Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:44:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
474 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Peter Callaway writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Law just changed. A seat belt infraction, if spotted, is enough reason
> > for you to get pulled over in Michigan now. Sorry about that (I think it
> > may have been March 1 that it changed)
>
> So if I read this correctly, the wearing of seatbelts is not mandatory in all
> US states?
It is mandatory, on pain of losing federal highway funds (a case of using the
purse power to get a state to pass a law instead of passing a federal law. I
personally feel it's wrong to do that, but I digress).
What is not mandatory is the manner in which it is enforced, and the penalty.
Some states have enacted laws that allow police to pull over motorists for only
a seat belt infraction, some require some other infraction. Some states make it
a "points" offense like speeding (which impacts your insurance rating), some
don't.
> This is mandatory in all states and territories of Australia (putting on my
> seatbelt is second nature to me when I get in the car). I can't understand
> anyone who would chose not to wear one whilst travelling in a car (I can't
> comment about busses or trains because I don't use them). Inertia is a
> powerful thing!
I agree I personally would always wear belts and I would want all my friends
and family to do so. And while medical costs are not completely privatized
(that is, I pay for the lapses in judgement of others), I support, to a limited
extent, forcing others to do what is safe.
Further, I'd of course consider a parent who didn't put his or her children in
safety seats as negligent and liable.
But you can already hear the shoe dropping.
I'd prefer that people not get subsidized medical care and at that point I'd
support them taking whatever silly risks they chose to (think of it as
evolution in action) as long as in so doing they did not endanger others.
++lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <schnip!> (...) If I may expand on what Larry has said here; In some US states, drivers are supposed to ensure that they themselves, and their passengers are belted at all times while the vehicle (...) (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| <snip> (...) Definitely agree here. And if you think I've got an opinion on this, you should hear my wife's comments when she sees someone else's unbelted kids in a moving car. In some ways I'm glad the other car is moving, so she can't completely (...) (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) So if I read this correctly, the wearing of seatbelts is not mandatory in all US states? This is mandatory in all states and territories of Australia (putting on my seatbelt is second nature to me when I get in the car). I can't understand (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
