It’s seatbelt season again.

[pmclaine]

And PS......

When it comes to not realizing the economic impact of a fifteen minute traffic back up......

Firefighters and Ambulance people seem to be the most unaware of that cost.

The cop will be there with his little footprint until an engine company and medical battalion arrives to have people sign refusals for transport.

I learned about it in this documentary...

 

[W54/XM-388]

Seems kind of hypocritical for a PO to cite someone for cell phone useage as talk about distracting Im guessing cops have to monitor a radio, perhaps two, a scanner, they use a computer, they enter information in the computer and because they are exempt while on duty they can use their phone. If anyone is distracted Id say its a cop.

Much like after CA passed their great let's get really evil on citizens who text while driving, some police officer decided to write a report on his laptop while driving and crashed and killed someone.... but of course no charges for them because sorry peasants, the law only applies to the peons.... But don't worry we your benevolent overlords feel so bad about the poor citizen getting killed that we'll let you pay their family on our behalf out of your own pockets thank you very much.....

 

[Rthur]

So you pay your taxes, how nice. Show me in the Constitution where you have the RIGHT to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway. I'll wait. Can't find it? That's because it's not there. You have a right to freedom of travel, but NOT by any means you deem fit and in any manner you choose.

I'm curious, exactly what traffic laws do you support, if any? So far as I can tell, you don't want any. That's not going to end well. Of course, on your own property you can do what you like, no license, insurance, speed limits etc., have fun.

Like many you think it's either all or nothing.
Same shit different day.
Show me where all the roads are that the tax payer didn't pay for.
Why does the COTUS matter today?
Has been getting stomped on for a while.
More lately.
Federal roads and state roads are our property.
Growing your own groceries isn't in the cotus either, I guess that can be regulated too?
Show me when the .gov bought the roads to decide who has the privilege to drive them.
Kinda like the fed ground out west, they just decided they owned it.

If only more people would realize we are the bosses and the owners.
Your first paragraph is telling.



R

 

[CoryT]

The reality is no one actually multitasks well
Can humans multitask?
For any given skill, 80% of people think they are in the top 20% . Clearly that's not the case. The LCD is probably quite a bit lower than we imagine. You think driving is regulated? Try flying. We like to describe the FAR's as 'regulation by accident', because every time there's some kind of crash the Feds try to think up a new regulation that would have prevented it.

Everyone seems to posit a nefarious reason for the proposal of any law. It's the 'fill in the blank' doing it for 'money/power...'.
If you don't agree with the law it's apparently a terrible idea, made up only to make your life miserable.

I make a post that suggests that you pay for your poor decision and I'm somehow the bad guy.

 

[Redmanss]

I wonder how many would like to substitute the words gun control for seat belt safety? Meaning, would you be likely to allow your government to impose their will on gun control like they have with seatbelt safety.

Back in the day, we drove around with manual steering, manual brakes, suspension geometry not much better than a pedal car, all the while driving 80-100 mph down the road WITHOUT seatbelts. Somehow we survived. Must have been a miracle. Use them, don't use them, don't really matter to me.

Back in the day, there was no internet to speak of. Please go there. Quickly.

 

[CoryT]

Like many you think it's either all or nothing.
Same shit different day.
Show me where all the roads are that the tax payer didn't pay for.
Why does the COTUS matter today?
Has been getting stomped on for a while.
More lately.
Federal roads and state roads are our property.
Growing your own groceries isn't in the cotus either, I guess that can be regulated too?
Show me when the .gov bought the roads to decide who has the privilege to drive them.
Kinda like the fed ground out west, they just decided they owned it.

If only more people would realize we are the bosses and the owners.
Your first paragraph is telling.



R

Considering how much of the roads you actually paid for over all the taxes you ever paid in your life, you are not going to drive very far. You paid into a general fund, used to create things for the public good. The PUBLIC funded the roads, the government they created then regulates those PUBLIC properties. You are .gov, you voted for what you got. Want better roads, you vote for or against a tax increase, or for a legislator that will do what you want.

Growing food is covered by life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You are not, however, entitled to do your growing in a public park. That may be your property in a social community sense, but it's not yours to do as you please. Same with roadways. You paid highways taxes and accepted the social contract that to use things created with those funds, certain requirements need to be met. Don't like the requirements? That's what the ballot box is for, get them changed. Or, buy your own island and do as you see fit.

