 |
| |
|
|
Tattila the Hun
|
 |
Tornio
Oct 2002
time: 07:37
|
|
quote:
DEREK KIEPER: Individual rights buckle under seat belt laws
September 17, 2004
I’m from the school of thought where everyone should have the right to do as they please as long as they are not infringing on the rights of other people. This comes from the political philosophy that inspired our founders and freedoms.
The duty of government is nothing more than to make sure everyone’s rights are protected and not infringed upon. Uncle Sam is not here to regulate every facet of life no matter the consequences.
No law, or set of laws, has made the government more intrusive and ridiculous than seat belt legislation. Nothing is a bigger affront to the ideas of freedom, liberty, yada, yada, yada. Whether you are a pinko liberal or a right-wing whack job, there are plenty of reasons for just saying to hell with seat belt laws.
Democrats and Republicans alike should stand together to stop these laws that are incongruous with the ideals of both parties.
For Republicans, seat belt laws represent an enormous cost to the federal government. Perhaps the amount of money we spend on safety belts pails in comparison to our defense budget, but it still seems to be a ton of money to make a choice for a person.
The government budgets $13.4 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration through the U.S. Department of Transportation for educating the public about safety belt laws.
Remember the “Click It or Ticket” commercials you saw on TV this summer during the tourist season? Well, the government wasted millions on those ads to make sure you knew officer Joe Friendly was going to be pulling you over for not wearing your seat belt.
The government also dispenses $25 million in grants to local law enforcement to increase the usage rate of seat belts. Even the Lincoln Police Department got a grant to help enforce the safety belt laws – lucky us.
Most ridiculous, though, is the $100 million doled out to states that have primary seat belt laws – these are the laws that say you can be pulled over for simply not wearing your seat belt.
If one is doing the math, that is more than $138 million spent on seat belt laws. But the kicker is this: It is estimated, by researchers for Congress, that only 6,100 lives are saved per year because of new seat belt wearers. Moreover, the increase in the percentage of those who wear seat belts has leveled off.
As laws become increasingly strict for seat belts, fewer people will respond positively by buckling up in response to the laws. There seems to be a die-hard group of non-wearers out there who simply do not wish to buckle up no matter what the government does. I belong to this group.
For the states’ righters of the right, this legislation represents another attempt by the federal government to step on the toes of the states. Not only does the federal government currently fund grants to increase usage, but bills are being debated that would punish those states that did not have seat belt laws, by withholding funding – usurping the right of the state to decide its own safety laws.
What frightens me more about safety belt laws is the intrusion they represent to Americans. Democrats should take notice. Choice is an important aspect of freedom – choice to do as I see fit with my body and being.
Yet, the government has decided that I do not have the choice to drive around without my seat belt. It is my choice what type of safety precautions I take. It is ridiculous to legislate actions that have no immediate effect on other individuals.
Telling me to wear my seat belt is the same as making sure I have some sort of proper education before diving into a swimming pool. If I want to dive in without knowing how to swim, that is my right. And if I want to be the jerk that flirts with death and rides around with my seat belt off, I should be able to do that, too.
If we regulate decisions that are personal and deal with safety, we very soon may be confronted with a slippery slope of legislation. What is next? Helmet laws for walkers? Kneepad regulations for office government interns? Or perhaps some sort of mandate for protective headgear for golfers will hit the law books in the future.
What should be most scary for those who love freedom and privacy is the government’s consideration of a bill to punish all states that do not have primary seat belt laws.
Officers have enough reasons to pull us over in the first place. This just allows them to pull people over and give us citizens a good shakedown whenever we want. Does anyone else see a problem?
I’m sure college students would love to be pulled over and asked by the cops why they were not wearing their safety belt, and then maybe the police can catch a whiff of something – that may or may not be there – and searching ensues.
I can see now officers not being able to see your buckled belt as they pass you at night – because it is dark – so they pull you over to make sure. Simple enough, police do not need another reason to pull anyone over; they do it enough as it is.
