seatbelts (sorry, long!)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Bro. Brown wrote:    
Disclaimer:  I'm just really interested in this point of view.  I've never
met someone who doesn't wear belts for this reason.  I'm just curious as to
specifics.

>me before<
  At least in Ohio, it is a state
|     caryle> law that you must have a seatbelt on. Is it a law where
|     caryle> you are (just curious)?  You were going the speed limit (I
|     caryle> think), and obeying that law, doesn't it then follow that
|     caryle> the belts should have been on too (if it's the law where
|     caryle> you are--I don't know)?
| 
| Well, I do not think such a law is constitutional.  After all, if
| "free speech" now covers non-verbal forms of expression, and wearing
| my seatbelt affects no one but myself, (ditto motorcycle helmets),
| then if I want to be stupid, knowing full well that my own personal
| risk is increased, that that should be my choice.  

But what about increased insurance premiums for the rest of us should you
get into an accident?  (Just wondering)  Wouldn't that, then, cause your
"choice" to affect many people?

I'm taking an American Government class right now, and we're studying
different applications of the Constitution right now, and I'd be interested
to know which part of the Constitution you are referring to when you say it
is unconstitutional.  (The 14th amendment "due process" clause,
maybe?--Incidentally, that is the same exact part of the Constitution which
the Supreme Court ruled protects a woman's "right" to an abortion. (FYI))
 
| Seriously, my wife now wears her seatbelt almost all the time, and now
| that my daughter is taking driver's ed and driving with a learner's
| permit, we all wear our belts when she drives, not for fear of her
| driving, but because if she gets stopped and anyone in the car is not
| wearing seat belts, then she looses her permit and cannot drive until
| she is 18.  I think this is wrong, but I am not willing to risk my
| daughter's license to demonstrate against it.

I have to wonder, even though you think it is wrong, has this law actually
*harmed* you in some way?  If you can prove this you might have a case you
can take to court! :) But seriously, this isn't the same issue of liberty
as the civil rights abuses were, I don't think (personally).  

I do think the Supreme Court will back up the state in these type of cases
due to a "compelling state interest" which brought up the law in the first
place.  In Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas claimed a "compelling state
interest" to protect the life of all persons (they included the unborn)
within that state.  The S.C. found that (besides the law infringing upon
Roe's "liberty",) the Constitution does not include the unborn in
references to "persons", therefore, Texas' definition of a person did not
apply in this case, but *if it did*, Texas would have a Constitutional
"compelling state interest" to protect the life of such persons. 
(Disclaimer:  I do NOT think abortion is right, just citing a case in which
the state's interest played a part.)  

I do think, Bro. Brown, that the Constitution would define *you* are a
"person" ;) (ex. "...all *persons* born and naturalized in the US"), and
therefore your state has a "compelling interest" to protect your life as a
citizen of that state.  So, it appears that the law requiring seatbelts in
your state would not be found unconstitutional by the SC because the state
can have a compelling interest to protect your life as a citizen.  (Sorry
about the length, just wanted to cite a SC example to show why the state
can even be involved.)

| 
| QUESTION: Are there any "victimless" sins in the Bible?  I do not
| consider idol worshipping victimless, since God is the victim, as the
| idolator is denying God what is rightfully his.  Are there any other
| sins that HF readers would consider victimless?
| 
Maybe the tenth commandment...coveting, as long as it's in your heart
(still a sin) doesn't really affect anyone else.  It will, however, harm
you because a spirit of rebellion etc. can become manifest.

|     caryle> I've heard of other Apostolics who don't where seatbelts
|     caryle> *in spite of* laws in their area.  I'm not sure, but isn't
|     caryle> there a Biblical precident for obeying the laws in your
|     caryle> "land" as long as they don't conflict with obeying God?
|     caryle> Deliberately refusing to put on seatbelts reminds me an
|     caryle> awful lot of the logic of those snake handlers (NOT trying
|     caryle> to re-open *that* issue, just making a personal
|     caryle> observation).  We all drive on the right side of the
|     caryle> street in the US, don't we?
| 
| The side of the street is an issue to protect others, not just
| onesself.

True.

| As a matter of fact, years ago, when I was a hot rodder, drag racer,
| and then sports car buff, I drove *MUCH* faster than the law allowed
| (before Christ, not after!).  When I was driving fast, and cornering
| hard, I *ALWAYS* wore my seat belt, not because I wanted to be tied
| into the car in case of a wreck, but to keep me from having a wreck:
| the seat belt held me stationary with respect to the car's controls,
| thereby allowing me to concentrate on steering, throttle, brake,
| clutch, and gear shift, not holding myself from sliding all over the
| car's interior under the high G forces.

But then, one could argue that that is also a reason the state mandates
seatbelts today, so you can maintain control of the vehicle in an emergency
situation.  Let's say it wasn't a skunk, (or, maybe it was a skunk, or a
large deer--too large for you to give up and just hit anyway), and you
swerve (at around 55mph, let's say, on a curve also) to avoid it.  If you
turn too sharply (or just sharply enough), without a seatbelt, you could be
in your wife's lap--not in a position to safely maneuver the car without
possibly colliding with other cars (if there happen to be any) or passersby
who might be on the sidewalk or something.  


Oh well, it's something I'd consider...
Anneliese