Capitol Ideas

By gary_harper

January 18, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this

Passing the seatbelt law only takes away another freedom. Wake up people and stop voting for less freedom.

By Morgan

January 18, 2006 08:13 AM | Link to this

Absolutely !

(And why not make automobile emissions standards applicable since pickup trucks are primarily used to race through Atlanta traffic.)

By an

January 18, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this

Shouldnt we have a choice if we want to wear our seat belt in a car or a truck? I mean wasnt this country founded on freedom. Yet, the government is doing everything they can to take away all freedom from us. If you are 18 or older I think you should be aloud to choose if you want to wear a seatbelt. It shouldnt be the governments choice. You should have the right to decided if you want to protect yourself that way or not. I actually have known people who lived through a wreck only because they werent wearing their seatbelt.

By carl sears

January 18, 2006 08:16 AM | Link to this

Oh….my…Gawd…!!! Just what we need, another ridiculous law. If anything, they need to repeal the silly seat belt laws on teh books now. Of course, if its all about “saving lives” like the do-gooders like to toot, then lets make NASCAR type crash helmets manditory for all drivers/ passengers in vehicles too. Just look at the lives that will be saved. I would like to see how the “protect at all costs” women enjoy having their wig ruffed by these for a change.

By Karl

January 18, 2006 08:18 AM | Link to this

Everytime a new law is passed to save us from ourselves our freedom erodes a little more. The fact is this laws intent is not to save any lives at all. The true intention is to get more grants from the federal govt. That’s the reason so many states have primary seat belt laws. by the way, thats also the reason for HOV lanes.

By Morgan

January 18, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this

Silly, me. Last week I forecast a debate on motorcycle helmets, with the guys arguing about loss of unrestricted freedoms.

By Teresa Woodward

January 18, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this

Everyone who rides in a motorized vehicle on public roads should buckle up. Seat belts and shoulder harnesses hold people safely in place during accidents and may help the driver retain some control of the vehicle. Even ‘big rig’ drivers use seat belts, as do drivers of public utilities trucks.

By Gary Estvanko

January 18, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this

Pick-up truck drivers are less likely to be injured in an accident because the vehicle is made of steel and metal. Most cars have plastic fenders and quarter panels, which makes them less structurally safe during an accident. I have a Chevy Z-71 and it is built like a tank, and I feel very safe knowing I have an airbag and two steel beams under me. I have had cars hit me in the rear, and my towing hitch stops 99% of the impact of the cars. I feel that seatbelts should be left up to the driver.

By william

January 18, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this

when I was a kid, the news showed me that The Soviet Union was a evil empire because they spied on their citizens and had secret prisons. I hate to burst your little bubble, America, but open your eyes and take a look around you. Read a newspaper. You will see that Freedom is a word which doesn’t really apply to this country anymore. What freedom we had is rapidly being taken away from us, and for the most part, no one really complains. All they have to say is, ” It’s a public safety issue”, and all of a sudden whatever freedom they are taking away becomes alright. Tom Murphy was a great man. He stood up for what he believed, and if someone else didn’t like that, then tough. ( most of the time, the somone else I am referring to was The Atlanta Journal). Tom Murphy stood up for what’s right. Tom Murphy followed his convictions. Tom Murphy was never the target of a corruption scandal. Tom Murphy was a great man. Now The Atlanta Journal wants to point fingers and say that Tom Murphy was the cause of this or that, but I point the finger right back at The Atlanta Journal and say that The Atlanta Journal is the willing accomplice of those who would take away more of our freedoms, and as such is not to be trusted by freedom thinkers anywhere in Georgia.

Sure, maybe you could save 26 lives a year, but is the cost to our personal freedom worth it? I say not. I vote for freedom and what used to be called “THE AMERICAN WAY”. These days, those words ring hollow.

By Gina

January 18, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this

Of course this issue will be debated mostly by men, but I AM in favor of the law. Primarily because I have 2 sons that drive pick-ups. I want them protected as much as possible. Their farmer Dad thinks it is stupid, but then what does he know, absolutely nothing. He never follows ANY laws anyway.

By JC

January 18, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

I have driven a pickup truck for years and did not know it was exempt. I would not think of “not” wearing my seat belt in my truck. There is at least 1 pickup on the Atlanta Interstates for every 10 cars. If one has to wear them we all should. I think school buses should be equipped also.

By Morgan

January 18, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

OH ! If women ruled the world :)

By Mike Kasson

January 18, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this

The seat belt laws should be repealed, not expanded. We have few freedoms left, and it should not be the governments place to take away our liberty just to protect us from ourselves.This whole deal is a government money grab.

By Tim

January 18, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this

I love the comments about people “losing their freedoms”. It’s similar to arguments used by people opposed to making motorcycles operators wear helmets. Freedoms come with responsibilities. If pickup truck drivers and passengers don’t want to wear seatbelts, then they should be required to carry $3 million of medical insurance and 4x their annual salary in life insurance so that when they’re killed or seriously injured after being ejected or tossed around in a crash, their lifetime medical care and the support of their families are not forced upon the taxpayers. If you are willing to take responsibility for the consequences of your action, then take the seatbelt off. But just don’t ask the taxpayer to foot the bill for your poor decisionmaking skills.

By Morgan

January 18, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this

Hey guys … if you are so willing to accept consequences of a crash without a seat belt, have the balls to take a traffic citation in the name of stupidity … . I mean “freedom.”

By H. Stan Boring

January 18, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this

One of the reasons I keep my truck is because of this mite of freedom, not having to wear a seat belt. Please, let’s keep this one little area of liberty. To those 26 people who may die; “Be careful out there!”

By Larry

January 18, 2006 08:41 AM | Link to this

How many times have we read about our neighbors’ son, daughter, husband or wife being killed or seriously injured by being thrown from their vehicle, including pickups. I agree it is a freedom issue, the freedom for us to live another day. Law or not, we need to encourage all to teach their children and encourage others to wear seat belts all the time.

By Asiv

January 18, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this

If anyone over the age of 18 wants to fly through a windshield, then they should have the right to. How about passing legislation that really makes difference.

By Ken Clark

January 18, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

Seatbelt laws represent the sum total of the capabilities of Georgia’s legislative idiots. They don’t have the brains or backbone to do something about unemployment, lack of health insurance, sky high, price gouging energy bills and the illegal aliens sponging off the rest of us. “Buckle up” is the best these neanderthals can do. May they all rot in hades.

By PWM

January 18, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

Arent’ there other laws that need to be passed. Leave the seat belt issue up to the individual.

