Damn Terry Glenn dead

[Hank Kingsley]

I probably didnt care at 9

I did. It stunk.

 

[Pure Steel]

But there are lots of teenagers and alcoholics driving on the same road, my friend.

Times have changed....Dirt was once a teenager, now just an alcoholic.....

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

The government is not there to protect us from ourselves. Should the government outlaw alcohol? Smoking? Greasy burgers? Candy?

Driving 120 MPH on the interstate endangers OTHER drivers as well as yourself. There's a clear difference you aren't grasping.

Oh I get that. Here's what you are not grasping. Motor cycle helmet laws were put in place for safety. As they are so easy to enforce virtually nobody rides without a helmet where it is illegal, they wouldn't get 2 miles before being stopped. Therefore there is simply not a lot of revenue generated from these laws, so clearly they were laws for public safety first and revenue generation was a secondary, incidental, reason.

You anti-Goverment guys crack me up.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

I did. It stunk.

You probably just stated why those seats no longer exist BTW

 

[Godstree]

Helmet and seat belt laws are in place to save lives. They are in place to protect us from ourselves just a drug laws and speeding laws are. Now do jurisdictions profit from citations? Or course. But anyone thinking they are nothing more than a money grab and safety is never considered is the idiot.

There is a reason you can't drive 120 MPH on Interstate 95 and if you think it's only for the revenue you would be wrong.

Argument I have with this is doing 120 and not wearing seat belt are 2 different issues. One is safety of others and one is safety of just yourself.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

You probably just stated why those seats no longer exist BTW

Yup.

When I was old enough to drive, we'd take the back seat out completely, leaving a luggage well you could hide 2 or 3 smallish people under.

Great for sneaking extra bodies into a drive in movie.

 

[soxfan148927]

Oh I get that. Here's what you are not grasping. Motor cycle helmet laws were put in place for safety. As they are so easy to enforce virtually nobody rides without a helmet where it is illegal, they wouldn't get 2 miles before being stopped. Therefore there is simply not a lot of revenue generated from these laws, so clearly they were laws for public safety first and revenue generation was a secondary, incidental, reason.

You anti-Goverment guys crack me up.

Whether they put the law in place for safety or not is irrelevant to me. The law shouldn't exist in the first place because the government should not be in the business of protecting people from themselves.

Not anti-government, I'm anti-government interfering in stuff that has does not violate anybody else's rights.

Sorry for some reason I can't post in my usual account.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Whether they put the law in place for safety or not is irrelevant to me. The law shouldn't exist in the first place because the government should not be in the business of protecting people from themselves.

Not anti-government, I'm anti-government interfering in stuff that has does not violate anybody else's rights.

Sorry for some reason I can't post in my usual account.

If you don't agree that the government should protect their citizens then you are anti-government. These laws save lives, a shit load of lives. Apparently citizens rights not to be infringed upon are more important to you than lives. That is insane to me.

 

[soxfan148927]

If you don't agree that the government should protect their citizens then you are anti-government. These laws save lives, a shit load of lives. Apparently citizens rights not to be infringed upon are more important to you than lives. That is insane to me.

Government shouldn't protect citizens from themselves. That's not being anti-government. NH doesn't have seatbelt or motorcycle helmet laws and they are among the lowest fatalities per capita in the country. The idea that without these laws, lives would be lost, is wrong.

I don't support government using force against citizens that are not harming anyone but themselves. Would you support government mandating food portions or exercise to stop heart disease? Outlawing alcohol to stop liver damage? Outlawing smoking to prevent cancer?

Yes, citizens rights not to be infringed upon gives people the right to do stupid things that can endanger their own lives. It's not the government's responsibility to regulate stupidity. It's your body, do what you want with it.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Government shouldn't protect citizens from themselves. That's not being anti-government. NH doesn't have seatbelt or motorcycle helmet laws and they are among the lowest fatalities per capita in the country. The idea that without these laws, lives would be lost, is wrong.

I don't support government using force against citizens that are not harming anyone but themselves. Would you support government mandating food portions or exercise to stop heart disease? Outlawing alcohol to stop liver damage? Outlawing smoking to prevent cancer?

Yes, citizens rights not to be infringed upon gives people the right to do stupid things that can endanger their own lives. It's not the government's responsibility to regulate stupidity. It's your body, do what you want with it.

The number of drivers and passengers killed in motor-vehicle accidents in New York State declined by 27 percent in the first three months after the state required the wearing of seat belts, the Motor Vehicles Commissioner announced yesterday.
DEATH DROPS 27% WITH STATE'S SEAT-BELT LAW

It is just common sense that seat belts save lives and laws requiring them will make more people wear them. I really don't see the argument the other way. I rode a motorcycle at a time when helmet laws were not required. Now they are and more motorcyclists are surviving. Do I really need to post stats for that?

But the discussion centered around the idea that laws were only for revenue generation and not to protect the citizens. Not sure if that was you or the other poster. That was debunked with the motorcycle helmet laws that create a very low revenue stream as very few violate that law so obviously it's for public safety.

 

[soxfan148927]

The number of drivers and passengers killed in motor-vehicle accidents in New York State declined by 27 percent in the first three months after the state required the wearing of seat belts, the Motor Vehicles Commissioner announced yesterday.
DEATH DROPS 27% WITH STATE'S SEAT-BELT LAW

It is just common sense that seat belts save lives and laws requiring them will make more people wear them. I really don't see the argument the other way. I rode a motorcycle at a time when helmet laws were not required. Now they are and more motorcyclists are surviving. Do I really need to post stats for that?

