Wilsons Sandbox

It passed in NJ a while back. They are going towards a handheld cellphone ban here too, which I agree with in premise of course, however the underlying reason is yet another probable cause to stop anyone. We also have DUI roadblocks here too.

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 06:19:01AM -0000, pete88chester wrote: > In the Friday Kingman, Arizona paper (Kingman Daily Miner) in section > titled "State", there was an article about a Bill that would make it > possible for police to pull over a driver for just not wearing a seat > belt. Now it requires another law to be broken before they can pull > you over. It was voted down. -- ___ ______ _____ __ ________ ___ / _ |< < / == / ___/__ / /_ /_ __/ / __ ____ _ ___ /__ \ / __ |/ // / ****/ (_ / _ \/ __/ / / / _ \/ // / ' \/ _ \ /__/ /_/ |_/_//_/ == \___/\___/\__/ /_/ /_//_/\_,_/_/_/_/ .__/ (_) 8600 miles*Russel Lines*Supertrapp Race* /_/ http://www.kingsqueak.org/klr650/

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "pete88chester" wrote:

> In the Friday Kingman, Arizona paper (Kingman Daily Miner) in

section

> titled "State", there was an article about a Bill that would make

it

> possible for police to pull over a driver for just not wearing a

seat

> belt. Now it requires another law to be broken before they can

pull

> you over. It was voted down. What really caught my attention was > that it also mentioned that the State Senate also rejected a Bill > that would have required motorcyclist to wear seat belts! The > article didn't say what the voting results were on that Bill. It

is

> pretty scary that a Bill like that would even make it to the point > that it would be voted on. It shows you that there are > representatives that are trying to make laws on things the have no > knowledge of & they no dought do not do any research. I imagine a > law like that could possible be passed if the wrong circumstances > were to happen. Imagine being belted to your cycle in an

accident!

> In New York about 40 years ago somebody tried to get a law passed > requiring motorcycles to have seat belts installed. At that time

our

> comments were, "the next law would be that we would actually have

to

> use the seat belts". Pete Chester A16

Well, the police ought to be able to pull you over if you're not wearing your seatbelt. It's already a law in most states, and it's a darned good one. I'm normally pretty "hands off" in a lot of my views about what, when, or where the government should be involved in our lives. Driving a vehicle is one of the biggest responsiblities that most Americans participate in, and they do it practically on a daily basis. It's also one of the most dangerous activities we participate in. Some things ought to be "common sense", but since that commodity seems to often be in short supply, that's one of those times the government has to be involved in the form of a law or regulation. Helmets and seat belts, in my opinion, are an area where some folks let their "it's-my-right" ego get in the way of common sense. We don't live in a vacuum. With insurance, lawyers, medical costs, and all the other tentacles that get attached to a bad vehicle wreck's aftermath, it's pure ignorance to think that people are always going to do the "right thing" when using the obvious safety devices in their vehicles. Believe me, I've seen this played out over and over. There's a bad wreck where some moron, who was even in violation, is seriously injured or killed while not wearing a seatbelt. Here comes the moron and/or the moron's family and/or lawyer trying to take a bite out of the other involved party. Yeah, the ultimate outcome will "probably" come out in favor of the other involved party, but it doesn't stop the hell one has to go through in the aftermath. Additionally, even it was the moron's fault, how many of us want to be involved in a wreck where another person was killed because a moron wasn't wearing his seatbelt? The same bravado commentary I often hear before the fact is usually not the fact after such an accident occurs. And I'm not some "scare-dy cat" who wants to go around in life in a foam-wrapped bubble just to be "safe". Mountainbiking, motorcycle riding/racing, river running, and even a relatively dangerous job/career are all part of my life, but when I participate in any of them, I use the tools available to insure that I can do them with some relative safety--mainly because I want to keep doing them--your wife and children might want you to be able to keep doing them too. Wearing a seat belt is just as much a logical law as the requirement to have a driver's license or headlights. Some morons just don't get it yet. And if you want a real number that points out how big this problem is, it's conservatively estimated that around 15 thousand people are killed each year because of not wearing seatbelts in vehicle crashes. The serious injury aspect each year caused by not wearing seatbelts is many times that number. When I see Nascar, Formula One, FIM, Indy Car, and other racing organizations make the determination that driver's will be able to "exercise their rights" on the helmet/seatbelt issue, maybe I'll reconsider my take on this. Oh, and as to the motorcycle seatbelt issue, some things actually are so illogical as to not need further comment. Sorry for the soapbox session. Thad Carey A15 (with helmet but no seatbelt installed)