All those who want the choice not to click have a few options. One is exempt with a doctor’s note, or if pregnant. Or you can move to New Hampshire, the only state without a seat belt law. New Hampshire might be my bastion of choice some day, but for now I am stuck in Nebraska.
I just wish we could keep the government out of our pocketbooks and out of our personal decisions. |
And four months later:
quote:
I-80 crash claims UNL student's life
BY BUTCH MABIN / Lincoln Journal Star
Derek Kieper was a smart, funny, intense young man who relished a good debate and would do anything for his friends.
Kieper, a 21-year-old senior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, died early Tuesday morning when the Ford Explorer he was a passenger in travelled off an icy section of Interstate 80 and rolled several times in a ditch. Kieper, who was riding in the back seat of the Explorer, was ejected from the vehicle.
Two others in the vehicle, including the driver, Luke Havermann of Ogallala, and the front-seat passenger, Nick Uphoff of Randolph Air Force Base in Texas, sustained non-life threatening injuries. Havermann and Uphoff, both 21, were being treated at BryanLGH Medical Center West.
The three men, members of the same UNL fraternity, were returning to Lincoln from San Antonio, Texas at the time of the accident, reported to authorities by a truck driver around 3 a.m.
"At this point in time, I'm in shock," Kieper's father, Paul Kieper, said in an interview Tuesday.
"He was a bright young boy, a 4.0," Paul Kieper said. "He loved to be silly. He loved to debate."
Paul Kieper said his son graduated from North Platte High School in 2002. When Derek Kieper came to Lincoln for college, the elder Kieper moved here, too.
Derek Kieper played on the defensive line for the North Platte High School football team, his father said. At UNL, Derek took on five majors — history, psychology, economics, sociology and political science — and had plans to attend law school.
Last year, Derek attended a summer program in economics at Oxford University in England.
"He loved it," Paul Kieper said. "It was his first time with travel abroad."
Kade Pittman, a friend of Derek since seventh grade, said Derek was a true friend.
"He'd do anything for anybody," he said. "He was really funny, extremely intelligent. He'd tutor me in classes he didn't even take."
Pittman said he last saw Derek shortly before Derek headed off to Texas for Christmas break.
"It's really tragic," Pittman said. "He's really going to be missed."
Capt. Joe Lefler of the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office said Havermann was driving the Explorer east on the interstate near Northwest 48th Street when the vehicle went out of control on the ice-covered road. He said the vehicle travelled into the south ditch and rolled several times.
A truck driver headed in the same direction witnessed the accident and called 911, Lefler said. He said alcohol did not play a role in the accident, but he declined to discuss how fast the Explorer was travelling.
Derek, who was thrown from the vehicle, was not wearing a seat belt, Lefler said. He said Havermann and Uphoff were wearing seat belts at the time.
In a column written for the Daily Nebraskan in September, Derek attacked seat belt laws as intrusions on individual liberties and expensive to enforce.
"It is my choice what type of safety precautions I take," he wrote.
"There seems to be a die-hard group of non-wearers out there who simply do not wish to buckle up no matter what the government does. I belong to this group."
Erica Rogers, opinion page editor at the Daily Nebraskan, said Derek's brains and intensity would be missed. Kieper and Rogers had lively political debates, she said.
"He had a Republican focus on economic issues," she said. "He was aggressive. He was really intense.
"He was a very engaging student. I'm sure UNL will be at a loss." |
Reap what you saw.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dis
at least they weren't trapped by the seatbelts.