But the discussion centered around the idea that laws were only for revenue generation and not to protect the citizens. Not sure if that was you or the other poster. That was debunked with the motorcycle helmet laws that create a very low revenue stream as very few violate that law so obviously it's for public safety.

That's in 1985, and the article even says that prior to the law only 16% of people wore seatbelts. So of course you are going to see a major difference when the culture of the time is to NOT wear a seatbelt. Take the law away right now, and do you think that 16% of people would wear seatbelts? It's also the first 3 months of the law and the article continues that the use of the seatbelt jumped up immediately but was declining once again, month to month. I'd like to see the full year report and the years after to see what traffic fatalities looked like. You are just looking at a 3 month sample size.

In addition, the article states that traffic fatalities were ALREADY declining from 1980-1984. You also assume that without legislation, the consumer wouldn't correct the problem on his own to protect himself as we learn more about what causes deaths in traffic accidents.

Even now in NH, a state that has never had the law, seatbelt use has risen to higher than the post-seatbelt laws of New York.

I was not the one who said it was a revenue generator. I honestly don't care what the motivations of the government are. The government should NOT be in the business of protecting people from themselves. It is your body, you can do whatever you want with it.

How come you never answered my questions?

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Victimless crime penalties are cash grabs

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

That's in 1985, and the article even says that prior to the law only 16% of people wore seatbelts. So of course you are going to see a major difference when the culture of the time is to NOT wear a seatbelt. Take the law away right now, and do you think that 16% of people would wear seatbelts? It's also the first 3 months of the law and the article continues that the use of the seatbelt jumped up immediately but was declining once again, month to month. I'd like to see the full year report and the years after to see what traffic fatalities looked like. You are just looking at a 3 month sample size.

In addition, the article states that traffic fatalities were ALREADY declining from 1980-1984. You also assume that without legislation, the consumer wouldn't correct the problem on his own to protect himself as we learn more about what causes deaths in traffic accidents.

Even now in NH, a state that has never had the law, seatbelt use has risen to higher than the post-seatbelt laws of New York.

I was not the one who said it was a revenue generator. I honestly don't care what the motivations of the government are. The government should NOT be in the business of protecting people from themselves. It is your body, you can do whatever you want with it.

How come you never answered my questions?

Because I am tiring of this debate. Anyone arguing that seat belt laws don't lead to more usage and seat belts do not in fact save lives is just not getting it.

To touch on your questions do I believe the government should ban sodas or whatever your examples showed? No I do not. But there is a difference between that and seat belts, there just is.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Victimless crime penalties are cash grabs

Explain motor cycle helmet laws then. How many citations do you believe they issue seeing as every rider knows he/she will be caught within a mile?

 

[soxfan148927]

Because I am tiring of this debate. Anyone arguing that seat belt laws don't lead to more usage and seat belts do not in fact save lives is just not getting it.

To touch on your questions do I believe the government should ban sodas or whatever your examples showed? No I do not. But there is a difference between that and seat belts, there just is.

I never said seatbelts don't save lives. I said that seatbelt laws don't save lives. They don't. They may have in the first three months after a law is passed in 1985 but they don't now.

What's the difference? Banning smoking would lead to less smoking and save lives. Banning drinking would lead to less liver damage and save lives. Mandating exercise and limiting food portions would lead to less heart disease and save lives. If you believe the government should be in control of what you do with your body in the name of "saving lives" then you should be for all these things.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Explain motor cycle helmet laws then. How many citations do you believe they issue seeing as every rider knows he/she will be caught within a mile?

Why should we assume that isnt a cash grab?

Although I will say it seems logical that should be a law, falling off a bike without a helmet is near certain serious trouble

 

[soxfan148927]

Explain motor cycle helmet laws then. How many citations do you believe they issue seeing as every rider knows he/she will be caught within a mile?

And only 19 states actually have helmet laws as opposed to 49 who have seatbelt laws. I wonder why that is.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

And only 19 states actually have helmet laws as opposed to 49 who have seatbelt laws. I wonder why that is.

Pease understand my position. I clearly said laws are for both revenue generation and public saftey. This was in response to DDD's claim that they exist soley to generate revenue with zero regard to oublic safety.

That claim was kinda destroyed with the motorcycle helmet law example that generates little revenue for the reason I have alrady posted. So obviously they are in place more for public safety.

 

[soxfan148927]

p

Pease understand my position. I clearly said laws are for both revenue generation and public saftey. This was in response to DDD's claim that they exist soley to generate revenue with zero regard to oublic safety.

That claim was kinda destroyed with the motorcycle helmet law example that generates little revenue for the reason I have alrady posted so obviouslt they are in place more for public safety.

But don't you find it interesting that only 19 states have motorcycle helmet laws the same as seatbelt laws? Both are for public safety, but only 1 generates high revenue. The one that generates high revenue is nearly universal while the one that doesn't only is applicable in 38% of states.

So couldn't you look at the 30 states that have seatbelt laws but no motorcycle helmet laws, and say that the seatbelt law is for revenue?

 

[Hank Kingsley]

I find it odd that anybody would want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet or drive a car without a seat belt.

Regardless what the laws say.