The shame here is that you have succumbed to the unfortunately popular belief that somehow society should protect people from themselves. A free society is one where there is tremendous risk and instability. That is the beauty of it. With freedom comes risk and some disarray. You hit the nail on the head with the mention of lawyers...therein are the seeds of evil. The only reason you 'need' to protect anyone is from fear of litigation. Had we not allowed the insidious cultural infiltration by litigators we would not be in the paranoid state we are in now. If people were not afraid of being liable for the actions of others or somehow paying for the mistakes of others, we would still be a free nation. Unfortunately this is not the case and will never be the case again. It is one of several reasons I have chosen not to bring any children of my own into this world. We will continue our downward spiral into the toilet created by litigators and legislators alike. I would not rest knowing that I forced this mess onto another person. Wake up and realize the freedoms we once had. Do not let yourself succumb to the belief that somehow anyone but YOU are responsible for your own happiness and security.

> regulation. Helmets and seat belts, in my opinion, are an area where > some folks let their "it's-my-right" ego get in the way of common > sense. We don't live in a vacuum. With insurance, lawyers, medical > costs, and all the other tentacles that get attached to a bad vehicle > wreck's aftermath, it's pure ignorance to think that people are > always going to do the "right thing" when using the obvious safety > devices in their vehicles.

Sorry, but I must disagree. I wear my helmet and my seatbelt, but we don't need to be giving the government one more excuse to be nosing about in our private lives. Too often a "reason" becomes a pretext.

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "thad_carey" wrote: > --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "pete88chester" > wrote: > > In the Friday Kingman, Arizona paper (Kingman Daily Miner) in > section > > titled "State", there was an article about a Bill that would make > it > > possible for police to pull over a driver for just not wearing a > seat > > belt. Now it requires another law to be broken before they can > pull > > you over.

And the problem is not lawyers. There are lawyers on both sides of any case, and the lawyers defending accident cases are excellent, almost without exception. If liability is found, it is because a judge has decided that there is a legal basis for it. If large damages are awarded, it is because a jury has decided they are appropriate. The lawyers just present the opposing sides of a case.

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" wrote: > The shame here is that you have succumbed to the unfortunately popular > belief that somehow society should protect people from themselves. > > A free society is one where there is tremendous risk and instability. > That is the beauty of it. With freedom comes risk and some disarray. > > You hit the nail on the head with the mention of lawyers...therein are > the seeds of evil. The only reason you 'need' to protect anyone is > from fear of litigation. Had we not allowed the insidious cultural > infiltration by litigators we would not be in the paranoid state we > are in now. > > If people were not afraid of being liable for the actions of others or > somehow paying for the mistakes of others, we would still be a free > nation. Unfortunately this is not the case and will never be the case > again. It is one of several reasons I have chosen not to bring any > children of my own into this world. We will continue our downward > spiral into the toilet created by litigators and legislators alike. I > would not rest knowing that I forced this mess onto another person. > > Wake up and realize the freedoms we once had. Do not let yourself > succumb to the belief that somehow anyone but YOU are responsible for > your own happiness and security. > > > regulation. Helmets and seat belts, in my opinion, are an area where > > some folks let their "it's-my-right" ego get in the way of common > > sense. We don't live in a vacuum. With insurance, lawyers, medical > > costs, and all the other tentacles that get attached to a bad vehicle > > wreck's aftermath, it's pure ignorance to think that people are > > always going to do the "right thing" when using the obvious safety > > devices in their vehicles.

kingsqueak@... wrote:

>The shame here is that you have succumbed to the unfortunately popular >belief that somehow society should protect people from themselves. > >A free society is one where there is tremendous risk and instability. >That is the beauty of it. With freedom comes risk and some disarray. > >You hit the nail on the head with the mention of lawyers...therein are >the seeds of evil. The only reason you 'need' to protect anyone is >from fear of litigation. Had we not allowed the insidious cultural >infiltration by litigators we would not be in the paranoid state we >are in now. > >If people were not afraid of being liable for the actions of others or >somehow paying for the mistakes of others, we would still be a free >nation. Unfortunately this is not the case and will never be the case >again. It is one of several reasons I have chosen not to bring any >children of my own into this world. >