By william

January 18, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

Morgan said: “Absolutely !

(And why not make automobile emissions standards applicable since pickup trucks are primarily used to race through Atlanta traffic.)”

Since when are pickup trucks not included in the emission laws? I think you should get your facts straight, Morgan. You are the typical fascism fan who is more comfortable with jibes like

“”have the balls to take a traffic citation in the name of stupidity … . I mean “freedom.â€?”“

because you don’t have to think to hurl insults. This is typical of the new way of thinking.

Tom Murphy would have put you in your place, I am sure. We could use a few good men like Tom Murphy in our government.

By ltc

January 18, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

Who promised me life everlasting…Do I want to live my life just to live longer or do I want to live life.

By Ralph

January 18, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

Come on… How hard is it to simply wear the darn seatbelt in the truck? It is a proven fact that seatbelts save lives. How does wearing the seatbelt limit freedom? I serious doubt you will be less free if you wear the seatbelt.

You can still move around enough to drive, hang your arm out the window. Why take chances. If it will add to your safety by keeping you restrained, instead of flying out the window, then the smart thing is to wear it. WEAR IT.

By John

January 18, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

If we’re going to force life saving measures on citizens,let’s begin with outlawing cigarettes. Oh,that’s right! There are too many “High Rollers” that would lose money if we did that,so that’s out of the question!

By tom may

January 18, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

While I usually oppose new laws, I don’t think this issue is eroding personal freedom. Nobody is talking about telling you when and where you can go. Nobody is talking about taking away the right to ‘bear arms’. We’re talking about seat belts, for goodness sakes. And, hey, the guy who says we might look into requiring helmets has a good idea (although he would oppose it.) I drive for a living. I know people die in accidents with their seatbelts on. I know people are injured with their seatbelts on who would have and probably should have been killed if they had not been wearing them. Body restraints are good safety requirements. They HELP keep you alive in order to give you the freedom to do even STUPID things. It also will help protect children who are too young to protect themselves.

By Frank Parham

January 18, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

Should we be “forced” to use our seat belts when in pickups? Emphatically, yes! My wife and I drive a pickup and we never fail to buckle up. I can’t believe the comments I’ve seen about “losing another freedom” because the law would require pickup drivers and passengers to do something that would likely save their lives in an accident. I’ve known several people who would be alive today if they had used their brain and buckled their seat belt before hitting the road. One man was found in his pickup with the rear view mirror clutched in his right hand after his pickup went off the road into a ditch. His wife had pleaded with him to use his seat belt. Another case of a hard head bringing on it’s owner’s death!

By Jay

January 18, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

Somebody mentioned insurance costs and costs to the taxpayers. Perhaps a law should be past exempting taxpayers and insurance companies from having to pay if a person is injured or killed while not wearing a seatbelt. Why should my insurance go up for your stupidity? The same applies to motorcycle helmet laws. I’ve been bright enough to use my belts sine the first car I had with them, 1 1961 Chevy. I have always felt more secure wearing them since then. It only took a few days to get used to the feeling. I think I have better control of the car when I don’t have to hold myself in place. Without a belt I ten to slide in the seat. If I’m in ahurry and neglect to put it on, I know almost immediately and pull over and get it on. Nothing to do with the law, I wear it out of common sense.

By ltc

January 18, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this

I will be happy when Georgia passes the suicide law so I do not have to wear seat belts..

By The Grinch

January 18, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

I say repeal all seatbelt laws!!! Let the idiots drive without a seatbelt. Maybe one day they will be out of the gene pool.

By carl sears

January 18, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

Seatbelts? There is a far more danger on the roads than not buckling up. Namely women driving while experiencing PMS. Can we get a law?

By Jenna

January 18, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

I’m 17 and a senior in high school. My dad has always driven ford pick-ups and never really made my little sister and i buckle up. One day it was pouring rain and there was alot of traffic on I-85, so my dad forced us to buckle. About 10 minutes later, i woke up and was leaning against the side of the window, with glass all in my head & face. My sister and ada were still knocked out. We spent a total of 8 weeks in the hospital. I personally under went 5 palstic surgeries. Our doctor said that if my dad hadn’t made us buckle, none of us wouldn’t be here today. So when forming an opinion, consider the many lives not buckling has destroyed.

By Richard

January 18, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

Wearing a seat belt has nothing to do with it. People just don’t like being told what to do. I bet if the law stated if you are stopped and are wering your seat belt, you’ll receive a discount from your insurance company your butt would be wearing it. If wearing a seat belt will help save a life, then I’m all for it…I don’t care what your riding in, if your hit just right in your car or truck etc you can flip, or be ejected from the vehicle. And to be honest I Love my family to much to cause them any pain from me, having a lack of intelligence by not following the laws…

Thanks to our Law makers for caring enough about our safety, to revisit this law.

By Al

January 18, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

I think some people should be encouraged to not wear seatbelts. If you have a Nascar sticker on your truck, you shouldn’t wear a seatbelt. If you have a cartoon character urinating on your truck, don’t even think about buckling up. If your truck doesn’t have turn signals(as far as you know), please do not take any precautions to save your own life.

We only need these people to stop wearing the seatbelts, drive faster, and disable their airbags and the roads would(eventually) be a safer place. 26? I think we can do better.

By Hellbent

January 18, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

Wah, wah, wah! Please, somebody, show me in the Constitution and or The Bill Of Rights where it states that it is a Right to operate a motor-vehicle with or without a seatbelt! Stupidity should be painful.

By Alexis

January 18, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

What a wonderful idea! Repeal the seat belt law and we can see natural selection in action! If a person is too stupid to wear their seatbelt and dies in a car accident, they are in fact strengthening the general population by eliminating themselves from the gene pool. Bravo people! Someone should have thought of this earlier.

By pec

January 18, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

YES. Everyone should wear them. Georgia is loosing a lot of money on taxes for our roads because of this bill. Give me a break on loosing freedom.

By carl sears

January 18, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

Going to the web site of The Women’s Health Channel, I find the following listed as symptoms of PMS:

“• Mood-related (“affective”) symptoms: depression, sadness, anxiety, anger, irritability, frequent and severe mood swings. • Mental process (“cognitive”) symptoms: decreased concentration, indecision.”

Does that sound like one hundred percent to you? I figure it’s a pretty good description of an unstable borderline psychotic. Oh good. I want to drive on the roads with someone who doesn’t pay attention, couldn’t decide what to do it she did, and wants to kill something. Me, probably.

