my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Why do you wear a seat belt, and do you require your passengers to do the same? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Why do you wear a seat belt, and do you require your passengers to do the same? Andy Muirhead Master Film Handler Posts: 323 From: Galashiels, Scotland Registered: Dec 2000 posted 05-25-2003 07:46 PM                     I wear a seatbelt because it saved my life once. If it wasn't law, maybe I wouldn't have been wearing it at the time being a fairly immortal 18 year old. Now I'm 29 and know I am not immortal! If you are a passenger in my car, I am the boss and you better wear your belt, especially if you are in the rear, or your walking. Bob Maar, I'm not sure if you ever get to do this, but hypothetically, If you had to change a Xenon bulb, would you shun all protective clothing etc? Driving a car is a Privilege, not a Right (where I live anyway), and that Privilege is earned, respected and can be taken away at any moment on any serious charge. Reading some of the above posts makes me glad I am not sharing the road with some of you.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-25-2003 08:04 PM                     Andy, I wear a seatbelt because it made sense. I find it MUCH easier to drive with a seatbelt...no law was required. My driving-right and anti-seatbelt commentary is strictly directed towards the USA. A country that was founded on the principle that the government is to be restrained and controlled rather than gone to for "privileges." So few of my country folk nowadays seem to have payed attention in their school when the founding of the country and the principles behind its constitution and laws. Take, for instance, the rather uneducated statement about how if driving was a right, the governement couldn't take it away since rights can't be taken away...what an embarassingly silly statement. Any and all rights may be taken away from the citizenship so long as the citizen has been given DUE PROCESS. That is, even the highest right (nope not free speech) the right to actually live can be taken away so long as you have been given due process. So, if you are convicted of a capitol offense, providing you have been given your due process in accordance with the law of the land (fair trial, and in the case of capitol punishment...an automatic appeal) you may be deprived of your life. Steve  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-25-2003 08:32 PM                     quote: I wear a seatbelt because it made sense. I find it MUCH easier to drive with a seatbelt...no law was required Unfortunately a gigantic number of people out on the roadways refuse to wear seat belts, hence the legislation of seat belt laws. Even with the law in place, many still do not wear the restraints. When Oklahoma first enacted their seat belt law, the highway patrol could not stop you if that was the only offense. They would tack on a no-seatbelt charge if they saw you not strapped in when clocking you for a speeding ticket. The paper tiger of a law didn't have any teeth. A couple years later, after a good number of people have launched themselves through their windsheilds doing the Superman thing at high speed to splatter their brains out all over the pavement at 75mph, the lack of a seat belt in Oklahoma is a stoppable offense on its own. Passengers will get cited same as drivers for not strapping in. The OHP has a publicity campaign going called "click-it or ticket."  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-25-2003 08:55 PM                     Steve said: quote: Any and all rights may be taken away from the citizenship so long as the citizen has been given DUE PROCESS. That is, even the highest right (nope not free speech) the right to actually live can be taken away so long as you have been given due process. So, if you are convicted of a capitol offense, providing you have been given your due process in accordance with the law of the land (fair trial, and in the case of capitol punishment...an automatic appeal) you may be deprived of your life. Steve, you are absolutely correct. "Due Process" strikes me as being the key word.  |  IP: Logged John Westlund Expert Film Handler Posts: 204 From: Burney, CA, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 05-25-2003 09:06 PM                     I re-read my post and its not exactly what I wanted to say. I wanted to do some research before I stuck my foot in my mouth again and this is what I came up with. Some of you may find this interesting Driving: A Right or Privilage After reading this im not sure what I think now. I guess that legally it is a RIGHT to drive an automobile just as Steve G. says.  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-25-2003 10:40 PM                     We will probably have to wait for a ruling from the Supreme Court on this matter. This will definately be a hot topic everywhere in the country. I am no legal expert by any means, but as I read this, one would not be required to demonstrate qualifications to obtain a driver's license, have insurance, or even get a license. This will also mean that a person with no arms or legs would be allowed to *attempt* to drive a motor vehicle. If this proves to be true, we are in for one hell of a ride. I have been told many years ago that no driver's license was required. That was changed because everyone was killing themselves and everybody else in the close proximity. Maybe that's where they got the term, "getting your driver's license out of a Cracker Jack box." Before we jump to conclusions, I think we better wait for a Supreme Court ruling. I have a feeling a reversal of the statue its not going to happen. If it did, I think we will see an amendment to the US and/or State Constitutions in short order that would be ratified in the matter of minutes. Jeeze...this could even include the commercial airline industry. WOW!...like I am going to fly in a 747 with an unqualified pilot at the controls???... I looked at it again, it even does not have a date on it. It could be a hoax. [ 05-25-2003, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Paul G. Thompson ]  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-25-2003 10:46 PM                     It is your absolute, unquestionable and inalienable right to buy, own and drive a car. You don't have to be 16 years old. You don't have to prove your driving ability... Hell! You can be stone blind and dead drunk! Nobody can stop you from driving a car!... Ever! Just remember that the government owns the roads! If you want to drive your car on the government's