Click it or Ticket [Archive] - Ceramic Tile Advice Forums - John Bridge Ceramic Tile

PDA

View Full Version : Click it or Ticket


ddmoit
05-22-2007, 06:32 AM
Is anyone else offended by the recent ad campaign blitz about seat belts? The tone is ominous, a harbinger of things to come.

I've worn my seat belt from the first day I was behind the wheel because I judged it to be the smart thing to do for me. I just don't need the constant reminder of the growing police state.

Sponsored Links


dgunnels
05-22-2007, 09:38 AM
The seat belt laws and many others are what I refer to as the "Stupid Laws." Not because the rules themselves are stupid but because these are laws designed to protect people who are too stupid to do so themselves. No wonder the gene pool needs clorine. And before anyone starts railing at me about protecting the innocents of the world...just where did these innocents come from???? The stupid people. Smart people already take care of their young as much as possible. My solution: Don't let stupid people reproduce. Whoops, there I go trampling on people's 'rights' again. Common sense has taken a header. :bonk:

Scooter
05-22-2007, 10:40 AM
My pappy had an expression for this--he had a lot of expressions--

"You Can't Fix Stupid"

cx
05-22-2007, 10:55 AM
I had a seat belts in my 1949 Ford pickup back in the sixties. Wasn't required. Was a good eye-dee. Still is.

I'm a big fan of seat belts. Used mine to good advantage just a month ago. I just can't get behind the steering wheel without strapping in. Just ain't comfortable. I Like'em. I Use'em.

You don't wanna use yours, don't use'em. Is fine with me. Don't care. Don't think you should hafta. Shouldn't be no steenkin' law. Just don't fool with mine. :shades:

John R
05-22-2007, 11:05 AM
Similar to motorcycles and helmuts--but when people get their heads smashed in, it's your tax dollars keeping them going for the next ??? years. So, if they don't want to wear seat belts, it's on them--but we all pay.

John

e3
05-22-2007, 11:15 AM
or maybe not..without the seatbelt or helmet ,it would be bye,bye! less survivors ! less bills to pay????

ddmoit
05-22-2007, 12:34 PM
There's no natural law like gravity or the speed of light that says that we have to pay for the mistakes of idiots. It's just legislation that can and should be revoked - just like the seat belt laws.

Scooter
05-22-2007, 01:14 PM
Eric has a point--

These guys without helmets, drivers without seat belts, and kids without car seats get injured. One of a couple things happen after that.

They pay all their medical bills out of their savings. Yeah, right.

They make a big claim to their insurance. Causes rates for the rest of us to go up.

They have no insurance and use up medical resources without paying for them, causing hospitals to treat them at no cost. Hospitals have to charge more to the rest of us to make up the difference.

They sue, claiming the other driver was negligent. It doesn't matter whether they were negligent (a baby can not be negligent), and you or your insurance company pays them to go away.

The last three things cost all of us money. I think it may be cheaper in the long run to pay a policeman $60K a year to ticket these idiots. Probably saves millions in medical and insurance costs. I like to see some statistics on this.

And Dan, before you chime in, that we, under the Libertarian Doctrine, should change the laws to allow hospitals and doctors the legal right to let some injured bleeding baby die on the hospital steps without fear of legal repurcussions, the question posed was with our existing legal framework. I think it is unlikely that we as a Nation will suddenly change the laws to allow hospitals to do this. So there--before you chime in, thats my retort.

MudMaker
05-22-2007, 01:55 PM
I think it may be cheaper in the long run to pay a policeman $60K a year to ticket these idiots. Probably saves millions in medical and insurance costs.
See, there's the rub... The Policeman only can check so many people... Only a smidgeon are ticketed and the rest aren't... I supose it's possible that on any given day the Policeman only checks drivers that won't cause accidents and all the idiots just drive on by.... Spot checking and govment controls are not the answer...

ddmoit
05-22-2007, 02:15 PM
And Dan, before you chime in, that we, under the Libertarian Doctrine, should change the laws to allow hospitals and doctors the legal right to let some injured bleeding baby die on the hospital steps without fear of legal repurcussions, the question posed was with our existing legal framework. I think it is unlikely that we as a Nation will suddenly change the laws to allow hospitals to do this. So there--before you chime in, thats my retort.
Hey Scooter,

I'm pretty certain that you could answer any question about tiling that I could answer. And now, you're covering the libertarian perspective for me as well. Heck, I could just about retire from this board without being missed.:D

I didn't know that my libertarian principles would lead to bleeding babies dying in the street. Jeez, who could possibly be for that?

