my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Why do you wear a seat belt, and do you require your passengers to do the same? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Why do you wear a seat belt, and do you require your passengers to do the same? Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-23-2003 05:46 PM                     Steve said in a different topic: quote: In the car...the interpretation that driving is a privilege was a misinterpretation of the intent of this country from the get-go...it should have always been interpreted as a right. I highly and totally disagree. Driving a motor vehicle has always been a privilage, and NOT a right. Show me in any State Constitution where is says "it is a right." You will not find it. It has never been a "right", nor will it ever be considered a right. Why do I wear seat belts? 1. It is for the safety of others that could be hurt in event of an accident. What I mean by that is simple: If I am sideswiped or run off the road by someone crossing the center line, I would rather devote my time to try to safely stop or control my vehicle rather than to fight to stay in my seat and wrestle with the control of the vehicle at the same time. I don't want to run the risk of bouncing off the guard rail or out of a ditch, cross the center line and plow head on into an oncoming vehicle and kill or seriously injure a driver and/or his family. 2. While trying to bring my vehicle under control, I do not want the passengers flying about in the car or van and land in my lap. 3. It is a law I can live with. 4. I am too cheap to fork over an $86.00 fine. I have more important things to waste my money on. I have never heard of professional drivers on a race track (such as Indy "500", Nascar, or stock car races) driving their vehickes without being "strapped in." This is for the safety of themselves, and safety of other drivers around them. You do as you please, folks. If you ride with me, you wear a seat belt. If not, you have three options: 1. Hitchhike. 2. Ride with someone else. 3. Drive your own car. If someone I ride with asks me to wear the seat belt, I WILL wear it, with no questions asked. As a matter of fact, I do it anyway so they won't have to ask. Seat belt requirements I think, are required for the safety of others....not just the driver.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-23-2003 05:50 PM                        Paul - Agreed on all counts. I have a buddy who is an EMT/paramedic, and I've heard enough horror stories from him that I've come to believe that anyone who refuses to wear a belt because "I'll be safer if I get thrown from the car" is an idiot.  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-23-2003 06:42 PM                     Thanks, Mike. If one was truly concerned about the health, safety and welfare of that person sitting along side of you or in the back seat of the car, the driver would wear his/her seat belt and require his/her passenger(s) to do the same. And, if that same driver has the same concern for the other person and his/her family in another vehicle in event of an accident, the option is obvious...wear the seatbelt.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-23-2003 07:08 PM                  Paul, you are totally mixing up two completely different issues. I don't think anyone would disagree that seatbelts are safer. The issue Steve and I are pointing out is the government telling us what we should be doing and getting into our private lives and responsibilities. I'm sure many of us have had some loved-one, friend, or know of someone horrendously injured or killed during an irresponsible act, but that is no reason that ALL citizens should be burdened with the costs...or the guilt. To me, that's a lame reason for justification that it's a "public safety" issue. It is a personal accountability issue. I completely agree with Steve…and I do think driving is a right. So, by the same token, show me a State's constitution that says it's a "privilege"... It's too bad you elected to start a separate thread for this subject as it breaks-up the continuity of the chain of posts in the other thread. (All threads seem to wonder from their original topics…I like that) >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-23-2003 07:19 PM                     The government takes it upon themselves to do it for us because we won't take the responsibility on by ourselves. Just like the rating systems in our industry. It has been said by the government "If you don't, we will." Obviously, it is a very fine line between rights and privileges. I have yet to find a hard core definition on the difference between rights and privileges. So I would have to presume that if it is not guarenteed in writing, then it must be a privilege. And, yes...if the rights are not protected, we will lose them. A person convicted of a felony can lose some of his/her rights. Some of those rights include owning a fire arm, and not being able to own real estate. They can lose their right to vote as well, depending on how severe the felony is. Just like labor laws...some states have it written in their constitutions that is a "right" to work, and in states, it is not written that way. As an example, (as far as I know,) there is nothing in Washington State's Constitution that guarentees a person a "right" to work. Whatever you want to think, whether it be a right or privilage, if the people do not protect it, it can be vary easily lost. And protecting it involves obeying the law. Laws were written because someone screwed up. Laws are guide lines. Laws are devices that can be used to administer punishment for those who violate them. Laws are written to protect the citizens.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-23-2003 08:30 PM                     Some day I'm going to put a sticker on the dashboard of my car, right in front of the passenger: Sit down, strap in, hang on and shut up! Seriously, now, folks... One of the benefits from my employer is a pre-paid life insurance policy. $10,000 AD & D. Double indemnity if it happens at work or to/from work. Add on another $5,000 if it happens in a car while wearing a seatbelt. (You can purchase more coverage if you want but this is the free part payed by the company.) Frankly, I think the best way to increase seatbelt usage is to pass a law that says insurance companies don't have to pay if the driver of the car wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Take the $15,000 free insurance money people could get if they had an accident and couple it with the LOSS of money people would incur if they weren't wearing a belt and you can easily guess whether or not people would wear their seatbelts all of the time!  |  IP: Logged Dave Macaulay Film God Posts: 2321 From: Toronto, Canada Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-23-2003 10:51 PM                     I wear seat belts because that's the law. Adult passengers in the car can do as they please within reason, minors have to wear them (it's my legal responsibility then). Philosophically I'm undecided. The principle of dictating "safety" appalls me, and some studies have shown that drivers just drive crazier when surrounded by protective devices. Decent driver training plus diligent enforcement and truly deterrent penalties for unsafe driving makes more sense to me. Having police waste time writing seatbelt tickets, while suicidal cowboys going 100mph+ weaving through highway traffic can be seen any day around here, seems entirely mental to me.  