seatbelts (sorry, long!)

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

>>>>> "caryle" == caryle clear <cpcj@sprynet.com> writes:

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

Asking me about insurance is a *WHOLE* other topic, whic I will be
glad to discuss in another thread.  Suffice it to say here that *MY*
accident should only affect *MY* premium, not yours.

    caryle> I'm taking an American Government class right now, and
    caryle> we're studying different applications of the Constitution
    caryle> right now, and I'd be interested to know which part of the
    caryle> Constitution you are referring to when you say it is
    caryle> unconstitutional.  (The 14th amendment "due process"
    caryle> clause, maybe?--Incidentally, that is the same exact part
    caryle> of the Constitution which the Supreme Court ruled protects
    caryle> a woman's "right" to an abortion. (FYI))

I should have said that it violates my rights, as granted under the
bill of rights, especially my right to freedom of expression, usually
called free speech.  What it really is is an unwelcome intrusion into
my privacy, since it should affect only myself, and possiibly my
immediate family.

I will agree that seatbelts are a good idea; it is just a bad idea to
legaly mandate them.
 
    caryle> | Seriously, my wife now wears her seatbelt almost all the
    caryle> time, and now | that my daughter is taking driver's ed and
    caryle> driving with a learner's | permit, we all wear our belts
    caryle> when she drives, not for fear of her | driving, but
    caryle> because if she gets stopped and anyone in the car is not |
    caryle> wearing seat belts, then she looses her permit and cannot
    caryle> drive until | she is 18.  I think this is wrong, but I am
    caryle> not willing to risk my | daughter's license to demonstrate
    caryle> against it.

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

Well, it has cost me money.  I am not reffering to the cost of the
belts themselves, as I think they should at least be available should
anyone want to use them.  I am reffering to my clothes: seat belts not
only wrinkle my clothes and make me look less than professional when I
am calling on clients or representing the ministry, but they also
actually damage my clothes by abrasion.  I spend an average of 3 to 4
hours driving every day, and I am wearing proper business attire when
I am doing this.  When I was regular with my seatbelt usage, I noticed
that my shirts were wearing out quickly, and in what I though to be a
peculiar place.  I finally figgured out that it was the sholder strap
that was abrading them.  Now that I wear the belts less frequently, my
clothes look better, and my shirts last *MUCH* longer.

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

So tell me please, what *IS* the state's compelling interest in my
wearing a seat belt?

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

Then why does that same state legalize tobacco and especially alcahol?
Seems to me I would not need that seatbelt *NEARLY* as much if there
were no drunks on the road.  You realize that alcahol is the leading
cause of highway death and accident, don't you?

Seems to me that that same compelling reason would mandate everyone
getting the Holy Ghost as well! 

Also, it would seem to me that the reasoning you give would make the
death penealty illegal as well...

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

That's a good point, and you are right, as long as we are talking
about pure mental-only covetting without any associated action
resulting from it.  Such action can have an affect on other people --
victims.

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

    caryle> | The side of the street is an issue to protect others,
    caryle> not just | onesself.

    caryle> True.

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

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

This would only be a good point if indeed the law stated it as a
reason, which I rather doubt.  What *DOES* the seatbelt law in your
state give as the reason for the law?  This might be interesting to
find out.  You seem to be in a good position to look this up.  It
would be very interesting indeed to find out why the state thinks it
is in its own best interests to have such a law.  I am not asking for
rationalizations, but for wording from the actual text of the law
itself.

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

-- 
--------  "And there came a writing to him from Elijah"  [2Ch 21:12]  --------
Robert Jay Brown III rj@eli.elilabs.com  http://www.elilabs.com 1 847 705-0424
Elijah Laboratories Inc.;  37 South Greenwood Avenue;  Palatine, IL 60067-6328
-----  M o d e l i n g   t h e   M e t h o d s   o f   t h e   M i n d  ------