I suppose you think if you can afford a supersonic aircraft you can just go Mach 2 between any two points anytime you like, too bad for those people stuck on the ground under you. Broke all your windows? Probably shouldn't have put your house there, huh?

 

[RTH1800]

BTW,
Cops are exempt from seatbelt laws. Lot in common with gun laws no doubt.

 

[Arc Light]

BTW,
Cops are exempt from seatbelt laws. Lot in common with gun laws no doubt.

The one that gets me is the stupid window tint laws. Back when I lived in NC, there were tons of cop cars with limo tint, as dark as you can get. And they weren't K9 units either (which I understand to keep the dog cooler in the heat). Yet they would ticket you for having tint half as dark as theirs. I only ask that the same laws apply equally to everyone, otherwise it breeds contempt.

 

[pmclaine]

The reality is no one actually multitasks well
Can humans multitask?
For any given skill, 80% of people think they are in the top 20% . Clearly that's not the case. The LCD is probably quite a bit lower than we imagine. You think driving is regulated? Try flying. We like to describe the FAR's as 'regulation by accident', because every time there's some kind of crash the Feds try to think up a new regulation that would have prevented it.

Everyone seems to posit a nefarious reason for the proposal of any law. It's the 'fill in the blank' doing it for 'money/power...'.
If you don't agree with the law it's apparently a terrible idea, made up only to make your life miserable.

I make a post that suggests that you pay for your poor decision and I'm somehow the bad guy.

In a free society risk should be as prevalent as the freedom.

And responsibility for ones self is mandatory.

We no longer have xpct responsibility.

Blame is always attributed to something else.

"It was the gun!"

 

[RTH1800]

Contempt has been bred for a long time.

 

[pmclaine]

Considering how much of the roads you actually paid for over all the taxes you ever paid in your life, you are not going to drive very far. You paid into a general fund, used to create things for the public good. The PUBLIC funded the roads, the government they created then regulates those PUBLIC properties. You are .gov, you voted for what you got. Want better roads, you vote for or against a tax increase, or for a legislator that will do what you want.

Growing food is covered by life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You are not, however, entitled to do your growing in a public park. That may be your property in a social community sense, but it's not yours to do as you please. Same with roadways. You paid highways taxes and accepted the social contract that to use things created with those funds, certain requirements need to be met. Don't like the requirements? That's what the ballot box is for, get them changed. Or, buy your own island and do as you see fit.

I suppose you think if you can afford a supersonic aircraft you can just go Mach 2 between any two points anytime you like, too bad for those people stuck on the ground under you. Broke all your windows? Probably shouldn't have put your house there, huh?

You do realize in the 1930s the Federal govt went after farmers that in their estimation grew too much food.

 

[Rthur]

Considering how much of the roads you actually paid for over all the taxes you ever paid in your life, you are not going to drive very far. You paid into a general fund, used to create things for the public good. The PUBLIC funded the roads, the government they created then regulates those PUBLIC properties. You are .gov, you voted for what you got. Want better roads, you vote for or against a tax increase, or for a legislator that will do what you want.

Growing food is covered by life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You are not, however, entitled to do your growing in a public park. That may be your property in a social community sense, but it's not yours to do as you please. Same with roadways. You paid highways taxes and accepted the social contract that to use things created with those funds, certain requirements need to be met. Don't like the requirements? That's what the ballot box is for, get them changed. Or, buy your own island and do as you see fit.

I suppose you think if you can afford a supersonic aircraft you can just go Mach 2 between any two points anytime you like, too bad for those people stuck on the ground under you. Broke all your windows? Probably shouldn't have put your house there, huh?

Lol, how much for how far is semantics.
I as in we, we in fact did pay for them.
Half of the above is reaching and has nothing to do with the original post.
The point really is I should decide if I want to wear a safety belt or not, not the government or "concerned citizens".
A lot like whether I can go outside even if someone else thinks I might get a cold.
If we only dealt with problems the ballot box could resolve we wouldn't have abc agencies making laws.
Who decided that the pursuit of happiness included gardening but not travel?
Funny you should mention it, I pay to the middle of the ROAD on much more that a lot/house.


R

 

[Redmanss]

Here’s the choices of those facing this:

Shawshank option: Write your reps weekly until they change the laws. Then write twice a week until they allow suppressors and SBRs.