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-23-2003 11:17 PM                     Dave said: quote: Having police waste time writing seat belt tickets, while suicidal cowboys going 100mph+ weaving through highway traffic can be seen any day around here, seems entirely mental to me. Dave, I have to agree with that. Anyway, the WSP was using that as a tool to find 'bigger and better" things. And, they usually do. As you know, the Interstate 5 Corrodore is a big drug run from Canada to Mexico which has to be stopped. Some counties have reverted back to the old law when it was a secondary offense. The WSP will still enforce it, but as I have read, they will probably stop a person for other infractions such as weaving, defective equipment, etc. It was not overturned because it was unconstitutional...it was overturned because the new law was poorly written as to where it created misunderstanding for the idiots. The WSP will still continue to enforce the law because the overturning has not yet been finalized in higher courts.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-23-2003 11:20 PM                     Paul, If you think the only rights you have are those that are written, then you don't understand the constitution of this country. I wonder if there has been a Supreme court case on the right to drive. As to the government deciding to step in in the case of seatbelts or movie ratings...the government has no rights...rights are reserved exclusively for the citizens...the government only has powers that the citizenship so grants to the government and it has never been the design of the USA system to have the government play "parents." It is the parent's job to play parent. Generally speaking, whenever the government gets involved, what you get is a hugely inefficient entity that does a poor job at a high price at whatever it is trying to do. That being said, there are some areas that only the government can be effective. A cases in point...the military, police and courts and currancy. In money re-distribution, they are not so good in. The government has absolutely no business inside your car or other property. In the case of seat belts...the concept of "prior restraint" has been tested by the supreme court and prior restraint is unconstitutional and I don't know how to better define prior restraint than with a seat belt. Good intentions aside, seatbelt as with many laws...are about revenue enhancement and about control...the government insatiable desire for control. Steve  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-23-2003 11:30 PM                     I think it is more of a common sense issue, personally. I read the Constitution of several states as well as the United States, and I think they were well written. I have not detected we have lost any of our rights. Our rights from "The Law Of The Land" (Bill Of Rights) are irrevocable unless we really screw up. Priviliges can be "yanked" at any time with due cause. As far as the "right to drive" issue is concerned, I would not want to be anywhere in the area of a driver if I knew the driver had some physical disability where the driver was basically a "vegetable" and had no control of his extremities. Would you? Therefore, his/her driving privilege is revoked for the safety of others. What's wrong with that? That is done in every state of the union, and probable every country of the world. I am sure you have said to yourself, "That person should not be driving. He/she is a menace to everything around them." It's a privilege....and if a person cannot handle or abuse the the privilege, it will be revoked until such a time as where they can demonstrate they can have it reinstated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I stand firm.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-23-2003 11:55 PM                     Paul, It is like you never read what I have written...just as guns (a well publized 2nd admendment right) can be taken away from criminals...so too could cars from those that can not handle them. Due process is always the way society can impose on ones rights. The difference is the position one comes from and the money the government can get out of it. With the license treated as a priviledge, it can be leveraged against things that have nothing to do with driving or it can be used to pressure a citizen to give up their rights. Without it being rightfully seen as a right, one is not guaranteed due-process...one of those constitutional protections, ya know. Steve  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-24-2003 12:00 AM                     Steve, although I highly respect your opinion, I still stand firm. That's one of the many things this country of ours is all about.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-24-2003 09:57 AM                     If it is a right then there should be no road tests or exams as a right cannot be taken away because of a diability or an inepness. Driving is a priviledge we live in a society that is too caught up in the concept of my rights and everyone else  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-24-2003 11:45 AM                     This was probably posted somewhere in FT as a joke. The more I read it, the less of a joke it becomes. It is true. The Bill of Common Sense Rights ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden delusional and other liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights. ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything. ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the World is full of idiots, and probably always will be. ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy. ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes. ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in health care. ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair. ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure. ARTICLE VII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat. ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.  |  IP: Logged John Spooner Expert Film Handler Posts: 186 From: South Australia, Australia Registered: Jan 2003 posted 05-24-2003 11:57 AM                     Dear Gordon. You sum it up exactly, especially your first sentence. I can't comment on the US situation seeing I live in Australia, but here in South Australia our once respected Police have been turned into revenue raising parasites by inept and morally bankrupt greedy pollies. In fact, the only section of the SA Police which receives adequate funding is speed detection! Other sections are underfunded or understaffed, facts regularly noted by the press. When it is a regular thing to see 3 or more speed cameras hiding in the bushes in a 5 Km stretch of perfectly safe road and read reports in the press of Police taking 3 hours to attend a serious event or emergency because of depleted resources or personnel, you begin to query where the priorities of our elected pollies really lie. John Spooner.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.