OT: for people over 25 years old

See, this is exactly what I don't get. If you do it voluntarily, how is the government "interfering in your life"? Now, the idiots who *don't* want to wear a seatbelt because "it's uncomfortable" or "it smushes my clothes" might have some reason to whine -- but we don't.

Celine

vj found this in rec.crafts.beads, from snipped-for-privacy@mindspring.com (Lee S. Billings) :

]>because, to me, the government dictating my live to that extent is ]>anathema. yes, if i want to give myself a better chance for survival, ]>i'll wear the belt. but the government has no place interfering in my ]>life to that extent. ] ]See, this is exactly what I don't get. If you do it voluntarily, how is the ]government "interfering in your life"? Now, the idiots who *don't* want to wear ]a seatbelt because "it's uncomfortable" or "it smushes my clothes" might have ]some reason to whine -- but we don't.

read it again. IF i want . . . the government does not belong in my life to that extent. nor does it need to monitor what i read. or what i do in my bedroom. or what i check out of the library. or any one of the other umpty-ump million decisions they don't need to be part of. period. and it doesn't matter whether i would do it anyway, or not. you can't legislate against stupidity any more than you can legislate morality. and you shouldn't even be trying. whether i come up against the law or not doesn't have anything to do with it. it shouldn't be there to begin with. it's just another step down a slippery slope.

----------- @vicki [SnuggleWench] (Books)

's not what you take, when you leave this world behind you;it's what you leave behind you when you go. -- Randy Travis

vj found this in rec.crafts.beads, from "Tink" :

]Maybe because red meat *can* be ]bad for us they will outlaw Prime Rib.

exactly! evidently, in Sweden, most of what we consider "junk food" IS illegal!

----------- @vicki [SnuggleWench] (Books)

's not what you take, when you leave this world behind you;it's what you leave behind you when you go. -- Randy Travis

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. The evidence is exceptionally clear; anyone who *doesn't* routinely wear their seatbeat is taking sufficient risk that I feel "idiot" is precisely the proper term.

Celine

to do with whether I wear one or not and it is still interference,<

I'm not going to give my opinion on seat belt laws and government interference, but I think the main purpose of legislating seat belt laws is to protect the children of parents who don't use them. If you are in a car without a seat belt and are in a terrible crash, your body becomes a projectile that can harm not only yourself, but everyone else in your car, and anyone else you might come in contact with while sailing through the air outside your vehicle.

I have worn mine (and make everyone riding in my car wear theirs) since being rear ended by a tow truck with such velocity that it caused my little car to sail through the air like a rocket, taking down a street sign and a tree and nearly landing in someone's home. During that accident my nephew (who was not wearing a seatbelt) became airborn inside the car and the only thing that kept him from going through the windshield was me grabbing onto him with both arms and holding on for dear life. Luckily we escaped with nothing more than cuts and bruises and a herniated disk, but neither of us could go anywhere near that street again for years and years and both still quake when we see a tow truck. Okay, that's the end of this public service announcement - back to your regular programming...

Carol in SLC eBay auctions:

(click on "view seller's other Items")

vj found this in rec.crafts.beads, from "Louis Cage" :

]This reminds me of something I read once & can't quote exactly, but here ]goes:

the text is here:

While racism and so forth are not exact equivalent to mandatory seat belt]laws, there is a similarity in the idea of what do the powers that be have]to take from you before you realize they are taking your freedom?] To me the freedom to choose whether to wear a seatbelt has little or]nothing to do with whether I wear one or not and it is still interference,] When some small child chokes to death on a bead and beads are outlawed,]will you understand then? we think MUCH alike. thank you, Louis!

----------- @vicki [SnuggleWench] (Books)

's not what you take, when you leave this world behind you;it's what you leave behind you when you go. -- Randy Travis

Here's the quote, and one of my personal favorites at that:

"When they came for the Communists, I did not stand up, because I was not a Communist. When they came for the Jews, I did not stand up, because I was not Jewish. When they came for the Catholics, I did not stand up, because I was not a Catholic. When they came for me, there was no one left to stand up."

Martin Niemoller

Deirdre

Holy Sh*t!

So glad you both survived. And I can understand the shakes. Completely.

Deirdre

Unless there's some medical reason for you not to wear your seatbelt, I would have to agree -- *on this particular issue*.

Celine

Something a helluva lot less trivial than this. "Taking my freedom" over a SEATBELT??? That's just bullshit.

Celine

Another consideration. What if I don't wear my seat-belt and I get into an accident of the sort where there is no major error or negligence on the part of anyone involved, but because I am not wearing my seatbelt, I wind up being seriously injured or killed.

What will the consequence of that ... emotionally, legally, financially, etc. ... be for the other driver? Do I want to wish that kind of experience on someone else?

Deirdre (whose worst nightmare isn't -be>>>

financial payback without legislative incentive. <

Agreed!

Carol in SLC eBay auctions:

(click on "view seller's other Items")

Actually, there were seatbelts in cars long before there was legislation. People wanted safety, and car manufacturers provided seat belts in order to sell cars.

Laura

vj found this in rec.crafts.beads, from Karin Cernik :

]The only difference in the seatbelt question is: if there were no ]seatbelt laws, there would be no seatbelts. And the people who wanted ]to protect themselves wouldn't have the option. Amercian corporations ]are not so altruistic as to provide things with no financial payback ]without legislative incentive.

seatbelts were being provided LONG before the laws were in effect. it was a selling point - just like air bags now.

----------- @vicki [SnuggleWench] (Books)

's not what you take, when you leave this world behind you;it's what you leave behind you when you go. -- Randy Travis

vj found this in rec.crafts.beads, from "laura" :

]So it's quite possible that, over the long term, these small ]bits and pieces of "innocuous" legislation can potentially add up to ]something considerably more significant than just a bunch of trivial issues ]strung together.

yes. exactly. it drove my father wild - and does me, too.

----------- @vicki [SnuggleWench] (Books)

's not what you take, when you leave this world behind you;it's what you leave behind you when you go. -- Randy Travis

Yes, I am with you and Louis on this one. Vicki. I think this is a very important issue.

They call it "the erosion of rights" because it doesn't happen quickly or noticeably. In law, each decision sets a precedent for subsequent decisions. So it's quite possible that, over the long term, these small bits and pieces of "innocuous" legislation can potentially add up to something considerably more significant than just a bunch of trivial issues strung together.

Laura

I do agree that we shouldn't allow our self-determination to be eroded by centralized power-and-control.

If my viewpoint on the seatbelts issue seems to suggest that govt.

*should* control our lives, for our own protection, I need to correct that impression, which would be false.

Deirdre

Thank you. I knew I had it wrong.

Seatbelts were originally an option in cars. They later they became mandatory (after "Unsafe at Any Speed"?). The Federal Government later decided that if a majority of US citizens were not under mandatory seatbelt laws by a certain year (sorry, I can't remember the exact percentages and dates), then "passive restraint systems" (i.e. airbags - which are expensive) would be required equipment on all cars as well as seatbelts. Suddenly, there was a massive campaign to pass mandatory seatbelt laws. In Tennessee, which was courting Nissan, GM, Ford and Toyota, such laws were passed in record time. Now mandatory seatbelt laws are tied to Federal Highway funding.