Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

ISU Stoplight camera study.

CP44 said:
I experienced this earlier this week. I was pulled over on Duff and I was only going 30 mph... The officer then proceeded to give me a 127 dollar seatbelt ticket. I work on Duff and also live on Duff and it is literally a 1 min drive. I explained this to him but he still gave me a ticket. Honestly, I woulda thought he had something more worthwhile than giving somebody a seatbelt ticket going 30 mph
Click to expand...

Although I agree that cops should be doing better things than issuing minor traffic citations... You chose to not wear your seatbelt and just because you live a block away doesn't justify not wearing one. If I were you, I'd walk to work! A one minute drive is probably a 5 minute walk tops.
 
dmclone said:
Even though it's saved countless lives and I've never been without a seatbelt since I was 18, I still don't agree with the seatbelt law. If I want to be an idiot and drive without a seatbelt and die, I should have that right. If by me not wearing a seatbelt it hurt someone else than I would be for it. Same for the helmet law. Now if the insurance companies want to charge non-helmet users a higher premium than I would be ok with that.
Click to expand...
You can still do that, you just might get a few tickets in the process, although if you're going to die anyways it's probably not a big deal.
 
dmclone said:
Even though it's saved countless lives and I've never been without a seatbelt since I was 18, I still don't agree with the seatbelt law. If I want to be an idiot and drive without a seatbelt and die, I should have that right. If by me not wearing a seatbelt it hurt someone else than I would be for it. Same for the helmet law. Now if the insurance companies want to charge non-helmet users a higher premium than I would be ok with that.
Click to expand...

I agree with this argument. It's only logical. BUT the same argument could be made for drugs, for instance. If you chose to put something harmful into your body that doesn't affect others, which would mean not going out in public or operating machinery (same as alcohol laws), then you shouldn't get in legal trouble for using. Just like with wearing a seatbelt, common sense and rational thinking would make most people come to the conclusion to wear a seat-belt, just as I would hope most people would choose to not do drugs even if there were no laws against it.

It's the same premise, just on a more controversial subject.

What I'm saying is, that it should always come down to being accountable for yourself (as long as your decisions aren't directly harming others), instead of having the law tell you how to be accountable.
 
Last edited:
dmclone said:
Even though it's saved countless lives and I've never been without a seatbelt since I was 18, I still don't agree with the seatbelt law. If I want to be an idiot and drive without a seatbelt and die, I should have that right. If by me not wearing a seatbelt it hurt someone else than I would be for it. Same for the helmet law. Now if the insurance companies want to charge non-helmet users a higher premium than I would be ok with that.
Click to expand...

Requiring people to wear seat belts protects both parties in an accident. If you cause an accident and the other person isn't wearing a seat belt and ends up dead because of it, would you prefer vehicular manslaughter and a gigantic lawsuit or would you prefer having the chance it's thrown out because the other driver was negligent? You'll still get charged with something (failure to maintain control, running a light, etc.) and your insurance will be on the hook for the medical bill which is going to hurt your premium, but I'd say the seat belt law can really benefit you in that instance.
 
IcSyU said:
Requiring people to wear seat belts protects both parties in an accident. If you cause an accident and the other person isn't wearing a seat belt and ends up dead because of it, would you prefer vehicular manslaughter and a gigantic lawsuit or would you prefer having the chance it's thrown out because the other driver was negligent? You'll still get charged with something (failure to maintain control, running a light, etc.) and your insurance will be on the hook for the medical bill which is going to hurt your premium, but I'd say the seat belt law can really benefit you in that instance.
Click to expand...

Be careful with the 'it's okay because it lowers insurance costs' argument. The government is going to be using that argument to try and justify controlling more and more aspects of our lives in order to reduce medical insurance costs.
 