Borg option: Run for office and get the laws changed yourself.

Heller option: Find a checkpoint and get a ticket, fight it to SCOTUS and win. AKA the “You have a pair” option.

Pioneer option: Move the fuck out of your commie state.

Wolverine option: Grab your posse and fight those invading commie bastards.

Hellen Keller option: Shut the fuck up.

 

[pmclaine]

Lol, how much for how far is semantics.
I as in we, we in fact did pay for them.
Half of the above is reaching and has nothing to do with the original post.
The point really is I should decide if I want to wear a safety belt or not, not the government or "concerned citizens".
A lot like whether I can go outside even if someone else thinks I might get a cold.
If we only dealt with problems the ballot box could resolve we wouldn't have abc agencies making laws.
Who decided that the pursuit of happiness included gardening but not travel?
Funny you should mention it, I pay to the middle of the ROAD on much more that a lot/house.


R

Who'd a thought Liz Warren had a Snipers Hide account?

"You didn't build that!"

 

[Rthur]

Who'd a thought Liz Warren had a Snipers Hide account?

"You didn't build that!"

Lol, just a minor disagreement with the guy that teaches a bit of ELR down southwest.

R

 

[W54/XM-388]

You do realize in the 1930s the Federal govt went after farmers that in their estimation grew too much food.

I'm assuming you read about the last administration that used to send goons with machineguns to raid small organic local farmers at 3am to bully them into stopping selling stuff and leave farming to the big corporations?

Happened to one of my father's friends, and put the chill on all the small local organic farmers in the area.

Oh but it was all to "protect the integrity of the food supply".......

While every single outbreak of bad bugs was traced to big corporate farmers in the USA or Mexico employing Mexicans illegal or otherwise and not giving them bathroom breaks so they would poop in the fields they were working in.........

The government has been downright Evil, wicked and sadistic to small family farmers for over a century, all to push them out and concentrate the farming in the hands of a small group of elites.

Funny enough there was an article in the news the other day pretty much saying that doing the exact same thing is what caused the collapse of one ancient civilization.

Kings of Angkor Wat may have been the architects of their own downfall

Researchers studying the ancient Khmer civilisation which thrived in modern-day Cambodia for 600 years wanted to discover the reason for its 15th -century decline.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Seems what was once done will be done again and probably with the same eventual result.

 

[pmclaine]

I'm assuming you read about the last administration that used to send goons with machineguns to raid small organic local farmers at 3am to bully them into stopping selling stuff and leave farming to the big corporations?

Happened to one of my father's friends, and put the chill on all the small local organic farmers in the area.

Oh but it was all to "protect the integrity of the food supply".......

While every single outbreak of bad bugs was traced to big corporate farmers in the USA or Mexico employing Mexicans illegal or otherwise and not giving them bathroom breaks so they would poop in the fields they were working in.........

The government has been downright Evil, wicked and sadistic to small family farmers for over a century, all to push them out and concentrate the farming in the hands of a small group of elites.

Funny enough there was an article in the news the other day pretty much saying that doing the exact same thing is what caused the collapse of one ancient civilization.

Kings of Angkor Wat may have been the architects of their own downfall

Researchers studying the ancient Khmer civilisation which thrived in modern-day Cambodia for 600 years wanted to discover the reason for its 15th -century decline.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Seems what was once done will be done again and probably with the same eventual result.

Saw that article and thought what a great T shirt...

"Communism - Failing since before Angkor Wat knew Wat was Wat"

It would be a pain in the ass explaining that joke to the masses though.......

 

[CoryT]

You do realize in the 1930s the Federal govt went after farmers that in their estimation grew too much food.

Hence my suggesting we move back to about 1920. Never said the Feds never did anything wrong. And, going back to the original post, exactly when did the Feds post a seat belt law anyway?

You, yourself, did not fund the road from your house to the local grocery store. You don't own the road. You contributed to a fund that built roads, bridges etc. That does not entitle you to drive your combine down main street at 5 mph, blocking both lanes of traffic, then park, grab some groceries, then saunter majestically back home. Even if you did wear your seat belt. You paid for some portion of the White House, you don't get to move in because you like the carpet. That's not how it works.

