Maine weighs revoking seat belt law days after 75-car pileup

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Countryford

While we are at it, why don't we outlaw cigarettes, alcohol, trans fat, soda, etc... They are all bad for us and leads to medical problems with expensive bills, that the tax payers have to pay.

Because of the health risks, tobacco and alcohol are regulated, especially tobacco, and advertising of them restricted. Trans fats probably will be banned in the near future as they should be. Soda isn't bad per se but high fructose corn syrup is and should be banned, IMO.

I'm not resentful. I wear my seat belt without griping. If it weren't for this thread, I wouldn't have brought the subject up. Someone else started it, I posted to it that I agreed with it, and then explained why I agreed with it. I have my opinion and you have yours.

And several of us explained why we believe you to be wrong. Feeling picked on or something?

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Boreas

It's about mitigation of risk, not elimination of risk.

That is the essence.

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Funny how when it comes to drug testing welfare recipients, or denying women an abortion, or requiring a government issued picture ID to vote, or telling people who they can and can not marry, they are some nanny statin motherfuckers.

It's amazing how establishment/mainstream Republicans don't recognize that they themselves are government nannies and hypocrites.
This is why the libertarian movement will continue to gain support IMO.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Countryford

While we are at it, why don't we outlaw cigarettes, alcohol, trans fat, soda, etc... They are all bad for us and leads to medical problems with expensive bills, that the tax payers have to pay.



I'm not resentful. I wear my seat belt without griping. If it weren't for this thread, I wouldn't have brought the subject up. Someone else started it, I posted to it that I agreed with it, and then explained why I agreed with it. I have my opinion and you have yours.

I'm just trying to get at what is behind your agreeing opinion. I don't think a general dislike of being told what to do is it. People are told lots of things by lots of folks, and they mostly do them. Only some things strike folks as over the line for some reason.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Countryford

Oh, you are so right. Not wearing a seat belt is just as bad as drinking while driving.

Someone who drinks while intoxicated is a danger, not only to themselves but to others. Their abaility to drive is impaired and the risk of being involved in an accident goes up. Also someone being distracted, talking on a phone or texting, is also impaired while they are trying to drive. However, how is one impaired not wearing their seat belt. The risk of being involved in an accident is the same, weather or not the driver is wearing their seat belt.

I don't think the part I bolded is exactly true. As I said before, one thing seat belts do is keep you where you can control your vehicle. You cannot control your vehicle if you are bouncing around inside it, or if some or all of you has exited it. Further damage and injury can result, which might be prevented by further action by the driver, if he's there to do any more driving....

[finnbow]

Arguing in favor of not using seat belts (whether or not the government mandates it) is idiotic.

[Rajoo]

I don't think logic prevails in this instance. I have a friend that works in the technology sector worried about the NSA and their eves dropping, even after I have pointed out to him that there is no way in hell they can make any sense out of all that information. Besides it's yet another bureaucratic govt. institution that probably has no clue what to do with all that information.

[donquixote99]

I will mention another thing, however. I had airbags deploy once, in an accident. I fishtailed on an exit ramp and wound up bouncing off the concrete railings (both of them). The second bump was the hard one, and it set off the airbags--quite uselessly, it wasn't a frontal collision and I never made contact with the bags. The thing is, I was still moving forward after the accident. But I couldn't see where I was going--the airbags were in the way. Also, the smoke was getting in my eyes. 'Airbags' is a dishonest name, they really are smokebags.

BTW, the accident did not break my windshield, but the deployment of the passenger-side airbag did....

[Countryford]

And several of us explained why we believe you to be wrong. Feeling picked on or something?

I appreciate the debate. I know a majority of these threads tend to be a pissing contest of sort. I don't feel picked on or attacked or anything. After I logged off of here, I didn't even think twice about it.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Countryford

I am confused about libery

So you're a confused, typo asshole. Gotcha. Feel attacked now? Of course not...per your last post you're already above it all.