27 thoughts on “Butt out.

  1. That is one of the laws that bother me the most. Usually a law is for the protection of others against your own dumb ass. But seat belts only affect you. I’m sure there are highly unlikely scenarios, like flying out of your car and hitting an innocent pedestrian. Don’t think that is why the bill is getting pushed though.

  2. Right indeed. This law has nothing to do with protecting individuals (“it’s for your own good”), and everything to do with revenue from tickets. Not only that, but it will apparently increase some sort of federal funding for the state.

  3. I hate these kind of laws.They make good points about saving millions in medical and insurance costs, but the law is the wrong way to go about it..You shouldn’t get a ticket for no wearing a belt, but I do think if you wreck without a seatbelt on, you should be solely responsible for your injuries, no insurance claims, no government medical care, nothing but what you can pay yourself. (Unless the insurance companies want to include a “no seatbelt” option that will raise the person’s insurance who wants to push their luck, but doesn’t affect my premiums.)

  4. I live in NJ and we’ve had the seatbelt law for a while right now. I also live very close to NYC and you can’t smokie cigarettes in the bars in Manhattan anymore. Oh, they also just put the no talking on cell phones while driving law in effect. Which I don’t disagree with because people suck at driving when their not talking on their cell phones. GAH!

  5. I am fine with all of those laws except for the seatbelt one. Every other law effects more than just yourself. Especially smoking. Not wearing a seatbelt wont make me drive any worse like fumbling with a cell phone would. Although I agree with Tyson on the opinion that a hands free setup wouldn’t decrease your ability to drive. Would be like having a conversation with a passenger.

  6. according to a lot of research, a hands free setup decreases your ability to drive. people argue that its no different than talking to someone sitting in the passenger seat, but research has demonstrated otherwise (sorry, don’t have any links right now). how much of a difference it makes is another matter, though. overall though, laws requiring the use of a handsfree device (like in several european countries) make a lot of sense.mandatory seatbelt usage, however, makes a lot of sense, and tyson pointed out exactly why. i wouldn’t want to pay higher insurance premiums just so that morons like dennis can drive without their seatbelts, nor do i want to pay any part of their medical bills through taxes. seatbelts aren’t uncomfortable. there’s no reason not to wear them.

  7. “so that morons like dennis can drive without their seatbelts?”Until you can qualify that phrase with some sort of reasoning, there’s no use in refuting anything else in your comment, as it’s clear that you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.

  8. okay, so lets say you do wear your seatbelt… why do you wanna pay higher insurance rates and taxes so that others can drive without their seatbelts?

  9. First of all, I don’t believe for a second that the government will lower taxes in general just because they have extra income from seatbelt violations.I also know for a fact that my insurance rates won’t go down–insurance companies themselves are a racket. The health insurance company that I had last year (Intermountain Health Care) started some sort of binding arbitration agreement that had to be signed in order for the patient to be treated for any health problem, and their reasoning was that it would lower healthcare costs by reducing malpractice insurance costs, etc. Well, at the exact moment the agreement went into effect, my premiums went from around $40 per paycheck to over $60 per paycheck. If that’s how they pass the savings on to their customers, I can’t wait until the mandatory seatbelt law goes into effect. Auto insurance companies are no better–just look at the whole scheme of having to pay for liability insurance on however many vehicles you own, despite only being able to drive one at a time. If an insurance company extorts money out of its customers that way, do you think they’d be willing to lower premiums due to more strict seatbelt laws?Also, at what point does the government prying into my business stop? Will they stop kids from climbing trees? After all, the child could get hurt and cause medical insurance premiums to go up for the rest of us. There are any number of ways that the government could restrict our freedoms in order to lower taxes, lower the cost of insurance, etc., but at which point does it become too much?

  10. maybe your particular insurance company won’t immediately lower its rates as a direct result. but when expenses go down and income stays the same, profit margins obviously go up… in a competitive market, some company is going to take advantage of that and offer lower rates.. and as a result, everyone will have to. if you had the seatbelt law ages ago, insurance rates wouldn’t have risen to what they are now. its not complicated economics.and maybe you’re right about taxes not being lowered, but when medical expenses are down, and revenues from seatbelt violations are up (though i’m sure that’s not a significant income), there will be tax dollars to be spent elsewhere. like maybe the road in front of your house there.if you and the rest of america had the ability to actually think about this stuff in a logical way, not just looking at the immediate and direct benefits to you, you’d probably be a lot better off. you probably wouldn’t be bankrupt, and your country wouldn’t be running on ridiculous deficits.

  11. Maybe in whatever country you live in, insurance companies and the government can be trusted, but I certainly can’t bring myself to trust them here. I suppose it’s a matter of opinion, but we probably won’t find out the truth this year–the bill may be stalled in the house for now. Also, none of this answers the question: how much government interference is too much?