It always cracks me up people would rather not wear seatbelts and be thrown from a vehicle instead of the possibility of being trapped in the seatbelts (which does happen rather frequently actually) in a burning vehicle. |
No it doesn't. IIRC less than 10% of vehicular accidents result in a fire. I'm not sure how often seat belts jam after an accident, but I'd guess that it was about that frequent. You're more likely to be trapped by damage to the vehicle's frame rendering the doors inoperable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:37
|
|
quote:
I have no problem with a ban on smoking indoors in publicly owned places. On the other hand, an owner of a business/establishment should be allowed to make his own decision on whether smoking is allowed. If there were such a big demand for it in bars, bars that outlawed smoking should be prospering, and most bars should be smoke free already... funny, they aren't. Now people want to make that decision for the owners... and force it down their throat, even if it hurts their business. |
What about the people that don't smoke and go to bars to dance and have a few drinks? We need our air fresh so we can continue flapping on the dance floor. Don't see why our health should suffer cause we wanna go out and have a good time, without killing yourself and the people around you slowly.
They had the whole same argument about it hurting business' over here too and well it hasn't seemed to come through. Clubs/pubs were crying apocalypse but now nobody cares. Sales aren't even down.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Here's an idea.
Instead of having these safety nazi laws giving people tickets for not buckling up, why not make a federal law forcing automobile manufactures to include an annoying thing that beeps until you buckle your seat belt?
Or better yet, make it so you can't shift from park or something.
That would force people to buckle their seat belts (or at the very least, force them to drive around with an annoying beep the whole time) without wasting police resources in a stupid effort pulling over people who don't buckle up. Police have better things to do... like arresting people for possession of small amounts of marijuana. |
Okay, sonny, let Grandpa Rufus school you here.
Long, long ago, when Grandpa Rufus was a young 'un, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and Nixon was still president, this is exactly what some auto, manufaturers did. My mom's '73 Chevy Malibu, for example, wouldn't shut up unless the seatbelt was fastened (there was also some experimentation with cars that wouldn't start at all, though this was abandoned for safety reasons). The problem was, fastening the seat belt didn't necessarily mean wearing the seat belt; people very quickly learned that you could fasten the belt and sit on it, defeating the system.
Beyond that, though, your position makes no sense. How is forcing you to wear a seatbelt any different from forcing you to buy a product that compels you to wear a seat belt in order to use it properly? You're basically saying that the latter would give people freedom to decide whether they want to wear their seatbelt or not have their car start, but wtf kind of decision is that? Essentially the same decision that you already have: to use a car or not use a car.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donegeal
|
 |
Apolyton's Resident Law Enforcement Officer. Founder of the Glory of War, Champions of Apolyton!
Jul 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
Personally, I have never agreed with the seatbelt law. I have always been of the mind "Fine. Don't wear your seatbelt, dumbass. Your choice." However, I guess I have never really thought of the examples that Che gave (the human missle deal), but that might be because I have never seen a human missle actually hit anything (they are soooo difficult to aim).
I do wear my seatbelt. I also force anyone riding with me to do so. Basically, when I'm driving, no, the passengers don't have a choice (plus my car has those seatbelts that go on automatically).
Smoking is stupid, but I don't feel it is the laws job to enforce that level of common sense. Inside public places, yes, there should be no smoking. Outside in public plases, who cares? Its outside! Inside private places (like resturants and bars) should be the choice of the owner. If you want to go out dancing and have a few drinks (like Flip), then find a bar that is non-smoking. Forcing all bars to be non-smoking is ridiculous. Perhaps AT MOST, make a law requiring the placement of a warning sign that smoking is allowed at the establishment. Personally, I like what the resturant "Denny's" has done. Their smoking section is completely windowed off. I have never been bothered by smoking at Denny's. In the end, however, it should be at the descretion of the establishment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
 |
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Okay, sonny, let Grandpa Rufus school you here.
Long, long ago, when Grandpa Rufus was a young 'un, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and Nixon was still president, this is exactly what some auto, manufaturers did. My mom's '73 Chevy Malibu, for example, wouldn't shut up unless the seatbelt was fastened (there was also some experimentation with cars that wouldn't start at all, though this was abandoned for safety reasons). The problem was, fastening the seat belt didn't necessarily mean wearing the seat belt; people very quickly learned that you could fasten the belt and sit on it, defeating the system. |
Or, you can have a mechanic disable the damn thing like my stepdad did in the three vehicles we usually drive.