We need to recognize the seriousness of PMS. People joke about it, as they do about drunkenness, but these women are public hazards. “Anger, irritability, frequent and severe mood swings�? (Now that’s a revelation.) “Decreased concentration�? Sounds like a bad drunk in a pool hall, a recipe for inattentive homicidal road-rage. I think the police should send squads into supermarket parking lots to check for these impaired women. Other cops should wait outside churches. To better protect the public we should have checkpoints on highways.

How does an officer tell when a woman is irresponsibly driving while under the, er, influence? Not by asking her. The impaired lie. With drunks, the dissimulation is often obvious. (“Jush two beersh, offsher.�) Those suffering from PMS can feign sanity, however briefly. Perhaps they should be required to carry a notarized letter from a gynecologist, like a hall pass. Or a governmentally issued calendar.

Ponder this from Planet Estrogen: “Additionally, several studies demonstrate reduced reaction time, neuromuscular coordination and manual dexterity during the pre-menstruation and menstrual phases.�

Are not these the classic symptoms of a snootful? The police might reasonably carry a device to test reaction times. They might profitably lurk in nail salons. Disguised.

But there is hope in technology. Last year for a newspaper I covered a proposal in New Mexico, supported by MADD, to make it impossible to start your car if you have been drinking:

From The Agitator: “People across the state are upset with House Bill 126, which would require ignition interlock devices be installed on all new cars sold in New Mexico by Jan. 1, 2008, regardless of the purchaser’s driving record…” (It didn’t pass.)

“…The interlock device uses a blow tube which activates sensors when one blows into the tube. If alcohol is detected, the sensors activate a mechanism which shuts down the vehicle’s ignition system and the car cannot be started.â€?

The approach illutstrates the weird totalitarianism of the female. Anything, anything at all, to increase security, security, security. We are all two-year-olds in need of diapering. The Mommy State is well named.

The wisdom of the ignition-interlock is of course evident. You go camping with your daughter. While you sit around the fire heisting a brew, she falls and cuts herself on the ax. She is bleeding badly. You rush her to the car to go to the hospital and…it won’t start. What the hell. You can adopt.

I believe that cars should be equipped with hormone-level detectors, similar to the blood-sugar monitors used by diabetics. At the very least, to start the car the potentially impaired driver should have to insert her governmentally-issued calendar into a slot and put her hand in a fingerprint-reader.

Whatever the solution, society should not have to tolerate such threats to children. Note that women are in fact sometimes around children, when they get home from work. Further, research shows that they are habitual offenders. Drunks can sometimes be weaned off the juice, but here we are dealing with assured repeaters. At the very least perpetrators should be required to undergo therapy, perhaps in twelve-step programs. Should this not work, electronic ankle-bracelets might protect us. Institutionalization could help.

Nelson Soucasaux, gynecologist: “Psychological signs and symptoms: Increase of nervous tension, anxiety, irritability, changes in the personality, emotional instability, depression, as well as increase or reduction of the sexual desire.�

Irritable sex-crazed depressives at the wheel, with bad reflexes. Alternatively, frigid nut-cases. This is the adult responsibility that Heather wants? I am going to start a group called DAMM, Dads Against Monthly Murder. We will meet in tree houses, above the roofline of an SUV.

Fred Reed-Fred on Everything

By Morgan

January 18, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

“william” try this on for size … what’s your opinion is based on?

Tailpipe Tally How much does your vehicle pollute? Find out for models new and old.

For 2004 model year vehicles, new federal and California standards have begun to take effect. The new standards are designed to reduce pollution significantly and encompass all passenger vehicles, including sport utility vehicles (SUVs), minivans, vans and pick-up trucks. The standards will be phased in, so that by 2007 almost all passenger vehicles will meet them. (Some large SUVs, pick-up trucks, and vans will receive an additional two years, until 2009, under the Federal standard.) This new regulation marks the first time that SUVs and other light-duty trucks — even the largest passenger vehicles — will be subject to the same national pollution standards as cars.

By hogbert

January 18, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

I personally am all for more laws to restrict freedom. I was so happy when they started censoring TV again. I just hate all those words. I wish they would outlaw more words. The last book I read was filled with words. Why can’t they pass a law against books too? I had an uncle who was walking on the side of the road and someone threw a book out of a car and it killed him. How many people have to die before you learn? Books and words kill people!!!!!!!!

By tom may

January 18, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

The greater the freedom, the greater the responsibility. If a person wants the freedom to ride without a seatbelt, he should also be willing to accept the consequences…and the consequence isn’t always death. Sometimes it is catastrophic injury requiring months and years of medical assistance, rehabilitation and care. Therefore, all insurance policies that relate to an accident should include clauses that exempt payment for medical care of any kind, no matter who is at fault, if the insured is not wearing safety restraints. I don’t want to take away someone else’s right to be stupid; I just don’t want to pay for it.

Oh yeah, to those of you who are afraid of losing this little freedom, I bet you’re still pretty p** about the fact that you have to drive sober. I mean, talk about losing a freedom. Those were the good old days.

And to the guy who says we need more ‘good guys’ like Tom Murphy, you really are stupid. Tom Murphy was an egomaniacal, self-serving sob; and he didn’t do anything for anybody if it didn’t serve his own selfish little interests. He didn’t give 2 craps for your freedom. It was his freedom that he was all about when it came to the seatbelt issue. You need to learn your Georgia history!!!!

By william

January 18, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

my opinion is based on the emission sticker on my trucj, and I don’t live in California

By pec

January 18, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Please tell me this PMS guy is from another planet. Get a life

By pec

January 18, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Ah, I forgot it IS a guy.

By cat

January 18, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

Yes, I bet he’s SINGLE too.

By william

January 18, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

If cars are so unsafe that you can’t safely operate one without a seatbelt, then I say OUTLAW CARS. If everyone drove a truck then we would not need seatbelts.

By doc

January 18, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

I will wear my seatbelt in my car when they put seatbelts on motorcycles. Why can a motorcycle rider “choose” to ride in danger but i cannot? Helmet laws are not the same. That helmet is not going to help when the seatbelted full sized pickup truck driver puls out in front of you.

By william

January 18, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

Here’s a link to a biogrophy of Tom Murphy, for anyone who might not know who he is:

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?path=/GovernmentPolitics/Politics/PoliticalFigures&id=h-1095

Hre is a selected quote from that biography:

“Believing that George Smith had allowed himself to be manipulated by the media, Murphy refused to spend much time with journalists”.

Read the bio. It shows that Tom Murphy was a dedicated Georgian who fought for his principles. Who endured through the decades in the georgia legislature. who served five governors.

You who mock such a man are little more than foul mouthed children in need of punishment.

