# Whats the logic behind "click it or ticket?" **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 29, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995 "2009-05-29T03:33:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/82 "2009-05-30T15:58:36Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Others have already mentioned the ability to maintain control of a vehicle while undertaking evasive maneuvers, after spinning on ice, or after a collision. I have no idea if seatbelts actually make a difference here. It sounds like they would. Has anyone tested this? Probably not. I’m not buying this argument. If one is hit hard enough to inhibit their ability to remain in the same spot, I’m doubting the necessary reaction time, not to mention the skill needed, will have much of an effect in keeping the vehicle from endangering others. I wouldn’t doubt that there will be exceptions, but I’m not buying that this is enough to take away the freedom to be stupid. > [@](#): > > Showing just a small increase in safety to _other drivers, passengers, pedestrians and other people’s property_ would support an argument for requiring such an effortless task as fastening a belt. We can do this with any freedom. Smoking causes lung cancer. Patients with lung cancer often need emergency treatment that causes emergency personnel to be called to the hospital. Driving to a hospital is a risk that sometimes ends in loss of life. Tobacco should be banned. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/83 "2009-05-30T16:46:19Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m sorry, I assumed you knew what the word “practically” meant. I promise I won’t make that mistake again. And I in turn assumed your post had some connection with what I had said and therefore had a point. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/84 "2009-05-30T16:46:25Z")
> [@rbroome](#): > > I disagree that there is no cogent argument that can be advanced. All the actions you list cost society money. Someone pays the costs-either the insured public through higher insurance or the taxpaying public through higher taxes. Then where do we draw the line? Should we have _“laws mandating healthful eating, proscription of smoking and refusal to permit reproduction of marginal genes, or parenting by the incompetent”_? > [@](#): > > Balanced against this measurable cost is the cost to personal freedom when the government/wife/mother/church-whatever authority figure you wish to respond to compels you to alter your behavior. One compelling you to alter your behavior vocally is not a violation of any freedom (here in the U.S., I don’t know about anywhere else). If you meant compelling you in another way that is a violation, you’d have to specify. > [@](#): > > You and I may agree or disagree as to whether society has made the right choice in any particular case, but the cogent argument is made in every case. In every case? Cogent to whom? Most laws are not voted on by society. I would guess that the majority of folks in Kansas weren’t happy about the results in Brown v. Board of Education, but we don’t, and shouldn’t, base where freedom begins and ends on majority rule. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/85 "2009-05-30T17:05:27Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > I’m not buying this argument. If one is hit hard enough to inhibit their ability to remain in the same spot, I’m doubting the necessary reaction time, not to mention the skill needed, will have much of an effect in keeping the vehicle from endangering others. I wouldn’t doubt that there will be exceptions, but I’m not buying that this is enough to take away the freedom to be stupid. You don’t buy which argument? If seatbelt use can be shown to help the driver maintain control while undertaking evasive maneuvers, after spinning on ice, or after a collision, then the seatbelt law is not just protecting drivers from themselves (as is argued in this thread), but is in fact protecting others from drivers in these situations. Do you “buy” this? ---
**Author:** ![Starbury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f04885/32.png) [@Starbury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starbury)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/86 "2009-05-30T17:29:07Z")
> [@Enright3](#): > > The funny thing about this is that there are some municipalities that are removing their red light cameras because their ticket revenue went DOWN because people stopped running the red lights. Even more municipalities are removing them because they [have been shown to increase the number of collisions.](http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp) > [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > I would also suggest that the change in seatbelt laws from a tag-on offense to a pull-over-able offense is a convenient way to afford police the opportunity to engage in a pretextual arrest of a motor vehicle and its passengers. I believe that this is as much the motivation for the law as the idea that it may save lives. It gives an officer virtual carte blanche to pull over any vehicle on the road - and at the end of the day, it will just be the officer’s word against the driver’s as to whether or not a seat belt was actually being worn at the time of the stop, and the officer’s word is generally given weight over a civilian’s. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/87 "2009-05-30T17:54:16Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Where did I say that, and why would you infer it? Right there in that quote I responded to. Since you said “The difference is that disregard of traffic lights endangers others,” it’s reasonable to infer that taking “others” out of the equation would cause there to be no difference than not wearing a seat belt, since the only danger would be to the person driving recklessly. No response to my observation that you’re under the impression driving is a constitutional right, is it safe to assume you agree that driving is some inalienable right, and not a privilege subject to terms and conditions? > [@](#): > > If it were the case that reckless driving never endangered anyone or any property except the driver and driver’s property, I see no reason to demand universal obedience. Any prior doubt that my original inference was incorrect can reliably be dismissed. > [@](#): > > I do, in fact, consider a helmet law to be inconsistent with other interpretations of the constitution. If we have found a right to privacy that protects my reproductive rights, for instance, I should surely be extended the right to control other areas concerning only my personal physiology, be it a choice to endanger my heart with McDonald’s or my brain with my motorcycle. I am not sure how the right to reproduce has any relationship to the privilege of driving. Comparing the ability to eat at McDonald’s with the privilege of driving is something else that I don’t quite understand. