Click It or Ticket

[darktr00per]

I would like to do something such as wear a seatbelt NOT becuase I fear a ticket but becuase it will save my life. Again, I am sick of doing things out of fear instead of common sense.

 

[alain]

another reason for seatbelts being compulsory, is that a person who is involved in a car crash, will feel really crap if they kill someone else.

 

[Insanely Elite]

alain
"that doesn't make sense... blacks and mexicans can actually drive lexxus's you know... they have hands, they have feet, they have money. Stop being so damm paranoid, cops are out to help you, not to discriminate, ok??? pay less attention to movies and more attention to real life"

I never said anything on the race of the Lexxus driver.
I was speaking to racial profiling, which I repeatedly witnessed when I was a cop in Las Vegas. Paranoia doesn't enter into it, I did enter the force to help the innocent, I left disillusioned. As you've said before I shouldn't have such high expectations.
Perhaps it is you alain that believes the propaganda box over 1st hand knowledge.
PS -Am I wrong or is your avatar the anarchists flag?

]

 

[Nasor]

Some of the people here really need to take a civics class and learn a little about the philosophy that liberal democracy is based on. Yes, the government is supposed to protect us from many things; invading armies, criminals, corporations who want to dump toxic waste in public parks, forest fires, and all sorts of other things. But the government isn't supposed to protect people from themselves.

I think that it's retarded to not want to wear a seatbelt, but it's my right to engage in risky behavior if I so choose. I can choose to engage in all sorts of risky activities - sky diving, rock climbing, smoking, or any number of other things - were there's a substantial likelihood that I'll be seriously injured or killed, and it isn't the government's place to tell me that I can't do it just because it's risky. I have the right to risk my own life if I want to, so long as it doesn't endanger anyone else. Some people here seem to be caught up on the fact that it would save lives, but they're forgetting the fact that the government is supposed to protect us from being involuntarily endangered by other people's choices, not to protect us from the risks involved in making our own choices.

 

[Repo Man]

I agree. Getting back to Zanket's earliest point, that someone he helped pay for the education of could stupidly die prematurely, and deprive him of the expected return on his investment; what if he decided to dropout, and become a hobo? Your investment would just as surely be gone. Surely you don't think bad career choices, or choosing to get by on as little as possible and not working, should be outlawed?

 

[Nasor]

Zanket: you have a point about society having to pay for avoidable injuries that people suffer when not wearing seatbelts. I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I'm pretty sure that injuries suffered by people who aren't wearing seatbelts make up a trivially small fraction of the government's public healthcare expenses. But personally, I wouldn't have a problem with the state refusing to pay for injuries suffered by people who are injured while not wearing a seatbelt.

But in any case, it generally doesn't matter. I don't know where you're from, but here in Florida (where the click it or ticket laws were just introduced) they don't even try to justify the seatbelt laws on those terms. As far as I know, you're basically the only one who's making that argument; the politicians who pass the laws certainly aren't. It's all justified on the basis of 'we know more about how you should make personal safety decisions than you do.'

 

[zanket]

Some of the people here really need to take a civics class and learn a little about the philosophy that liberal democracy is based on. Yes, the government is supposed to protect us from many things; invading armies, criminals, corporations who want to dump toxic waste in public parks, forest fires, and all sorts of other things. But the government isn't supposed to protect people from themselves.

This seatbelt law is a classic civics case. The government is not protecting people from themselves. As I said before, public safety is about money. In this case specifically the money of those who wear their seatbelts, paying for those who don’t. For example:

From here:
Increased safety belt use nationwide translates into lives saved and serious injuries avoided. In Oregon, a doubling of safety belt use in the past decade accompanied a 42 percent reduction in passenger fatality rates and a 56 percent reduction in injury rates. The Oregon Department of Transportation estimates that Oregon saved nearly $14 million in medical costs over the same period as a result.

"Raising Oregon’s use rate from 90 percent to 100 percent would prevent another 70 fatalities and 4,270 injuries annually," said Carla Levinski, ODOT safety belt program manager. "One-hundred percent use would reduce Oregon’s annual medical costs by at least $265 million."

That’s just the first site I clicked on in my search. The $14 million and $265 million figures are not medical costs covered by individual or group insurance. Those are costs covered by the public. If $265 million could be saved with 100% seatbelt usage then Oregon’s taxpayers are paying that much every year just so some people, a minority, can go seatbelt-less. As an avid seatbelt wearer, I pay part of the costs in my state despite the fact that I didn’t contribute to creating them. That’s not fair to me and other seatbelt wearers. We should not have to shoulder that cost. Hence the law that gives, to those who do not wear a seatbelt, a financial incentive to quit leeching off the rest of the public.

I think that it's retarded to not want to wear a seatbelt, but it's my right to engage in risky behavior if I so choose.

If you pay for the full cost, fine. But I observe that few people do that. If you are rock climbing and get stuck, if you are like most adventurers you won’t fully pay for your rescue. You’ll let the public foot the lion’s share of the bill. In this way you do endanger other people when you engage in risky behavior. I fully support people doing risky things as long as they have posted a bond or bought sufficient insurance such that they won’t suck off the public tit when they need help. Alternatively they can sign a “do not rescue” order and post a smaller bond or buy less insurance that pays just for the removal and disposal of their body. Such a “do not rescue” order would extend to the adventurer’s family, who would receive no public assistance.