By edge770

January 18, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

Personally… No mandatory seatbelts No slick top police cars hiding in weeds doing “speed control” No cities allowed to run traffic stops on the interstate. Eliminate Governor’s Office of Highway Safety.

All this is not about “safety” though.. State will get more money from feds if they fully implement seatbelt law. (50 million I believe is latest estimate).. There are better more fruitful uses of legislator’s time. PLease no sad mothers or depressed dads with their sob stories. Leave citizens alone.

By G

January 18, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Freedom, my butt. Do you have the freedom to be a victim in a wreck? Does your freedom extend to being maimed or injured for life, to become a burden on your family, the healthcare system, and society because you’re too stubborn to do something that has been proven over and over to keep you safer?

My daughter and I were riding in a pickup when we were rammed by a Tahoe that ran a stop sign at 50 mph. We were flipped up and over twice. We were fortunate enough to land on the left side wheels and come down not too hard. The bed, where we took the hit, was bent up at a 45 degree angle and the front end was smashed where it had hit the pavement after the first flip. The impact fortunately did not extend into the passenger compartment. Had we not been wearing seatbelts, we would have bounced around like rocks in a tin can. As it was, we were almost untouched. My daughter did have some seatbelt bruises from the impact, and not broken bones or internal injuries.

Yeah, insist on “freedom”. Be free, next time you’re in a wreck that someone else caused, to become a statistic. Be free to have a burdened and grieving family.

By Ron

January 18, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Why should we pass a law to keep morons from killing themselves? Lets face it, the world is full of braindead idiots anyway.

Tom Murphey was an old political dinosaur whose mind was from the 18th century. All the wimp hacks in the legislature who went along with him should be paraded down Peachtree St in the back of pickups!

By edge770

January 18, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

I fully understand the safety context, and actually have public safety knowledge. However, I also know that individuals should make decisions for themselves. What about the 400 pound person that can’t get the seatbelt to wrap around them. Should the state mandate they provide bigger seatbelt for that user? Some of the seatbelts were poorly designed? Do we have Nanny Perdue go and chase the automakers? There’s a reason why there is a growing consensus that it was a bad idea for women to be allowed to vote. They think on emotion, and safety/security. Protect us from all bad things. Not, the minimal law to create the most good at the least cost. Again the seat belt law is not a safety issue, it’s getting more money for roads.

By nunya

January 18, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

The seat belt law is a joke. The cops don’t give a damn about your safety. They use it as an extortion tool to snare people so they can be fined; adding money to the local cities bottom line. The motorcycle helmet law is the same thing. It is good sense to wear helmets and seat belts but I don’t need the government legislating common sense. If they succeed in outlawing cell phones they will be out driving around looking for people on the phone so they can take their money also.

I live close to an HOV exit ramp off 85 and there are frequently half a dozen cops sitting at the bottom of the ramp ticketing people who exit close to their destination in Buckhead. One day I had to call the police and the cops were clustered down there but it took 3 hours to get a cop to respond. When they are on their money grabbing patrol they are not considered available for real police work.

The bottom line is that all these laws are used for extorting your money for the city to use to support their mismanaged programs.

By Karl

January 18, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

If you really want to make the roads safer. Outlaw cell phone use in all vehicles!

By McdonoughDawg

January 18, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Anybody who doesn’t wear a seatbelt is just telling the entire world they are an idiot. Same situation as people that smoke.

By william

January 18, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

If you think wearing a seatbelt in a car makes you less likely to die in a crash, think again: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s latest study shows that you are MORE LIKELY TO DIE IN A CRASH IF YOU ARE WEARING A SEAT BELT.

Here are the numbers from the study:

for the year 2004: passenger cars, drivers and passengers killed, seat belt worn: 48%

passenger cars, drivers and passengers killed, seat belt NOT worn: 45%

Read em and weep. seat belt kill more people than they save.

na na na na na

By BB

January 18, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

“I agree with Tim”; don’t wear a seatbelt only if you are prepared to PAY for your medical bils and rehab, if you survive.

By sarah

January 18, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

carl sears, I think you have a serious problem. You obviously think that women should be powerless for one week out of every month. Not able to drive, work, talk on the phone, or interact with the rest of the population. So, who’s going to wait on you at Waffle House? Who’s going to check your vital signs at the hospital? Who’s going to teach your kids to read at school? Being a woman, I can tell you that PMS has never hindered my ability to drive, work or interact with people normally. You are a militant sexist and you need help. I hope to god you’re not married. If so, I guess you lock your wife up every four weeks so that no one can see how “insane” she is from PMS. I suggest you move to one of the many tribal countries that actually do lock women up for an entire week every month. You’d be much happier there. And you wouldn’t have to worry about some “insane” premenstrual woman ruining your ride to work. As if that ever happens.

By blahblah

January 18, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

If you want to make cars safer, outlaw soccer moms driving cars with kids.

By tom may

January 18, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

To the guy who said that those who criticize Tom Murphy are “little more than foul mouthed children in need of punishment”, I say, “WHO ARE YOU???” I’m 56 years old and I lived through the tyrannical rule of Tom Murphy. How old are you? I watched him do whatever he pleased in the House, and allow only those he wanted to speak. If you have to depend on some a historical account written with a bias and limited facts, then you are indeed in the category of fools. True, Tom Murphy did a lot of things for people. He “took care” of the people of his district with ‘pork barrel’ politics, but don’t let anyone fool you into thinking he did it for any reason but to stay in power and keep a stranglehold on GA politics for decades. Men like Tom Murphy have given Georgia a bad name for decades.

By william

January 18, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Here’s the numbers for georgia, read em any way you want:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/stsi/State_Info.cfm?Year=2004&State=GA&Accessible=0

By william

January 18, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

tom may:

I am 48 years old and remember tom murphy as well. I provided the link for anyone who might not be familiar with him.

I respect your right to your opinion.

However, labeling me a “fool” for having an opinion different from yours is anti-american and anti-freedom. Tolerance of peoples differences and opinions is what made this country great. A healthy debate is just that—-healthy for democracy.

rancorous name calling is divisive and unproductive.

By Joe

January 18, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

I drive a pick-up, and I wear my seat belt every time I drive ANY vehicle. But I disagree with the government being able to FORCE me at the point of a gun (and that is what we are talking about) to do something that I, as an adult, should have the choice to make for myself. It is not the governments role to protect me from myself or to be my nanny. What we should be concentrating on are the overwhelming number of bad drivers on our roads.

By Hellbent

January 18, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…..Stupidity should be painful.