Society should do a decent job of protecting me and my family from criminals and the more outrageous examples of human stupidity. Unless Society wants me armed and doing the job myself, which will get real messy real quick. So, Society, get to work. It's funny that you mention kids, because before I had kids I totally agreed with you about the helmet/seat belt law. I thought anyone who would go past the end of their driveway without either one was a moron, but it's a free country for everyone including morons. But I see too many kids jumping around in cars not belted in, and they get killed this way with frightening regularity in accidents. In certain demographics, automobile accidents are one of the leading causes of death for children. So I have to agree with Thad in this instance, it's one of the few areas where at least society should somewhat protect children from their parent's stupidity, if not protecting the parents from their own stupidity. As for the lawyers, there's far too many to kill them all at this point. And the whole contingency-fee thing was a way to ensure that rich companies can't injure poor people at will, safe in the knowledge that they can't afford to sue them. So the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, it wil come back eventually. Devon

judjonzz@... wrote:

>And the problem is not lawyers. There are lawyers on both sides of any case, >

Lawyers are people too, and like all other people a fairly reliable percentage are greedy, crooked, or flat out thieves. There's enough ambulance-chasing, frivolous personal injury lawsuits, and other examples of people going beserk that you can't say that lawyers are NOT the problem. The problem is the damage that a frivolous lawsuit can do when the defendant has to pay out of pocket for their lawyers, but the plaintiff pays nothing until it's settled. It can easily bankrupt a small business or an individual. Devon

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "pete88chester" wrote:

> In the Friday Kingman, Arizona paper (Kingman Daily Miner) in

section

> titled "State", there was an article about a Bill that would make

it

> possible for police to pull over a driver for just not wearing a

seat

> belt. Now it requires another law to be broken before they can

pull

> you over. It was voted down. What really caught my attention was > that it also mentioned that the State Senate also rejected a Bill > that would have required motorcyclist to wear seat belts! The > article didn't say what the voting results were on that Bill. It

is

> pretty scary that a Bill like that would even make it to the point > that it would be voted on. It shows you that there are > representatives that are trying to make laws on things the have no > knowledge of & they no dought do not do any research. I imagine a > law like that could possible be passed if the wrong circumstances > were to happen. Imagine being belted to your cycle in an

accident!

> In New York about 40 years ago somebody tried to get a law passed > requiring motorcycles to have seat belts installed. At that time

our

> comments were, "the next law would be that we would actually have

to

> use the seat belts". Pete Chester A16

To follow up on Chris' and Judson's comments, let's start with not lumping every "personal freedom" issue into one bucket. If you go that route you're stating that there should be no laws or governmental regulation of anything. If you truly believe that, there's no need to discuss anything further. For example, I'm not much of a gun control person. I feel that most responsible people without criminal histories of any consequence should be allowed to carry handguns--hardly the mindset of a "government/society will protect us" individual--and I've seen this issue up close and personal too. We just can't throw every issue into one category and say that the government/society shouldn't try to influence behavior in a positive way when appropriate. Obviously what issues are appropriate becomes the area of debate, but don't put me in the "government can take care of everything" category. Remember this critical element also...we are (or at least should be) the government. The comment about lawyers not being a serious problem has some merit, but there is a substantial negative impact on our coutry that has indeed been served up by the legal system. Judson, your analogy about lawyers being on both sides of the fence is true, but it is also part of the problem--my lawyers can beat your lawyers. This frequently turns into a godawful money pit that touches on some of the negative economic impacts I mentioned in my first post. Again, this is not one of those issues that should be dumped all into one negative category either. That's one of the problems with our society, IMO, is that we try to pidgeon-hole all issues into one, neat category for over simplification and personal comfort. Life ain't that easy. The helmet/seatbelt issue to me is a logical (yeah, I know what you're thinking) issue. I use the example of other venues of vehicular activity to justify the logic behind helmet/seatbelt laws. No automotive/motorcycle racing venue would consider not requiring their participants to use certain types of protective equipment, and probably the participants would not consider participating without it. Those folks know the dangers involved and apply logic in most cases. Some would say, "Well, that's racing", but I'd say that it's just as dangerous (or more so) out on streets and highways. I'd feel safer running 200mph 6 inches away from Michael Schumacher than I would 50 feet away from some of our fellow motorists at 30mph. I'm not trying to flame anybody here. I used to feel the same way about helmet/seatbelt issues until I saw the issue in a "hands on" perspective. I don't mean that in a condescending way, either.