Well with the new horseshit law here in washington state I think I am going to toss out my rant. Now before you toss out your opinion on whether or not you think people should wear a seatbelt, etc, etc... please remember that isn't my question, whether or not you choose to wear your seatbelt isn't the point, the point is how can the state tell me what what I have to do when I am in/on my own property if it hurts no one else?



Being a motorcycle rider it seems strange to me that I can pass by all the people in their cars forced to wear a seatbelt because they drive a cage. Furthermore how is that all the people that ride to work in a county owned bus each morning are not required to wear a seatbelt? I guess that is really of subject, but a rant can do that.



My point is this, how is it constitutional to require me to do something inside of my personal property that in no way harms anyone else in this fine state we live in?



Much like parking meters constitutionality has been challenged... how can you charge us to park on streets we paid for?

I was going to comment on this last night. For starters I bet 90% of drivers here in Wa. state where their seat belt already, and you can get a ticket for it if you are pulled over and don't have it on. It has been that way for a while. Now the laws basically say that the cops can pull you over for not wearing your seat belt if they happen to notice. This means that the cops have another reason to pull you over and search your car or do whatever. The law gives them the advantage of pulling someone over and using the excuse of saying that you or your passengers did not have their seat belt on. I think people who don't wear their seat belt are just ******* stupid, but just because I wear my seatbelt and don't understand why they would not, does not give me the right to force people to do one thing over another based on my own opinion. I really have nothing against ticketing people for not wearing their seatbelt if they get pulled over, but pulling over people for not wearing their seat belt is not cool.

People do all kinds of crazy and stupid things, but just because I don't do it or like it, does not give me or anyone the right to tell them they can't do it because its just "not right."

Lets say you just had two beers with your buddies, and you have to drive home so that is all you have. So you get in your car and are on your way home and a cop who thinks your car looks suspicious (or is maybe just bored) pulls you over. You are like wtf? what did I do wrong? You have your seatbelt one, both headlights are working etc. After the cop checks your id and peeks in your car he says he pulled you over because you did not have your seatbelt on! But you say you did, and he says, "well it looked to my like you didn't." At this time he asks you if you have been drinking and puts you through the ropes. What if you blow a .09 or .08 exactly, isn't that equivelent to about 1 beer in most people? Either way you are gonna get fucked unless you have a cool cop, but if that was the case you would not have gotten pulled over anyways.

Yes this is only the beginning, that is what bothers me the most. Whether or not you feel people should wear their seatbelts or not, this is something that should not be governed.... you can't govern morality.



Just like motorcycle helmets, I personally would not get on bike to go around the block without a helmet, infact I wouldn't even get on a bike without a full face, but in the same respect, if you are so inclicned to do so, then go right ahead, the only person it will harm is yourself.



It is unconstitutional to govern morality, not to mention, much like the issue isamu touched on it will be used to pull over anyone and everyone they feel needs to be pulled over. Also have you seen the millions of $$$'s they have dropped on this campaign? All that money spent on a victimless crime.... seems like it could have been spent better elsewhere.

I'm sorry to say it, but the government is within its rights with the seatbelt laws. I don't like the seatbelt laws and the helmet laws(long live ABATE!!)

The constitution delegates/guarantees certain rights to the states governments, one of these is the sovereign right to pass laws(which do not violate the constitution.) By the way, the Civil War was fought over states rights(the states lost big time.) The southern states thought that slavery(and all of its wrongs), and their regional economics were a states rights, all of this even before income tax.(now there is something worth fighting about.)

Driving a vehicle on state, federal and county roads is a privilege and unlike firearms ownership is not guaranteed under the constitition(sorry just stating the way its written in the laws.) Firearms ownership is guaranteed under the constitution and look at what they do with that by passing unconstitional laws!! If we don't like the seatbelt laws,we find out who our representatives are, email/write them everyday and if they don't listen, than at the next election you elect someone who will!

Its amazing what our governments do in the name of safety. I'm a Merchant Mariner. even though its been declared unconstitutional, I must(by federal law), give a urine sample anytime and any place the government wants it! The Clinton administration signed a treaty(in the name of safety,ISM Treaty) with the United Nations that makes US ships abide by their laws, while nations like China(who didn't sign the treaty), don't have to do anything. Haven't heard of this one have you, because this is costing everyone money(we have no merchant marine/ships any more and the next time you buy a foriegn car the price is just tacked on!)

Sorry to rant & rave, but my life is really governed by stupid laws. On the subject of seatbelts. Years ago I was an EMT, and I would much rather treat someone at an auto accident who was using a seatbelt than someone who wasn't(a lot less messy!) Usually without a seatbelt people hit their face somewhere and that gets real bloody. By the way, I ride bikes and I use leather pants and jacket(less road rash.)