WE, as in a group, built and own the road. WE elected legislators that would construct a framework of laws to allow all of US to share that road in a fair and equitable manner. I can't help it if you choose your legislators poorly and get stuck with laws of which you do not approve.

Redmanss outlined the available options pretty well. Pick one. I went Pioneer, moved from CA to AZ, far enough from other people that I pretty much ignore the rest of the world.

 

[pmclaine]

Hence my suggesting we move back to about 1920. Never said the Feds never did anything wrong. And, going back to the original post, exactly when did the Feds post a seat belt law anyway?

You, yourself, did not fund the road from your house to the local grocery store. You don't own the road. You contributed to a fund that built roads, bridges etc. That does not entitle you to drive your combine down main street at 5 mph, blocking both lanes of traffic, then park, grab some groceries, then saunter majestically back home. Even if you did wear your seat belt. You paid for some portion of the White House, you don't get to move in because you like the carpet. That's not how it works.

WE, as in a group, built and own the road. WE elected legislators that would construct a framework of laws to allow all of US to share that road in a fair and equitable manner. I can't help it if you choose your legislators poorly and get stuck with laws of which you do not approve.

Redmanss outlined the available options pretty well. Pick one. I went Pioneer, moved from CA to AZ, far enough from other people that I pretty much ignore the rest of the world.

.......and actively working to turn AZ into CA.

 

[kenny1773]

I know seat belts increase the chances roughly 50% or so of surviving a crash. I will not argue the studies

However, it should be my personal choice to wear one if I want to. My car should NOT sound a fucking alarm for 10 minutes if I don't put it on (or what really happens is I put something heavy in the passenger seat that is not a person)

The seat belt laws that allow cops to pull you over for the sole reason of a seat belt infraction are nothing more than giving law enforcement a reason to stick its nose into your car and look around for whatever they may find.

I got into an argument once with a seat belt nazi about wearing a seat belt or not, I said I just couldn't do it, bating of course, after several days of back and forth, I posted my vehicle picture and asked the nazi to point out where the seat belt was

 

[rlarsen462]

I pretty much always wear a seatbelt.

I pretty much always use aftermarket software to disable all the seatbelt warnings in every vehicle I purchase.

I pretty much always think cops have no fucking business pulling people over for not wearing a seatbelt when the only person they can hurt is themselves, unless their lifeless corpse somehow flies in the perfect trajectory to decapitate someone else.

And let's be honest, these days in Colorado, my lifeless corpse is most likely to decapitate some leftist faggot from Boulder in a Prius, so it's a zero sum game either way.

 

[Marinevet1]

I wear a seat belt pretty regularly...........never used to.............in 1980 I was in a full sized Dodge window van with a buddy, yes we had been to a bar, and I went to sleep in one of the back seats, told him to wake me up before he headed home, so I could keep him awake................about three blocks from the house he was at, headed home, he missed a curve, took out a phone pole, while rolling the van three times.We were both ejected from the van, I had a ruptured spleen, and a concussion, he is in a wheelchair.

I wear my seatbelt, because I have lived thru what happens if you don't...........

 

[CoryT]

.......and actively working to turn AZ into CA.

If you believe that, you clearly have not read and understood anything I've posted.

Let's see if we can clarify. I think not wearing a seatbelt is stupid. I think a law where you can get stopped solely on the basis of not wearing one is also stupid. The State is however, within bounds in passing such a law, since it's not a violation of your rights, even if it is stupid. I would not support someone for office who thought this was a good idea.

I'm open to hearing an argument as to why the State does not actually have the power to create and enforce such a statute, but so far all I've read on that seems to boil down to 'It's my choice!'. It might also be your choice to sleep in the middle of the road, that does not mean you can, or that a law can't be made to prohibit you from doing so. This despite the fact you are a taxpayer that paid for the road.

I don't see anything in the Constitution that permits the Fed's to write or enforce traffic laws. Motor vehicle safety/emissions standards might be reasonable, and that would seem to be the limit of the Feds involvement, unless someone can point to a Federal law controlling something like right on red or the like. The Feds can insist a new car be delivered with seat belts, but they can't write a statute that makes you wear one. The State gets to do that, and I don't see any restrictions that would apply here. I'm not a lawyer, so as I said I'm open to argument on that subject.

 

[Bender]

Is this pigeon still available?

 

[Threadcutter308]

Is this pigeon still available?