IcSyU said:
Requiring people to wear seat belts protects both parties in an accident. If you cause an accident and the other person isn't wearing a seat belt and ends up dead because of it, would you prefer vehicular manslaughter and a gigantic lawsuit or would you prefer having the chance it's thrown out because the other driver was negligent? You'll still get charged with something (failure to maintain control, running a light, etc.) and your insurance will be on the hook for the medical bill which is going to hurt your premium, but I'd say the seat belt law can really benefit you in that instance.
Click to expand...

That's pretty silly. Under your reasonsing we wouldn't allow motorcycles or bicycles on the road either.

Also, why should we be protecting reckless drivers instead of valuing personal freedoms?
 
Incyte said:
That's pretty silly. Under your reasonsing we wouldn't allow motorcycles or bicycles on the road either.

Also, why should we be protecting reckless drivers instead of valuing personal freedoms?
Click to expand...

Now, I could be wrong, but I thought the idea behind the seatbelt laws was to protect the other driver(s) from the idiot flying through the windshield into their car in an accident.
 
mdclone said:
Be careful with the 'it's okay because it lowers insurance costs' argument. The government is going to be using that argument to try and justify controlling more and more aspects of our lives in order to reduce medical insurance costs.
Click to expand...


It's a good thing to be forced to buy auto insurance but it's a bad thing to be forced to buy health insurance, have I got that right?
 
cloneswereall said:
Now, I could be wrong, but I thought the idea behind the seatbelt laws was to protect the other driver(s) from the idiot flying through the windshield into their car in an accident.
Click to expand...

That would be the biggest joke of an argument that I've ever heard.
 
cyson said:
It's a good thing to be forced to buy auto insurance but it's a bad thing to be forced to buy health insurance, have I got that right?
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood my post. I'm talking about behaviors that affect health like diet, drinking, smoking, etc.
 
Incyte said:
That's pretty silly. Under your reasonsing we wouldn't allow motorcycles or bicycles on the road either.

Also, why should we be protecting reckless drivers instead of valuing personal freedoms?
Click to expand...
So all drivers who get into accidents are reckless?

I should have the personal freedom not to purchase car insurance too. Car insurance doesn't protect me from much. Car insurance is so if I do damage to someone else my *** is covered. The seat belt law is the same way. It really doesn't protect me from much.
 
Seat belt laws reduce the number of serious injuries caused by car accidents, which in turn saves money for the treatment of these individuals, especially if the victim is uninsured.
 
IcSyU said:
So all drivers who get into accidents are reckless?

I should have the personal freedom not to purchase car insurance too. Car insurance doesn't protect me from much. Car insurance is so if I do damage to someone else my *** is covered. The seat belt law is the same way. It really doesn't protect me from much.
Click to expand...
Your insurance will protect you if the person that hits you doesn't have insurance or is under-insured.
 
3TrueFans said:
Seat belt laws reduce the number of serious injuries caused by car accidents, which in turn saves money for the treatment of these individuals, especially if the victim is uninsured.
Click to expand...

So the law should be re-written such that only the uninsured must wear seat-belts. Gotcha.
 
IcSyU said:
Provided I have uninsured motorist...wouldn't I be just as screwed if I had liability only?
Click to expand...
True, on the flip side if you cause the accident your insurance will cover it if the other driver doesn't have uninsured motorist coverage.
 
Just read the article linked, and the research as quoted is worthless. Listing percentage decreases is a joke. An intersection going from 5 accidents one year to 3 once the red light cameras get installed gets quoted as a 40% decrease.

Some suburbs in Chicago have been burned lately for claiming big percentage decreases, only to find out that the cameras were installed at intersections which had less than 10 accidents a year for the past 10 years, and they calculated the percentage decrease off the highest year over those 10.

One suburb actually saw an increase in accidents at an intersection from the year before the cameras were installed, but claimed a decrease because one year over the last 10 had an abnormally high number of accidents.

Thankfully they ammended the law here to prevent the BS tickets for nudging over the line.
 
cyson said:
It's a good thing to be forced to buy auto insurance but it's a bad thing to be forced to buy health insurance, have I got that right?
Click to expand...
Auto insurance is to protect others. Health insurance is to protect yourself/family
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom