OT: Click it or Ticket

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Eric <caperenewal@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> I am not complaining about the law itself, because I know seat belts can
> help save lives... but what I was complaining about was the way the law
> is enforced... slowling rush hour interstate traffic down to 10 mph by
> blocking off one lane and making a stretch of two miles of road take ten
> minutes to get down... etc. This law is punishing us drivers who
> normally wear seat belts by delaying us without warning, slowing traffic
> down to dangerous levels, and what not.
>

I believe it very important for people to wear seatbelts. I don't even
move my car in the driveway without habitually putting on my seatbelt.
However, put that aside. I believe it is completely out of order for
the goverment to mandate actions on the part of an individual for that
individuals safety and ONLY for that individuals safety. Education
campaigns are one thing, but mandating that somebody put on a seatbelt
and signing it into law allowing public safety officials to waste
resources enforcing it when it has nothing to do with public safety, but
rather only the safety of the individual they are about to punish, is
simply ABSURD and a HUGE waste of OUR PUBLIC RESOURCES. To me, this
sounds like a blue law ... except it is modern.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAvx4t1p0e3NXsrtERAjHsAJ9KTN7PY7bgGhK+aGiCdi SSeywiFQCgjODo
pBdMB41fQTSnDR8mICFb42E=
=R5Nr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

(Thomas=A0T.=A0Veldhouse) wrote:
> I believe it very important for people to wear
> seatbelts. I don't even move my car in the
> driveway without habitually putting on my
> seatbelt. However, put that aside. I believe it
> is completely out of order for the goverment
> to mandate actions on the part of an
> individual for that individuals safety and
> ONLY for that individuals safety. Education
> campaigns are one thing, but mandating that
> somebody put on a seatbelt and signing it into
> law allowing public safety officials to waste
> resources enforcing it when it has nothing to
> do with public safety, but rather only the
> safety of the individual they are about to
> punish, is simply ABSURD and a HUGE
> waste of OUR PUBLIC RESOURCES. To
> me, this sounds like a blue law ... except it is
> modern.

I completely agree with this post. Well stated, Tom.

Eric

I would tend to agree, however, in the interest of argument I'll say this.
This seat belt law was put into effect by people that "we" chose to
represent us and our beliefs. It's democracy.
Aside from this though, i agree with Eric that it is annoying and unfair
that it probably takes him longer to drive on the highway to work than it
does to get through some airports even still. I would agree that the time,
effort, and money they are putting toward enforcing this law is in the wrong
proportions, and they should in fact be changing their priorities to
fighting actual crime.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40bf1e2f$0$170$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octan ews.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Eric <caperenewal@webtv.net> wrote:
> >
> > I am not complaining about the law itself, because I know seat belts can
> > help save lives... but what I was complaining about was the way the law
> > is enforced... slowling rush hour interstate traffic down to 10 mph by
> > blocking off one lane and making a stretch of two miles of road take ten
> > minutes to get down... etc. This law is punishing us drivers who
> > normally wear seat belts by delaying us without warning, slowing traffic
> > down to dangerous levels, and what not.
> >
>
> I believe it very important for people to wear seatbelts. I don't even
> move my car in the driveway without habitually putting on my seatbelt.
> However, put that aside. I believe it is completely out of order for
> the goverment to mandate actions on the part of an individual for that
> individuals safety and ONLY for that individuals safety. Education
> campaigns are one thing, but mandating that somebody put on a seatbelt
> and signing it into law allowing public safety officials to waste
> resources enforcing it when it has nothing to do with public safety, but
> rather only the safety of the individual they are about to punish, is
> simply ABSURD and a HUGE waste of OUR PUBLIC RESOURCES. To me, this
> sounds like a blue law ... except it is modern.
>
> - --
>
> Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFAvx4t1p0e3NXsrtERAjHsAJ9KTN7PY7bgGhK+aGiCdi SSeywiFQCgjODo
> pBdMB41fQTSnDR8mICFb42E=
> =R5Nr
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kev <Axekick@comcast.net> wrote:
> I would tend to agree, however, in the interest of argument I'll say this.
> This seat belt law was put into effect by people that "we" chose to
> represent us and our beliefs. It's democracy.