roads you have to follow THEIR rules! The government paid millions and millions of dollars to build the roads and the government has the right to say who is allowed to drive on them and under what conditions one is allowed to drive on them. If you don't want to follow the government's rules then don't drive your car on the government's roads! This means that the only places where you will be allowed to drive your car is on your own private property or on the private property of others who have given permission for you to drive your car on said property! It is your right to drive a car. It is a privilege to drive a car on the government's roads. So... YOUR tax money was used to build the government's road, you say? Yes it was but you must remember that all the tax money you have (probably) ever paid and all the tax money you (probably) ever WILL pay in your entire life would probably only build a few miles of road at best! The money to build the government's roads came from the millions of people in your country, state, province, county, town, district and/or parish who gave their share of money to the government in the form of taxes. The money was given with the implicit agreement that the government is to administer the money and to oversee the construction of roads and lay down rules for their use in the way that it sees fit. If you don't like the way the government oversees the construction and use of the roads you don't have to use them. If enough people don't like the way the government does its business then the government must make changes in the way it does its business or risk losing its mandate and becoming invalid. At which time the custodians of the government must be removed from office or the entire government must be changed and reorganized. The only other alternative is anarchy. Because the majority of the people in the world have decided that they don't like anarchy they have all banded together and decided on the formation of governments. They have willingly sacrificed some of their less important rights to do as they please so that other, more important, rights will be protected. They also get the benefits of pooled tax monies and the economies of scale that come with the government's ability to spend large amounts of money on their behalf. This is called the Social Contract. If you don't like it, you don't have to. If you don't want to participate you can go somewhere else. The only problem is that "somewhere else" probably includes most, if not all, of Planet Earth.  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-25-2003 11:22 PM                     John, I question the authentically of that link. That link reminds me of a time when I was aboard the USS Ranger in 1962. (Maybe it was the USS Coral Sea in 1964, I can't remember.) Apparently there was a professional writer that drafted what appeared to be an authentic memorandum and posted it on every bulletin board he could find. The memo looked something like this: From: Senior Medical Officer, USS <blah>, CVA-<blah> To: All personnel Subj: Self Abuse Chits, issuance of: 1. In view or our long lengthly at-sea period, it has come to my attention that many of our personnel on board ship are having difficulty maintaining their <ahem in medical terms>. 2. Therefore, it has been determined that <medical terms again> will assist our personnel with this difficulty. 3. Please feel free to visit our dispensary for issuance of written authorization to perform <ahem in medical terms>. Russ T. Sringe Senior Medical Officer USS <blah> Within an hour, a long line started forming outside the dispensary. A corpsman came out and asked what they are there for. One sailor piped up and said, we are here to pick up our <ahem> chits. "Your WHAT????" I am not making this up. This actually happened. I did, however substituted "self abuse" in place of the word that was actually written.  |  IP: Logged Robert E. Allen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1078 From: Checotah, Oklahoma Registered: Jul 2002 posted 05-25-2003 11:33 PM                     As a former police officer I have driven both on and off duty both before seatbelts were installed in cars and after. I discovered that I have better control of my vehicle when securely strapped in and statistics have proven seat belts save lives. I would wear a safety harness even if it wasn't the law in my state and I require every passenger to do the same. As far as the government getting into our personal lives is concerned some of the really stupid things I've seen done, whether it be in the area of driving, booze, drugs, smoking or sex demand the government get involved in our personal lives to protect us from ourselves. You can drive all you want, with or without a seat belt, or even a license, as long as you do that driving on your own private property. But the instant you get on a public highway, owned by the government, that government (representing me and all responsible drivers) has every right to demand you adhere to certain standards and practices for the PRIVILEGE of operating a vehicle on that public roadway for my protection and yours. It never ceases to amaze the the number of people in today's supposedly "enlightened" generations that don't want to play by the rules and seem to believe that the Constitution grants them certain "rights" that permit them to do or say just about anything they want regardless of the effect on other individuals or society in general. Is it any wonder that our nation is, as they say, "going to Hell in a handbasket"?  |  IP: Logged Gerard S. Cohen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 975 From: Forest Hills, NY, USA Registered: Sep 2001 posted 05-26-2003 10:10 AM                     Seems to me the website link JW posted is misleading. What appears to be a directive by a police chief is not. No PD, title or name is given, and the phrasing is that of a polemic, not a directive from a Chief of Police. The phrasing of the court decisions, including "...or carriage..." sounds ancient, and no dates are given, nor jurisdictions. And if you look at the links in the right-hand column, there are links to articles saying that the 16th Ammendment was ratified fraudulently, that no-one need pay income tax, etc. There must be many websites like this one, but one must take them with a grain of salt. Otherwise, when you find a letter in your mail, or an email or website, from a Nigerian prince, asking you to accept fifty million dollars from him, in return for your sending him only five thousand US dollars as security...  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.