CLICK IT OR TICKET - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

CLICK IT OR TICKET

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Coppermine » Tue May 22, 2007 12:56 pm

As for me, if they're going to make wearing seatbelts mandatory, then make it a supplementary charge like it was; these checkpoints and pulling people over for wearing seatbelts seems counter productive.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby Lofunzo » Tue May 22, 2007 1:06 pm

Coppermine wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:I don't love that the government micromanages like they do but, if the bottom line is that it stops me from footing some of the bill because you chose not to wear a seatbelt, I can live with that.


How do you feel about footing the bill from motorcyclists who get into accidents without being required by law to wear a helmet?


I think that sucks as well. While I understand the problem with the government saying that we have to wear our seatbelts or wear a helmet is somewhat intrusive, I really don't feel like having to cough up $$ because someone chose not to follow the law (or common sense in some cases).

Art Vandelay wrote:You guys think you have it bad...I will probably hear these commercials literally 150 times this week. God they are annoying.

Anyway, I'm with the 'anti-seatbelt/helmet law' folks. I wear my seatbelt all the time, but I don't think people should have to do so by law. Take something else that causes high medical/insurance costs like smoking. Would anyone who wants seatbelt laws advocate for making smoking illegal? Actually, you could make a better case for outlawing smoking because second-hand smoke actually effects people other than the user. Anyway, I don't smoke, and I do wear a seatbelt, but I don't think there should be laws prohibiting or requiring people to do so.

And if you think people should be legally forced to wear seatbelts, why not helmets? Not on motorcycles, but in cars? Studies have shown that people who wear helmets while driving are far less likely to suffer severe head injuries during an accident than people who don't wear them. Where do we draw the line?

I actually support laws that say that people under 16 must wear seatbelts/can't smoke/can't ride in truck beds/etc. because too many parents are idiots, and children can't be expected to make wise decisions for themselves at a young age, so I think they have to be somewhat protected, but as far as I'm concerned, adults should be able to do essentially whatever the hell the want, provided their actions don't affect--or have the potential to affect--others.


To me, it's about enforeability. It's much easier for a cop to pull me over than it is for them to know what I am doing in my home. I have no issue with letting adults be adults. My issue is with those of you that say that them not wearing their seatbelt doesn't affect me. When it affects my bank account, it sure as hell affects me.

knapplc wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:
They can fix the law by repealing the law which says it is illegal to wear a seatbelt.


I assume that this is a typo but, if I am understanding you correctly, how does making it legal to not wear a seatbelt fix anything?? I know that it fixes things for a lot of people that want the government/police to stay out of this but how does it address the issue that I mentioned and you responded to??


No, it’s not a typo. See Art’s comments about government involvement for why it isn’t, because I pretty much agree with him 100%. It is NOT the government’s job to be my parent, and with these ridiculous laws they are becoming Mommy And Daddy more and more.

As for the insurance thing, it simply isn’t something the government should be involved in anyway. Further, why are my $100K medical bills your issue? If you have insurance fine, that’s what insurance is for. If you don’t then I’m sorry, but it’s not my problem. Everyone has the opportunity to have a job that provides insurance, and if they don’t then they should go get one that does. If insurance companies are passing the expenses on to their customers, that’s a business practice that the government shouldn’t be involved in anyway.


I see that you corrected your stance on the typo issue. As for the insurance point, if they shell out $100K for you, do you really think that no one else will have increases to pay for that?? Even if you believe that government involvement is wrong, and I can agree with that for the most part, do you really feel that it is O.K. for me to have to pay for your choices?? O.K. Insurance companies pass the buck to other consumers so just because knapp doesn't want to wear his belt, it's O.K. for Lofunzo to have to soak up some of the charges?? Government involvement or not, I don't like that attitude. I would hate to know that my stupidity caused others to have to suffer in any way.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby AcidRock23 » Tue May 22, 2007 1:23 pm

It is not dissimilar to people who get lost in the Grand Canyon being billed for the helicopters, park rangers and other assets deployed to save their butts. While it probably would suck to get a $4000 bill to be rescued, it beats the alternative.

It seems like ignition locks or seat belt switches to make it more compulsory would be likely to help control costs and perhaps would help w/ the cost thing as well as, from an actuarial perspective, a car w/ 'mandatory' seatbelts should 'cost' less in terms of it's ability to protect the occupants than an identical car w/o the seatbelt monitor. :-?
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Postby blankman » Tue May 22, 2007 1:40 pm

I guess you guys don't remember this, but when Congress originally passed the seat belt law, it was only a secondary offense. They said that it would NEVER become something they could pull you over for. You had to break some other law first. There was a lot of dissent about this law so that was the only way they could get it to pass. And only shortly after, they went back on their word.

Bunch of liars. :-t :-t :-t
blankman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

Graphics Expert
Posts: 10770
Joined: 6 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Big Pimpin » Tue May 22, 2007 1:44 pm

blankman wrote:I guess you guys don't remember this, but when Congress originally passed the seat belt law, it was only a secondary offense. They said that it would NEVER become something they could pull you over for. You had to break some other law first. There was a lot of dissent about this law so that was the only way they could get it to pass. And only shortly after, they went back on their word.

