Click It or Ticket

i dont know about the US but in australia car rego's pay for the damage caused by trafic crashes

i think that makes it VERY fair for them to make laws that lesson thoes costs

If you are to stupid to do it for yourself then i feel no sympathy if the cops FORCE you to. The less damage to you the less cost to me

Your death doesnt just effect you

there is your family and friends

there are the witness

there are the police, ambo's, SES, Firefighters, nurses, doctors

all these people are effected and that costs money, if just in the counciling

I will NEVER forget the sound of that night, i relive it all the time and pray i will never hear for real ever again
 
Persol said:
Stopping the payment would be a law making them responsible for the result of their own stupidity... not fining them.
Click to expand...

How would you enforce making them responsibility if not with a fine? There are ways but I don’t see how they’d be as efficient when you think them through.
 
Yes Asgaurd... all stuff you'll have with or without a seatbelt. The only steps you possibly avoid are "nurses, doctors".
 
zanket said:
How would you enforce making them responsibility if not with a fine? There are ways but I don’t see how they’d be as efficient when you think them through.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of efficiency but of regulating the people to stop them from possibly hurting themselves... when that isn't what the government is for.

Look at where your 'expenses' are coming from for someone not wearing a seatbelt. Eliminate those expnses coming back to you.
 
Tell me specifically what you would do to keep me from paying for other peoples' vices/hobbies/whims, as I do now. Give me an example, like for the seatbelt issue.
 
You don't wear a seatbelt, you pay your medical bills due to that. End of story.
 
zanket said:
Tell me specifically what you would do to keep me from paying for other peoples' vices/hobbies/whims, as I do now. Give me an example, like for the seatbelt issue.
Click to expand...
If the government can't afford to pay for people's risky behavior, the solution is to simply stop paying. Government can't afford to pay the extra 0.05% for people who don't wear seatbelts? Fine, then bill the person. They can decide for themselves if they want to risk being buried under a mountain of debt. If you don't want to pay for someone else's vices that's perfectly understandable, but you should at least give the person the option of paying for it themselves.
 
zanket said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm very, very skeptical of those numbers. Oregon has a annual health care expenditure of around $3.1 billion. It seems unlikely that people injured in traffic accidents while not wearing seatbelts accounts for 8% of the state's healthcare budget.

Even that web page's own numbers don't add up. It says that seatbelt usage has doubled over the past decade and is now at 90%. It also says that this has saved Oregon an average of $1.5 million per year. This is roughly equivalent to the savings in Florida, after you adjust for the population difference. But it goes on to say that increasing the seatbelt usage to 100% would save at least $265 million per year. If raising seatbelt usage from 45% to 90% only saves $1.5 million/year, how will raising it from 90% to 100% suddenly cause the saving to jump up to $265 million?
 
90% of the problems are caused by 10 % of the people. The people who are wearing seatbelts are less likely to be driving drunk and speeding. Because it is clear that they are afraid of getting a ticket. I understand the numbers and agree that they are logical but I disagree with giving the state the right to take over my life style choices I do not smoke but I will continue to advocate the right of smokers to continue to make poor choices. The state makes a very poor baby sitter and generally abuses the power that it is given at some point. It does not do it continuously just occasionally and when it does it can crush the innocent just as easily as the guilty this is why I almost always oppose the centralization of power away from the people whom are affected by the exercise of that power. I believe that the small cost of treating these people is the same or less as that of the foreign aid or endowment for arts that irks me so much. The government is always going to spend money on something that its people disagree with why shouldn’t it spend money on allowance of freedom for those 90% who are wearing seatbelts out of fear of the police. I think that it is one of the greatest tragedies of the twentieth century is the fact that we are now afraid of the police. They are no longer public servants they have become wardens of the free people of the states.
 
