Seat belt laws

[julius]

Alright, I'll be sure to reference this back when the state has outlawed red meat, cigarettes, alcohol, and anything else that might cause you harm. The government needs to protect you from yourself.

whats that got to do with anything here? Why do you keep making these false connections between things?

if you're under 18, it's against the law to buy tobacco, if you're under 21, it's against the law to buy beer/alcohol. You act like the "government" protecting us from ourselves is a bad thing. You think it's a bad thing that restaurants have to be inspected by health inspectors? Or that buildings have to be built to certain codes? Or that you have to have a drivers license to drive?

or proof of insurance/title in your car?

Is your complaint really about how you don't want them to tell you not to "harm" yourself? Or are you just too proud to admit you did something stupid and you're pissed you have to pay for it?

Grr, I'm mad! The mean old government won't let me decide whats' best for me! Grr! We should be able to do whatever we want because we obviously know better.

Well, go ahead and keep bitching about this, and stop wearing your seat belt. Prove your point, as your face impales on the windshield, or you're flying out of your windshield, getting ready to have a nice case of road rash on your face. Because ha, the joke will be on them, because you didn't listen to the man!

Don't talk to me like I was driving drunk, ran a red light, or was going 60 in a 30. The only person I could have harmed was myself and it's my right to do so.

It's your "right" not to endanger me, as you driving w/out a belt does potentially endanger me. Much like me driving while intoxicated, or with headphones on (ie, listening to music) endangers others.

I don't hear you arguing against abortion or Dr. assisted suicide, but guess what.... those both fall under the same umbrella in my book. Your body and you can do what you want with it.

Your book is odd. Maybe in your book, someone should have an abortion while they're driving. After all, they're only hurting themselves.

 

[julius]

I think that freeloaders posting from NE Portland should pay a huge fine for not stopping at every stop sign while riding their bikes. I also think they should pay a bike fee to help pay for roads, just like auto drivers pay a fee.

Those fuckers are the biggest safety concern in the metro area.

I think cyclist should pay fines for skirting the traffic laws, even ones that make them only a "danger" to themselves.

 

[Natebishop3]

Are you saying you're against rules and laws?

So we shouldn't have laws about what goes into water, what kind of paint goes on toys, seatbelts (period) in cars, or penalties for running red-lights and endangering others?

Seems kind of dumb to say that.

There are laws and rules about all sorts of things. you can't fly a plane over the white house for a reason. you can't dump oil into the Willamette for any reason (dumping turds, that's a different story). You can't have children sitting in the front seat of your car right when they're born.

If that's the "liberal argument", in which we're not safer as both a community and a person because of those laws, then we should be happy.

Every single one of the laws you listed was a case of one person harming another, with the exception of seat belts. If you want to make an argument that kids should have to wear a seat belt until they're 18 that's fine and I'm totally in agreement of that. They're not adults and they shouldn't be able to make that decision until they're of age. But for an adult to have to wear something because the government says so is unconstitutional in my book.

 

[Natebishop3]

whats that got to do with anything here? Why do you keep making these false connections between things?

if you're under 18, it's against the law to buy tobacco, if you're under 21, it's against the law to buy beer/alcohol. You act like the "government" protecting us from ourselves is a bad thing. You think it's a bad thing that restaurants have to be inspected by health inspectors? Or that buildings have to be built to certain codes? Or that you have to have a drivers license to drive?

or proof of insurance/title in your car?

Is your complaint really about how you don't want them to tell you not to "harm" yourself? Or are you just too proud to admit you did something stupid and you're pissed you have to pay for it?

Grr, I'm mad! The mean old government won't let me decide whats' best for me! Grr! We should be able to do whatever we want because we obviously know better.

Well, go ahead and keep bitching about this, and stop wearing your seat belt. Prove your point, as your face impales on the windshield, or you're flying out of your windshield, getting ready to have a nice case of road rash on your face. Because ha, the joke will be on them, because you didn't listen to the man!



It's your "right" not to endanger me, as you driving w/out a belt does potentially endanger me. Much like me driving while intoxicated, or with headphones on (ie, listening to music) endangers others.



Your book is odd. Maybe in your book, someone should have an abortion while they're driving. After all, they're only hurting themselves.

Once again, you're listing laws that protect OTHER PEOPLE from being harmed. Health inspectors protect patrons from shoddy restaurants, you can't see the food being prepared in most cases so the government is protecting you from potentially dangerous food. Building inspectors? Same thing. Protecting people from living/working in a potentially dangerous building that was constructed by someone else. None of those examples match up with a seat belt. And FYI, I've hated this law since it went into effect. Whether or not I was caught has no bearing whatsoever.