I would think that the insurance companies also push for seat belt laws. They pay out alot of money when people get seriously injured and/or die. Something tells me that getting insurance company donations play more of a part in those laws than protecting us. I find it hard to believe that any of my representatives REALLY care about my well-being.

Quite possible, I'm surprised they haven't pushed to have it go on your driving record, then they could ding your insurance for it.



I definetely see what you are syaing wdw, I still think it's BS, but I see legalities. I to ride with riding gear, even in the dead of summer, but it's my choice and I think it should remain that way. Think people are crazy when I see them riding around with a "protest" helmet, but again that's their choice and I think it should stay that way.



I'll even go as far to say I see the cell phone issue, some states ban them without headsets... that can jeopordize the lives of others, so I can see there being an argument there, but seatbelts, helmets, what's next, by the time they get done we won't be able to scratch our nuts while driving... or have someone else scratch them for us https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...DIR#>/wink.png



Although I see the side of driving on state highways I've helped pay for being a privilage and obviously the reason behind why their is no argument to the illegalities where does it start and where does it end? No cars that are "capable" of exceeding the speedlimit will be allowed on public roadways? Guess I am driving my Jeep everyday when they pass that law LOL.

Victimless crimes, unfortunatly,will always be controversial because they usually involve limiting our personal freedom. Think about the drug laws in our country. The countless tens of billions of dollars spent to stop people from doing something they are going to do regardless of laws. I stopped doing drugs a long time ago because I got sick of all the B.S. that comes along with it. but I still drink alchohol- and if you remember, even that was illegal a little over a half a century ago.



As a side note- while I'm writing this there is a "buckle up" commercial on the radio- how is that for coincidence?



Here in Florida there has been a seatbelt law since before I even started to drive- I'm used to putting my seatbelt on- I don't go anywhere without putting it on, it has become such a habit. I see the validity of the law, Hell I even agree with it. But I have to challenge laws like it on basic principles. I can't help but think that the next law passed that "stretches" the freedoms given to us in the constitution may effect something I do like to do- For example- I smoke (and wish I could quit) lets say the gov finally decides that cigarettes need to be outlawed because of all the health problems they cause. At that point I would be no different from a pot smoker because then I would be buying quarter bags of tobacco from Martin Luther King blvd. and would have to learn to roll my own.



BTW- here in Daytona (I don't know if its a statewide law) bikers don't have to wear helmets. Which to me seems like ******* a two dollar ***** without a condom-DANGEROUS, but thats my opinion. But I respect their choice not to wear a helmet.

Yea statewide in FL, no helmet law, which tests the irony of the seatbelt law, but who knows. When I was in FL last July I even thought to myself as a guy screamed by me on a Busa, no helmet, shorts and flip flops "Man what a dipshit", but **** him, it's his right and I think it should be.



Like I say and pretty much everyone who's posted in this topic so far, whether or not you wear a seatbelt or don't isn't the point, the question at hand will be what "civil liberty" will they take away next?



No listening to the radio in your car because it distracts you? Well it almost makes as much sense as seat belt laws, at least you could loosley tie it to causing accidents.



It's scary to me that something like this gets passed and people don't give it a second thought, seems that entrapment laws are held up in court less and less these days and granted for the most part it only effects criminals, but that is for the "most part", sacrifice a few to get the majority, I don't quite think that is what it's all about. My views on entrapment would prolly piss most people off piss most people off.

Wow...All really good thoughts posted here.



I would agree with the majority. You know, alot of times, laws may seem like good ideas until one follows them through to their logical conclusions.



In Colorado, we've always had the seat belt laws, but as of recently, they have been really kicking a campaign hard, and I didn't know it was going on all over the country. We have those large digital signs all over the highways that say, "Click it, or ticket: Buckle up...It's the law".



I think perhaps the question isn't whether or not the government CAN pass such laws (because obviously, they did)...it's whether or not they SHOULD pass laws.



This goes back to the same issue that was rising about what...5 or 6 years or so ago...about higher taxes on cigarettes to discourage smoking? People griped, complained and threw fits because they cried, "What next? Fast food taxes? Food that's bad for you taxes?" etc...



Maybe the reason the cigarette taxes got such a high response is because it affects so many of those who are already spending a TON of money on their habit (this was not a dig at the smokers...I too, support Phillip Morris with my habit), whereas people allow this to bypass without a word because it doesn't (so they think) directly affect them and their income.



Too bad it only inches closer and closer to our personal lives being controlled by the machine...

I believe that they were trying to get a law passed that taxed "unhealthy" foods. Don't forget that they're also trying to push through laws that will make our televisions obsolete by making HDTV the standard.



Let's face it, all of these fines and/or taxes generate revenue. There are so many "emergency" laws that were passed and never repealed because the government didn't want to give up the revenue. When people control your money they can control you.