 

[zanket]

Surely you don't think bad career choices, or choosing to get by on as little as possible and not working, should be outlawed?

That is a good point. No, I don’t think those should be outlawed. Not wearing a seatbelt is illegal but it is not a crime. It’s a traffic infraction. You are not required to wear your seatbelt. You just get a ticket if you don’t and you may lose your driving privilege if you continue to thwart the law. Likewise it is not a crime to minimize your contribution to society. You have the right to be shiftless as long as you don’t cost the public money. The public doesn’t seem to care as much about money you didn’t make them. I do think that’s a valid concern though and that’s why I brought it up in regards to the seatbelt law. It’s a valid concern because it is a cost the public could pay when you don’t wear your seatbelt. That the public will pay for a person’s education and then not demand a return shows the largess of the public and why you need not worry about excessive regulation.

 

[zanket]

But in any case, it generally doesn't matter. I don't know where you're from, but here in Florida (where the click it or ticket laws were just introduced) they don't even try to justify the seatbelt laws on those terms. As far as I know, you're basically the only one who's making that argument; the politicians who pass the laws certainly aren't. It's all justified on the basis of 'we know more about how you should make personal safety decisions than you do.'

I looked on Google for Florida info about the law. I agree with your sentiment about how the DOT there is couching the need for the law. That’s a mistake I think. I think they should advertise the dollar savings as well, which you can bet the state has calculated in spades. I found this site:

From Impact of a Primary Seat Belt Law on Florida’s State Medicaid Expenses:
In sum, the state of Florida could expect to save at least $117.8 million dollars over the next 10 years on its annual budget in medical costs alone by implementing a primary safety belt law in 2004.

That's just Medicaid expenses. As a member of the public, you will save part of that money because other people start wearing their seatbelt due to the law. Those people will no longer be leeching off of you.

Also keep in mind that kids are ultimately public property. The parents are only guardians; a privilege that can be revoked by the public. The public has a long-established right to tell you what to do in regards to kids. Seatbelt usage is not a personal safety decision in that case but rather a public one.

 

[Nasor]

That's just Medicaid expenses. As a member of the public, you will save part of that money because other people start wearing their seatbelt due to the law. Those people will no longer be leeching off of you.

Like I said, a trivial savings. Florida has a $55 billion annual budget, about $20 billion of which goes to health care. This means that the $11.7 million 'savings' from the seatbelt law will amount to about 0.05% of the state health care budge, or just under 0.02% of total state expenditure. As a taxpayer who's outraged about how my tax money is going to pay the medical bills of people who are needlessly injured while not wearing seatbelts, I'm really looking forward to my 0.02% tax decrease. Yawn

And no, I don't have a problem with requiring children to wear seatbelts.

 

[Persol]

Let's take motorcycle helmet laws for example.

Many states have been revoking these laws, and more are on their way.

Why is this different?

 

[Nasor]

Motorcycle helmet and car seatbelt laws appear to be almost exactly equivalent.

 

[Asguard]

About 2 weeks ago i was a witness to a mortorcycle crash. The guy was thrown off his bike a slid straight into a pole. I ran down to him only to see when i was 2 steps from him that his back was snaped in half and his spine was sticking out of his body.

Now this wasnt a car crash but the people thrown from cars recive very similar injurys because the safty features designed to protect them arn't used.

In Victoria there have been seatbelt laws ever since the road toll reached 1026 in one year. Thats when the police REALLY got seriouse on road safty. It was called war on 1026. Last year we were down to 333 people killed on the road all year. This is because of thing like speed camera's, Random breath testing, and seat belt laws

Congratulations to the USA. You are growing up

 

[Persol]

So you only considered yourself grown up when your big brother is telling you what to do?

Here I thought it was about choosing for yourself.

 

[zanket]

Like I said, a trivial savings. Florida has a $55 billion annual budget, about $20 billion of which goes to health care. This means that the $11.7 million 'savings' from the seatbelt law will amount to about 0.05% of the state health care budge, or just under 0.02% of total state expenditure.

I wouldn’t call it trivial. The study took into account only Medicaid savings and only for the expected increase in seatbelt usage based on whatever the fine will be in Florida. How many people do you know on Medicaid? I know none. The Oregon link said they’d save $265 million annually with 100% seatbelt usage. Florida has what, 4 times as many people as Oregon? So the possible savings, if nobody leeched off the public there in regards to seatbelt usage, could be $1 billion annually.

As a taxpayer who's outraged about how my tax money is going to pay the medical bills of people who are needlessly injured while not wearing seatbelts, I'm really looking forward to my 0.02% tax decrease. Yawn

It all adds up. If you had a thousand ways to save 0.02% and took action on none of them, you’d be foregoing a 20% savings.

 

[Persol]

Locking you in your house and not letting you out without a pass is a quick way to prevent many needless deaths. We can also save tons of money on needless transportation and personal visits.

I'm oh so glad that you feel the need to equate the rights of people to cost... without showing any actual harm.

 

[zanket]

There's no harm when other people make me pay for their vices/hobbies/whims? I'll take cash please.

 

[Persol]

Then try and stop the PAYING. Don't try to stop the whims.

 

[zanket]

That's what the seatbelt law DOES. It doesn't stop anyone from not wearing their seatbelt.

 

[Persol]

NO, that shifts your unfair payment to someone elses unfair payment.

Stopping the payment would be a law making them responsible for the result of their own stupidity... not fining them.