Meddlers, and their meddling laws... pet peeve.

[Yvonne's hubby]

As most of you know by now, I am not too big on folks who insist that others change their ways, habits or lifestyles because it would be "for their own good". It is bad enough that they pester a feller to do so one on one, but when they proceed to have laws put into affect.... that really irks me! Some of the more obvious ones.... seat belts save lives.... yep, but paying attention and avoiding the "accident" altogether seems more reasonable to me. Same with motorcycle helmet laws. Then of course there was the great prohibition movement back in the 18 hundreds that went all the way to a Constitutional amendment which had to be repealed not long after its implementation. So anyway, I am curious as to what it is that drives some folks to interfere with the next fellers freedoms in the first place? I figure if a feller wants to push a 40 penny nail up his nose, its no skin off my backside. What possible affect can it have on my neighbor if I want to drive my car without a seat belt? or have a couple drinks now and then? (yes, we still have prohibition in our area, nearly a hundred years after its repeal nationwide!) or what plants I am allowed to grow in my own garden, or if I smoke cigarettes, or a host of other things that have been outlawed by our meddlers over the years? What can they hope to gain by limiting my freedoms, what are the odds that they are going to actually keep people from doing pretty much as they want to simply by penalizing them if they do? It didnt work well with prohibition, it certainly isnt working with their "war on drugs", it hasnt worked very well with seat belts, or much of anything else as far as I have been able to discern from the news.

[Paumon]

So anyway, I am curious as to what it is that drives some folks to interfere with the next fellers freedoms in the first place?

Money .... or religion .... but mostly money.

Who is paying for the consequences of somebody's infraction?

[beowoulf90]

Some of it is from big business trying to force smaller companies out of business..
If big business can create enough regs to cover what they make, it stops the "start-ups" from being able to compete in the market, well most of them anyway..

Some of it is meddlers pure and simple who believe they "know what's best" for everyone. The problem is a lot of them get elected into office....

[plowjockey]

"it's all about me", is what made America great.

If you get lung cancer from smoking (or those who breathe your second hand smoke), fly through your windshield, after an auto accident, drop your motorcycle with no helmet, or even shove a nail up your nose, more that likely everyone else, will end up paying for it.

Seat belts don't reduce injury and/or death? Why does NASCAR drivers use them.

[Ozarks Tom]

Originally Posted by plowjockey

more that likely everyone else, will end up paying for it.

Like we haven't been paying for other people's problems all our lives?

If you don't mind being legislated how to live your life fine. I'll choose my own light bulbs thank you.

[irondale]

There is a lot of people that just know what is best for you and they won't rest until you start doing what is best for you. Plus if they can get tax money from you not doing what is best for you than thats even better.

Me I like to think I know what's best for me and would prefer not to pay extra taxes doing it.

[Kmac15]

Under 30 you believe that you and your friends can change the world
Over 30 you just wish the world would leave you and your friends alone

[MO_cows]

Originally Posted by plowjockey

"it's all about me", is what made America great.

If you get lung cancer from smoking (or those who breathe your second hand smoke), fly through your windshield, after an auto accident, drop your motorcycle with no helmet, or even shove a nail up your nose, more that likely everyone else, will end up paying for it.

Seat belts don't reduce injury and/or death? Why does NASCAR drivers use them.

NASCAR drivers are going 200 mph. Their restraint system and safety cage is way beyond what is in a "street legal" car. However, in most cases, yes - seat belts do reduce injury or chance of death off the track. Good idea to use them. Bad idea to make it the law to use them. (Except for children, I'm ok with legislating car seats for them.)

Look at the big picture for a minute. The more nanny government laws, rules and regulations that are imposed on us, the more weak and stupid we will become as a society. The more people are treated like children, the more they behave like children. We already have a society where a grown woman won a big lawsuit based on the premise she didn't know coffee came hot.

[plowjockey]

Originally Posted by MO_cows

NASCAR drivers are going 200 mph. Their restraint system and safety cage is way beyond what is in a "street legal" car. However, in most cases, yes - seat belts do reduce injury or chance of death off the track. Good idea to use them. Bad idea to make it the law to use them. (Except for children, I'm ok with legislating car seats for them.)

Look at the big picture for a minute. The more nanny government laws, rules and regulations that are imposed on us, the more weak and stupid we will become as a society. The more people are treated like children, the more they behave like children. We already have a society where a grown woman won a big lawsuit based on the premise she didn't know coffee came hot.

I wear a seat belt, not just because its law, but because its the right thing to.

It just not really that big of deal.

[farmrbrown]

Do I get to bump draft you and use the "chrome horn" if you're in my way?
I'll wear a helmet, 4 way restraints and install a roof flap.......

[bignugly]

Originally Posted by plowjockey

I wear a seat belt, not just because its law, but because its the right thing to.