Oh I totally agree! In fact, I am somewhat surprised that other things have not been passed...i.e. pot. I mean, if the government made that legal, they would be banking on the money from taxes and such.



Of course, to answer my own question, I think when it comes to some things, they control more than we know they do...i.e. pot. It is my personal opinion that the government actually makes money on some illegal substances like pot. I mean, come on...With all the technological crap and intelligence they've got going on, do you not think they could pretty much abolish this "war on drugs"? I think they don't and it will always be a "problem" because the government controlls some of the imported drugs and probably does its own fair share of growing, and turns around and sells it on the street and banks on that. Plus, soccer moms will always approve the funding of anti-drug campaigns to keep their babies "safe"...More $$ the gov't. receives.



Sorry...that was a little off topic, but somewhat pertinent to the controlling of our $$/lives....

Oh I totally agree! In fact, I am somewhat surprised that other things have not been passed...i.e. pot. I mean, if the government made that legal, they would be banking on the money from taxes and such.



Of course, to answer my own question, I think when it comes to some things, they control more than we know they do...i.e. pot. It is my personal opinion that the government actually makes money on some illegal substances like pot. I mean, come on...With all the technological crap and intelligence they've got going on, do you not think they could pretty much abolish this "war on drugs"? I think they don't and it will always be a "problem" because the government controlls some of the imported drugs and probably does its own fair share of growing, and turns around and sells it on the street and banks on that. Plus, soccer moms will always approve the funding of anti-drug campaigns to keep their babies "safe"...More $$ the gov't. receives.



Sorry...that was a little off topic, but somewhat pertinent to the controlling of our $$/lives....[/quote]

I don't know if the laws are different now, but it used to be that pot-related offenses were punished with much stiffer penalties than cocaine, etc. They've made steroids SO illegal, but they're present in just about every sport in the world. That's why the Olympics' drug testing is such a scam. One of the top bodybuilders in the world is a cop. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Arnold Palmer is wearing testosterone patches. https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...1047683785.gif Have we gone off topic enough yet? https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...>/rolleyes.gif

Nope, not off the topic yet! I've been bitching about this since they started playing the radio adds for it. I feel the Gov. has no right to tell us to wear our seatbelts, untill they ban everything else in the country that is bad for us, or might harm us. I just don't get it, I can't kill myself quickly by being ejected from a car, but I can kill myself slowly with cigarettes. WTF is up with that? Same with alcohol. How many people have been killed because they were hit by someone who was ejected from a car. NONE!

As far as them jacking up the prices of cigarettes, that really pissed me off, I'm a smoker. They said it was to deture underage people from smoking. Like that is gonna work! What do you think is a bigger problem with minors, drinking or smoking cigarettes? Of course, drinking. You don't see them jacking up the price of alcohol to stop underage drinking. The government makes SO much money off of cigarettes, they will never ban them.

If they did that it would kill the cotton and timber industry, because hemp can replace both those products. And, once again, the government makes tons of $$ off of those products, so they would never replace them.



Well I think my post is long enough, I'm going to go smoke a big fat bong load, then a cigarette.



Oh yeah, I always wear my seatbelt when I'm in a car, I just don't feel right without it.

ok I didn't read it all cause too many posts https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...IR#>/smile.png but I say they should be able to make people, because everytime someone is hurt it comes out of all car owners pockets to pay for it. if there were no injurys or crashes then insurance would be free. but the more money spent on repairs and hospital bills means higher insurance for everyone else.



a few years ago they made a law in BC that you must wear a helmet while on a normal bike. (not motor one) that is a law would be be better fit to your fight. cause if you crash you pay...

They have that law here in Washington too. But I don't care about that law because I can't remember the last time I rode a bike.

They have that law here in Washington too. But I don't care about that law because I can't remember the last time I rode a bike.[/quote]

Maybe we could put a 1 rotor motor on a bike.

Sounds like you are getting our wonderful OREGON laws up there. First was the SEATBELTS, the HELMETS (for Motorcycles & Bicycles). I totally agree that as long as you aren't endangering anyone... the State shouldn't tell you what to do.



This is coming from the insurance companies.

Next will be helmets in the car! Or passing a law not allowing you to sue if you are injuired.



Insurance companies are huge cash cows... Sure they cryed with the rest of us on 9/11... but it wasn't for the tragedy, if was for their losses.



**** Em!

https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...DIR#>/moon.gif

I think it is kind of humorous, that you don't have to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, but everyone riding a bicycle is required to have a helmet on, hmm, lets see, 10 mph + no helmet = "booboo" 110 mph + no helmet = "red Jell-O" which one makes more sense to prevent?

then again, I won't throw my leg over without my full face flat track helmet on, another habit, like the seatbelts, mmm, can't wait till I get my 4 point harnesses, I look at it as a way for my car to hug me back https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...#>/biggrin.png

I drove to Tacoma(Wa.) from my home today, which is about 15 miles. In that time I saw about 30 state police cars(thats about two to the mile.) When I got to Tacoma I read the Tacoma newspaper and found out why we have the new push for seatbelts, more state police on the road and more speed traps. It seems that Chairman Locke(our governer here in washington),has just hired a new head of the state police.