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/88 "2009-05-30T18:00:01Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > You don’t buy which argument? You didn’t understand my post? : > [@](#): > > If one is hit hard enough to inhibit their ability to remain in the same spot, I’m doubting the necessary reaction time, not to mention the skill needed, will have much of an effect in keeping the vehicle from endangering others. I wouldn’t doubt that there will be exceptions, but I’m not buying that this is enough to take away the freedom to be stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/89 "2009-05-30T18:22:01Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > Right there in that quote I responded to. Since you said “The difference is that disregard of traffic lights endangers others,” it’s reasonable to infer that taking “others” out of the equation would cause there to be no difference than not wearing a seat belt, since the only danger would be to the person driving recklessly. And? Where did **Chief Pedant** infer that “it should be OK to run red lights and drive at reckless speeds, as long as nobody is around?” He didn’t, and he explained why in his follow up post where he said, “it is impossible to determine that no one else is in danger and that no other property would be damaged.” > [@](#): > > No response to my observation that you’re under the impression driving is a constitutional right, is it safe to assume you agree that driving is some inalienable right, and not a privilege subject to terms and conditions? How about smoking? Mountain climbing? Does the Constitution specifically mention that any of these actions are rights? > [@](#): > > Comparing the ability to eat at McDonald’s with the privilege of driving is something else that I don’t quite understand. He didn’t. He compared eating at McDonald’s with not wearing seat belts (or more specifically, not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle). : > [@](#): > > As a practical matter, if cost is a major consideration, we should begin with laws mandating healthful eating, proscription of smoking and refusal to permit reproduction of marginal genes, or parenting by the incompetent. Seatbelts are way down the list if we decide cost to society supercedes individual freedom to do stupid things as the greatest good. > [@](#): > > I do, in fact, consider a helmet law to be inconsistent with other interpretations of the constitution. If we have found a right to privacy that protects my reproductive rights, for instance, I should surely be extended the right to control other areas concerning only my personal physiology, be it a choice to endanger my heart with McDonald’s or my brain with my motorcycle. His point is simply that it’s okay to force people to wear seat belts because not wearing them is a monetary cost to society, then banning unhealthy food should be okay for the same reason. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/90 "2009-05-30T18:48:05Z")
> [@rbroome](#): > > Motorcyclists had to show proof of insurance-I think 25K of insurance-that just about paid for the ambulance to take brain-injured folks to the hospital. After that the bills are paid by the state and federal taxpayers. That’s one of the problems right there. 25K for an ambulance ride? Reminds me for the time in college I paid $150 (early 1990s) for a doctor to tell me my toe was infected. No treatment, no medication, nothing but “You toe is infected.” Whenever you talk about medical costs, insurance costs, and legislation, expect irrationality. I, for one, am on the personal liberty side. Look at our new national debt after the Obama bailouts (yes I know the feds are different than state govts) and then explain to me how my not wearing a seatbelt adds to the public burden. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/91 "2009-05-30T19:13:35Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > And? Where did **Chief Pedant** infer that “it should be OK to run red lights and drive at reckless speeds, as long as nobody is around?” He didn’t, and he explained why in his follow up post where he said, “it is impossible to determine that no one else is in danger and that no other property would be damaged.” I think you might be conflating inference with implication. Anyhow, I see we’ve moved the yardstick from “other persons” to “other persons and property.” I think it’s best to let **Chief Pedant** speak for himself. > [@](#): > > How about smoking? Mountain climbing? Does the Constitution specifically mention that any of these actions are rights? They are not rights, and they are both regulated. Equating the ability to drive a car without wearing a seatbelt and being immune from state prosecution because it falls under “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” or some construct that requiring a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle is some sort of invasion of privacy is a farce. > [@](#): > > His point is simply that it’s okay to force people to wear seat belts because not wearing them is a monetary cost to society, then banning unhealthy food should be okay for the same reason. What exactly constitutes unhealthy food? Technically, any food could be unhealthy, depending on how it’s prepared and how much is consumed. Surely you’ve heard that drinking too much water can be lethal. Do we ban water? Get real. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/92 "2009-05-30T19:21:18Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > There is no cogent argument that can be advanced for justifying mandatory seat belt or helmet laws. They represent an unacceptable, inappropriate, unjustifiable invasion of privacy inconsistent with the principles of personal freedom. Yes, there is a cogent argument that can be advanced. You know how I know? Because there is a cogent argument that can be advanced for just about every position and point of view that exists on just about any topic whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/93 "2009-05-30T19:42:11Z")
