seat belt - always -

Junkman · Feb 9, 2004

( You can't be serious can you ? /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif )

As amazing as it might seem, there is a segment of the population that believes that the government should regulate all aspects of our lives, because we are not able to do so for ourselves. I don't agree with this philosophy, but I do recognize the threat that it represents to the original principles that this country was founded on. It is unfortunate, but many of these things are already under way.

Now a constitutional ammendment saying that all tractors MUST be Orange would be a good thing!! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Henro · Feb 9, 2004

As amazing as it might seem, there is a segment of the population that believes that the government should regulate all aspects of our lives, because we are not able to do so for ourselves. 

Interesting concept, Junkman!

While you and I sit on the same side of the fence, I keep thinking the motivation of people trying to blame others for the results of their own decisions was more motivated by the free lunch syndrome...

I don't see the comments like made above as being a call for regulation, but more as a call for additional reasons why those so inclined can go to court to sue, trying to get some money for doing nothing.

Take no responsibility for one's own actions, be irresponsible, get a lawyer, go to court, get a settlement because you decided to be irresponsible and hurt yourself.

Then go buy those free lunches... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Guess it's time for the moderators to close this thread now! Seems well off track and thread closing/deletion is what usually happens when I finally succum to jumping on the bandwagon... /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Junkman · Feb 9, 2004

( I keep thinking the motivation of people trying to blame others for the results of their own decisions was more motivated by the free lunch syndrome... )

I see this a little bit different. I believe that it is the lawyers that are perpetuating this idea that someone else is always responsible. Our justice system has been on a run away track for a long time. If you are injured as a result of someone else's negligence, then I believe that they should be responsible. If you are injured as a result of your own stupidity, then a lawyer will try to figure out a way to make someone else responsible. If no one else can be found, and you don't have any resources, then the state will take care of you. This idea of government taking charge of people that are financially irresponsible started back in the 1960's under the Johnson administration and has continued under every administration ever since. I often wonder what this country would be like if we didn't have the social service safety net.
I will agree that we have reached the end of the line with this thread.... It is like beating a dead horse..... The people that care, aren't the people that are in office. If they were, they would try to fix the problem, rather than just keep throwing more money at it. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

NIXON · Feb 9, 2004

Junkman ..... Well said !! John

keeney · Feb 10, 2004

I think there is a difference between forcing protection on people even if they don't care and enabling people to use complex technology like cars and tractors without having to understand the statistics behind how dangerous they really are.

The real danger is that big corporations really don't care. Individual managers and executives might care, but until it hurts the bottom line, Wall Street, the stock holders, and the investment bankers don't care!

So who will protect people from dangerous and yet complex technology sold to us by greedy corporations without much concern for individual injury?

I think it is unreasonable for average people to be experts in the safety implications of every technology they use in our modern world.

I do agree that safety legislation based on political, mis-guided-feel-good-do-gooding, bad information, bad science, or any type of profiteering can be a pain-in-the-**** that should not happen.

Safety legislation based on reasonable assesment of the tradeoffs and when there is a likelyhood that the bulk of the consumers would be unable or infeasible to make the correct decision on their own makes sense to me.

Go back to that deaths per 100,000 vs occupation list. What are some of the things at the top of the list?

Logging, Farming, Truck Driving, Construction, Travelling Sales ...

I wonder if these car, tractor, and truck things are dangerous, huh?

- Rick

Junkman · Feb 10, 2004

You can lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink. You can't legislate morality, safety, or a whole lot of other activities that people undertake in life that choose to take the risks. Government should protect us against our neighbor violating us, but not from ourselves. I don't want government telling me what to eat, wear, drink, or do in the privacy of my home. We are forever having one group of people trying to force its moral stand on another that might not agree with it, and the same goes for religion..
( greedy corporations ...... ) do you really want to bring this into the mix????? are they any different than greedy workers???? Lets not go there.......
My final words..... /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Lazy · Feb 10, 2004

Hi
It seems to me that each year we have less freedom. And we own less, as we have to pay taxes on the things we have in our possession each year. How many drivers wear seatbelts for safety but drive over the safe speed limit posted? Maybe the average person shouldn’t be allowed to use complex or dangerous equipment. Or perform work they are not trained for. Where does it stop? I choose not to wear a seatbelt or have a switch on my tractor seat and still feel plenty safe operating the tractor. We just bought a new 4 wheeler and after riding it for a few minutes I can tell you it is much more unsafe than my tractors.

frank_f15 · Feb 10, 2004

have been following this thread, but only responded once. I THINK u can not make laws to guard against stupidity. i don't care what the product, be it cars, tractors. snowmobiles, hair dryers. my wiefe just got a new blowdryer, and notice on the cord it said do not use while showering! now who the heck would try to dry their hair while in the shower? but i bet someone did. and thats it i am off this thread

zuiko · Feb 14, 2004

( ( I think fast food should be illegal since people are not cardiologists and can't be expected to understand the impact fat intake can have on their cardiovascular system. Then once you spend all your money on hospital bills from your forth heard attack the taxpayers will have to pay your way. )

You can't be serious can you ? )

LOL Of course not. But it is exactly the same argument that is always used for mandatory seat belt laws etc. It's only a matter of time. They are already suing the fast food places. It's only a matter of time now.