It just not really that big of deal.

The seat belt laws were created for 2 things-protect insurance companies from large lawsuit settlements and a huge cash cow for local law enforcement. If seat belts are so critical for safety, why aren't school buses required to have them? Why is it in the state of Illinois you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet but you have to wear a seat belt in a car?

[wendle]

Originally Posted by Ozarks Tom

If you don't mind being legislated how to live your life fine. I'll choose my own light bulbs thank you.

Yep, we are being legislated out of our freedom a little at a time.
It doesn't have to even be about money. It might be as simple as a few neighbors complaining because one person wants to have a garden in their front yard. They of course would be ok with an unsightly bright blue pool or trampoline though.
I don't know how anybody can possibly keep up with the bombardment of new laws unless they make a career of researching them.

[wendle]

Originally Posted by plowjockey

I wear a seat belt, not just because its law, but because its the right thing to.

It just not really that big of deal.

Every time the majority rolls over the rest of us get stuck with less freedom.

[plowjockey]

Originally Posted by bignugly

The seat belt laws were created for 2 things-protect insurance companies from large lawsuit settlements and a huge cash cow for local law enforcement. If seat belts are so critical for safety, why aren't school buses required to have them? Why is it in the state of Illinois you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet but you have to wear a seat belt in a car?

You honestly believe, that you are not safer in an accident, if you wear a seat belt?

Insurance companies have interest in seat belt laws,for obvious reason

Buses apparently have their own reasons.

If cars have seat belts, why aren't they generally required in school buses? Because modern school buses are already remarkably safe, and because seat belts don't work the same way in buses as they do cars, research shows.
Numerous federal and academic studies have concluded that school buses are the safest form of ground transportation of all, in fact. The National Safety Council says they're about 40 times safer than the family car.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40820669/n...no-seat-belts/

Helmet laws are based, more on politics than common sense. Its hard to imagine, an instance, where slamming a bare skull, on the pavement, at 70mph, is a safer option

Apparently some can..

[plowjockey]

Originally Posted by wendle

Every time the majority rolls over the rest of us get stuck with less freedom.

Many things in life, should be dictated, by common sense, but there always seems to be a large scale rebellion, against using it.

[MO_cows]

Originally Posted by plowjockey

I wear a seat belt, not just because its law, but because its the right thing to.

It just not really that big of deal.

I wear mine 99% of the time, too. Glad we agree there.

Where we disagree, I think it is a big deal when the govt tries to micro manage us.

[Nevada]

Of course, this is an issue of which things the government should control and how to control them, not whether they should control.

I recall when the state assembly wanted to make it illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving. One assemblyman pointed out that we already have distracted driver laws on the books, so the cell phone law would be redundant. But distracted driving wasn't the issue at all. They wanted to raise revenue for local governments issuing additional traffic tickets. I suspect they also get off on the control they wield over us.

But conservatives want to control our lives also. Regulating abortion and birth control is a form of control. Refusing gay marriage is another. You can't deny that abstinence-only sex ed is a form of control. Conservatives even care which church we go to, which attempts to control both our belief structure and our day off.

[wendle]

Originally Posted by plowjockey

Many things in life, should be dictated, by common sense, but there always seems to be a large scale rebellion, against using it.

Like the rebellious gardeners who want to plant veggies in their front yard. Or like my mother who can't even have a fire in her own backyard unless she is cooking with it.

[beowoulf90]

Originally Posted by plowjockey

Helmet laws are based, more on politics than common sense. Its hard to imagine, an instance, where slamming a bare skull, on the pavement, at 70mph, is a safer option

Apparently some can..

Obviously you don't ride..
Did you ever notice that motorcyclists die even when wearing a helmet?
Do you know what kills them most of the time?

I'm not saying you shouldn't wear a helmet, what I'm saying is you (let me clarify this before some get offended, you is a general term meaning any useful idiot of the government, not you personally!) don't have the right to tell me what I need to be doing to ride safe.
If safety really was the issue "you" would require all riders to wear leathers like the GP /cafe racers..
My cousin killed 5 days before his HS graduation while he was heading to a FFA event on his motorcycle.
The destruction of my left leg and my 1985 Honda Goldwing Aspencade GL1200
both of us taken out by drunk drivers..

and the list goes on.

Helmets do cause broken necks and death in accidents.
But most motorcycle accidents are cause by careless cage drivers who are to busy drinking, texting (these days), putting on make up, eating etc..

So maybe for "safety" we should force everyone to ride motorcycles. Thus "helping the ecoterrorists cause of low fuel consumption and helping the government control us. Because we all know "you" know what's best for me..

[farmrbrown]

You could just govern every vehicle at 15 mph and no one would ever die again.
Government mandated Utopia.........wait, they've already tried that, haven't they?