Seat Belt Laws - The Latest Ad Campaign

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 7, 2005 02:46
VIEWED: 9635
PAGE 2 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 7:17 AM

Quote:
...But it's my business.

Actually, in his case it was a company car. I just thought the connection was funny - here's a guy, ALWAYS does the careful thing, is ruled, one might say, by a perpetual state of uncertainty. And the one time he decides it might conceivably be safe to throw aside normal precaution .......

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 7:45 AM

heh...yup. Sounds like something a friend of mine used to say. "When you least expect it.... expect it."

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

BIKISDAD

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 2:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtgump:
Actually, I don't wear seatbelts because it is a law, I wear them for the sheer common sense. Seatbelt laws are stupid, and yes we all know that it is a nationwide law now so the ad campaigns do kind of rub it in your face.

This mostly sums up my thoughts. I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt - now pretty much out of habit, but it is a habit derived from common sense. HOWEVER, if I ever have a good reason to drive my car WITHOUT wearing my seatbelt, it really ticks me off that some stormtrooper will be giving me a ticket because of some mindless, inflexible "nanny state" law.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

MACBAKER

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 4:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtgump:
So the commercials and the law don't bother you, but the OnStar thing does? How long do you really think it will be before there is a law that makes it mandatory for you to have OnStar, or a similar device, in your car all the time? There is already a precedent in place for forcing people to do such a thing.

10 Years from now, when you are bitching on a message board(hopefully still this one) about how you think that the constant OnStar commercials suck and someone tells you that you're an idiot for not using one, will that bother you?

Nice try, but that's an apples to oranges comparison. If the service came free (no monthly charges) with all cars, as a safety feature like seatbelts, fine, make it a law. I really don't care. Forcing everyone to pay for such a service with some law would be virtually impossible. Phones in homes save lives too, but no one is required by law to have phone service.

Onstar is one of those "I've fallen and I can't get up" services. If it gives some people peace of mind to have it, fine, but it's not a service that can be required and/or forced on anyone, unless (like 911) it becomes a free service. I just think it's pathetic that the same company that tries guilting people into buying cars with this service, also puts out a car like the Cobalt that has an abysmal 2 star side impact rating. Sorry, but I'd rather own a car without Onstar, with a 5 star crash test rating, than a car with the service that has such poor passenger protection.

I am mystified though, how any intelligent person would have any rational reason not to wear a seatbelt, or would have a problem with a law requiring such use. I guess the same people that don't like this law, also think they should be able to drink and drive or think helmet laws are stupid (donorcycle riders). My bad, I guess common sense laws are too draconian for some! LMAO!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
I am mystified though, how any intelligent person would have any rational reason not to wear a seatbelt, or would have a problem with a law requiring such use. I guess the same people that don't like this law, also think they should be able to drink and drive or think helmet laws are stupid (donorcycle riders). My bad, I guess common sense laws are too draconian for some! LMAO!

Well, I'm msytified why any intelligent person wants to give up their right, and responsibility, to make decisions concerning matters of personal safety. Those of us arguing against these laws don't have some kind of deathwish as you are insinuating, we just see the logic behind these kind of laws and recognize it as a dangerous precedent.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

MACBAKER

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 5:55 PM

Quote:
Well, I'm msytified why any intelligent person wants to give up their right, and responsibility, to make decisions concerning matters of personal safety. Those of us arguing against these laws don't have some kind of deathwish as you are insinuating, we just see the logic behind these kind of laws and recognize it as a dangerous precedent.

What kind of dangerous precedent? The same laws that require that your brake lights work? Or DUI laws? Laws that require people with corrected vision to wear their glasses when driving? WTF? How do these common sense laws set any dangerous precedent? The only logic behind these laws I see is public safety.

If you choose not to follow the seatbelt law, fine, that's your right. Just expect to pay the price, just like anyone would driving under the influence, or operating a vehicle with a broken brake light, or not following the restrictions on their licence (glasses, night blindness, etc.). If they get pulled over, they will get a ticket just like you would for refusing to follow the seatbelt law. What's the difference? What dangerous precedent does this law set, that the others I've mentioned didn't? Or, is it your opinion that all of these laws set a dangerous precedent? Are all public safety laws too draconain for your rebel soul? Too

bad!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

WORKEROFEVIL

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:51 PM

I approve of the seat belt laws because I truly believe they will save lives. However, I do think at least one of the commercials is really dumb. A truck's driving on a road and a LEO steps into the road and talks about buckling up and how it saves lives. The driver sees the guy in the road, hits the brakes, and his truck repeatedly flips over. That commercial never makes me think "Wow, I better buckle up." I always think "That guy should have just hit the dumbass who was standing in the middle of the road." So, I like the law, but some of the commercials (as most commercials are) are just stupid.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
What kind of dangerous precedent? The same laws that require that your brake lights work? Or DUI laws? Laws that require people with corrected vision to wear their glasses when driving? WTF? How do these common sense laws set any dangerous precedent? The only logic behind these laws I see is public safety.

If you choose not to follow the seatbelt law, fine, that's your right. Just expect to pay the price, just like anyone would driving under the influence, or operating a vehicle with a broken brake light, or not following the restrictions on their licence (glasses, night blindness, etc.). If they get pulled over, they will get a ticket just like you would for refusing to follow the seatbelt law. What's the difference?

Ok, the difference is rather large. It's been explained several times in this argument. The laws you're referencing above limit actions that could harm others. It gets to the heart of why we have laws - so we can all get along in a community. Seat belt laws, on the other hand, outlaw actions that have little or no effect on others. They step into your shoes and decide whats best for you. Even if it's against your will.

Quote:
What dangerous precedent does this law set, that the others I've mentioned didn't? Or, is it your opinion that all of these laws set a dangerous precedent? Are all public safety laws too draconain for your rebel soul? Too bad!

The dangerous precedent is acceptance of the notion that decisions about your personal safety and well-being are no longer yours to make, but are subject to a majority vote. Not only is this a gross expansion of government authority, it's dumb. History has shown far too many instances where the majority is just plain wrong.

Also, saying someone has the 'right' to do something and then suffer the consequences, when those consequences are legal punishment - well... that twists my brain into a pretzel. You clearly aren't comprehending the definition of a political 'right'. The whole point of a 'right' is that it's something you can do free from interference by government.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 2:02 AM

Anyone know why the title of this thread got changed in the 'Real World Discussions' section? It just says RE: now

EDIT: uh, nevermind. changed back. weird.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 3:12 AM

Of course the standard answer to that is to say: should your decision to not use a seat belt end up with you disabled and draining the government coffers, it then becomes a social issue. Any thoughts on that?

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE