To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#7,327
#7,327
Vol8188 said:
This part is what I'm talking about. This is he only thing changed by wearing your seatbelt.

And as I said, this should be up to the company. If they put it in your policy that you're only covered if you're wearing a seatbelt, then so be it.
Click to expand...

What is the only thing changed by wearing your seatbelt?
 
#7,328
#7,328
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It's force because it's backed up with a cage or a gun.

If I'm traveling on an interstate at 2am and the speed limit is 70, you clock me at 90, there are no other car on the road. What is the problem?

The way it becomes a crime is, if I wreck, injuring persons or property. By giving someone a ticket (ransom note) for failing to obey an arbitrary number on a sign is absurd, as well as extortion.
Click to expand...

So, once again, your issues are with the laws not just the enforcement. Using your logic, we should just kill all drug users because that is easier than eliminating the source..... I know it's a bad analogy but it along the same thought line and no more ridiculous than yours. Blame the guy doing his job and not the guy giving the instructions.
 
#7,329
#7,329
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
No, you guys just think there should be a law for everything. When in reality that's the problem, we have entirely too many laws on the books as is.
A crime is commited when persons or property is damaged. How is that hard to understand?
Click to expand...

So, you should be allowed to drive 60 in a school zone repeatedly until you damage someone? As ugly as it sounds, I hope the kid you hit is yours because no right thinking person would have an issue with stopping someone blasting through a school zone with kids present and citing them.
 
#7,330
#7,330
82_VOL_83 said:
So, you should be allowed to drive 60 in a school zone repeatedly until you damage someone? As ugly as it sounds, I hope the kid you hit is yours because no right thinking person would have an issue with stopping someone blasting through a school zone with kids present and citing them.
Click to expand...

Speeding is a victimless crime, don't you forget that. Then money can be given to the family of those killed and presto "they are made whole again"!
 
#7,331
#7,331
82_VOL_83 said:
So, you should be allowed to drive 60 in a school zone repeatedly until you damage someone? As ugly as it sounds, I hope the kid you hit is yours because no right thinking person would have an issue with stopping someone blasting through a school zone with kids present and citing them.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read further where i state the better option is for the community to come up with measures to prevent such actions. I suggested speed bumps. You can post a speed limit all you like, the sign simply stands there and does nothing without a cop there to enforce the "limit"
In other words, it's communities who can offer better and more realistic solutions than government.
 
#7,332
#7,332
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I simply believe people can make their own choices, then of course they can live with the outcome good/bad.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't have kids. If you did you would understand that with your attitude you wouldn't be able to live with the "bad" were you to damage one of my kids.
 
#7,333
#7,333
82_VOL_83 said:
You obviously don't have kids. If you did you would understand that with your attitude you wouldn't be able to live with the "bad" were you to damage one of my kids.
Click to expand...

Then I would pay for the crime, either financially, or with my life, for a term to be judged by a court.

And, if I had my way, you would actually get restitution for the crime, not the government.
 
#7,334
#7,334
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Perhaps you should read further where i state the better option is for the community to come up with measures to prevent such actions. I suggested speed bumps. You can post a speed limit all you like, the sign simply stands there and does nothing without a cop there to enforce the "limit"
In other words, it's communities who can offer better and more realistic solutions than government.
Click to expand...

Communities already offer these solutions via local government. I could take the anarchist point of view though and just stand in the school zone and shot you the second time you come through the zone doing 60. Sorry my replies are a couple of days outdated but you are really displaying a clueless streak.
 
#7,335
#7,335
82_VOL_83 said:
Communities already offer these solutions via local government. I could take the anarchist point of view though and just stand in the school zone and shot you the second time you come through the zone doing 60. Sorry my replies are a couple of days outdated but you are really displaying a clueless streak.
Click to expand...

Good lord. I'm not even gonna bother. And you call me clueless. Lol
 
#7,338
#7,338
Carl Pickens said:
We were discussing insurance rates associated with seatbelt laws Numbnuts.
Click to expand...

Yes we were. That's why I don't understand your comments about liability. Me wearing a seatbelt doesn't make me any more or less likely to harm others or their property.

Carl Pickens said:
You may want to look through your policy once more..... It's not there. When I say from a liability perspective I'm talking about the injuries you cause another party when at fault in an accident. It doesn't matter if they're wearing their seatbelt or not.
Your health insurance is going to cover your injuries minus whatever small amount of med pay coverage you have on your auto policy.
Click to expand...

The only thing that's relevant is the medical side. And I've already said if you insurance puts it in your policy that they'll only pay your medical bills if you wear your seatbelt, then that's up to them.

So no, we do not need seatbelt laws to keep insurance rates down.
 
#7,345
#7,345
Vol8188 said:
Yes we were. That's why I don't understand your comments about liability. Me wearing a seatbelt doesn't make me any more or less likely to harm others or their property.



The only thing that's relevant is the medical side. And I've already said if you insurance puts it in your policy that they'll only pay your medical bills if you wear your seatbelt, then that's up to them.

So no, we do not need seatbelt laws to keep insurance rates down.
Click to expand...

Mother of pearl....if you hit someone who isn't wearing their seatbelt makes them more likely to be hurt and if you're at fault, you're liable for their injuries. Who pays for that? Your auto insurance..... Now do you get it? Personally I don't give two craps about seat belt laws, I was only trying to provide you with an explanation of Beast's point of view.
 
#7,346
#7,346
Carl Pickens said:
Mother of pearl....if you hit someone who isn't wearing their seatbelt makes them more likely to be hurt and if you're at fault, you're liable for their injuries. Who pays for that? Your auto insurance..... Now do you get it? Personally I don't give two craps about seat belt laws, I was only trying to provide you with an explanation of Beast's point of view.
Click to expand...

Why did it take you so many posts to say that?
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top