Ravenwood - 09/21/05 06:15 AM
Georgia will sacrifice more than $20 million in federal highway funds because they have not yet forced farmers to buckle-up in their pickup trucks. AAA notes that using the threat of lethal force to make pickup truck riders buckle their seat-belt, would save 22 lives a year. Georgia, along with Indiana, are the only two states that don't comply.
South Carolina used to buck the system, but now they toe the line.
People in pickup trucks [in South Carolina] had to wear seat belts, but if the unbelted were adults, police couldn't pull them over for that alone. But come this December, seat belts can be the "primary" reason for a traffic stop.As Dr. Williams brought up earlier this year, this brings up the question of who owns you? In the eyes of the government, clearly it's not you. Insurance companies have a vested financial interest in forcing people to wear seatbelts, and have successfully lobbied the imperial government to do just that. Since the .gov cannot legally force states to pass seatbelt laws (without further expansion of the ever-widening commerce clause), they instead resort to extortion by threatening to withhold highway funding."We're going to hopefully gain $11 million," said a jubilant Max Young, South Carolina's director of highway safety. "I love it. I love it for two reasons. We got a primary seat belt law that's going to go a long way in saving people's lives. And second, good gracious, if we qualified for additional money, we can use the money."
Personally I always wear my seatbelt, and make others do so when they ride with me. But if some idiot wants to splatter his brains all over the windshield, who am I to stop him. On principle, it's an infringement of our civil liberties; the same as if they were telling us what to eat, or that we can't smoke (oh wait, too late). Unfortunately, since most of us already wear seatbelts we go along with it in lock-step.
Category: Pleasure Police
Comments (8) top link me
It really is a no brainer for states - not only do they get their federal highway funds, but they also have a new revenue generating machine to utilize.
Posted by: countertop at September 21, 2005 10:17 AMAre you sure it is the insurance companies? My insurance policy says that they don't have to pay out if anybody in my vehicle wasn't wearing a seat belt at the time of the incident. (Anybody. Even if they're not hurt, didn't have anything to do with the accident, etc.) Sticking that in satisfies their interests and is a hell of a lot cheaper than lobbying the government. I'd expect that if my little farmer's insurance company sticks something like that in, the big boys have got it, too.
Posted by: Jay Kominek at September 21, 2005 10:48 AMJay,
Just because they stick a warning in there doesn't necessarily mean they are not liable. Plus there are other ways they pay too. For instance if you hit someone and are at fault, and the person you hit isn't wearing their seatbelt, your claim is going to be higher.
Then there's life insurance...
Posted by: Ravenwood at September 21, 2005 11:14 AMJust because they aren't liable doesn't mean they might not wind up paying. If you want to see a civil defense lawyer cringe, just hand him a case file titled "Xxx Xxx vs. Xxxx Insurance, Inc." If the other side can find any reason whatsoever to get the case in front of a jury to "determine the facts", more likely than not the jury will ignore the evidence and the law to get that "evil" insurance company.
One of my engineering professors was an expert witness in a lawsuit against an appliance manufacturer. Their metal-benders had missed a step and not rolled a metal edge over where the power cord came through the back panel on a dryer, it chafed the fire cord until it shorted, and the house burned down. The evidence was absolutely clear, from the fire investigator showing (with many pictures) how the burn pattern originated behind the dryer to bringing the actual dryer in along with a properly made new one so the prof could point to the sharp edge that should have been rolled and the arc burns from the shorted cord. But somehow the company that had insured the house wound up suing in their own name - and the jury found against them.
Posted by: markm at September 21, 2005 12:25 PMEverybody wants to have it both ways. No invasion of "rights", but if your skull gets cracked and you spend 25 years as a vegetable, most of it will be at taxpayer's expense.
I don't want to pay taxes to keep STUPID, and now truly brain dead, people on life support for years. So, either remove taxpayer support, or protect my dollars by dictating responsible behavior.
If these idiots will sign a binding agreement that they can be left in the ditch to die if they aren't wearing seatbelts, then I will support their "rights".
Posted by: GaryS at September 21, 2005 8:29 PMGary,
What you are referring to is a problem of socialism and the nanny state. People are compelled to care for those who would not care for themselves.
Posted by: Ravenwood at September 21, 2005 8:37 PMWhat is realy needed is a muffler on these buricrats to muffle their stupididy
Posted by: screaming eagle at September 22, 2005 3:25 PMIn my ride alongs I found about five officers who don't like the seatbelt laws. They never followed them and never cited anyone for violations. They thanked people for wearing their seatbelts but never punished them for noncompliance. I know of a few more who would cite for it but only if the sheriff ordered it.
Posted by: RHett at September 22, 2005 3:39 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
