Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Three cheers for New Hampshire

  1. May 24, 2007 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.hendersonvillenews.com/a...T04/New_Hampshire_Panel_Rejects_Seat_Belt_Law

    I've always been found of New Hampshire for their State motto if nothing else: Live free or die. They understand what America and liberty are all about. "Freedom" means free to make bad decisions, like not wearing a seat belt.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. May 24, 2007 #2
    The seat-belt laws are driven my the insurance company lobbies. It isn't the governments place to make me wear safety equipment on my own time. That should be entirely at my own discretion. Where does that type of legislation end?
     
  4. May 24, 2007 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Exactly: It doesn't. And in the course of my life, I have seen many liberties taken away, one by one. Laws that either protect people from themselves, or the masses [insurance companies] from the indirect expenses associated with a particular activity, often have no logical limit in their rationale.

    As a young man, I never imagined that would be where we are today. It truly makes me sick to think about it, but its hard not to as liberty and freedom are why we allegedly fought wars.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2007
  5. May 24, 2007 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I pay for insurance and I pay taxes. That means that if you get hurt because you weren't wearing a seat belt, you hurt me too and you don't have the right to hurt me.

    I would, however, support legislation in place of this that requires people to make a choice and stick with it, opting out of medical care (either from insurance or taxes). They could put a little sticker on the license plates of such people that says "please allow me to bleed to death on the road - I'm too dumb to live."

    The society we live in has hippies screaming at the loss of small personal liberties while simultaneously and hypocritically forcing other people to pay for their self-destructive lifestyles. You can't have it both ways (well, you can in this country today, but you shouldn't be able to).

    Edit: wait, actually I have a better idea. Every year when a car gets it's state inspection, along with all the other safety checks that are done, the inspector can also check the car's seatbelt utilization log and report it to the insurance company for a rate adjustment based on the utilization fraction.

    Edit2: I probably shouldn't have just said hippies. Ironically, this is an issue that the extremes on both sides share, though with a slight variation: Personal freedom with the personal responsibility that goes with it is a conservative ideal. My boss, who is somewhat to the right of Rush Limbaugh, does not wear a seatbelt and does not have health insurance. He wouldn't have car insurance either, if it weren't required in PA and he averages about a car accident a year. Since he totaled his last roadster in December, he's been sharing a car with his wife, but is looking to buy a motorcyle right now... Anyway, that ideal is at least internally consistent in that he doesn't demand protection from the government for/from his own stupidity. He truly believes that personal responsibility must go hand-in-hand with personal freedom.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2007
  6. May 24, 2007 #5
    the "slippery slope" goes both ways. if people are free to not be safe in regards to seat belts, what is to prevent car manufactures from making cars without seat belts, air bags, shatter proof windows? sure the consumer can just not buy unsafe cars, but there is nothing then to prevent car manufactures from claiming seatbelt are nooses, airbags are hand grenades in your face and when your face hits the wind shield, it makes more sense to go through it then be stopped by it.

    i understand that you may prefer to be free to make whatever safety choices you deem appropriate, but i disagree.
     
  7. May 25, 2007 #6
    plan one the right to life folks would have a fit
    as they want one NOT to have a right to die

    plan two hippys?? what are you babbleing about??
    ''their self-destructive lifestyles''
    pot smoking and living free are NOT ''self-destructive ''
    or at least as self-destructive as the avg buck driven wage slave
    who drinks too much eats a high fat diet and is under stress
    so dies early of a stroke or heart attack

    part 3
    the neo-conned hate freedom esp personal freedoms
    they support way too many laws that limit freedom
    and want to add more all the time
    laws againts sex, tv, movie, and book content
    very much the same program pushed by the tali-ban

    the main push is for CORPs freedom from gov reg by the neo-conned
    and CORPs are not people and should have no freedom
    or we will get more ENRONs :surprised
     
  8. May 25, 2007 #7
    I always wear a seatbelt when in a car and I heartily recommend it to others. But the seatbelt law does not belong in the home of the brave and the land of the free. The only time that beltless people infringe on my rights is when they get injured and I have to pay for it. I wish that I could buy car insurance that didn't pay me if I wasn't wearing a belt. I also think that when the beltless are injured or killed in a crash, they should be considered negligent, and the cause of their own injuries regardless of who caused the accident.
     
