Not my fault the cost goes to others. I didn't write or vote for that law. No one else should be responsible for my decisions and they're consequences.

so, i wasn't too far off the mark. thanks.

i am glad we aren't like china. in so many ways. that is just one of them.

i agree with you re the nanny state. however, not wearing a seatbelt can and does affect a lot of people, starting with passengers of the vehicle. when i see motorcyclists not wearing helmets (usually 40 and 50 something year olds around here) it bothers me very little: their head is not going to affect the outcome of an accident, except their own outcome.

Not a LEO but...

1) Tailgating. Shows a complete disregard for other driver's safety and disrespect for thier personal property. It's especially annoying in the Porsche since I know that if I have to brake hard for any reason, the car following me will not likely be able to out-brake me.

2) Excessive speed through residential neighbourhoods. There's no need to endanger people's lives in order to save one or two seconds leaving the neighbourhood.

3) Rolling stops at stop signs and intersections. See above.

There are far more but those are my top 3.

PS: Can anybody give me a good reason for not wearing a seat belt? And wrinkling your blouse isn't a valid answer.

to give the bird to the man.

Can't believe nobody has said this yet:

People who put on their flashers as soon as it starts raining.

I mean, WTF? It not only disables your turn signals but it makes you look like a moron. I know, I know..... it's legal in some states, but it still pisses me off.

Interesting thread.

1. tailgaters
2. driving in the left lane and not passing
3. drunk
4. kids or drivers not secure in the vehicle

Sounds like life is pretty cheap over there. They also work children in factories and dump toxic waste in their rivers like it's no big deal. Lose a few (thousand) people? Life goes on...:cool:

I agree with this all-in except that I would punish people more expensively for certain offenses. Running cross-walks w/ pedestrians in them should be expensive, IMO. How is a $25 fine going to stop anyone from just driving like an ass?

Feeling the love... Thanks!

I always, ALWAYS wear seatbelts. My choice. But I do not believe any government has the moral authority to insist that I always do everything I can to ensure my own personal safety. Again... Hang gliding, motorcycle riding, racing cars, kayaking. Where does it stop.

My 86 year old father who has survived 3 shootings and near fatal mortar wounds was recently ticketed for no seatbelt. He told the officer, "I'm 86 years old. Exactly what are you protecting me from, son?"

If you can not make a clear, statistically proven case that my behavior is putting others at risk, it's none of the state's business what I do. My freedom and liberty trumps your misguided attempt to protect me from myself. Everytime.

Should you be on the receiving team, you get points ADDED to your license.

Post of the year.

again, moses, seatbelts protect other people.

Show me the data. Your impressions are not a valid argument for policy.

that is going to be some pretty difficult data to come up with, and you know it. extrapolate from this: do you have better control in an accident wearing your seatbelt or not wearing it?

yep, that is the best i am going to be able to do. it is good enough for me. i've been in accidents both with and without a seatbelt. they were both very very violent. the ones in which i was wearing a seatbelt were pretty contolled, as those things go. the other one (in a 1965 olds f85 that didn't even have seatbelts) was a complete yard sale.

but you go right ahead and lament your loss of rights re seatbelts. we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I suspect a driver who has allergies and sneezed habitually puts the public at greater risk while driving than a non-seatbelt wearer does. I have no data, of course. Let's pass a law that gives citations to all drivers with allergies who can't prove they have taken their Zyrtec.

And if protecting the public is your goal, epileptics, anyone with a history of heart disease, all teenagers and the elderly need to be barred from public roads.

Think of the children...

there is some truth there.

like i said, we can disagree. the sneezer probably does create more risk. that doesn't mean we should allow all risky behaviors. if you want to go down that road, what business is it of the government, if someone wants to drink and drive?

Loads of good data confirming that drunk drivers put others at risk. That's the difference. Interestingly, many years ago there was no law against drinking and driving in Washington state. You couldn't legally be intoxicated, but you could drink a beer while driving.

s_morrison57 said No, in fact the BC Supreme Court just struck down part of the new drinking and driving laws. Under the new law if you were between .05 and .1 you would get a three day suspension. But anything under .05 and you were fine. So 4 or 5 beers (canadian beers 5%) over two hours and you are fine. Seems like a lot doesn't it? And the law got struck down - yet since the law has been in effect in less than a year, alcohol related fatalities in BC have dropped from 113 to 68 - 45 ives saved by the law change.

Vinman said And Vinny, I thought you would jump in about the seatbelt thing. Most LEOs, firemen, and EHS workers will tell you about the effects of not wearing a seatbelt. The anti-seatbelt advocates have their theories about how it can be safer by not wearing your seatbelt in certain situations - sixteen years of policing and have not seen a single situation where I thought - poor bugger - not wearing his seatbelt would have saved him. But plenty the other way round.

Cheers

so, its all a matter of data and none of it is common sense. check.

i think you can still get alcoholic beverages at drive up windows in texas.