  12. i don’t see it as a matter of trust… at least with insurance, it’s a matter of competition (or if you prefer, a matter of wealth and greed). either way, it can’t hurt you.

  13. Sure, this one tiny little step can’t hurt me. And the next time the government passes a law limiting my freedom, such as the aforementioned teeth-brushing, what will it hurt? It’s only one tiny little law. The next thing you know, we’ll all look the same, dress the same, act in the same manner, and all non-conformists will be thrown in jail.I can’t be too far off in my reasoning, since the Utah House tabled the bill yesterday afternoon. “‘I think this bill is just too much government interference in our lives. Where does this stop?Rep. Bradley Johnson, R-Aurora, said.” It’s not often you hear the Utah Legislature turning down free federal money and increased state revenues, but that’s exactly what they’re doing, and for good reason.

  14. I also wear my seat belt at all times for my own personal safety. But my own personal safety should be up to me. And as far as your “simple economics” goes, according to your theory insurance should only cost a nickel. If the insurance companies would actually try and constantly give a better deal then the other, they would have whittled each other down to nothing. Kind of an exaggerated statement, but the point being the insurance companies have had plenty of other opportunities to lower their rates. This isn’t the first time driving laws have been adjusted or added, and yet, rates continued to go up.

  15. I read and understood your comment. My retort was an exaggeration, maybe you missed that. You were saying that the insurance companies would use this extra safety as a way to offer competitively lower prices as their costs will theoretically decrease. I disagree as there have been many other opportunities for them to do this and they have yet to. Not sure what realm of existence you exist in, but here insurance companies aren’t exactly itching for an excuse to lower their rates.

  16. All these insurance company issues aside, I agree with Dennis regarding control and privacy issues. I think this seat belt law isn’t itself a horrible idea, but it sets a bad precedent and starts to open ourselves to more and more government control. Laws should stick to protecting others from your decisions and not making sure you make the best decisions for yourself.

  17. I think petey boy is just trolling now…I can already guess that his argument will be that all the advances in automobile safety–and any other thing that would normally cause insurance costs to go down–have only prevented costs from being higher than they currently are.And of course, there hasn’t been any response to the argument about the gradual erosion of rights that will come as a result of limiting our ability to choose whether to wear a seatbelt. If we all sit back and say nothing about seatbelt laws, a government-mandated meal plan will be next, along with laws governing grooming habits, exercise, and anything else they can come up with in order to save us all from ourselves.

  18. I’ve always lived in states that have seat-belt laws, and it doesn’t seem as intrusive as telling someone to eat certain things or whatnot. It seems to be more along the lines of using your cell phone while driving. Driving is a pretty hazardous activity and I would guess they are only trying to help reduce some of the injuries as best they can by using a simple thing. The objective of the gov’t seems like it would be more to get people aware and in the habit of using a device that does do a lot of good in an accident. Although I also know someone who could have lived if she’d worn a seat-belt, so maybe I have a different view because of that. And I’d also like to add, you still have the right to not wear your seatbelt. You just might get an add-on to your ticket if you get pulled for something else. I don’t know anyone who was actually chased down because their belt was a’flapping.

  19. more…I guess I can see how you wouldn’t want to be forced into doing something. But it isn’t exactly like brushing your teeth or other mundane tasks. They are just trying to prevent you being scraped off your windshield. It’s like “if you walk in this minefield, you can be fined or jailed” because they don’t want you to be blown up.

  20. I’m not so naive as to fall for the lawmakers’ feigned interest in my well-being. This bill was written for the sole purpose of boosting the state’s revenue. By Utah law, a police officer would be able to pull you over for merely a “reasonable suspicion” that you’re not wearing a seatbelt. It would basically give them an excuse to pull anybody over at any time, which would undoubtedly lead to even more infringements upon your personal freedoms.

  21. Most states probably don’t handle their seat belt laws like they do here. I can’t say that for sure as I haven’t lived in lots of other states. But I know many personally that were pulled over because of that reasonable suspicion that they weren’t wearing a seat belt. And Dennis is right about their intentions. I have assisted half a dozen local Criminal Justice instructors, who still work in the field, for the past 4 years and that is exactly what they say. They love more reasons to pull people over because it gives them a better chance to find drugs and what not. Which doesn’t sound like a bad reason at all, but it does show they are not really interested in our safety. I never once heard them comment on that. I personally just hate any law that tries to protect me from myself. I wear a seat belt and am not worried about the tickets I’m about to get. I am against laws like this for principal.

  22. I think if you don’t want to go to a bar and put up with smoke..don’t. but that is what the bar is for..drink and smoke. The Seat belt law should be required for youngersts..no ifs ands or buts. but us adults should have a say whether we want to wear one or not. The Cell phone..I agree with. I hate it when people are talking on the phone while driving.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.