And, as part of a democracy, I can choose to disagree with it. In my
state, the law is on the books largely based upon the efforts of a
single representative. The rest was a big lobby effort and linking to a
related bill. I did not vote for or against that individual, as I did
not live in that portion of the state that he represents. I did not do
due diligence and follow-up to find out if my representative voted for
or against this. I should do that, although it has been more than 10
years since the law went on the books (although not enforced until this
year).

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAvyiX1p0e3NXsrtERAuZ8AJ4g4S0cYU3JEdn6sDoNhw ++U24zygCcDwkp
YuGXwPebMuqJaS0QHEbZq9Q=
=eWTA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article <27563-40BF2459-106@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net>,
caperenewal@webtv.net (Eric) wrote:

> (Thomas*T.*Veldhouse) wrote:
> > I believe it very important for people to wear
> > seatbelts. I don't even move my car in the
> > driveway without habitually putting on my
> > seatbelt. However, put that aside. I believe it
> > is completely out of order for the goverment
> > to mandate actions on the part of an
> > individual for that individuals safety and
> > ONLY for that individuals safety. Education
> > campaigns are one thing, but mandating that
> > somebody put on a seatbelt and signing it into
> > law allowing public safety officials to waste
> > resources enforcing it when it has nothing to
> > do with public safety, but rather only the
> > safety of the individual they are about to
> > punish, is simply ABSURD and a HUGE
> > waste of OUR PUBLIC RESOURCES. To
> > me, this sounds like a blue law ... except it is
> > modern.
>
> I completely agree with this post. Well stated, Tom.

If the person is mandated to have a couple of million in medical
insurance then its OK to let them make themselves a vegetable by not
wearing a seatbelt. It's a waste of PUBLIC RESOURCES to provide
perpetual care for folks severely injured by their unwillingness to
protect themselves.

In article <1oGdnTpWB8DNuCLdRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
"Kev" <Axekick@comcast.net> wrote:

> I would tend to agree, however, in the interest of argument I'll say this.
> This seat belt law was put into effect by people that "we" chose to
> represent us and our beliefs. It's democracy.
> Aside from this though, i agree with Eric that it is annoying and unfair
> that it probably takes him longer to drive on the highway to work than it
> does to get through some airports even still. I would agree that the time,
> effort, and money they are putting toward enforcing this law is in the wrong
> proportions, and they should in fact be changing their priorities to
> fighting actual crime.

In 1973 cars were initially manufactured that wouldnt start wothout your
belt buckled, but Government wimped out after people complained. No major
enforcement effort is necessary with lowcost seatbelt interlocks in
effect.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Phillip <Phillip@gte.net> wrote:
>
> If the person is mandated to have a couple of million in medical
> insurance then its OK to let them make themselves a vegetable by not
> wearing a seatbelt. It's a waste of PUBLIC RESOURCES to provide
> perpetual care for folks severely injured by their unwillingness to
> protect themselves.

That is an entirely different issue than seat belt enforcement.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAvzvO1p0e3NXsrtERApj5AJ9G2IN5k1MiWkysGezENQ MQr+GEJgCgjpvu
sxs9Sjsult5Ckat+5ASrOVc=
=mgdU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article <rmarkoff-A86DAA.09432003062004@news2.west.earthlink.net>,=2 0
rmarkoff@faq.city says...
>=20
> If the person is mandated to have a couple of million in medical=20
> insurance then its OK to let them make themselves a vegetable by not=20
> wearing a seatbelt. It's a waste of PUBLIC RESOURCES to provide=20
> perpetual care for folks severely injured by their unwillingness to=20
> protect themselves.
>=20

Government shouldn't be in the business of health care either.

--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

"Røbert M." wrote:
>
> In article <1oGdnTpWB8DNuCLdRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
> "Kev" <Axekick@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I would tend to agree, however, in the interest of argument I'll say this.
> > This seat belt law was put into effect by people that "we" chose to
> > represent us and our beliefs. It's democracy.
> > Aside from this though, i agree with Eric that it is annoying and unfair
> > that it probably takes him longer to drive on the highway to work than it
> > does to get through some airports even still. I would agree that the time,
> > effort, and money they are putting toward enforcing this law is in the wrong
> > proportions, and they should in fact be changing their priorities to
> > fighting actual crime.
>
> In 1973 cars were initially manufactured that wouldnt start wothout your
> belt buckled, but Government wimped out after people complained. No major
> enforcement effort is necessary with lowcost seatbelt interlocks in
> effect.

Pretty easy to defeat the interlocks.

