Do you think that Kansas needs a stronger seat-belt law? / LJWorld.com

Previous Next

Asked at Massachusetts Street on January 16, 2005

“No. I think $10 is fine. Seat belts are definitely a good thing, but I think it’s really up to us. I don’t think that the government needs to force us.”

— Quinn Wasson, Free State High School sophomore, Lawrence

“Oh yes, considering I’m from Australia. I don’t understand why it is taking so long to come to the states. Other countries have stronger laws; there have been several studies that show that they definitely save lives.”

— Sach Jayasinghe, research scientist, Kansas City, Mo.

“No. I think the one they have now is fine, but I think it should be a stiffer penalty when children are involved.”

— Micki Stewart, system administrator, Lawrence

“Yes, I actually do. I’ve been in an accident before, and I know that wearing a seat belt is what saved my life.”

— Traci Flores, Kansas University senior, Lawrence

Delicious
Digg
Tumblr
Wordpress
Reddit
Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

merrill (anonymous) says…

If it's not enforced what difference does it make. Hopefully we are smart enough to see the advantage....do you like living?
January 16, 2005 at 7:06 a.m.
kansas (anonymous) says…

Stronger law? What's a "stronger law"?
You get pulled over for speeding--and if a cop notices that you aren't wearing your seat belt.....what then?
An automatic 1,000 dollar fine and/or a week spent spent in the pokey??
Oh, please!
January 16, 2005 at 7:46 a.m.
kosmo513 (anonymous) says…

It never ceases to amaze me that certain ones in government think they know best for us, and by God even if we don't like it they are going to MAKE us be safe by passing a law.

Now don't get me wrong, I wear my seatbelt in my car and my helmet when riding a motorcycle, but both should be a personal decision, except in the case of minor children, who definitely should be made to buckle up, be in car seats, wear a helmet, etc.

There are those who would make the argument that if a person is injured while not wearing a seat belt or a helmet, that the government then becomes responsible for their care if they don't have insurance. While there is merit to that argument, I still believe safety does not need to be legislated in these instances. However, it does need to be taught by parents and schools as the right thing to do.
January 16, 2005 at 9:33 a.m.
zzgoeb (anonymous) says…

No need for a stiffer law on seat belts. I propose the "it's your choice" law, with simply says, "No belt, no Social Security dissability"; "No helmet, no S.S. disability". If you die because of these actions, no life insurance payoff. I believe most insurers don't cover skydiving, etc, because of the risk. Also, suicides. This is called being responsible for you own actions. That means your family cares for you, not the rest of us picking up the tab.
January 16, 2005 at 10:26 a.m.
Liberty (anonymous) says…

Why do we want the government to tell us if we need to buckle our seat belt? The insurance companies are the ones that pushed this legislation through, not the people. We don't want more government control, we want government to do only it's intended function. A government that is big enough to give you everything you want or need is big enough to take away everything you have including your freedoms.
January 16, 2005 at 11:28 a.m.
Liberty (anonymous) says…

Article 4 of the Bill of Rights says:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The seat belt law is a violation of the 4th amendment.

The article wants to raise the law so they can use a seat belt as an excuse to stop you for any reason and at any time. This would make a police state, not freedom. If you like living in China or Russia, you should be for this type of law. But if you live in America, you should resist it and support our freedoms and the Bill of Rights.
January 16, 2005 at 11:58 a.m.
mrcairo (anonymous) says…

Those who go on and on and on about how the government is intruding will be the firsts ones with their hands out to accept tax payer support for the rest of their lives when they are disabled because they are too stupid to adhere to simple laws regarding seat belt use.
January 16, 2005 at 1:47 p.m.
Hong_Kong_Phooey (anonymous) says…

First, "Liberty" which militia do you belong to?! How is a seat belt law a violation of the 4th Amendment?? You said, "The article wants to raise the law so they can use a seat belt as an excuse to stop you for any reason and at any time." That makes no sense. Should they make a seat belt law a "primary offense" then getting stopped for not wearing it is not "any reason and at any time". It's "not wearing your seat belt for a reason". Also, which "article" are you referring to that wants to raise the law?! As far as I remember, the news article doesn't advocate one way or the other and IT cannot "raise the law". In other words...Hi, I'm earth, have we met??

As for my own opinion on wearing the seat belt, I think it should be a primary offense. Yes, you can choose not to wear your seat belt, but what about the person next to you? Or behind you? People slingshot around in a car accident like human pinballs. Do you really want their nugget smackin' you in yours? Can you say "brain damage"?...
January 16, 2005 at 4:22 p.m.
Liberty (anonymous) says…

Socialist and Communist are always fun to listen to. Their ignorance of the Constitution and basic freedom is impressive.
January 16, 2005 at 4:57 p.m.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…

If they were serious about saving lives, they'd require a seatbelt interlock that would disable the vehicle if a seat were occupied and the seatbelt in that position not fastened. If they were really serious, they'd get rid of the 3-point belt and mandate 6- or 7-point harnesses.
January 16, 2005 at 4:57 p.m.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…

Liberty,

If you're not fastened in your seat, you're not in full control of the vehicle and are then subjecting others to the foolishness of your decision. Freedom does not give you a license to harm others.
January 16, 2005 at 6:57 p.m.
Fangorn (anonymous) says…

Liberty is exactly correct. This is none of the government's bloody business. I always wear my seatbelt. And if you're riding in my car, you will also wear your seatbelt. But it's *my car*; I have the right to make that determination. The government, at any level, doesn't.

And gccs14r, people make foolish decisions everyday that harm me directly. I mean, Dennis Moore was re-elected, what more can I say. Seriously though, your argument is entirely specious. Using your "logic" I would assert that you are not "in full control" of your faculties and are "subjecting others to the foolishness of your decision" every time you enter a voting booth.

"That government is best which governs least". Thomas Jefferson

Keep your laws off my car!
January 16, 2005 at 8:03 p.m.
zzgoeb (anonymous) says…

Liberty's comment about "they can use a seat belt as an excuse to stop you for any reason and at any time. This would make a police state"...well, the BIG court ruled some time back that "probable cause" was not necessary...seen those driver's license lanes, have ya?. I was stopped and held countless times in the early 70's because I drove a VW, and had long hair...but I'm still "out walking around"...and the current administration makes Nixon's crew look like sissies.

I still say "you act, you pay"...let the market decide...
January 16, 2005 at 10:37 p.m.