Trouble is, I don't believe that we would see masses of poor folk, turned away at the hospital doors if hospitals were no longer compelled to treat everybody. In fact, I don't imagine the patient dumping would be any greater than it is now.

We need to step back and take a look at the whole elephant here. There would be much more to a libertarian society than un-compelled hospitals. To start, health care would be more affordable to everyone without all the government interference which has driven up costs. Next, there would be fewer poor people once so many government disincentives to work were removed. Thirdly, charity was practiced well before modern governments began confiscating and redistributing about half of the wealth that the economy generates. I don't know about the Celtic god hospitals, but the Catholic hospitals were not in the habit of turning away patients long before they were ever compelled to treat everybody.

Scooter
05-22-2007, 03:06 PM
As good as I've become in anticipating the typical Libertarian response from you, I would never advocate you leaving the board and leaving me in your place and stead to give the typical Libertarian response to everything. I'm just not as good as you. :bow:

The devil is always in the details, as Bill Clinton used to say. Trouble is, I don't believe that we would see masses of poor folk, turned away at the hospital doors if hospitals were no longer compelled to treat everybody. In fact, I don't imagine the patient dumping would be any greater than it is now. I don't know where you draw the line on that one. The baby is just sick. OK, don't treat the baby. The baby is really sick, might treat the baby. The baby is bleeding, the hospital has to treat the baby. And if the baby just has stomach pains, and the hospital doesn't treat it, because it doesn't seem like an emergency, but 5 hours later her appendix bursts and she dies, then that is OK? Thats a slippery slope.

The bottom line to all this is that we as a Nation have decided that issue that hospitals can not turn away patients. Story over. This like trying to re-write the constitution to take away guns or allow slavery. We are so past that issue.

So, if you don't mind, deal with the reality of the fact that the failure of a person to wear saftey devices impacts all of us--insurance, hospital costs, legal bills--and deal with that. Either we all agree to pay those costs or we try to compel people to protect themselves to save us all a buck or two. If you as a Libertarian value liberty over dollars, then I am down with that.

jgleason
05-22-2007, 07:23 PM
Either we all agree to pay those costs or we try to compel people to protect themselves to save us all a buck or two.

Does this mean that ALL of the things that people do that are not only bad for them, but cost ALL of us more should be regulated as well?

Examples -

Smoking - ought to be prohibited outright.

Drinking - limited to one glass of wine per day or two beers. No hard liquor.

Food - No red meat, no butter, no fatty foods, no sugary treats.

:crap:

lou432
05-22-2007, 07:37 PM
Live Free or Die !!!!! I like having the choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NH is the only state ( I believe ?) left with out a seatbelt law & from what I read its up again for change but don`t look like it`ll go far.

Scooter
05-22-2007, 08:00 PM
Joe, good examples.

We as a Nation realize that smoking, drinking and red meat are bad. We also choose to spread the costs of those activities to all of us. I'm fine with that--but don't complain when health insurance rates go up. The saftey laws, helmets & seat belts have an added cost in that these idiots actually sue people for their injuries in car accidents.

Davy
05-22-2007, 08:01 PM
Once in a while around here the cops will work together as a team to catch folks without seatbelts on. There is one intersection where a freeway passes over, traffic is usually slow in this area. They will have a plain clothes cop leaning against one of the pillars with a radio in his hand watching which cars have violators and he will radio to his buddy around the corner (which you can't see) and he will wave you over as you go by. The cops can't write the tickets fast enough, there's a long line of cars just waiting.

It's just a way to get fast money. I think they have better things to do. If they truly want to save lives, they should be out on the road catching all the idiots I see risking my life swerving in and out of traffic.

By the way, I wear my seatbelt but I don't think there should be a law saying I have to. :)

Hamilton
05-23-2007, 12:39 AM
Dan, I think the law is a good law. Ive lost more friends in car accidents
than id like to admit. Myself im lucky to be alive, saved by a seatbelt.
Young kids driving these days are getting crazier it seems. Buckle up.
Besides one new law, its just another among thousands already laid on us.
I think the ad campaign is a good thing. At least they are informing us.
I really dont even know how many laws actually exist, but im sure there
are plenty I break because of that fact.

