Quote:

---

Originally posted by MacBaker:
Seatbelt ads don't bother me. My opinion is; anyone that doesn't wear a seatbelt is an idiot anyway, so I hope the ads make them think twice about it. Find another less moronic way to be a rebel!!!!

To those that don't wear seatbelts, please fill out a donor card, so that your foolishness at least has the potential to help others.

The ad that is torquing me off, is the guilt trip GM Onstar commercial with the kids, saying parents that really cared about their loved ones, wouldn't drive a car without this service. Funny how the new Chevy Colbalt has an abyssmal 2 star side impact rating, but doesn't come with Onstar standard.

I'll stick with my two non-GM built cars, with 5 star safety ratings and a cell phone with 911 on speed dial.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not the sort of person who enjoys living in a perpetual state of insecurity. I skip over all kinds of precautions that other people swear by, and sometimes I pay for it.

---

Quote:

---

...But it's my business.

---

Quote:

---

...But it's my business.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sgtgump:
Actually, I don't wear seatbelts because it is a law, I wear them for the sheer common sense. Seatbelt laws are stupid, and yes we all know that it is a nationwide law now so the ad campaigns do kind of rub it in your face.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sgtgump:
So the commercials and the law don't bother you, but the OnStar thing does? How long do you really think it will be before there is a law that makes it mandatory for you to have OnStar, or a similar device, in your car all the time? There is already a precedent in place for forcing people to do such a thing.

10 Years from now, when you are bitching on a message board(hopefully still this one) about how you think that the constant OnStar commercials suck and someone tells you that you're an idiot for not using one, will that bother you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MacBaker:
I am mystified though, how any intelligent person would have any rational reason not to wear a seatbelt, or would have a problem with a law requiring such use. I guess the same people that don't like this law, also think they should be able to drink and drive or think helmet laws are stupid (donorcycle riders). My bad, I guess common sense laws are too draconian for some! LMAO!

---

Quote:

---

Well, I'm msytified why any intelligent person wants to give up their right, and responsibility, to make decisions concerning matters of personal safety. Those of us arguing against these laws don't have some kind of deathwish as you are insinuating, we just see the logic behind these kind of laws and recognize it as a dangerous precedent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MacBaker:
What kind of dangerous precedent? The same laws that require that your brake lights work? Or DUI laws? Laws that require people with corrected vision to wear their glasses when driving? WTF? How do these common sense laws set any dangerous precedent? The only logic behind these laws I see is public safety.

If you choose not to follow the seatbelt law, fine, that's your right. Just expect to pay the price, just like anyone would driving under the influence, or operating a vehicle with a broken brake light, or not following the restrictions on their licence (glasses, night blindness, etc.). If they get pulled over, they will get a ticket just like you would for refusing to follow the seatbelt law. What's the difference?

---

Quote:

---

What dangerous precedent does this law set, that the others I've mentioned didn't? Or, is it your opinion that all of these laws set a dangerous precedent? Are all public safety laws too draconain for your rebel soul? Too bad!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Anyone know why the title of this thread got changed in the 'Real World Discussions' section? It just says RE: now

EDIT: uh, nevermind. changed back. weird.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Of course the standard answer to that is to say: should your decision to not use a seat belt end up with you disabled and draining the government coffers, it then becomes a social issue. Any thoughts on that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Staggerly:
Why not just wear the seat belt AND a t-shirt that says, "you're not the boss of me!" Then everyone'll know you're just arbitrarily rebellious, and not a doofus with no common sense.

-----------------------
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

---

Quote:

---

Either way, I don't think those are valid justifications for legislation. We could make an endless list of individual decisions that could be said to indirectly cost society money (having children, overeating, having unprotected sex, etc, etc,.. ) but do we really want to go there? It just seems like you could construct an argument like that to make pretty much anything illegal.

---

Quote:

---

To me, the bottom line with seat belt laws is that they are based on the notion that it's the government's responsibility to protect people from themselves.

The costs to society and other supporting arguments seem secondary at best and wouldn't even be an issue without first accepting the above premise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But that's sort of like saying "Don't wear condoms since it doesn't protect you from disease exactly 100% of the time in every single situation", or "Go ahead and lick the toilet seat, it won't make you sick every single time".

---

Quote:

---

I'm not arguing your EMT friends didn't make his observations, but this is also the type of "statistical" or observation nonsense that makes bad science...All I saying is there is a good chance that the sampling is skewed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But that's sort of like saying "Don't wear condoms since it doesn't protect you from disease exactly 100% of the time in every single situation", or "Go ahead and lick the toilet seat, it won't make you sick every single time".

---

Waaait a minute. I never said, "Don't use seatbelts since they don't protect you every time." What I said was, "Let people choose for themselves, since seatbelts don't protect you every time." To go with your condom analogy, that would be like saying, "Since condoms don't always protect all people all the time, individuals--not the govt--should decide if condoms are best for them or if they want to use an alternative means for protection."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

I'm not arguing your EMT friends didn't make his observations, but this is also the type of "statistical" or observation nonsense that makes bad science...All I saying is there is a good chance that the sampling is skewed.

---

I never said those incidents were representative of the average accident, or that those examples were findings of a scientific study--so sampling and "bad science" are neither here nor there. Those examples were given to illustrate the undisputed fact that sometimes seatbelts hurt. Could be those times are 1 in a million, could be they are more common. Could be we don't know just how often they occur. The fact that they DO happen makes a case that maybe people should be allowed to decide, for themselves, what the risks are of wearing vs. not wearing a seatbelt, and if they want to take those risks.

My only point is that seatbelt use is not a blanket "all benefit-no cost" decision that the government can make for all people, all the time. In decisions like these, folk need to be able to govern themselves.

Moreover, I think Mal and those gorram pesky independents would agree with me.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But at the same time I can not conscionably recommend that someone shouldn't use a seatbelt because it only works part of the time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ilizede:
Refusing to wear a seatbelt because you refuse to be a sheep is moronic, albeit, your choice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But at the same time I can not conscionably recommend that someone shouldn't use a seatbelt because it only works part of the time.

---

But nobody is recommending this. Not even me.

By all means, recommend seatbelts. Recommend to your heart's content. Just don't FORCE seatbelts. Let people choose without coercion.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

---