really want the government promoting God's will, as the legislature sees it?

[Dr. Shane]

Primary Enforcement of Seat Belt Law Rejected by MA House

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

easonable arguments can be made that laws should require drivers to wear seat belts, or that motorcylists should be required to wear helmets, because society often bears the cost of injuries that exceed insurance coverage. Others reasonably argue that the government should allow individuals to make their own judgments about the costs and benefits of using seat belts or helmets.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

<a href="easonable arguments can be made that laws should require drivers to wear seat belts, or that motorcylists should be required to wear helmets, because society often bears the cost of injuries that exceed insurance coverage. Others reasonably argue that the government should allow individuals to make their own judgments about the costs and benefits of using seat belts or helmets." target="_blank"> Senate Bill 1260 - Primary Safety Belt Enforcement</a>

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Economic Costs from the Failure to Use Seat Belts are Significant

|

Although opponents to primary enforcement seat belt laws claim that nonuse is a personal choice and affects only the individual, the fact is that motor vehicle injuries and fatalities have a significant societal cost. For example, the lifetime cost to society for each fatality is over $977,000, over 80 percent of which is attributed to lost workplace and household productivity. In 2002, more than 7,100 lives could have been saved if everyone had used a seat belt. Society would have saved almost $7 billion.

|

Each critically injured survivor of a motor vehicle crash costs an average of $1.1 million. Medical costs and lost productivity account for 84 percent for the most serious level of non-fatal injury. In a 1996 study, NHTSA found that the average inpatient cost for unbelted crash victims was 55 percent higher than for belted crash victims. In 2000 alone, seat belts could have prevented over 142,000 injuries.

|

While the affected individual covers some of these costs, overall, those not directly involved in crashes pay for nearly three-quarters of all crash costs, primarily through insurance premiums, taxes, and travel delay. In 2000, those not directly involved in crashes paid over $170 billion. Just for medical care, lost productivity, and other injury related costs, society annually pays an estimated $26 billion for motor vehicle injuries and deaths experienced by unbelted vehicle occupants, and a substantial part of this cost is publicly funded.

|

The emotional and financial costs to Missouri are just as staggering. In 2002, 707 people died while riding unrestrained in motor vehicles on Missouri's roads. Seat belts are 44 to 73 percent effective in preventing fatalities depending on the vehicle type and seating position for the occupant. Therefore, it is reasonable to estimate conservatively that approximately 311 of the unrestrained occupants would have survived crashes in 2002, saving Missouri about $300 million if they had buckled up.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[olger]

I agree with Williams on this issue. I wear mine, but it is an imposition for the government to mandate this law AND enrich themselves on those who choose not to wear one.

gerry

[fifiqueen]

What a different world!! LOL

I'm sorry to chuckle, but like Nan said for her country here in the UK Seatbelt laws have been in for donkey years.

I haven't read the whole thread I must admit, but the first page alone did it for me. I'm not sure if any of you have seen the effects of an adult in the back seat slamming into the front seat when thrown at great force when propelled forward by the force of cars hitting each other or hitting anything for that matter.

Seat belt laws are for the protection of all who travel. My pet hate is to see children left to float around a car, the force of that child going through the windscreen in an accident should be enough to let any reasonable adult know that it's a life saving idea. Now what if that child was strapped in the front seat and there was an adult in the back with no seat belt on sitting directly behind that child. The force of that adult slamming into the front seat of the car would be enough to kill that child. This is not about "My civil rights". This is not a big brother, 1984 issue. THIS IS A LIFE SAVER!!.

Sheeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Neil D]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

That doesn't change the fact that the law is both dangerous and wrong. After all, do we really want the government promoting God's will, as the legislature sees it?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

So when God says "dont steal", and the legislature passes a law saying it is against society to steal from another person, the legislature is acting as God?

To me, it is this type of thinking that excludes common sense and just wants to argue.....for arguement sake alone.... <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/ignore.gif" alt="" />

Fifiqueen, you are right on in your presentation... <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/yeahthat.gif" alt="" />