The new top cop states that he is going to clean the roads of this state up(this jerk is from New Orleans of all places.) He has so many state police cars out that he is having to get the police office types(who haven't been on patrol in years!), to man cars. This probible makes them real happy and they take it out on the motoring public.

His last great idea was that he had a cop for every two miles of I-5 from the Canadian border to Oregon.(just makes you want to vote for Chairman Locke again next election!) The first thing Locke did after being elected governor was to go to China(at our expense!), we would have been better off if he would have stayed there!

On the post about pot and other drugs. If the DEA and the government stops or makes drugs legal, there would be no more DEA, many government attornys would be out of work and they would have to stop building prisons! Why a whole government growth industry would be out of work. I'm 57 years old and can remember when some of the drugs you can now be locked away for were legal. Because I work in the transportation industry, I have to pee in a bottle anytime the government says so, and what I do on my own time(not at work) is regulated by the government. When I started in the industry there was no pee test and there was no problem. Now there is a whole growth industry built around this one subject. I firmly believe in seat belts, motorcycle helmets and people shouldn't fly airplanes or pilot ships while smoking pot, but what ever happened to "Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of Happyness."

You can lay a lot of the blame on the big insurance companies for a lot of our laws. (big money given to congressmen doesn't talk, it screams.) Someday they will pass so many laws that there will be no more black and white, just different shades of gray!

I crash in anything here I pay, we don't have a goverment paid healthcare system here and it's America so I can pick any law to fight I choose. https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...DIR#>/wink.png LOL

Locke annoys me, the guy has been in office for how long? and he is so useless the only things I have heard is he's had a kid or two, went to china on our dime and has bats in the governers mansion.



But in the state staying below the radar is enough to get you re-elected again.

I honestly don't know how Locke got re-elected either. I thought for sure he was out in the last election. I am not that much into politics but isn't our state govt. constantly unable to agree on anything, getting nothing done in the process? Isn't our state in a billion dollar debt right now, reqardless of the fact we have some of the highest gas, tobacco, sales (for those states who have it I guess), and property taxes? Hasn't Gov. Locke been lobbying for higher gas taxes, toll bridges and budget cuts to try and get the state out of this debt? I believe now they have been talking about closing all the parks to try and save money. The only reason they want to close the parks is to piss people off and get their attention. Keeping the parks open will be used as a ploy to persuade people to pay more tax at the pump or register because hey, everybody loves parks right? Unfortunately all of the new tax money will be used elswhere, the parks will remain open only on a temporary bases (because the gov. knows this is a good way to save money) and the user fee will double from what it is now. So basically it will reel you right in to getting fucked in the ass for a long time.

You know whenever I here about this light rail idea on television or in the paper I just get confused. If I am correct didn't they ok the idea of building a billion dollar light rail system in Pierce and King county but don't have a plan yet? Also aren't they still looking at expanding the monorail even though they are going to build a completely separate light rail system? Why don't they fork out the money for engineers who have experience with rail systems such as from Japan, and have them create a rail system that will not be outdated by the time its built?

Gosh, I didn't even comment on the seatbelts :unsure:

I work for the state and see rampent waste all of the time! It makes me sick to see how the tax dollars are wasted. Chairman Locke is going to try to shove this useless gas tax up our collective kazoos one way or another.

The department I work for, in 1978 had 56 people in the office, they now have over 300 with just about the same work load there was in 1978!

As to the light rail. When you have King county's tax to the max Ron Sims in charge you know the tax payers are going to get a Fu*king. Bangkok, Thailand(which is a third world country), has a nice, new monorail system. Looks like a third world city is better than Seattle(home to world leader Microsoft and all the other yuppy companies!)

By the way, in Bangkok, if you ride a motorcycle you have to use a helmet(if you don't, and you get pulled over, you just give the cop some money. No attorney,judge, court or insurance company involved. Who's system is better!) If you get stopped for speeding(almost never because people drive CRAZY over there!!), or you have an accident you just hand out money on the spot(the worse the crime the more money and people you have to pay) Also a lot of business deals are done on just your word. If your word is no good, you could be dead!(all without the use of attorneys, who's system is better!)

On the subject of attorneys. I was on a beach in Thailand talking to about ten college students, and I asked them what they were going to become. None of them said attorney. I asked them why none were going to be lawyers because in america almost 50% of them would have said lawyer. They said thay didn't want to be an attorney because in Thailand they shoot attorneys.(they were not kidding!)

Do you know what an attorney and a ***** have in common? They are the scum of the earth until you really need one!