By william

January 18, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

tom may:

I think you made my point for me when you said this about tom murphy:

“It was his freedom that he was all about when it came to the seatbelt issue”

That’s right….His freedom. FREEDOM… MUCH MORE THAN A WORD

By Dick

January 18, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Well!! Another day in session. What bills should we present to the governing body. Immigration Problems?Naw, that has been hashed to death, plus the great citizens of Georgia don’t mind footing the bill for the ilegals medical care, school, and food. Medicare and Medicaid abuse?Nw, that ain’t interesting. Foreigners coming into our state and borrowing money from our government at 3% interest and not having to pay income tax for 5 years? naw, this is the land of opportunity, citzens in Georgia will understand. Crime rate increasing each and every day, drugs on street corners, weapons in schools? Naw, we expect that.Yeh, here is an idea, let’s look stupid and pass a law saying you must wear a seatbelt. Citizens in Georgia aren’t smart anyway they keep putting the same people in office. You can pass the law, but I won’t wear mine.

By Barry Flowers

January 18, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

I think it’s not right to force us to wear seatbelts at all. We should be able to do what ever we wont with our personal cars. As a matter of fact why do I have to pay taxes on my car every year? I own it, I pay county and state taxes! The system is milking us of our hard earned money people lets put a stop to it now!

By Trish

January 18, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

If this law was about safety the government should provide a required driver’s education course for everyone. We all know that the government is not concerned with our safety. They do whatever they can to keep their pockets lined.

And PMS guy needs to get a life. It’s not funny anymore dude.

By D BROOKS

January 18, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

I think it should be left up to the driver and passengers whether or not their lives be saved when in an accident.I do wear my seatbelt. And I think everyone should.

By Dick

January 18, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

The mention of seatbelts and studies by our highway dept reminded me of the results from study done recently. Back in 2000 our TSB installed the black boxes like those used on airplans in SUV’s and Pickup trucks. They wanted to know what was said, or went thru the minds of people 15 to 30 second prior to a collision. The most said statment from the states of Nevaada, Utah, Oklahoma and Conneticut was “Oh No’, Oh God”, “look out”. The most said statement in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee was “Here hold my beer, I’m gonna try something”.

By Jim

January 18, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

For those of you who advocate not having to wear a seat belt, I agree, except of course when you get in an accident and want the public to pay for your medical treatment for you not wearing a seat belt.

By Markus

January 18, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

To all you idiots who complain about losing your “freedom” when being forced by law to wear a seatbelt (or motorcycle helmet): do you also complain about losing your “freedom” when you are told to drive a certain speed limit by law? Do you also complain about losing your “freedom” when you are told you cannot drive under the influence of alcohol?

In any event, for you pinheads out there so concerned about your “freedom” and not wearing your seatbelt in a pickup (or motorcycle helmet), the FACT is that your love of “freedom” becomes ALL of OUR responsibilities when your @ss goes flying through the windshield in a car accident. How? By increased medical and insurance costs for ALL. And that includes the ignorant bikers in Florida as well who b!tch about possibly being forced by law down the road to actually wear a helmet.

Actually, just forget everything I said. Let’s just let Darwin’s Law take care of all these pinheads.. forget street laws.

By Bob

January 18, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

I’m a life long pick up truck driver, from past the age 18 anyway and I that buckel up each time I am behind the wheel, so does the other passengers. This is not only for my saftey but to also provide an example to my kids. I’ll pick my battles wiser than this to fight over lost freedoms. I’m all for preserving my individual as well as states rights, but this is just common sense.

By Carrie

January 18, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

Someone beat me to it, but…..if they want to drive around without a seatbelt then they should be able to do it. This is a great way to clear out the gene pool - we’ve kept the stupid from hurting themselves for far too long.

PMS Guy - Ha ha - Hmmmmmmm - don’t date much, huh?

If the lawmakers really want to protect us on the roads I would suggest a ban on cell phones while driving. I’m nearly killed daily on 400 by someone chatting on the phone or I end up driving 40 mph behind them in the far the left lane.

By Hellbent

January 18, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

All of these knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing miscreants who are so upset about “losing their freedoms” are probably the same ones who voted for the current leadership in Washington who are hell-bent on destroying our Constitution & Bill Of Rights….can anyone say Patriot Act?

By william

January 18, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

if this debate was about outlawing cell phones while driving, I believe many of you would be switching to my side.

while I can not find hard data, I would venture to guess that cell phone use in automobiles kills more people than the 26 pickup truck drivers who die each year because they are not wearing seat belts.

And fuuny you should mention alcohol, because fully 30% of all fatal accidents have alcohol involved, yet no one is talking about outlawing alcohol.

As others have said, this “problem” about about pickup truck seat belt use is inane. If we expected more from our government, then they would have to get busy and show us some results. But as it is, they throw us some silly hot button issue and keep us talking about that while they grab as much soft money as they can for themselves.

But, no use crying about that as fully 50% of americans either work for the goverment, or depend on someone who does.

The civilization of Rome fell for a similar reason. Too much government.

By an

January 18, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Okay…you people need to get a life. Not everyone is going to agree on if we should be made to wear a seatbelt or not. I personally dont think if you are over 18 you should be forced to wear it. I agree with the comment about being held at gun point. Which is what it has come to. You can watch tv or talk on the phone while driving which causes most of the wrecks…but they want to push something about wearing a seatbelt instead of the things that are taking away peoples attention. Most of the wrecks out there today are caused by carelessness and not paying attention. If you have an opinion on the issue say it…but all this crying and yelling at each other is a bunch of bull. Grow up and act like adults instead of like a 5 year old. What happened to being taught right from wrong, but then being allowed to make your own decisions. I mean only we can make decisions for ourselves and we are the ones who have to live with them and the consequences. There are more important things that our government should be dealing with and yet this stupid seatbelt issue seems to be the front runner every year. Actually, I should say money is the front runner. Find out all your facts on things before you start calling someone stupid and respect others opinions.

By Jerry B

January 18, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

NO, seat belts should be an individual choice. This is like so many other things that the liberals shove down our throats. It is my neck, my vehicle. No one’s business about seat belts but mine.

By cat

January 18, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

Sarah, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

By Sara

January 18, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

I was about to cooment about why are we even debating this, it’s a no-brainer but then I read where they’re serving up guiena pigs on Buford Avenue.

By vard

January 18, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

The thing that amazes me is the fact that throughout this entire debate not a single person has mentioned the obvious. The State isn’t enacting this legislation for anyone’s safety, they are doing it to get the money from the fed. Legislation is initiated by lobbyists. Lobbyists have a vested financial stake in the legislation. Politicians crow about public safety, but they are actually just on the take from the insurance companies and special interest groups. If you like the law fine, but don’t pretend it is being passed because of the altruism of politicians. Every action they take is motivated by money. So when this bill passes will the citizens of Ga. get an across the board reduction in insurance premiums because now our roads are safer? Dont hold your breath. The next “safety” issue is right down the road. Whether it is air bags or ABS brakes or whatever, our insurance premiums will increase and so will the cost of vehicles that have to be outfitted with more and more safety devices. Someone posted that accidents make our taxes go up. Does anyone honestly believe that now our taxes will decrease? Our cost of living rises continually while insurance companies post record profits?

By florine johnson

January 18, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

personal freedoms are being taken from us one by one. It is not a safety issue it is a money issue. As an adult I should be able to choose to wear or not wear a seat belt or helmet. Wheather I wear a seat belt or not does not effect my driving. Therefore I am putting no one other than myself in danger. If you want to pass a law to protect others while I am driving. Pass one to stop cell phone use while in a car. Pass one to stop loud radios the prevent the driver from hearing horns, emergency vehicles ect. Pass one that goes after the agressive driver. Those who use turn lanes to pass. Let us alone. We are adults and should be treated as adults. Next you will pass a law saying I have to strap myself in bed because I might fall out in the middle of the night.

By Glen Gibbs

January 18, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

You are right about personal freedoms being taken away. But with our society having turned from personal responsibility to ‘its someone elses fault and I’m suing’, we don’t have any choice but to enact laws. It should be that we decide if we want to buckle up or not, wear a helmet or not when we ride a motorcycle. But now someone gets in an accident and wasnt’ wearing a seatbelt and gets hurt, the first thing they try to do is find someone to sue. If we had some judges out there that would throw out all the frivolous lawsuits, then maybe we could get back to good old common sense.

By Morgan

January 18, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

If it’s all about money, I see no reason not to take the $20.7 million that we have forfeit in previous years.

[Hill said the state would be eligible for $20.7 million in grants from the federal government if it passes a comprehensive seat belt law.

“If we wait another year, that money may not be there,” Hill said. “It’s important we pass this legislation soon, before July, and be able to qualify for this money.”](http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/0118legpickup.html)

Those who argue against this must be brain dead already.

By MrLiberty

January 18, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

The only group that should be mandating seatbelt use at all is one’s own insurance company. If they feel it is appropriate, they can place the requirement on their drivers.

Government doing it is just Fascism, plain and simple. I either own my body or the government does. What’s it going to be folks?

By Matt

January 18, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

What’s all the fuss about the government infringing on people’s rights and taking away people’s freedom of choice here regarding mandating seat belt or motorcycle helmet usage? That’s funny… I never hear liberals complain about the Fed taking our hard earned tax dollars at gunpoint for mandatory Socialist Security whereupon (currently) we have no choice to invest for our own retiremet or not all for the benefit of the “group.”

Suddenly we want laws to protect others from making bad decisions that may affect our own lives with regards to higher medical and insurance costs. I never hear liberals complain about the majority of taxpayers supporting a minority of those who don’t pay income taxes (top 50% of income earners pays 95% of all federal income tax revenue).

So exactly where do you liberals draw the line between the rights of individuals and freedom of choice and the rights of a collectivist group anyway?

By Ben

January 18, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

William stated seat belts cause more deaths than saved lives according to the latest study

But, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration the study for the year 2005 shows this:

**Earlier this year, Secretary Mineta announced that the nationwide survey conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) showed belt use rates have hit the milestone of 82 percent — the highest level in the nation’s history. Secretary Mineta also announced earlier that fatalities had hit a historic low: 1.46 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

At a rate of 82 percent, NHTSA estimates that safety belts are preventing 15,700 fatalities, 350,000 serious injuries, and $67 billion in economic costs associated with traffic injuries and deaths every year.**

67 BILLION. Let me repeat, 67 BILLION. Sorry, rednecks. I don’t care if you live or die. But I do care if you do it on my dime. So if you want to talk about freedom, how about my freedom to not have to pay for the consequences of you wanting the “freedom” to spit your tobacco out of your truck window, or your wife’s “freedom” to hang her bare feet out of the passenger window?

By dumass

January 18, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

The reasons we have these laws is because of the comments from people who dont want to wear them.. Thank god you might not be around long to waste my air..Someone has to be the parent of these idiots and make them wear their belts..If it takes a law to save lifes then so be it.

By Akagi

January 18, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

I drive a pick-up and wear a seat belt even though I am exempt because I know if I am in an accident I am less likely to die and my chances of serious injuries are reduced.

However, not only should there be no law for anyone over 18 requiring occupants of pick-ups to wear a seat belt, there should be no law requiring any occupant over 18 of any vehicle to wear a seat belt. Just more examples of the creeping nanny state not to mention a way for local authorities to raise revenue via the police (aka highwaymen) due to the mindless “Click it Or Ticket� enforcements.

By tam

January 18, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Carl, you are one ignorant dude, I got through 1/4 of your blog and choked laughing. Women PMS about 3 days out of the month and men PMS the other 27, so take your bull@#$ and try to blame it on something else. Oh, and quit hitting that liquor bottle while your driving and typing!

By whelping

January 18, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

I don’t care if they take away all my freedoms, I don’t care if they listen to my phone conversations, I don’t care if they read my mail, I don’t care if they send me tickets in the mail from the red light camera, I don’t care if they censor the things I read and the things I see, or make me wear a seat belt or tell me where i can smoke or where i can’t or where i can put a sign in my yard or not. I don’t care if they tell me I have to stand in a long line to get my tag or drivers license. I don’t care if they put a lein on my house. I don’t care if they tax and double tax and triple tax me till i’m poor. I don’t care if govenment workers steal my money and give lucrative contracts to their buddies. all of that is old news.

I just want the georgia state government to get their 20 million dollars. Those guys will have fun stealing all that money. I suppose they could lower our tax if they get the money, but why should they? I say GO UP on the tax and force people to make more money or move to a foreign country.

This country is about taking responsibility to pay the rich peoples to live here. They own this country, not me. My job is to do what I am told and keep my mouth shut. that goes double for you, william, you pinko commy f*. who needs freedom? bahhhh. gimme sunday football games any day.

By william

January 18, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/18/teen.drivers.ap/index.html

Report: Teen drivers pose broad risk, seat belts not a factor.

By dee

January 18, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

I don’t think government should be about dictating every aspect of our lives. Common sense should tell you what you should do. Where will it end? Will the government pass a law about when you should brush your teeth?

By dee

January 18, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Did I say government? I meant that secret group that runs this country…..Bildeberg or something

By Dan

January 18, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Hmmm all this law will do is result in more stupid people, that need to be taken care of.

By John Regan

January 18, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

I have been driving pickup trucks for 58 years. We DO NOT need a seat belt law for these trucks. I have been hit broadside and while completely stopped, in the rear. In both cases, the cars were totaled and I drove the truck away. I was not hurt in either wreck. This is NOT a safety issue as the legislators say. They are only interested in receiving another 20.7 million dollars from the Federal Govt. to waste on pork barrel products. Pickup trucks are the second safest vehicles on the road ranking behind semi-trailers which are the most safe. Just a reminder that the 20.7 million dollars also came from tax collections. Rep. Calvin Hill, and others promoting seat belts for trucks, simply do not know what they are talking about.

By william

January 18, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

Well morgan, you finally put it all together. Yes, your freedom is up for sale by the georgia state government. They will be more than willing to sell your personal freedoms for a price.

In this case, 20 million dollars to give up our right to be free from seat belts in pickup trucks.

I’m sure Georgia can use that money. However, I must ask you where will the money come from? Since the federal government already takes in more money than it spends, they will have to borrow the money.

And sooner or later the money will have to be repaid. By taxpayers all across the nation. You. Your kids. Your grand kids. Your great grandkids.

There’s no free ride, Morgan. If we take a 20 million dollar grant, WE WILL HAVE TO PAY THE MONEY BACK. But we will never get our freedom back.

The founders of this country knew freedom. Sure, they could have kept paying old king george the tax and no one would have had to die in the american revolution. It would have been the easy thing to do. But the founding fathers knew that you should never put a price on freedom. NOT FOR ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY. Freedom and Liberty are priceless. And once taken away, they are gone forever. Never to return.

And the founding fathers knew that.

That’s why it hurts so much to see today’s citizenry more than willing to give up their personal freedom. Especially at a time when we are fighting for freedom all over the world. At a time when we should be concentrating on Freedom and Liberty and what those words actually mean. Not about how much money we will get if we give our freedom up.

Georgia can live without this grant. Actually, the citizens of Georgia have it pretty good, in my opinion. I have travelled this country in the last year, and I can say that a lot of communities could use this money a lot more than Georgia.

So I say tell the Feds to keep their money. Use it to pay back some of the deficit, or buy some body armor for the boys in Iraq, or help people who are illiterate and unemployed and hurting all over this country. Our Freedom is not for sale. Never Has Been and Never Will Be.

You ask the boys in Iraq about Freedom and how much it’s worth. YOU ASK EM. Then you tell me how idiotic I am.

By william

January 18, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Of course I meant that the feds spend more money than they take in, even though in my post it says the opposite.

By Nadine

January 18, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

One of the ideas this country was founded on was the freedmon of choice. The choice to worship whatever God or no God you want, the choice to live where you want, etc. etc. I personally wear my seat belt. I think it is a good thing. BUT, if I ever forget and get a ticket, my response to the judge will be what right does the government have to dictate my personal choices, I’m hurting no one but myself. I do not need the government to babysit me.

The seat belt law comes does to one thing, more government control and less freedoms. As Ben Franklin said: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

The seat belt law, wire tapping, etc. have nothing to do with if I have something to hide or don’t know what is best for me. It has to do with my personal privacy and freedom to choose how I live being taken away by a government that was founded on quite the opposite. I think our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

So Sad.

By dee

January 18, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Doesn’t make any difference what we think or say - the rich and power are in control and they keep the poor under their thumb.

By Nadine

January 18, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Dee - it wasn’t the rich and powerful that stood up to the tyranny of the English when this country was formed. Much like the whole Christmas fiasco this Christmas season, the people spoke and they were heard. Everyone needs to start standing up for our freedoms and say enough is enough. It will work.

By mike

January 18, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

After reading this forum I realize exactly why these laws are getting passed. Most people really are to stupid to have a clue so you have to be told what to do otherwise you wouldn’t know what to do.

I love the people who say “just wear it it’s for your own good” your right it is I agree that it’s safer. So would be wearing a helmet and full fireproof gear while driving. The point is the governement has no right to TELL me what to do.

To the soccer moms who say “I like the law because my sons drive truck and will be forced to wear them” Heres a novel idea try doing a better job raising your kids instead of letting the government do it for you.

I am sure I can find statistics somewhere that can prove that women drivers take more lives then seatbelts save. I say we ban women from the road. After all it would be safer. Come on just do it! Things will be safer!!

Idiots.

By dee

January 18, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

It may be a little late. I suppose you think that the republican and democratic parties are for real. We have sit by too long and the only thing we have done is blog. Look at the headlines this week. Another war on the horizon. Automakers closing plants. You can say that all you want but its my bet that you and everyone else won’t ever do a thing.

By mike

January 18, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

One more thing. For all you saying it will save the economy billions. As it sits now people are dying by the droves according to you because there is no law. So i assume this is a burden on the economy. If the law passes we should see a drastic drop in health/car insurance correct? Seeing we will be saving so much money we should get a good sized discount.

Hold your breathe and let me know how that works out for you.

By CAS

January 18, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

Hmmmm - seems like a lot of the guys on here haven’t had a lot of luck dating…..

By faceplant

January 18, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Seatbelts are put in the vehicle for a reason folks. Sure you don’t have to wear them, but there are 26 “freedom fighters” who won’t be here next year because they ” ain’t gonna have their rights stomped on”. Only in Georgia would we even be talking about something so stupid as not wearing a seatbelt. And we wonder where our low test scores come from. These people have offspring. Scary isn’t it?

By dee

January 18, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

There are those of us who value our freedom and then there is CAS and faceplant………..

By CAS

January 18, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

I was just noting that some of the guys seem pretty bitter towards women…..(mike and PMS guy)

By Nadine

January 18, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

Actually, this is not only being talked about in Georgia. Massachusetts has a bill on the floor right now trying to repeal their seatbelt law. I would venture a guess that there are other states as well.

Again - it’s about freedom to choose. Some are good choices, some are bad - but they are MINE, not dictated by the government and people who seem to need the government to tell them how to live their lives because they are afraid of the consequences of their own decisions.

By G

January 18, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

From these posts, it seems that the most important freedom is the freedom to be stupidly self-indulgent, self-endangering, and self-centered. If there’s no one out there who cares about you, your safety, or your health, then do what you want. If there is someone out there who really cares about you or is in any way responsible for you, try thinking about someone other than yourself.

By 'Tina

January 18, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Trucks are no different the cars. Back in the day yes, they were used for work trucks and getting in and out with a seatbelt was a hassle. But that was then and today is today and the majority of trucks are not used for work but for transportation. A wreck is a wreck if it is in a truck or a car. Seat Belts save lives!!! In all vehicles.

By dee

January 18, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

G - what planet are you from? Do you actually want the government to tell you to wear your seatbelt, don’t smoke, spit or whatever in your car or house, don’t think this way or that, don’t say this or that. You have to be responsible for what you do. They don’t need to tell you.

By Nadine

January 18, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

From what I read, nobody is questioning the value of wearing a seatbelt and all that entails. Yes, the logical argument is if you care about your life and your loved ones, you’ll do whatever is necessary to protect yourself by wearing one. The original question though was should drivers be forced by law to wear one. The answer is NO. The government does not have the right to dictate my personal choices. If I were endangering someone other than myself, than that is a different story.

By tam

January 18, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

CAS, Mike makes stupid comments everywhere he blogs.

By Renee

January 18, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

Other than a minor, nobody should be forced to wear a seatbelt. Government wants once again to be in every facet of our lives.

By G

January 18, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

dee, Nadine: The question is really twofold—(1.) Does the government have rights to tell you to do things that you don’t want to do? If so, where does the government’s rights end to do so end? and (2.) Does the government have the right to save us from ourselves? It’s been trying to do that since the late 1780’s, whether for good or bad. Does it have the right to? By law, it does, and has for two centuries. Should it? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

dee: I live on the same planet that you do. It’s a long, long, long stretch from the issue of seatbelts to everything else that you list. The government has interfered with the lives of private citizens since it was founded in the 1700’s. Compared to the things that the government has done regulating and leeching from our lives, this is utterly trivial. There are no reasons for not wearing a seatbelt outside of purely selfish reasons.

By tam

January 18, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

I don’t know about the rest of you but the government already controls me. They take 30% of my paycheck, tax the remaining 70% every time I buy something, double the property tax every year, make me get emissions and pay tax on a car I bought (and paid tax on), control our gas and energy prices, and this list could go all day. My question is, what freedom do we have left? Won’t take to long to type that list.

By JOHOKO

January 18, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

William said…’You ask the boys in Iraq about Freedom and how much it’s worth. YOU ASK EM. Then you tell me how idiotic I am.

I hate to tell you William…HUMMERS come equiped with belts and regulations REQUIRE soldiers to wear them along with a kevlar helmet.

By Kevin

January 18, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

O my u people sayin we not free anymore look again if workin on job freedom of speech is not mean u cuss you boss out….wrong u fired also people in trucks should be wearin belts.Why u people say u freedom takein if made wear belt…so go ahead u idiots when u flip over n no belt please do not blame the state for u dumb act…If cars have to trucks pick-ups obey r u just pay a fine say 600 dollars for 1st ticket…2nd 1200 3rd 2500n u license revoked for 4 years..then lets see u like that!

By Kevin

January 18, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

So far no one will answer that one….figures u all lost.Remember if those people were belts in pick-up trucks they be alive….Only ones be expent are Big rigs n frieght lines trucks…..

By Reaxions

January 18, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

Laws are meant to protect people from themselves. In this particular case, a law is being introduced because the state government doesn’t think its people are smart enough to make the correct decisions (correct in the goverment’s eyes), so the lawmakers are going to step in to eliminate the decision making process. Laws are consistently inconsistent. When I get in my luxury SUV, surrounded by metal and airbags, I’m required to strap myself in with a seatbelt. But, on the other hand, I’m allowed to hop on the interstate and do 70+ mph on my 150+ horsepower motorcycle with nothing but a small shell over the back of my skull? Makes sense, doesn’t it? A lot of this revolves around federal gov’t money and some of it revolves around the high cost of traffic fatalities and soaring insurance costs. But, whatever the case, it is taking away another freedom and eliminating the right of people to make their own decisions, right or wrong. Less government is good government. We’re a lot smarter than they give us credit for being.

By O I C

January 20, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

Siggghh. Here’s a valuable suggestion. Go to Wikipedia. Search Newton’s laws of motion. INVEST some of your free-dom time looking at the words on the page. ATTEMPT to grasp the CONCEPT that is motion. This is VERY important. Please try to understand the section titled “law of inertiaâ€?. This is the important part that may one day save your brain from becoming one with the PAVEMENT. Not that I truly care whether or not you or your kin grow up to be productive members of society… which I have grave doubts of every becoming a possibility if this is your opinion of a restraint system implemented to keep your brain tucked safely within your head… but you never know. Understand that I don’t ever want to have to support you, or an incapacitated or possibly brain dead future version of you, should you get into a life-altering accident and become a projectile out your pickemup truck’s windshield. I don’t care that your truck is made of “95% steelâ€? and neither do the laws of physics. Speed, force, velocity… you know what you are to them? A pea in a coke can. Put on the d** seatbelt and live another day.

By Akagi

January 23, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

OIC:

No one has said here that wearing seat belts is not a good idea, we simply said that it shouldn’t be the Imperial Government making it a requirement or else like the highwaymen of old the agents of the government (also known as cops) will steal your property (also known as money).

There are many things that would save lives if the government banned them, but I wouldn’t want the government telling me I couldn’t smoke or drink or jump out of airplanes either.

By Frank

January 25, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

For those who believe any seat belt law is good, I have 2 questions. First of all, do you believe that passing insures that people who don’t agree with it will follow? And secondly, if Americans need to be protected from ourselves, should we also outlaw cigarettes? How about wine, beer and any other form of alcohol? According to insurance adjusters, snow skiing and scuba diving are highly dangerous, should we pass laws banning them? Fried foods are unhealthy, should they we pass laws against them? I am certainly in favor of laws protecting people from other people, but NOT from themselves. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that using seat belts might help a driver keep better control of a car after a wreck has begun. Open minded, freedom loving Americans will see my point. The narrow minded people who choose to use seat belts themselves and think everyone else should be forced to will not.

By Larry

January 25, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Of all the freedoms which have been systematically taken away from us since FDR told us we should depend on the government for all of our needs and to make all of our decisions, you guys finally get it when they want us to buckle up in a pickup. Where have you been all of these years?

By Gary Estvanko

January 30, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

Those at the capital who are supporting this bill does not drive pick-up trucks. They go to lunch with the insurance executives. Its time to take names and kick some Butt next November.

By Neomen

February 1, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

Visit this site, only here the lowest prices! And the best design!Acadia National Park