My point is, it's our choice to make. It's my choice if I want to eat red meat, or smoke cigarettes, and it should be my choice if I want to wear a seat belt. Just like it's a woman's choice to have an abortion if she wants to. Or are you saying that abortion should be illegal? Just curious.

 

[barfo]

(c) I'm completely inside of your head.

Are you a trust fund adult, or a PERS recipient? At this point, there is no way that I believe that you have ever owned your own business. If you had owned a business, then you wouldn't post such ridiculous things as they relate to the economy.

I guess if you posting completely stupid shit is being 'inside my head', then you are inside my head.
Knowledge of the economy? In this same thread you say that Nate's fine to the City of Tigard somehow helps Sam Adams, who as we all know is mayor of a completely different city.

As for my knowledge of the economy, I'll just say "Scoreboard, baby".

barfo

 

[julius]

Once again, you're listing laws that protect OTHER PEOPLE from being harmed.

Did you not see the point that maris made about how you can be knocked unconscious if you are thrown around the car and could hit someone else? Or if you're rear-ended, you head but the steering wheel, and get knocked out and drive into another car or people?

Health inspectors protect patrons from shoddy restaurants, you can't see the food being prepared in most cases so the government is protecting you from potentially dangerous food.

Ah, here is the crux though. If you want to eat there, why should the Government stop you? You'd only be hurting yourself..

Because see, you're not only hurting yourself potentially in an accident, w/out your seat belt.

Building inspectors? Same thing. Protecting people from living/working in a potentially dangerous building that was constructed by someone else. None of those examples match up with a seat belt. And FYI, I've hated this law since it went into effect. Whether or not I was caught has no bearing whatsoever.

You hated the law since you were what, at most, 2 years old?

Since it was mandatory in 83. And if you really hated it as a 2 year old, you were an incredibly cognitive 2 year old.

My point is, it's our choice to make. It's my choice if I want to eat red meat, or smoke cigarettes, and it should be my choice if I want to wear a seat belt.

When then I hope you demand paying for all the costs to pull your head out of the windshield.

btw, biggest bullshit excuse "it's my life". If you're driving a car and you have family in it and say you're hit and not wearing a seat belt. You fly out of the windshield and die. You deprive your family of your life. So that's not just impacting your own life.

Try thinking of more than yourself.

I personally don't give a shit if you wear one or croak in a car accident. But to whine about it, seems like someone who just wants to bitch for the sake of being "anti-big brother" when it's not big brother.

Just like it's a woman's choice to have an abortion if she wants to. Or are you saying that abortion should be illegal? Just curious.

Neat one you did there. I took philosophy of the argument too. Are you going to ask me if I stopped beating my wife too?

 

[julius]

I guess if you posting completely stupid shit is being 'inside my head', then you are inside my head.
Knowledge of the economy? In this same thread you say that Nate's fine to the City of Tigard somehow helps Sam Adams, who as we all know is mayor of a completely different city.

As for my knowledge of the economy, I'll just say "Scoreboard, baby".

barfo

but, you don't own your own business, so all that doesn't matter. score-card, sister!

 

[maxiep]

It's just the nanny state knowing what's better for you than you do. The intentions are good, but my freedom and the freedoms of others is more important. As for the societal interaction argument, it simply can't be completely covered, nor should it be. I'm with Denny; seat belt and helmet laws are bullshit. And don't get me started on child seats; my child is my responsibility. It should be my right to decide when, for how long and what type of child seat I use.

 

[barfo]

but, you don't own your own business, so all that doesn't matter. score-card, sister!

But I do.

barfo

 

[julius]

But I do.

barfo

I believe they call that cribbage, gramps.

 

[barfo]

I believe they call that cribbage, gramps.

Learn the post, then game.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Did you not see the point that maris made about how you can be knocked unconscious if you are thrown around the car and could hit someone else? Or if you're rear-ended, you head but the steering wheel, and get knocked out and drive into another car or people?



Ah, here is the crux though. If you want to eat there, why should the Government stop you? You'd only be hurting yourself..

Because see, you're not only hurting yourself potentially in an accident, w/out your seat belt.



You hated the law since you were what, at most, 2 years old?

Since it was mandatory in 83. And if you really hated it as a 2 year old, you were an incredibly cognitive 2 year old.


When then I hope you demand paying for all the costs to pull your head out of the windshield.

btw, biggest bullshit excuse "it's my life". If you're driving a car and you have family in it and say you're hit and not wearing a seat belt. You fly out of the windshield and die. You deprive your family of your life. So that's not just impacting your own life.

Try thinking of more than yourself.

I personally don't give a shit if you wear one or croak in a car accident. But to whine about it, seems like someone who just wants to bitch for the sake of being "anti-big brother" when it's not big brother.



Neat one you did there. I took philosophy of the argument too. Are you going to ask me if I stopped beating my wife too?

I could be knocked unconscious regardless. Seat belt or no. I could die on impact. I could be squashed by two semi's. Seat belt isn't going to help too much there.

And the health code thing is to protect you from unsanitary conditions which you are probably unaware of. If you eat at a place and you are fully aware that they don't wash their hands, properly handle the meats, or clean their kitchen, that's on you. It's the unknowingly that the health codes protect you from. Just as wearing a seat belt or not wearing it is me making the decision to take the risk. I know the potential dangers. It's my call. Not the governments.

Don't lecture me on my belief system. Do you have any vices? Smoke? Drink? Eat red meat? Are you over weight? I'm willing to bet you do something that isn't helping your overall health. People do a lot of things that shorten their life span. My point is, once they reach a certain age they are allowed to make that decision. Like you said before, at 18 I can smoke if I so choose. At 21 I can buy and consume alcohol. The government determined an age at which we are adult enough to make our own decisions in regards to our bodies, why/how is this any different?

How is beating your wife similar to abortion? We're talking about a person's right to choose what happens to their own bodies. Seriously, do you think abortion should be legal or not? And if you do, how in your opinion is it any different than forcing someone to protect their bodies?

Also I'm curious if you are pro or against firearms, because that's another preventative measure that might save your life some day, but then again you might not ever need it either.

 

[barfo]

And the health code thing is to protect you from unsanitary conditions which you are probably unaware of. If you eat at a place and you are fully aware that they don't wash their hands, properly handle the meats, or clean their kitchen, that's on you. It's the unknowingly that the health codes protect you from. Just as wearing a seat belt or not wearing it is me making the decision to take the risk. I know the potential dangers.

That doesn't make much sense. You know the potential dangers of eating in an unsanitary restaurant, too. You don't know which ones are unsanitary, just like you don't know which driver is going to run a red light and hit you.

It's my call. Not the governments.

On Planet Libertarian, perhaps. Not here on earth.

Don't lecture me on my belief system. Do you have any vices? Smoke? Drink? Eat red meat? Are you over weight? I'm willing to bet you do something that isn't helping your overall health. People do a lot of things that shorten their life span. My point is, once they reach a certain age they are allowed to make that decision. Like you said before, at 18 I can smoke if I so choose. At 21 I can buy and consume alcohol. The government determined an age at which we are adult enough to make our own decisions in regards to our bodies, why/how is this any different?

It's not. If you smoke or drink, the government taxes you. If you drive w/o a seatbelt, the government taxes you $109. Pick your poison. Nobody said you couldn't go right back out and drive without a seatbelt again tomorrow, did they? If you are willing to do the time, go ahead and do the crime.

barfo

 

[Rodolfo]

I think that freeloaders posting from NE Portland should pay a huge fine for not stopping at every stop sign while riding their bikes. I also think they should pay a bike fee to help pay for roads, just like auto drivers pay a fee.

Those fuckers are the biggest safety concern in the metro area.

So you think bike riders should have to register their bikes? Even children? That's a little out there, but man if you're into giving the city more money you should go to the next city council meeting and voice you're opinion. They'll laugh your stupid ass out of the building.

I do agree that some bikers take unnecessary risks, sometimes. Just like drivers do, everyday. The VAST majority of bike riders are very responsible, just like the VAST majority of drivers are.

 

[Rodolfo]

I think cyclist should pay fines for skirting the traffic laws, even ones that make them only a "danger" to themselves.

They do, if a cop sees them doing it.

 

[PapaG]

I guess if you posting completely stupid shit is being 'inside my head', then you are inside my head.
Knowledge of the economy? In this same thread you say that Nate's fine to the City of Tigard somehow helps Sam Adams, who as we all know is mayor of a completely different city.

As for my knowledge of the economy, I'll just say "Scoreboard, baby".

barfo

The Sam Adams thing was a joke. I thought that was obvious to everybody but you.

Kind of like you have become. A JOKE. You're really referencing OT posts on the main board now? Are you mentally OK?

You quite being a mod, and you seem to be stalking me at this point.

 

[PapaG]

So you think bike riders should have to register their bikes? Even children? That's a little out there, but man if you're into giving the city more money you should go to the next city council meeting and voice you're opinion. They'll laugh your stupid ass out of the building.

I do agree that some bikers take unnecessary risks, sometimes. Just like drivers do, everyday. The VAST majority of bike riders are very responsible, just like the VAST majority of drivers are.

There are designated bike lanes, and bicyclists should follow the rules of the road. No reason I can think of why they can't pay for their bike lanes. If that means I get laughed at, so be it.

 

[Rodolfo]

There are designated bike lanes, and bicyclists should follow the rules of the road. No reason I can think of why they can't pay for their bike lanes. If that means I get laughed at, so be it.

Bike Lanes promote people feeling safer riding their bikes. The safer someone feels on the roads the more likely they'll choose to ride their bike to work over driving. Or ride their bike to the store, ect. Aren't you in favor of less cars on the road?

 

[Rodolfo]

oh, btw...video about why a "rolling stop law" is a good idea...check it out.
[video=youtube;84eB0N-LG6M]

 

[PapaG]

Bike Lanes promote people feeling safer riding their bikes. The safer someone feels on the roads the more likely they'll choose to ride their bike to work over driving. Or ride their bike to the store, ect. Aren't you in favor of less cars on the road?

Bike lanes cost money. Why can't bikers pay their share of paved roads? I don't care if people drive, bike, walk, or ride a horse.

 

[Rodolfo]

Bike lanes cost money. Why can't bikers pay their share of paved roads? I don't care if people drive, bike, walk, or ride a horse.

So instead of Grant money, it should come out of our pockets? Including yours, because I bet you have a bike in your house, you freeloader!

 

[PapaG]

So instead of Grant money, it should come out of our pockets? Including yours, because I bet you have a bike in your house, you freeloader!

Grant money does come out of your pockets if you don't work for the government. I already pay property taxes for roads, and gasoline taxes to repair the roads and make the bike lanes.

Are you a freeloader? Is that why you're so upset?

 

[Rodolfo]

Grant money does come out of your pockets if you don't work for the government. I already pay property taxes for roads, and gasoline taxes to repair the roads and make the bike lanes.

Are you a freeloader? Is that why you're so upset?

lol, I must be. I'm not upset, chief. I'm trying to reason with you.

Do you think bikes put wear the roads down like cars do? Because if they did, I'd be on board with you, but they don't.

You should try bike commuting if you haven't already. Maybe shed that extra weight you've been trying to get rid of.

 

[Natebishop3]

lol, I must be. I'm not upset, chief. I'm trying to reason with you.

Do you think bikes put wear the roads down like cars do? Because if they did, I'd be on board with you, but they don't.

You should try bike commuting if you haven't already. Maybe shed that extra weight you've been trying to get rid of.

How about the 160 million they're spending on that bike bridge across the willamette? Where is that money coming from?

 

[Rodolfo]

How about the 160 million they're spending on that bike bridge across the willamette? Where is that money coming from?

I didn't know they were building a bike bridge. Sounds like you know more about than I do.

 

[Natebishop3]

I didn't know they were building a bike bridge. Sounds like you know more about then I do.

It's in the "all things portland" thread

 

[SlyPokerDog]

How about the 160 million they're spending on that bike bridge across the willamette? Where is that money coming from?

Portland is spending $600 million on new bike paths.

 

[Rodolfo]

How about the 160 million they're spending on that bike bridge across the willamette? Where is that money coming from?

Looks like it's for MAX. Not in favor of anything related to MAX, personally. Energy Efficient buses>>>>MAX

 

[Natebishop3]

Portland is spending $600 million on new bike paths.

Pretty sure that got shut down.

 

[Natebishop3]

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/01/portland_mayor_sam_adams_bike.html

When Adams unveiled his 20-year bike plan last February, he envisioned making cycling easier and, in the process, boosting exercise rates, cutting carbon emissions and positioning Portland as not only America's most livable city, but its most sustainable one, too.

But a series of wrong turns led to a citizen revolt. Adams became mired in City Hall politics and bungled his sales pitch for the plan. When he suggested paying for part of it by skimming "contract savings" from sewer projects, the public saw the whole deal as just another grab for ratepayers' pocketbooks. "Sewer rates for bikes lanes" became a rallying cry.

"Savings are something that should be refunded for people who paid for the sewer, especially at a time when we have so many people struggling," said Catherine Watanabe, a 47-year-old library worker from Southeast Portland. "In times like this, we have to treat available money with a little bit more respect and not fund pet projects."