Constitutionality of Seat Belt Laws
05-21-2002, 09:16 AM
#1
Administrator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 24,416
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?
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?
05-21-2002, 10:18 AM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Marysville WA.
Posts: 1,847
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.
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.
05-21-2002, 10:30 AM
#3
Administrator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 24,416
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 $$$'s they have dropped on this campaign? All that money spent on a victimless crime.... seems like it could have been spent better elsewhere.
Just like motorcycle helmets, I personally would not get on bike to go around the block without a helmet, infact I wouldn't even get on a bike without a full face, but in the same respect, if you are so inclicned to do so, then go right ahead, the only person it will harm is yourself.
It is unconstitutional to govern morality, not to mention, much like the issue isamu touched on it will be used to pull over anyone and everyone they feel needs to be pulled over. Also have you seen the millions of $$$'s they have dropped on this campaign? All that money spent on a victimless crime.... seems like it could have been spent better elsewhere.
05-21-2002, 10:52 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 184
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.)
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.)
05-21-2002, 11:25 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 7,316
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.
05-21-2002, 11:39 AM
#6
Administrator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 24,416
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
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.
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
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.
05-21-2002, 11:47 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by phinsup' date='May 21 2002, 06:30 PM
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.
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.
05-21-2002, 12:10 PM
#8
Administrator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 24,416
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 **** most people off **** most people off.
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 **** most people off **** most people off.
05-21-2002, 01:26 PM
#9
Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 52
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 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...
05-21-2002, 01:34 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 7,316
Originally Posted by Renesis' date='May 21 2002, 03:26 PM
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 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...
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.