  9. May 25, 2007 #8

    IMP

    User Avatar

    Hip hip hooray, hip hip hooray, hip hip hooray! Three cheers is right!
    Forcing someone to wear a seat belt inside their own vehicle is wrong no matter how you try to justify it...
     
  10. May 25, 2007 #9
    Just make seperate rates for people who choose not to wear seatbelts. Then the only person punished would be the person who told their insurance company they would wear their seat belt and yet did not.

    They should do away with mandatory insurance also.
     
  11. May 25, 2007 #10
    Sometimes I wear a seatbelt, sometimes I don't. Regardless, I should not be penalized by my government if I do not. Surely there are more important things that our law enforcement officers can be paying attention to.
     
  12. May 25, 2007 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Where did you come up with the hippy thing? I don't think you even know what a hippy really was.

    Of course, you are too young to know what a hippy was, but using the word is an easy way to try to discredit anyone with whom you disagree. Of course I doubt that is your motive as it is cowardly.

    And for the record, while hippies were painting their flowers, I was hanging with the Young Republicans. But many of the hippies were two-faced and later became yuppies driving SUVs.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2007
  13. May 25, 2007 #12
    I lived through those days. I don't recall the word ever being used in any other way. What is your definition of what a hippy is?
     
  14. May 25, 2007 #13

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I think it's a strange victory to win the right to live stupidly, but surely it isn't worth selling your liberty just for lower car insurance rates.


    I'd say those kids only concerned about drugs and dodging the draft, but that would encompass our last two Presidents, at least if you include Ivan's two-faced hippies that later became yuppies. :rofl: (couldn't help myself :blushing:)
     
  15. May 25, 2007 #14

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    from dictionary.com

    hippie:
    a person, esp. of the late 1960s, who rejected established institutions and values and sought spontaneity, direct personal relations expressing love, and expanded consciousness, often expressed externally in the wearing of casual, folksy clothing and of beads, headbands, used garments, etc.

    According to Russ, these heinous people in their beads and flowers are probably directly responsible for everything bad that is happening in the world today. Hell, they probably even CAUSED global warming just by trying to warn the world about it. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
     
  16. May 25, 2007 #15

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity is, indeed, one of the things America is about. But so is promoting the general welfare. :tongue:
     
  17. May 26, 2007 #16

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Jon Corzine wasn't wearing a seat belt when the SUV in which he was traveling (at 91 mph) swerved to avoid another car which was veering to avoid some idiot who pulled off the shoulder into traffic. The SUV driver lost control and the vehicle hit a guard rail.

    Corzine sustained severe injuries:

     
    Last edited: May 26, 2007
  18. May 26, 2007 #17
    Yeah, it's amazing how many idiots there are on the road. Travel 91 mph and they jump out at you from every direction. Here is a description of what this particular idiot did.

    Police caught up with the driver of that red pickup they said caused the accident. But it turns out he wasn't responsible. He had pulled over the side of the road to make way for Corzine's motorcade, its lights blaring. When he swerved back on the road, another pickup truck behind him swerved to avoid hitting him, and collided with the Suburban. The driver of the second truck wasn't to blame, either.

    http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/19/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_corzine.fortune/index.htm
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2007
  19. May 26, 2007 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  20. May 28, 2007 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Note that the NH law was proposed by liberals. It ain't the "hippies" arguing against the seat belt law, it's the Republicans. The only reason that this law even got close to passing is that NH threw out the neo-cons in the last election which gave more seats to liberal Democrats.

    Being the true conservatives that they are, NH believes in liberty. It is the neo-cons and the liberals who believe in intruding on our lives based on their perspective that a few bucks are worth more than liberty paid for with blood.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2007
  21. May 28, 2007 #20

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I can't imagine not wanting to wear a seat belt????

    According to the article

    I'm sorry, but can someone explain why killing this bill was a good thing? Obviously the residents of the state don't have enough brains to buckle up without it being a law. Or is the idea to cost the state millions and increase death and serious injury? :confused:

    I just don't get it. Putting on a seatbelt is automatic for me and I don't even realize it's on when I'm driving. Why would someone drive without one?
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?