I for one always wear my seatbelt if I am on any major road. What gets me now is if I want to take it off at the entrance to my subdivision, where the speeds are limited to about 7 mph due to the GIANT FUCKING SPEED HUMPS some asshat put in, I am at risk for a ticket. I also sometimes don’t want to mess with a belt if I am getting in and out of my car in rapid succession, such as when I drive from the gas station to the video store next door. Both of these are less than a half mile from my house on very small roads with 15 mph speed limits. Yet due to bureacracy, I must. For all you worst case scenario theorists, if I saw someone barrelling down on me, yeah, I would probably put it on for my protection. I am fairly vigilant as a driver, almost to a fault. I would likely see them long before they got to me. Plus it is still fucking annoying to get pulled over while you are wearing it because they can’t see it. I’ve heard stories of people with seatbelts that come out of the seat blending in with their shirts and getting pulled over for it. Maybe blount county decided at the annual cop meeting that this was more important than their usual rounding up of massage parlor hookers and moonshine sellers, since seat belt use will END HUMANITY if not enforced. It’s all for money still I say.
Not all libertarians are extremists. Check out any of the Political Compass threads and count how many people scored lower than -3 on the libertarian/authoritarian axis. I hope you don’t think they’re all idiots.
The difference between all those requirements and seat belt laws is that those affect more than just the driver.
An unskilled or drunk driver is a danger to other people on the road, and so is a driver who’s going significantly faster than anyone else. Infringing on one person’s freedom of choice to protect someone else is a legitimate use of government. But from the evidence I’ve seen in this thread, an unbelted driver is only a danger to other people in his own vehicle; an unbelted driver with no passengers is only endangering himself, which is his right.
Well, obviously we disagree on what a “good reason” is.
Yea, and why do we have to follow speed limits when there are no other cars around?
Sheesh, what an oppressive government!
Well, there is something to be said for not enforcing speed limits (and red light laws, parking laws, etc.) when no one else is around. But as long as you don’t have automatic speed cameras, the problem takes care of itself - if no one is around to see you speeding, you can’t get caught.
Neverminding that it is horribly dangerous and wreckless. You seem to have missed my point.
Off the OP, but speeding is not horribly dangerous. Excessively speeding is. If all traffic is moving at 70, going 80 is maybe slightly higher risk, 90 much higher, 100, you’re asking for it. However, the assclown oppressive government doesn’t do anything about the opposite, namely, grandma going 50. It is easily as dangerous and likely moreso as going 90 (20 mph net difference, and more people catch her). I don’t mind the government wanting me to belt. Just pulling me over for it is ridiculous.
Er, we are talking about speeding being OK because there is no one around, not in traffic.
Going as fast as you can because no one is around is stupid.
It stupid, but it is nearly a victimless crime. If you kill yourself because you’re speeding with noone around, then the world might be better off. Playing russian roulette is stupid, I don’t see any laws against that.
It is not dangerous (though it is wreckless - I guess you meant “reckless” ;)) to drive 40 in a 30 zone when no one else is around, on a straight road in clear weather.
Going as fast as you can is stupid whether or not anyone else is around, unless you’re on a race track.
I speed fairly often, just like most drivers I see on the roads here, and there has only been one time I’ve gone as fast as I could: I was on the freeway (a 70 MPH zone), but even with my foot to the floor in 4th gear, and with a favorable wind, my poor VW diesel van could only get up to 67 MPH.
My car now can probably reach twice that speed, but I don’t know for sure and I’ll probably never find out. There’s a big difference between finding a comfortable, safe speed that may be faster than the posted limit, and pushing your vehicle to the max. Most people seem do the first, IME; only crazy people and race drivers do the second.
Yeah, but let’s not forget that there is a stopping distance issue here, even 5 klms/hour makes a difference. Even though the road looks safe, there is always the chance that a driver pulling out of an intersection or drive way doesn’t look or is going too slow or drivers coming the other way swerve towards you for whatever reason. The speed limits have been set at what they are for a reason.
The only really safe place to speed is places like outback Australia (as there are in the US) where you can see for many miles, there are no buildings or people or trees etc. For this reason, in the Northern Territories there are no open road speed limits.
Yes, and therefore, a good driver will slow down near intersections where he can’t see if someone might be coming. But that’s somewhat of a red herring; there are plenty of streets and highways where drivers can see anyone who might cross or merge, and can be sure that no one else is around.
Indeed. That reason, however, can be anything from “a study found that 85% of drivers drive at or below this speed here” to “residents on this street have complained that the cars driving by are too loud” to “the town needs more revenue from speeding tickets”.
So how do you make the law to take this into consideration and how many police officers would it take to police it? Most drivers think they are good and safe drivers, but obviously we can’t all be. An area I consider it safe to speed in, may not be an area you think it is safe to speed in.
Well, as I said, the law doesn’t need to be changed as long as the law is only enforced by people. If no one is around, making it safe to speed, then no one will catch you speeding anyway.
Like this is going to happen.
What, people enforcing laws? It happens all the time. Those people are called police officers.
My town–the largest metropolitan area between Seattle and Minneapolis–doesn’t have speed cameras, so speed limits are only enforced when cops are in the area. That’s fine with me.
Oh, sorry, I thought you meant non-police officers.
Here in scenic New Jersey, seatbelt use recently became mandatory, accompanied by many public service announcements, special enforcement campaigns & press coverage (“Click it or Ticket”).
Why is it the law in New Jersey? Because wearing your seat belt is a Good Thing, it keeps people healthy and minimizes bloodstain on the roads.
However, seat belt use, like talking on a cell phone, is a secondary offense. You must be pulled over for something else before they can write you a ticket for not wearing your seatbelt.
Net result: A Good Idea (wear your seatbelt) gets onto the law books and a safety issue gets mucho free press, but its not like the police are setting up “No seat belt”-traps.
P.S. My vague memory of law school/ Torts is that you are liable for the injuries sustained, even if the victim would have suffered less injuries had he been following the law by wearing his seat belt.
kdeus
Count yourself lucky. It’s now a primary offense here.