THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Why is one regulated, and the other is not? Not using one, can kill you, and using the other, can kill you, why is one against the law, and the other is not? Especially when by not wearing your seatbelt, you usually only hurt yourself, but with smoking, other's have to breath in the unfiltered smoke, it then becomes a hazard for other's, yet the gov't. at least here in jersey with Sceevey Mcgreevey running the show, doesn't have a problem with this, I write this in part because of the major crack down we are going through right now with seat belt enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Simple, they tax cigaretes heavily and fine you for not wearing a seat belt.IT"S THE MONEY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 your a fool if you partake in both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Great point... I've never understood the seatbelt law. Now for kids, I totally understand, but if an adult doesn't want to wear their seatbelt, how does that hurt someone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Originally posted by codeorama Great point... I've never understood the seatbelt law. Now for kids, I totally understand, but if an adult doesn't want to wear their seatbelt, how does that hurt someone else? I feel sorry for your family when you fly through the windshield. And if we ever have a head on I don't want you flying through your winshield then mine and skewering me. Edit: on a more serious note, the costs of your extra medical costs for the additional injuries you would suffer raises all our insurance rates (auto and medical). I don't want to have to pay because you can't be bothered to protect yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Originally posted by codeorama Great point... I've never understood the seatbelt law. Now for kids, I totally understand, but if an adult doesn't want to wear their seatbelt, how does that hurt someone else? Traffic, the amount of time it takes to scrape someone off the road in this area you are looking at a 2 hour backup. The question is why wouldn't you wear a seatbelt?? Do you not care about your life, and what about your family, you don't care about them??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Best I can explain the need for the law is 2fold. 1st- It saves taxpayers money. If people where seatbelts, they are less likely to have major injuries that they default on payments. 2nd- If you have an accident while wearing a seatbelt, it typically remains confined. If you are not wearing a seatbelt, you will fly around the car and not have ANY control over where the car goes next, thus increasing the odds that the accident will involve and injure even more people. Terrible explanation Iknow, but it's the best I could do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Best I can explain the need for the law is 2fold. 1st- It saves taxpayers money. If people where seatbelts, they are less likely to have major injuries that they default on payments. 2nd- If you have an accident while wearing a seatbelt, it typically remains confined. If you are not wearing a seatbelt, you will fly around the car and not have ANY control over where the car goes next, thus increasing the odds that the accident will involve and injure even more people. Terrible explanation Iknow, but it's the best I could do. Ok, that makes a little sense. I honestly couldn't put my finger on how it affected others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Wearing seatbelts is the smart thing to do. In recent decades the government has gone into the business of forcing people to do the smart thing. With seatbelt and helmet laws they are not put in because your decisions affect others (they may affect others in some ways, but that isn’t why the laws are implemented), they are put in effect to save you from your own bad decisions. I despise these types of laws even though I always wear my seatbelt. I used to love riding my motorcycle, but I sold it when I moved to a state with helmet laws. IMO, riding with a helmet is much safer and also too boring to be worth the expense. The thing that bugs me the most about these laws are the direction they are heading in. I make a lot of decisions that would not be considered good for me. I sometimes go fishing and swimming without having sun screen on. I eat popcorn (popped in that oil that the Center for Science in the Public interest tried to outlaw several years ago) at movies. I eat junk food and fast food. I smoke. I sometimes go weeks without exercising. I waste time on the internet and on TV shows that are crap. All of these things negatively affect me and it could be argued that they affect others. Once you start down this path of government control of your life you are treading in dangerous territory. Failing to wear a seatbelt or a helmet is not nearly as dangerous or costly as living a sedentary life while eating a high fat diet. There are already rumblings about taxing high fat foods. If you support seatbelt laws, then why not elimination/taxation of high fat foods. These foods are harmful and your decisions don’t just affect you. Buying a gun for protection is a bad decision, you are much more likely to kill yourself or a family member than to successfully defend yourself from an intruder. Where do you draw the line? On a side note. Why does the government allow cars and motorcycles that can reach speeds of over 120 miles per hour to be sold in the US. I have never understood the reasoning behind that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 i wear my seatbelt and smoke-- is that a contradiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Why does the government allow cars and motorcycles that can reach speeds of over 120 miles per hour to be sold in the US. It would cost more to make cars that have a lower top speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 Originally posted by China I feel sorry for your family when you fly through the windshield. And if we ever have a head on I don't want you flying through your winshield then mine and skewering me. Edit: on a more serious note, the costs of your extra medical costs for the additional injuries you would suffer raises all our insurance rates (auto and medical). I don't want to have to pay because you can't be bothered to protect yourself. Medical cost's can be an issue, but then why not cigarettes? I do not know what the comparable statistics are, but I would imagine that the cost for health care because of smoking, tower's over anything that happens on the road way's? I think your second point, although intended for a point to wear SB's, was an even better point on the cigarette issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Originally posted by offiss Medical cost's can be an issue, but then why not cigarettes? I do not know what the comparable statistics are, but I would imagine that the cost for health care because of smoking, tower's over anything that happens on the road way's? I think your second point, although intended for a point to wear SB's, was an even better point on the cigarette issue. Yes, however the tobacco lobby is very large and powerful. I think that is the main reason more regulatory restrictions haven't been put on cigarrettes. They are taxed highly though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryBrownsFan Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Laws are almost always about power and money. That the people who pass the laws also get to spend more money because of the taxes on cigarettes is obvious. They'll be allowed as long as they are a source of revenue and, as a result, power for incumbent politicians. What is a little less obvious is the connection between seat belt laws and political money and power. The connection (IMHO) follows. Insurance companies have managed to manipulate the full power of the state to force everyone who wants to drive a car to buy their product. Having done so, they further manipulate legislators, using money, to cause the state to ensure that their product is profitable. There is no altruism on the part of the insurance companies involved. It is simply a matter of money. Legislators can be bought with money. But they can also be bribed through appeals to their vanity. They are persuaded that they are better able to make decisions for the ignorant, unlearned, unruly, masses, and that it is their right and duty to do so. They're relatively easy marks for insurance companies. I'm speaking in generalities. No, I don't believe all insurance is bad and all insurance agents are evil. Yes, I think it's a good idea to wear seat belts. No, I don't smoke. But since you asked for some kind of consistent reason for why these kinds of behavior are treated differently, I thought I'd share my thoughts. btw Nerm, the helmet law has been repealed here in PA. But there have been a dozen motorcycle deaths in Lancaster County alone this spring. Don't know for sure if it's related. I just recently go my motorcycle permit and I wear a helmet. But it sure is hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Originally posted by LarryBrown Laws are almost always about power and money. That the people who pass the laws also get to spend more money because of the taxes on cigarettes is obvious. They'll be allowed as long as they are a source of revenue and, as a result, power for incumbent politicians. What is a little less obvious is the connection between seat belt laws and political money and power. The connection (IMHO) follows. Insurance companies have managed to manipulate the full power of the state to force everyone who wants to drive a car to buy their product. Having done so, they further manipulate legislators, using money, to cause the state to ensure that their product is profitable. There is no altruism on the part of the insurance companies involved. It is simply a matter of money. Legislators can be bought with money. But they can also be bribed through appeals to their vanity. They are persuaded that they are better able to make decisions for the ignorant, unlearned, unruly, masses, and that it is their right and duty to do so. They're relatively easy marks for insurance companies. I'm speaking in generalities. No, I don't believe all insurance is bad and all insurance agents are evil. Yes, I think it's a good idea to wear seat belts. No, I don't smoke. But since you asked for some kind of consistent reason for why these kinds of behavior are treated differently, I thought I'd share my thoughts. btw Nerm, the helmet law has been repealed here in PA. But there have been a dozen motorcycle deaths in Lancaster County alone this spring. Don't know for sure if it's related. I just recently go my motorcycle permit and I wear a helmet. But it sure is hot. I know it’s dumb not to wear a helmet. I have done neuropsych exams on people who have crashed. It’s an ugly picture. On the other hand, I just don't enjoy riding as much with a helmet. If I still had a bike I might ride it every now and then, but it just isn’t worth the hassle when you have to wear a helmet. Michigan may repeal the helmet law. If they do I think I’ll get another bike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Originally posted by LarryBrown Laws are almost always about power and money. You mean it's not about "morality"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryBrownsFan Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Nope. Not usually. IMHO. Of course, ideally, laws would be about morality. But then there's always that issue of "whose morality?" And then money and power become the means for deciding "whose," and it's downhill from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.