Shooter
05-23-2007, 01:52 AM
We are a nation of laws. If someone does not like something we have the great right as Americans to lobby for different laws / lawmakers. The majority rules. Democracy in action.

dgunnels
05-23-2007, 05:52 AM
WOW.! :popcorn: You guys never cease to amze and entertain me. I love a great debate.

jgleason
05-23-2007, 05:55 AM
that these idiots actually sue people for their injuries in car accidents.

I guess the lawsuits against tobacco companies and fast food places are ok then, they raise the costs as well don't they?


The majority rules. Democracy in action.
A true democracy sucks. We have a Constitutional Republic. This supposedly protects us from the tyranny of the majority.

ddmoit
05-23-2007, 06:14 AM
A true democracy sucks. We have a Constitutional Republic. This supposedly protects us from the tyranny of the majority.

Thanks, Joe. It's good to hear someone besides me say it. And supposedly indeed!

My favorite definition of democracy: three wolves and two sheep deciding what's for dinner. (Liberty is armed sheep, contesting the vote.)

At least as early as WWI, our politicians have been blurring the difference between liberty and democracy - presenting them as one and the same. President Wilson wanted to make the world "safe for democracy". He knew that what he was doing wasn't making it safe for liberty.

Even today, Bush talks about a democratic Iraq. It's not too hard to imagine what a Shiite-controlled democracy would look like. I wouldn't want to live there.

Unlike liberty, democracy is not inherently good. It's great for deciding what pitcher of beer to get, but its terrible at protecting liberty.

Shooter
05-23-2007, 12:04 PM
I guess if we want to get technical the United States is a "Federal Constitutional Republic" and not a pure or direct democracy. Despite the non elected positions like the Supreme Court, Americans have a right, down to the individual to help influence his / her community, county, state and this country. We can lobby for change or status quo. But IMO, those who do not take an active participation in the process have no right to complain. If individuals or groups of individuals (hate to call them special interest) do not care for something in government, then they have the right to lobby for change. If we Americans as a whole do not wish to have seat belt laws, then it can be made so.

Davestone
05-23-2007, 07:58 PM
I don't like seatbelts,i don't think they have a right to make me wear one either,and i don't wear it unless i see a wreck, or they threaten me...like they're doing now.Yes, i've been in many wrecks. :tongue:

SlowButSure
05-23-2007, 08:48 PM
Seatbelts, who cares. Nobody, except a few special interest groups lobbying. For the rest of us, we just deal with the stupid laws because we have neither the inclination, energy, or time to waste trying to change them back to being sensible.

Hit our wallets hard enough to make it worth our while to fight it, then we will. And even then, nobody will agree on the better course of action. So we'll all pay more, just like the higher gas prices in t'other thread....

Dave Hessel
05-23-2007, 09:50 PM
I wear my seat belt on the Sunset Hwy. A lot of people die there every year. But if you hit an elk going 60, and it peels the top off your rig like a sardine can, what goods it do ya? I think it's good for safety, should be a personal choice, but mostly I think it's just an excuse for the cops to check you out. Dave

bikemike
05-24-2007, 09:37 AM
Here's one for you Dan:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070524/UPDATE/705240460/1003

What I want to know is, when are they going to start pulling over school buses and ticketing all those unrestrained kids?

:whip:

bamadave
06-20-2007, 12:37 PM
I'll stir the pot for a moment. I agree about all the stupid laws. The seat belt law is designed to give the cops a way to search your car if caught without the belt. Supposively. But the flip side of the coin in my opinion is you have a wreck without the belt on, you forfeit the insurance company from having to pay for injury. That makes everyone else's rate increase and I fill WTF should I pay because you don't care to minimize the injury. Oh, you don't have insurance and wreck without a seat belt on? You don't get the care at the county general hospital because who pays for that? We do!
When Florida repealed the helmet law, the paralyzed cases went up 70% in 1 year. Out of those cases, over half did not have insurance. Who has to pay for high cost medical care for the rest of their lives, WE DO! I don't like having to pay thru the nose for insurance anymore than the next guy. But because someone else is (a) stupid, (B) lazy, (C) doesn't care who pays for the care, why should YOU or I have to? Hmmm, I bet I lose brownie points on this one, lol. Now on the serious side of the debate, Alabama is spending megabucks running commercials for the benefit of wearing your seat belt. From the lives it saves, to the reduced injuries, but how much it is saving tax dollars from the reduced health care cost the state has to spend. So if it saves ME money, I'm for it. Thanks for the opportunity to vent. Dave

ddmoit
06-20-2007, 01:10 PM
Hey Dave,

I don't like one set of bad laws causing even more bad laws.