Bunch of liars. :-t :-t :-t


I blame Barry Bonds. ;-7
Big Pimpin
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 13716
(Past Year: 7)
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Building a metric. And being ignorable and stupid.

Postby knapplc » Tue May 22, 2007 1:51 pm

Lofunzo wrote:I see that you corrected your stance on the typo issue.

Yep. Sorry about that. I knew what I meant to say and just misread what I actually wrote.
Lofunzo wrote:As for the insurance point, if they shell out $100K for you, do you really think that no one else will have increases to pay for that?? Even if you believe that government involvement is wrong, and I can agree with that for the most part, do you really feel that it is O.K. for me to have to pay for your choices?? O.K. Insurance companies pass the buck to other consumers so just because knapp doesn't want to wear his belt, it's O.K. for Lofunzo to have to soak up some of the charges?? Government involvement or not, I don't like that attitude. I would hate to know that my stupidity caused others to have to suffer in any way.

It’s important to remember that I am a seatbelt wearer and I enforce a strict seatbelt rule in any car I drive.

What I’m getting at is that it is NOT the government’s job to act as the overseer and protector of the insurance companies. They should be stopping CRIMES, not these petty babying things.

As for insurance costs, that’s a gripe you should have with the insurance company, not the guy who gets in the wreck and incurs the big bills. You should also have that gripe with lawyers and judges for allowing these massive claims against insurance companies, which do far more to drive up insurance premiums than the actual accidents.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7871
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Postby CheeseBeger » Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm

Lofunzo wrote:
Absolutely Adequate wrote:There are few people I know that like police officers. And I think that these mommying laws are a big reason as to why.

If the police just protected and served, I think they'd get a lot more community support. But when they're protecting us from ourselves (seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, pot, sexual activity, etc) people begin to feel like criminals.

These laws need to go.


Directly, they are only protecting us from ourselves but, indirectly, it's much more. I don't love that the government micromanages like they do but, if the bottom line is that it stops me from footing some of the bill because you chose not to wear a seatbelt, I can live with that. It's not like having the police ignore people not wearing their seatbelts will make all of the problems go away.


It just make me think of similar laws that could be enforced for the same reasons. Should the government not allow resturants to have trans-fat? Sure it would make people healthier and would "stop you from footing the bill," but ultimately it is higher government control and a little less freedom for everyone.
2010 H2HWS Champion - Cleveland Clams
CheeseBeger
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Eagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 1713
Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: You don't need doubletalk! You need Bob Loblaw!

Postby raiders_umpire » Tue May 22, 2007 6:20 pm

I have never thought very highly of the seatbelt law, so I guess that is why I never wear my seatbelt. I have never had a ticket for it, but I don't even think a ticket would make me change my mind and start to wear my seatbelt.
Image
raiders_umpire
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 27781
Joined: 14 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: You will be missed, Robert Smeraldo.

Postby knapplc » Tue May 22, 2007 6:51 pm

raiders_umpire wrote:I have never thought very highly of the seatbelt law, so I guess that is why I never wear my seatbelt. I have never had a ticket for it, but I don't even think a ticket would make me change my mind and start to wear my seatbelt.


I am opposed to the law, but I would offer you free advice to wear your seatbelt while driving and as a passenger in other people's cars.

I was driving along, seemingly under control, when I lost it on a gravel road and rolled my car, destroying it. I had a scratch over my eyebrow where I hit the steering wheel (old car - lap belt only). That's much better than being slammed into the steering column and collapsing my rib cage or burying myself under the steering wheel where the pedals go (which is how my friend Corky died in an accident only a couple of months prior to mine).

That happened really close to my house and I heard the accident. We were the first ones on the scene and my dad wouldn't let me go down to the car. I guess he was pretty messed up. :-/

Yet another time I was a passenger in a car where we crossed a highway only to be T-Boned by a Ford Explorer going 55, and I walked away from that with a mild case of whiplash, again because I was wearing a seatbelt.

You can find stories where people were killed because they were wearing seat belts, but by far the vast majority of cases show that wearing them is much safer than not.

So while I'm against these laws and the ridiculous expense they incur upon the taxpayer to fund enforcement, I am very much 'pro' seat belts.

It's free advice and probably worth what you're paying for it, but there it is. :-D
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7871
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Postby Omaha Red Sox » Tue May 22, 2007 7:34 pm

raiders_umpire wrote:I have never thought very highly of the seatbelt law, so I guess that is why I never wear my seatbelt. I have never had a ticket for it, but I don't even think a ticket would make me change my mind and start to wear my seatbelt.


That is seriously not a good reason not to wear a seat belt. :-°
Omaha Red Sox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 11421
(Past Year: 4)
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Probably over there

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 6:27 hours
(and 89 days)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact