This whole thing was worth a good laugh, not at you, but at those opposed. You are right and shouldn't have allowed yourself to be baited by some who are simply going to nit pick every little thing you say ad infinitum. They are just playing lawyer and looking for loopholes like many do.

 

I.m sorry to see that you think that the lose of personal freedom is funny.
I am a Civil Libertarian and I belive that what I do to my self that does not hurt another is nobody's busness.

 

So if you are killed or injured in an accident, do you have a big note pinned to your shirt that advises first responders that you will take care of yourself? Or to just roll you into the ditch and let the coyotes and crows take care of it?

I take it you oppose mandatory primary education as well?

 

That is the dumbest thing you've said.Your logic escapes me

 

mrkog lets say you are not killed in an accident only severly paralized. You loose your job and pretty much become a ward of the state Ie you may go on welfare or social security. Who pays all your medical bills if this so called accident turns out to be your fault. Maybe the other guys fault and he has no insurance or is destitue. What I am getting at here is you will become a burden on the taxpayers of the state in which you live. Could be thats why the state or federal laws mandate that you wear seatbelts if the vehical comes or came equipt with them.

Im a local firefighter here and can tell you from personal experience from dealing with accident victims. The ones that dont have their seatbelts on usually fare far worse than the ones that do. I always feel a little unsafe rolling down the road in my 65 without seatbelts. Knowing that the stearing column in these things in a head on are like a metal spear aimed right at your chest or head. I have also seen heads thru windshields and people being in the wrong postion when the airbags go off and you are not seatbelted in. The airbag may cause more serious injury than the accident itself if the belts dont hold you in the proper postion. Ultimately it is your choise to wear the seatbelt or not. It is the states right to protect the taxpayers as best they can from people who refuse to follow the law and just want to do their own thing.

 

I talked to a CHP motorcycle officer today. His "opinion" is that you might be cited by a rookie officer, but that you would probably win in court.

He had to think about it a bit, as it's not something that comes up often for him. He tended to agree that they really don't look at older stuff for belts at all, as they know they don't have them.

He works big rigs, and generally does not really look for belt violations in anything older than '68, as that's when the shoulder harness became standard, and you can see that easily from outside the car vs. a belt that you can't see 'till you are standing by the car.

Going to court is a waste of time, and that's he what said as well, that the rookie might "waste your time...".

ymmv.

If I run into another one, I'll post it.

 

Punchy1, From my VAST experiance in Washington State traffic law, ours is very similar but the year is 68 instead of 64. The simple asnwer is YES you will get a ticket for not wearing it. It's there so you gotta wear it.

Simple fact of life in this country these days is that the letter of the law may be one thing, but the actual application of the law is whatever the cop and later the judge say it is.

So if you wanna argue it in court, or protest by not wearing it, I'm right there with you I totally agree it's a question of freedom. BUT if you need to avoid the ticket, wear it.

 

Well yeah, say bye bye to the welfare state to, the 2 go hand in hand. One will always lead to the other. If we really want to be or even call ourselves free then those risks are the consiquences of that freedom, do you want to be free, I sure do?

The state(small s) doesn't have rights, people do. The people are the law, not the state. This is why we have jurys.

 

Now this is an important point, the US was set up as a replublic NOT a democracy for this reason, so that the majority can't take the freedoms of the minority no matter how much "the people" vote to do so.

 

This thread is getting to political, which is NOT allowed.
It is now CLOSED...