Larry

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Phillip <Phillip@gte.net> wrote:
> >
> > If the person is mandated to have a couple of million in medical
> > insurance then its OK to let them make themselves a vegetable by not
> > wearing a seatbelt. It's a waste of PUBLIC RESOURCES to provide
> > perpetual care for folks severely injured by their unwillingness to
> > protect themselves.
>
> That is an entirely different issue than seat belt enforcement.

It's part of the reason the law was suggested in the first place.

Larry

In article <40BF5C15.1640550D@spamcop.net>,
Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:

> "Røbert M." wrote:
> >
> > In article <1oGdnTpWB8DNuCLdRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
> > "Kev" <Axekick@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I would tend to agree, however, in the interest of argument I'll say
> > > this.
> > > This seat belt law was put into effect by people that "we" chose to
> > > represent us and our beliefs. It's democracy.
> > > Aside from this though, i agree with Eric that it is annoying and
> > > unfair
> > > that it probably takes him longer to drive on the highway to work than it
> > > does to get through some airports even still. I would agree that the
> > > time,
> > > effort, and money they are putting toward enforcing this law is in the
> > > wrong
> > > proportions, and they should in fact be changing their priorities to
> > > fighting actual crime.
> >
> > In 1973 cars were initially manufactured that wouldnt start wothout your
> > belt buckled, but Government wimped out after people complained. No major
> > enforcement effort is necessary with lowcost seatbelt interlocks in
> > effect.
>
> Pretty easy to defeat the interlocks.

Enough didnt think so and complained that they stopped after 4 or 5
months.

In article <40BF5C64.22868C6A@spamcop.net>,
Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:

> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Phillip <Phillip@gte.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > If the person is mandated to have a couple of million in medical
> > > insurance then its OK to let them make themselves a vegetable by not
> > > wearing a seatbelt. It's a waste of PUBLIC RESOURCES to provide
> > > perpetual care for folks severely injured by their unwillingness to
> > > protect themselves.
> >
> > That is an entirely different issue than seat belt enforcement.
>
> It's part of the reason the law was suggested in the first place.
>
> Larry

Its total hypocrisy to say: "I believe in Seatbelts, but not requiring
they be worn; or Let everyone else be required, but not me"

But its coming from the same people that use Executive Services or
Retention, but then dont want anyone else to know about it.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> It's part of the reason the law was suggested in the first place.
>
> Larry

Perhaps ... but the problem there is publically subsidized health care
in an emergency. There are MANY reasons why this can be a problem.
Should they mandate that all adults without health insurance and who
have a family history of heart disease take an aspirin a day whether
they want to or not? Of course not. Hell, they could just require that
anybody over the age of 60 be executed (Orwell) and then the issue of
Medicare and Social Security would virtually go away. But under the
radar comes a seat belt law with the very same "intent" ... with one
hitch ... there is revenue to be made on the penalties ... and THAT is
the true agenda behind these laws (at least at the local and state level).

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAv2ZY1p0e3NXsrtERAiarAJ4vGtLi+VS3rp/zsSS/1kwuM1VuXgCcCi5j
gyTV+WAlVronU6GbFGivuYA=
=66u5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > It's part of the reason the law was suggested in the first place.
> >
> > Larry
>
> Perhaps ... but the problem there is publically subsidized health care
> in an emergency. There are MANY reasons why this can be a problem.
> Should they mandate that all adults without health insurance and who
> have a family history of heart disease take an aspirin a day whether
> they want to or not? Of course not. Hell, they could just require that
> anybody over the age of 60 be executed (Orwell) and then the issue of
> Medicare and Social Security would virtually go away. But under the
> radar comes a seat belt law with the very same "intent" ... with one
> hitch ... there is revenue to be made on the penalties ... and THAT is
> the true agenda behind these laws (at least at the local and state level).

There's not one penny to be made, if everyone wore seatbelts.

Larry

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lawrence Glasser <lglasser@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>> There's not one penny to be made, if everyone wore seatbelts.
>>
>> Larry

I wrote:
>
> Then there would be no need for the money making law.
>

My point was that you were using a circular argument ... so I just
clarified that now.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAv4LT1p0e3NXsrtERAqv/AJ0YlLGhyN57M6E4AABH8g/KXjR9dgCgoOgX
8PjnlVG37XICLMCU4RD6r+0=
=Qu5a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----