NH rejects seatbelt law

[liamunderscoret]

Although I agree that people should be free to decide whether or not to protect themselves, seatbelt laws protect not only the driver in an accident, but other parties involved. For example, if I am at fault in a rear-end crash on someone wearing a seatbelt who walks away from the accident with only some minor injuries, I will have to pay much less through my insurance than if I had hit someone not wearing a seatbelt who became a quadriplegic.

[tkx7]

I wish the people who insisted on a seat belt law here in NH would just move out of state if they want a nanny state. Leave one of the remaining "free" states to those who appreciate it

[js68fl]

@tkx7 Truthfully NH is one of those states no one gives a shit about anyway.

[tatomuck18]

Im not wearing a pussy ass seatbelt!

[js68fl]

@tatomuck18 Maybe then they should just revoke your pussy ass license, since driving is in fact a privilege and not a right.

[TextCannon]

Every single person who voted in favor of seat belt laws should be stopped by the "caring police who are here to PROTECT you" lol and frisked. And at least in texas they should be jammed with a needle without their consent or a warrant to determine their alcohol content. YOU deserve the very police state you fear. It is an individual's RIGHT TO CHOOSE and it only affects them. You are a bunch of cocksucking fools swelling the police ranks and YOU are funding them EVEN MORE.

[js68fl]

@TextCannon "It is an individual's RIGHT TO CHOOSE and it only affects them"

What about the other occupants inside your vehicle that you killed by being thrown into them because you were too much a self-righteous dumbass to buckle up? Not your right anymore.

[Polarcupcheck]

@TextCannon Well said.

[js68fl]

Why do so many people whine and cry over a seatbelt law? Is it really that big a deal that 1 law is passed for your safety and those of your vehicle occupants? Laziness is abound anymore...

[standupgun]

@js68fl

Why do politicians feel the need to pass laws that prevent a person from making decisions regarding their OWN safety?

Two words:

Revenue collection.

[Randythewildhorse]

Guess what? I protested against the seat belt laws on all MNDPS areas and somebody had them all removed!

They are so scared that they are censoring my views!

Ever sense this seat belt law was passed in Minnesota one cop turned left and stared at me when I was stopped at the stop sign while he was driving.

While I drove to a stop sign another cop was stopped at the stop sign for almost a minute even though no traffic was going across.

June 8,2009 was a sad day for Minnesota!

[rayme4raw]

Yeah, go New Hampshire. More than 70% of adults in new hampshire wear seat belts anyway. It just goes to show that you don't have to tell adults what to do, stuff that is common sense they will do on their own.

[controlpopulation]

Just another way for politicians to tax the people to death. Im an adult, I don't need some politician telling me I have to wear my seatbelt. I'm actually offended by their rhetoric.

Now, am I against a law for kids to wear their seatbelts? No, kids should have to wear them and parents should be forced to make sure they are buckled in.

Other than that, get govt out of my house and car.

[diggingforgold]

I agree that a law should exist that says "kids, buckle up", but not because I think government should be able to overrule good parents, but because some parents are derelict in their duties as parents (to protect their kids), and kids aren't aware of the consequences of not buckling up.

Which brings us to another related subject: Why don't school buses have seat belts? In my state, where kids must buckle up, our buses have no seatbelts. Why are government run schools exempt from this law?

[CurtHowland]

> but because some parents are derelict in their duties

You're right, it's for the children! That justifies EVERYTHING.

That's why it's called the "Nanny State". Everyone must be forced to be safe, by using the threat of overwhelming violence.

[diggingforgold]

A $25 ticket is not overwhelming violence. And if a parent has to be ticketed because they won't buckle up their child, that says more about that person as a parent (or lack thereof) than it says about a government acting as a nanny state.

I guess there's no perfect solution, and perhaps I shouldn't be looking to government to solve all problems- because you're right, they create more problems than they solve. But I just wish parents would be responsible and do what's best for their kids.

[CurtHowland]

Refuse to pay the ticket, people with guns will take you away.

Resist the people with guns, you will be killed.

Every law, no matter how much you agree with it, is backed up by overwhelming violence.

It is worth shooting your neighbor in the head because you disagree with them? If you think so, then at least have the balls to shoot them yourself, instead of hiring goons to do it for you.

[diggingforgold]

I believe you have used a logical fallacy. There is a difference between violence and force. Society will do everything it can to force you to obey laws like this, but it will not use violence. The violence only comes as a result of you escalating the situation, which is unrelated to the law you initially broke.

When the cops come to arrest you because you have a dozen unpaid tickets, and you pull a gun on them, it's your escalation to use violence as a means of resisting their force of arrest.

[CurtHowland]

> Society will do everything it can to force you to obey laws like this, but it will not use violence.

Of course it will use violence. Ever see someone arrested? Large, strong men using knees for the maximum pain, tazers, and all to create "compliance".

> only comes as a result of you escalating the situation

You mean, by peacefully refusing? Yep. Peacefully refuse, and you will be met with overwhelming violence.

Don't bother pulling a gun. Just refuse to obey. They then initiate violence.

[CurtHowland]

> I believe you have used a logical fallacy.

No, you're engaging in obfuscation.

Every law, no matter how small, is backed up by the state's ability to legitimately initiate force. Remain completely peaceful, and simply refuse to obey, and the police or soldiers will KILL YOU.

You blame that on escalation, but it is the STATE which escalates. Ask Rodney King, ask Ed Brown. Ask Sam, or Ridley, or anyone else violently arrested for peaceful failure to obey.