You’re driving on property owned by the government. If you’re driving on your own property, don’t wear a seat belt. Driving on government property is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution or anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/94 "2009-05-30T19:45:31Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > You’re driving on property owned by the government. If you’re driving on your own property, don’t wear a seat belt. Driving on government property is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution or anything else. I am NOT driving on property owned by the government. I am driving on property owned by the PEOPLE. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/95 "2009-05-30T19:51:48Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > I think you might be conflating inference with implication. _Infer_ is often used as a synonym of _imply_. > [@](#): > > Anyhow, I see we’ve moved the yardstick from “other persons” to “other persons and property.” I think it’s best to let **Chief Pedant** speak for himself. What the hell are you talking about? No yard stick has been moved. You said: > [@](#): > > So you’re saying it should be OK to run red lights and drive at reckless speeds, as long as nobody is around? **Chief Pedant** never said any such thing and he explained why. Adding “property” to “other persons” didn’t change anything. He didn’t say it, imply it, or infer it. > [@](#): > > They are not rights, and they are both regulated. Equating the ability to drive a car without wearing a seatbelt and being immune from state prosecution because it falls under “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” or some construct that requiring a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle is some sort of invasion of privacy is a farce. So, you believe the government should be able to regulate any activity not specifically mentioned in the Constitution any way they please, simply because that activity wasn’t mentioned as being a “right”? > [@](#): > > What exactly constitutes unhealthy food? Technically, any food could be unhealthy, depending on how it’s prepared and how much is consumed. Surely you’ve heard that drinking too much water can be lethal. Do we ban water? Get real. No, you get real! Comparing water to unhealthy food is ridiculous and I’m guessing it isn’t scoring you any points to those reading your argument. The majority of the foods available at McDonald’s constitute unhealthy foods. Do you not know this and require cites? ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/96 "2009-05-30T23:29:23Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > _Infer_ is often used as a synonym of _imply_. **I** inferred. **He** implied. > [@](#): > > USAGE NOTE Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the distinction is a useful one. When we say that a speaker or sentence implies something, we mean that it is conveyed or suggested without being stated outright. Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are not explicit in what is said. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition ) > [@](#): > > What the hell are you talking about? No yard stick has been moved. Other than going from “persons” to “persons and property,” you’re right. > [@](#): > > Adding “property” to “other persons” didn’t change anything. It changes things a great deal. It’s entirely possible to drive 50 miles and not see any persons. Good luck walking 50 feet without seeing property. Property is inanimate, you know? > [@](#): > > ``` > So, you believe the government should be able to regulate any activity not specifically mentioned in the Constitution any way they please, simply because that activity wasn't mentioned as being a "right"? > > ``` I believe the government has a vested interest in thinking for society, because society has demonstrated time and again it is generally incapable of thinking for itself. > [@](#): > > Comparing water to unhealthy food is ridiculous and I’m guessing it isn’t scoring you any points to those reading your argument. The majority of the foods available at McDonald’s constitute unhealthy foods. Do you not know this and require cites? Before I go any further, might I implore you to stop butchering the English language? Food is not unhealthy, it’s unhealthful (unless it’s rotten and wilted, of course, but that’s certainly not what you meant). Now then. You have failed to define what constitutes unhealthful food. Please do cite the “majority of the foods available at McDonald’s constituting unhealthful foods.” And while we’re at it, when exactly does food become unhealthful? Eating McDonald’s once a month, while maintaining an otherwise balanced diet with regular exercise™ will not cause any health issues. Eating McDonald’s four times a day is going to cause health issues. Drinking a gallon of water a day will not cause any health issues. Drinking 8 gallons of water a day is going to cause health issues. Capiche? ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/97 "2009-05-30T23:30:25Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I am NOT driving on property owned by the government. I am driving on property owned by the PEOPLE. A distinction without a difference ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/98 "2009-05-30T23:54:26Z")
**Whats the logic behind "click it or ticket?"** Your stupidity and laziness increases my auto insurance and heath care coverage premiums. ---
**Author:** ![Obeseus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbce88/32.png) [@Obeseus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Obeseus)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/99 "2009-05-31T00:33:28Z")
Okay, so people say seatbetls save lives of auto drivers, and helmets save lives of motorcycle drivers. In the interest of safety, wouldn’t more lives be saved if auto drivers wore seatbelts _and_ helmets? What would you think of a law that required you to wear a helmet while driving your car? (Sorry. Just noticed someone else mentioned this.) ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/100 "2009-05-31T00:54:13Z")
Moving this to IMHO where people can post more freely since the thread can’t seem to stay within a General Questions arguments without rancor boundry. **samclem** Moderator, General Questions ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995/101 "2009-05-31T01:09:55Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And I in turn assumed your post had some connection with what I had said and therefore had a point. It does, go back and re-read and this time try reading it for comprehension instead of with a view to finding some sort of pisspoor snark response. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-logic-behind-click-it-or-ticket/497995.md?page=6)