Its very simple

If you dont wear a seat belt you get the privlage of helping to pay for the police to scrape you off the road in your fine

B\W what if YOU are thrown from your car and hit a small kid throwing them into the path of another car

YOUR choice has killed an inocent bystander

the police minister in Victoria got up at easter last year and made an anouncment

it went along the lines of this (sorry its not exact, trying to rember it)

"if you drink, speed, dont wear your seatbelt the police will make every endever to catch you and i feel no remorse for it, i would rather see you fined than scraped off the road further down"

i dont think anyone can say more than that. if you want to kill yourself do it in your own home where other people dont have to clean up the mess.
 
B\W what if YOU are thrown from your car and hit a small kid throwing them into the path of another car
Click to expand...
Come now. Are you trying to be stupid?
"if you drink, speed, dont wear your seatbelt the police will make every endever to catch you and i feel no remorse for it, i would rather see you fined than scraped off the road further down"
Click to expand...
Yeah, and you know what the point is. THAT'S NOT THEIR JOB.
 
actually it is
to protect the public

Do you know the only crime you can be charged with atempting but not comiting?

suicide is a crime only so the police and others can atempt to intervine to protect YOU. They will never charge with it

and i actually HERD of a case like the one i mentioned so no im not being stupid.
 
actually it is
to protect the public
Click to expand...
you missed the last part of that sentance. "from outside sources"

Otherwise you get into all kinds of civil rights issues about what it 'best.
Do you know the only crime you can be charged with atempting but not comiting?
Click to expand...
Actually no. You can be charge for attempting but not successfully committing just about every crime.
 
Asguard said:
Its very simple

If you dont wear a seat belt you get the privlage of helping to pay for the police to scrape you off the road in your fine
Click to expand...
That's ridiculous. Paying your ticket fine isn't the same as paying your share of the medical expenses, it's just paying a fine for breaking a law that's based on the idea that the government should be able to make personal safety decisions for me. Maybe you would be right if it was some sort of annual fee or something, but it's not as if I get to drive away without my seatbelt after the cop gives me a ticket. I could receive a theoretically infinite number of tickets for not wearing my seatbelt even if I never have an accident and don't cost the state any money.

If you want to make people responsible for their medical bills if they don't wear a seatbelt, fine. This could be as simple as requiring people who go without seatbelts to have some sort of extra car/medical insurance that would presumably have a higher premium. But in general I don't think people should be charged preemptively for accidents that they haven't even had yet.
B\W what if YOU are thrown from your car and hit a small kid throwing them into the path of another car.
Click to expand...
This is technically possible, but pretty outlandish. If you can provide any sort of statistics indicating that this sort of thing is a significant contributor to traffic fatalities, I might take it a little more seriously.
 
Persol i ment you can get charged for atempted suicide but not COMITING suicide ie because your already DEAD
 
You are much more likely to die skydiving than not wearing a seatbelt. Yet the cops don't fine them.
 
Asguard said:
Do you know the only crime you can be charged with atempting but not comiting?

suicide is a crime only so the police and others can atempt to intervine to protect YOU. They will never charge with it
Click to expand...
In the United States it is not illegal to commit or attempt suicide.

Edit: Unless it's some sort of kooky local law.
 
Last edited:
The point comes down to weather you believe that society has the right to remove my freedoms to save money. I do not believe that it does.
 
"You are much more likely to die skydiving than not wearing a seatbelt. Yet the cops don't fine them."

bs, id like to see some stats for that claim
 
Persol said:
You don't wear a seatbelt, you pay your medical bills due to that. End of story.
Click to expand...

Nasor said:
Government can't afford to pay the extra 0.05% for people who don't wear seatbelts? Fine, then bill the person. They can decide for themselves if they want to risk being buried under a mountain of debt.
Click to expand...

That doesn’t work in practice. That’s like billing a crack mom for her crack baby. She’s not going to pay and the public will have to, assuming it doesn’t go back to barbarism and just kill the baby. Likewise it’s not going to work when you bill someone $500K for medical expenses not covered by insurance when they fly through their windshield. It’s far more efficient to bill people in advance when you see them taking the risk.

Any other ideas to keep me from paying for them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top