[IfhBiff]

And as for the grave crime...you can't be serious. A child dies and you're immediately looking to blame someone? That's sick, my friend. Just sick.

I don't want people like you dictating anything to me.

[diggingforgold]

Society shouldn't have to tell parents what's best for their kids. But what were the parents thinking not buckling up a 2 year old?

But I understand and agree with your argument against government intervention in our lives. I just can't help but think something must be done to protect kids when their parents fail to do so. So let's not resort to personal attacks just because we have different opinions on one simple subject. Let's be civil. We probably share more in common than you think. :-)

[IfhBiff]

Ok, point taken, and I'll adhere to that. But I will, for one, only ever tell the parents of any child one thing: Don't tell me how to raise my child.

Yes, it is sad and unfortunate that the child died, and in twenty years we may be saying something like: But what were the parents thinking not harnessing the child to a government issued 'electro hand holder' to cross the street?

[MooseOfReason]

"NHFree" forwards to NHUnderground. Maybe it's easier to say?

[MooseOfReason]

Do you wear your seatbelt because there's a law requiring you to, or do you wear it because it's efficient at keeping you safe?

If you wear it to avoid breaking the law, why would you support a law requiring people to wear a seatbelt?

[kissmeforever1]

because some die from car wrecks they make all of us wear seatbelt

but most still die from car wrecks even with seatbelt on so its really stupid to require everyone to buckle up.

do you feel safer with seatbelt or you feel better because the law require us to?

i still want the freedom to not wear seatbelt

the mass ppl are just sheeps

seatbelt just strap you to the car, it will not make you invincible

[diggingforgold]

60% of people killed in car accidents weren't wearing their seatbelts. When we look at just kids- it's 80%. So I certainly feel safer. If there were no State law, there's still Newton's first law of motion. And that law is enough for me to buckle up. :-)

I say adults are old enough to recognize the risks and accept the consequences of not buckling up. They should have freedom to wear or not wear a belt. Their decision has no impact on me or anyone else as far as I know.

[kissmeforever1]

kids are reckless driver so they shouldn't drive at all until they are 21 yrs old

seatbelt law just make reckless driver be more reckless cause they know that all have seatbelt so its harder to kill someone with seatbelt.

having seatbelt is not a license to be a reckless driver

the mass are idiot driver they even want to run you over with a car when you're crossing the street

[diggingforgold]

Interesting hypothesis, but somewhat flawed logic. That would be like smokers being more health conscious because they know that smoking is killing their lungs, so they choose more healthy foods and make sure they exercise (yet still smoke).

Not wearing your seatbelt and thus being scared into driving safer doesn't stop the drunk driver that's about to ram you head-on.

The single best thing you can do to increase your chances of survival in an accident is to simply wear your seat belt.

[ninjabunnyman]

That's pretty much right on. I will always wear a seat belt, but it shouldn't be law.

[diggingforgold]

Here's a question. Sure, adults can decide for themselves whether they want to become an organ donor (I like wearing my belt because I have a desire for self preservation, not because I like the government telling me how to live my life), but what about kids?

I believe in liberty, and I believe in parents rights to raise kids how they want without government interfering- but what if they put them in danger by not buckling them up? Do you believe government should step in to protect kids?

[freestatereport]

So let's move past seat belts. What your actually saying is that it in certain areas that parents should not be trusted when raising their children. They get to decide at what age my child can possess a firearm. What age my child can consume alcohol. Whether or not my child can make the choice to go to school. What age my child can decide to work. See what I'm saying. They've used for the children to take away choices that belong in the realm of the family

[diggingforgold]

I understand your point and the dilemma of opening the door to government involvement in our lives.

Just last week in my state a parent failed to strap in their 2 year old and they got into an accident. In my mind, the blood of that child is on the parents hands. I can't help but think that a grave crime was committed.

[diggingforgold]

Your analogy of kids possessing firearms is perfect. Not buckling up your child in a car is like parents not teaching gun safety to children.

I don't think the law should permit parents to allow children to handle firearms with reckless disregard for their safety. I would hope the law would step in to protect kids in that case.

Vehicles are the same way. Parents should have the common sense to strap their children in just like they have common sense to teach them gun safety.

[IfhBiff]

Show me in the Constitution of either the State of NH or the U.S. where it says the state can dictate safety policy to parents.

"Safety" isn't an absolute. If some parents think seatbelts are restrictive, you have no right to tell them they are wrong...and if a majority gets together and says its ok to force parents into submission...well, that's mob rule and we might as well just start lynching people again.

Keep your laws off my body? sound familiar?

[Buckhead1959]

Actually the government needs to get out of the marriage business. Marriage is between two people and their church!

[exacerbatedtaboo]

not always the church but I agree marriage should be left to those getting married.

[MooseOfReason]

Two people, period. They should be free to enter into a contract with each other. There's no need for a church to be involved.

[sirinferno]

they are. but then by that reasoning don't demanding anything of the govt. with regards to marriage.

[mcgrawtim123]

People should be required to buy a license to wear a seat belt....and pass a safety test in the use of same.

[bigdstocktrader]

Good job defending NH against the seatbelt bill - also great to hear that Andrew Carroll is being released.

[803honda]

real ID is the work of satan!

[803honda]

seatbelts do save lives but noone should be forced to wear it just like a motorcycle helmet. SC passed seatbelt laws like 4 or 5 years back and everyone here will tell you its just an excuse to pull you over and stick their nose in your car.

[ThndersRage]

Why do they persist in trying be our babysitters?

I find it insulting.