I should note that while my mom and I have always worn our seatbelts, my stepdad only started doing so recently. Click It Or Ticket is what made him change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
As a general rule, that means do not intubate, do not shock, and do not give chest compressions.
You think that's all we do to people, Sava?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:37
|
|
quote:
Smoking is stupid, but I don't feel it is the laws job to enforce that level of common sense. Inside public places, yes, there should be no smoking. Outside in public plases, who cares? Its outside! Inside private places (like resturants and bars) should be the choice of the owner. If you want to go out dancing and have a few drinks (like Flip), then find a bar that is non-smoking. Forcing all bars to be non-smoking is ridiculous. Perhaps AT MOST, make a law requiring the placement of a warning sign that smoking is allowed at the establishment. Personally, I like what the resturant "Denny's" has done. Their smoking section is completely windowed off. I have never been bothered by smoking at Denny's. In the end, however, it should be at the descretion of the establishment. |
Bars/clubs that were non smoking simply didn't exist before the legislation, or if they did (cause I didn't check every single place before, just accepted it as the way it was) they were hidden away. Smoking outside's fine, no argument there of course. I really don't see why its rediculious. So business' can't let people smoke indoors anymore, whoppiedoo, people have to get off their fat lazy ass' and take a few steps outside to slowly kill themselves.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:37
|
|
Firstly dude, I said that places we're you could go have a drink and dance without smoke don't exist. So we're supposed to stay at home and masturbate?
Alot of people need alcohol to be able to dance in clubs. They **** me off too.
Another thing, alcohol is still quite sociably acceptable whereas smoking is becoming increasingly not.
Also I don't really care, I very much doubt I'll die from anything related to smoking, unless all the MJ I smoke gets to me, just arguing the other side.
Also that argument is stupid. Gays should just suck it up because thats the way it is. People in the ME/China should suck it up because thats the way it is. Woman shoulda just sucked it up. Care for me to go on?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:37
|
|
Are you telling me that the state doesn't care about me?
*runs off and cries*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:37
|
|
"Firstly dude, I said that places we're you could go have a drink and dance without smoke don't exist. So we're supposed to stay at home and masturbate?"
Well could I find places with no drunk people? No. Get over it. Too bad. Fact is, smoking is part of bar culture etc, thus, the owners should have the right to choose if they want to have it smoking or non-smoking. Or do like here, set up smoking AND non-smoking sections in the bar. Though that actually is enforced by the law (I think!).
Socially acceptable.. depends. If you're in Cali, then sure. IF you're in civilized world, then it's not an issue of social matters.
You can go all night long if you want to. Gays have to suck it up? I don't go to cry people having gay sex. IT's their business. Just like I don't go telling people who drink that they shouldn't because it ruins my evening in a club. Just like you shouldn't blame me for your virgin longues.
Like I said. YOU have a choice. Bar owner SHOULD have a choice. The smoker HAS a choice. Now.. if you want laws to forbid things, then someone loses his choice. Has nothing to do with gay rights, womens rights or what ever. Don't go to places that has smokers in them. Public places, I don't care, better to have them non smoking I do agree.
But as for private businesses.. get your dirty non smoking hands off of them. You are rude and a racist. Oppressor too. Freedom hater and prolly anti-good. I bet an atheist too. And bi-sexual. And national socialist. Do you want me to go on?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:37
|
|
haha I love you too Pekka.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:37
|
|
Also just like to note that I don't like the socially acceptable argument either. Just offering arguments.
All I know is that the air is fresher in the clubs, all the doomsayers dooms didn't come about. And well who cares really. Wouldn't be surprised if it happens in the majority of western nations at some point.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-08-2005 02:13
|