Seat Belt Laws?

[twoguns?]

E-mail to friends and colleagues in March, 2012.


I am completely opposed to mandatory seat belt laws.

I am absolutely an evangelist for wearing a seat belt. I doubt I'd be alive today if I hadn't been wearing it, and if you don't wear one, you're an idiot.

Wow was this you......glad you walked out of that...

 

[Dave70968]

Wow was this you......glad you walked out of that...

It was me, and Canis doofus is still with us as well.

 

[Dave70968]

Seat belts keep the driver behind the controls of a vehicle during evasive maneuvers and minor accidents that could be worse if the operator was no longer behind the controls.

Seat belts protect other people on the road and in the vehicle.

It's fine to oppose seat belt laws, but to be consistent one should oppose any other traffic law made in the name of safety.

A fair question/comment.

Ideally, those laws wouldn't exist, but failing to take appropriate precautions (such as seat belts and not drinking) would be grounds for increasing damages in the resulting suit by raising simple negligence to the level of willfulness, thus providing the appropriate deterrent effect. A nice theory, anyway.

Anyhow: don't be an idiot. Don't drink and drive, and wear your damned seat belt.

 

[RidgeHunter]

A fair question/comment.

Ideally, those laws wouldn't exist, but failing to take appropriate precautions (such as seat belts and not drinking) would be grounds for increasing damages in the resulting suit by raising simple negligence to the level of willfulness, thus providing the appropriate deterrent effect. A nice theory, anyway.

Anyhow: don't be an idiot. Don't drink and drive, and wear your damned seat belt.

I've always thought driving drunk should be perfectly legal, but causing an accident while drunk should be mandatory prison time, with extra years for injuring someone, up to life for killing someone.

It's not like a first time (or 2nd or 3rd) DUI offense does anything but make the courts, bail bondsmen, and DUI lawyers money anyways.

 

[vvvvvvv]

It's not like a first time (or 2nd or 3rd) DUI offense does anything but make the courts, bail bondsmen, and DUI lawyers money anyways.

And that's also why you see municipalities lobby so hard against requiring DUIs to be handled by courts of record.

 

[74834]

And that's also why you see municipalities lobby so hard against requiring DUIs to be handled by courts of record.

Municipalities want it to be kept local so they get the money from fines and court costs.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Municipalities want it to be kept local so they get the money from fines and court costs.

And the longer a multiple-offender can be treated as a first-offender, the more revenue.

 

[dennishoddy]

And the longer a multiple-offender can be treated as a first-offender, the more revenue.

And that's also why you see municipalities lobby so hard against requiring DUIs to be handled by courts of record.

Municipalities want it to be kept local so they get the money from fines and court costs.

So there you have it.
Its a money maker for cities. Just like speeding tickets, and a host of other minor violations.

 

[James Abram]

In about 10-12 min.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Abram]

Oops sorry! Should've been a text!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk