Got hit for click it, ticket
06-04-2010, 01:15 PM
#41
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same goes for helmets. Very comfortable to wear these days and motorcyclists still have a choice. If you want to "ride free", you should be able to do it in a vehicle also 
I am all for wearing seatbelts, but as long as adults have a choice to wear a helmet, I am going to have to side with having a choice for seatbelts...
I am all for wearing seatbelts, but as long as adults have a choice to wear a helmet, I am going to have to side with having a choice for seatbelts...
06-04-2010, 10:08 PM
#42
TECH Addict
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no, car insurance is required so as to protect the driver you hit, not your own vehicle. that is why there is an option for liability only coverage.
and this whole seatbelt thing is getting ridiculous. seat belts are not required because the man has it out for you. while i obviously didnt come up with these laws, and therefore dont know the rationale behind them, i can think of a few reasons why such a law would be a good idea. the most obvious is personal safety. another, like someone mentioned earlier, would be insurance. keeping you from flying through another cars windshield. keeping you from flying onto the road and blocking traffic. keeping costs down through the use of less emt and firemen. etc etc. the large fines are not meant to generate revenue, they are meant to deter you from not wearing the seatbelt!
and this whole seatbelt thing is getting ridiculous. seat belts are not required because the man has it out for you. while i obviously didnt come up with these laws, and therefore dont know the rationale behind them, i can think of a few reasons why such a law would be a good idea. the most obvious is personal safety. another, like someone mentioned earlier, would be insurance. keeping you from flying through another cars windshield. keeping you from flying onto the road and blocking traffic. keeping costs down through the use of less emt and firemen. etc etc. the large fines are not meant to generate revenue, they are meant to deter you from not wearing the seatbelt!
You're still missing the point. Wearing a seat belt doesn't need to be a law. Most of us wear it because it reduces our risk of serious or fatal injury in the case of a car accident. For most of us, wearing a seat belt is unnecessary. Most of us are not involved in car accidents and the amount of accidents that do occur daily are negligible compared to the amount of cars on the road.
You better believe it's another minor, relatively unobtrusive revenue generator. There are many of them, such as inspection sticker, registration, drivers license, etc.
The lower EMT/ER-cost argument is a moot one. It's like pissing in a hurricane. In most serious accidents, the people not wearing a seat belt typically are lucky to be alive.
Don't miss the point. If I want to increase my risk of serious or fatal injury in a possible car accident when I'm driving, it's my freedom and liberty to do so. And I don't want to be taxed for doing so.
06-04-2010, 10:16 PM
#43
Staging Lane
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Texas must secede!!!
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest problem I have with my passengers not wearing a seat belt is not killing themselves in the event of an accident but causing injuries to me if they fly around in the cabin.
06-05-2010, 01:09 AM
#45
On The Tree
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Clarksville, TN
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never said insurance was to cover your own vehicle. It's to cover the other guy in case he cannot afford to get his car fixed or you cannot pay for his car to be fixed thus keeping him ostensibly working and off unemployment.
You're still missing the point. Wearing a seat belt doesn't need to be a law. Most of us wear it because it reduces our risk of serious or fatal injury in the case of a car accident. For most of us, wearing a seat belt is unnecessary. Most of us are not involved in car accidents and the amount of accidents that do occur daily are negligible compared to the amount of cars on the road.
You better believe it's another minor, relatively unobtrusive revenue generator. There are many of them, such as inspection sticker, registration, drivers license, etc.
The lower EMT/ER-cost argument is a moot one. It's like pissing in a hurricane. In most serious accidents, the people not wearing a seat belt typically are lucky to be alive.
Don't miss the point. If I want to increase my risk of serious or fatal injury in a possible car accident when I'm driving, it's my freedom and liberty to do so. And I don't want to be taxed for doing so.
You're still missing the point. Wearing a seat belt doesn't need to be a law. Most of us wear it because it reduces our risk of serious or fatal injury in the case of a car accident. For most of us, wearing a seat belt is unnecessary. Most of us are not involved in car accidents and the amount of accidents that do occur daily are negligible compared to the amount of cars on the road.
You better believe it's another minor, relatively unobtrusive revenue generator. There are many of them, such as inspection sticker, registration, drivers license, etc.
The lower EMT/ER-cost argument is a moot one. It's like pissing in a hurricane. In most serious accidents, the people not wearing a seat belt typically are lucky to be alive.
Don't miss the point. If I want to increase my risk of serious or fatal injury in a possible car accident when I'm driving, it's my freedom and liberty to do so. And I don't want to be taxed for doing so.
police pull over speeders because they may cause traffic accidents.
police pull over drunk drivers because they may run into a house.
it is required that your dog have a leash while going on walks because it may bite someone.
life is full of "mays", and the police dont know who will do what, so perhaps its best everybody follow the rules because this **** can happen to anybody. i dunno about you, but i'd rather not get rear ended by a speeder, have a truck in my living room, or get bitten by a dog. in like manner, i'd prefer to not have a body come flying through my windshield or onto the road and block traffic.
not to mention, if someone were to lose control of a vehicle, the use of a seatbelt would keep the driver from floppin out of the seat and perhaps provide stability so that he could regain control of the vehicle, and thus avert an accident all together.
believe it or not, the police are sometimes the teeniest bit concerned with public safety. and revenue? texas happens to be one of a whopping 4 states that fine people over 100. while its true the state gets revenue from this, i would hardly consider this the whole reason behind click it or ticket. the government makes revenue off of all fines. but how else is it supposed to prevent people from commiting crimes? threatening execution or jail time for simple misdemeaners? assuming that most people are what is called a rational offender, people will commit a crime unless the punishment outweighs the crime. slap a high fine on a certain crime, and people are less likely to commit said crime. its all simple economics. now if the government were to impose a 200 dollar fine for not wearing a seatbelt, would you not be more careful to put on the seatbelt than if the fine were say 50, or if no fine were imposed?
and why would the government want us to wear our seatbelts? just to make you bitch about it, thats why.
wear your damn seatbelt, or pay the fine. thats all there is to it. if you dont like it, write your congressman, but i highly doubt the state of texas will repeal the law because youre pretty sure you'll never actually need one.
06-05-2010, 03:17 AM
#46
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said, this is my fault, and I have no problem paying the fine. I broke the law, and that is all there is to it.
If only we could enforce our immigration law like we do other laws, than I would feel even better about it.
In the end, I'm paying for not wearing my belt. My fault alone. Both sides of this topic have good points. Since I am a LGI/WSI and Red Cross first aid trainer, I really have no grounds to argue against this law. I really should have buckled up before moving my vehicle.
If only we could enforce our immigration law like we do other laws, than I would feel even better about it.
In the end, I'm paying for not wearing my belt. My fault alone. Both sides of this topic have good points. Since I am a LGI/WSI and Red Cross first aid trainer, I really have no grounds to argue against this law. I really should have buckled up before moving my vehicle.
Last edited by winters97gt; 06-05-2010 at 12:23 PM.
