Idea about "click it or ticket" (mandatory seat belt laws)

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ming


I would have no problem with that as long as people that drink, do drugs, are overweight, drive without seat belts, drive too fast, have dangerous hobbies, stay out in the sun too long with out protection, or those that engage in any other activities that are risky pay through the nose for healthcare as well.

Who's left?

(BTW I'm guessing that's what you were trying to say).

[Ming]

Originally posted by Dauphin
(BTW I'm guessing that's what you were trying to say).

Exactly

I see smokers as being the group picked on here, while other groups aren't. We are humans, we make choices not based solely on our health. I have no problem with paying up for my CHOICE... just as long as other people that make bad choices have to do the same.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Sikander

Yet you ride a motorcycle?

Not at the moment but I will again in the future. I was careful to take proper training and learn how to ride safely. When I do ride I wear a crash helmet and motorcycle clothing, not just a t-shirt and trainers.

The only inherently unsafe thing about motorcycles is the nut that holds the handlebars.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Ming


I would have no problem with that as long as people that drink, do drugs, are overweight, drive without seat belts, drive too fast, have dangerous hobbies, stay out in the sun too long with out protection, or those that engage in any other activities that are risky pay through the nose for healthcare as well.

Seeing as I do none of the above in excess...

[Ming]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Seeing as I do none of the above in excess...

Good for you... and I agree that you shouldn't have to pay extra for bad choices of others (which you currently are)

I just hate hearing a lecture from some guy who is stuffing his face full of fast food that I should pay extra because I smoke and that he shouldn't

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Actually, here's an idea.

As we all know from watching things like Columbo and Murder, She Wrote, your life insurance won't pay out if your death is ruled a suicide.

So, make the same thing true if you die in an auto accident and it can be determined that you weren't wearing a seat belt; and, in case you live, let's have the failure to wear a seat belt void your medical insurance, too.

Actually in non-fatal accidents, a driver NOT AT FAULT could have their damage award for personal injury reduced drastically by not wearing a seatbelt. A person not wearing a seatbelt is considered to be contributory negligent and I have seen court awards reduced by 20 to 50%. The judges state it explicitly " well your injuries are worth 100K but I am awarding you 65K"

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ming

I just hate hearing a lecture from some guy who is stuffing his face full of fast food that I should pay extra because I smoke

You really should quit

I hear that there is evidence that it is harmful or something

[Flubber]

On smoking generally, we have bans here (not in bars) and I don't say that I personally object since I am a non-smoker but Ming has a point about the principle of the thing. My utopia would be a situation where there were adequate numbers of both smoking and non-smoking bars so a customer could decide. Driven by free choice of the market .. .

I think things have turned to the point that non-smoking establishments would compete quite well. I think the bars fear in a complete ban situation is that it really hurts with some of their clientele. Apparently a lot of heavy drinkers are also heavy smokers and might attend at a bar 7 days a week. To lose that customer and get me as a customer (even with 10 more like me) is still a losing proposition

[Flubber]

Seat belts-- we have had those laws for a long time and to me its a no-brainer-- its a simple safety precaution that can save your life or prevent debilitating injury.

Even where there is no law, like bicycycle helmets, most clubs have helmet rules. One club had it in their FAQ as to why they had a helmet rule-- " because no other club memember should have to scrape your brains off the road"

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Sava


yes my entire knowledge of modern medicine comes from ER and House episodes

aside from the DNR and my folks knowing my wishes there aren't really any other things I can do legally are there? I mean, if there's a car accident and I'm in it, even a big sign that says "LET ME DIE" isn't going to stop people is it?

didn't think so

Exactly my point, Sava.

You'd use up all those medical resources. Prevented simply by wearing a seat belt. And you won't do it? Pathetic.



Now everyone knows we have butted heads more than once. But this is me as a doctor, okay, and not as a Polytubbie:

SEE YOUR DOCTOR. Now.

I don't want to hear excuses or complaints, like "medication doesn't work," or anything else. You have a serious, serious, deadly disease, and you need to see a doctor to get help.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Ming


Exactly

I see smokers as being the group picked on here, while other groups aren't. We are humans, we make choices not based solely on our health. I have no problem with paying up for my CHOICE... just as long as other people that make bad choices have to do the same.

To be fair, Ming, the difference with smokers is that they directly impact the health of those around them. Overeaters, drinkers, etc., do not.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Guynemer


To be fair, Ming, the difference with smokers is that they directly impact the health of those around them. Overeaters, drinkers, etc., do not.

but it's not as if they are being forced to be there... nobody is forcing non-smokers to be in the presence of smokers.

You have a choice. Don't go to a resturaunt that has smoking if you don't want to be around smoking.

Don't use the government to legislate your tastes and force it down everyones' throats.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Guynemer
To be fair, Ming, the difference with smokers is that they directly impact the health of those around them. Overeaters, drinkers, etc., do not.

So does driving a car... walking down the street in downtown Chicago can be as bad if not worse than second hand smoke... and you have less choice about walking down the street, then make a DECISION to go into a bar where people are smoking. Should we outlaw cars as well? Oh that's right, it's easier to just pick on smokers

I'm not advocating that people should be allowed to smoke where ever they want. I like the restrictions put in place in publicly owned places. But a businessman should have the right to make his own decision, just like the patrons can decide whether they want to enter such establishments. Choices on BOTH SIDES.

[Dauphin]

Some choices are Hobson's choices.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Personally, I have never agreed with the seatbelt law. I have always been of the mind "Fine. Don't wear your seatbelt, dumbass. Your choice." However, I guess I have never really thought of the examples that Che gave (the human missle deal), but that might be because I have never seen a human missle actually hit anything (they are soooo difficult to aim).

I've seen it happen once, as well as the loss of control once. First time we saw someone get hit from behind at full speed while they were stopped at a toll both. The person inside bounced up, hit the top of their car and then went into the back seat, while their car just stated rolling away.

In another accident, in which I was a participant, the dude next to me hit me then swerved away and into a lamp post. Neither the driver nor the passanger was wearing a seat belt, and the passanger ended up in the driver's lap with serious injuries. The driver wasn't so badly hurt. The car was totaled.

To all the "personal freedom" dorks, you do not have a "right" to use the roads. You are awarded a priveledge to use them, contingent on driving as safely as possible, and that priveledge can be revoked.

I suspect, however, the easiest way to insure that people wear their seat belts is to allow insurance companies to refuse payment to those who aren't wearing them at the time of the accident.