To begin with, you would not be responsible for for the stupidity of others (i.e., uninsured paralyzed bikers) were it not legislated to be so. Instead of creating new bad laws to deal with old bad laws, let's just get rid of old bad laws.

Don't think for a second that the government protects us from irresponsible people. Quite the reverse, it encourages people to be more irresponsible (and thus more dependent on the government).

Surely you don't believe for a second that a moron who drives without a seatbelt or helmet is going to modify their behavior because of a law.

I just don't think we're better off as a society for minimizing the consequences of stupidity.

kate42
06-20-2007, 01:48 PM
Dan
To begin with, you would not be responsible for for the stupidity of others (i.e., uninsured paralyzed bikers) were it not legislated to be so.

Then who would take care of these stupid people? Or would we as a society voluntarily take care of them? One way or the other we will be taking care of them. :shrug:

Dave Taylor
06-20-2007, 02:02 PM
http://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=23974&highlight=gummint

http://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=15485&highlight=gummint

ddmoit
06-20-2007, 02:09 PM
Taking care of them voluntarily makes a huge difference to me. For one, If I choose to help, I can also choose to attach strings to that help. It's called leverage. Right now, the societal, so-called safety net is nothing more than a trampoline for some folks.

I don't think you were about to go there, but in case anyone else was - don't say that no one would help if they didn't have too. We are the most charitable country on the planet, despite having nearly half of our income confiscated through taxes on a regular basis. The richest among us donate the most money, but the poorest - not to be outdone - contribute the highest percentage of their income.

kate42
06-20-2007, 02:35 PM
Dan
Taking care of them voluntarily makes a huge difference to me. For one, If I choose to help, I can also choose to attach strings to that help.
What kind of strings? http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/fragend/confused-smiley-014.gif The damage is already done. :D

Scooter
06-22-2007, 01:38 PM
Dan, I want to assume for a minute that you lose your job and your wife loses her job.

You can't afford health insurance and let it lapse.

You are injured in an accident.

The abmulance takes you to a hospital.

You have no insurance and have no money for the doctor to set your broken bones.

Do You, the Libertarian, refuse medical attention because you can't pay for it?

flatfloor
06-22-2007, 02:03 PM
Well Dan? :)

ddmoit
06-22-2007, 02:05 PM
Scooter, I find thought exercises in that vein to be pretty useless. Those worst-case scenarios are not indicative of the vast majority of folks on the government dole. No matter what I say, you could add another level of what-if to counter my answer. No thanks.

ddmoit
06-22-2007, 02:17 PM
But, if you really like the what-if games...

What if the government got out of the business of welfare wealth redistribution and healthcare industry regulation? What if I lost my job and my insurance and I got injured and found out that healthcare is now so affordable that I only really need insurance for the worst kinds of catastrophes and that I will soon be able to pay my meager medical bill because the economy is good without the weight of the federal government on its back and I'll soon have a new job?

bamadave
06-22-2007, 05:48 PM
My take on some of the views here are they hate the way we are being treated in this country. If we (the average person) would do the reasonable thing every time, we might not need the government interdiction. I live on a lake where every year there is a family killed by a drunk boater. Every day someone loses a family member to a drunk. Everyday someone dies because they weren't wearing a seat belt. They didn't mean to have a wreck, it was an accident. Laws aren't implemented until we as a society won't govern ourselves. See my drift, if we were perfect and the the right thing every second of every day maybe things would be different. Until then, we have to be under the scrutiny of you got it THE MAN IN BLUE. As much as I hate it!

Scooter
06-22-2007, 05:51 PM
My question to you is a real question for millions of Americans. About 30% of real Americans, not illegals, do not have health insurance.

Your question to me, as a lawyer might say, "assumes facts not in evidence" and is theoretical. The chances that government will change is slim and none, and slim just left town.

So my question is a real question, the yours is pie in the sky.

I think the answer to my question to you is of course, you'd cheerfully accept the doctor's services, and I know you to be an honorable and honest person, so you'd try to pay the hospital. But it would take time, all the while the hospital has to foot your bill when they didn't budget that year for extending you credit.

Moral of the Story:

Laws that are enacted to protect people from themselves (cigarette laws, seat belts, auto safety, lawnmower regs etc) also protect the whole of society from honest people who for one reason or another can't afford health care.