Originally posted by collemanBeing caught speeding by cameras does not waste man power.
OK, so you have a beef about this particular law but the fact is that the wearing of seat belts results in fewer people being killed or seriously injured. I really don't care whether you think it is a 'sneaky' way to save lives or not, I'm in favour of it.
There are those who make a similar complaint about being caught for speeding, especially by camer ...[text shortened]... those laws. If you don't like it, vote for someone who reflects your views - that's democracy.
I was always told growing up " If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" (My Father was famous for summing life up so simplistically)
I'm a big believer in this and as such don't have a tendancy to do crimes. (You make your bed you lie in it)
Littering is against the law as well. I don't see undercover police walking around ticketing these offenders. So while I can't pick and choose which laws to obey you are saying they can pick and choose which laws to enforce? The most financially beneficial laws get the most enforced? This is democracy?
A few good quotes that might apply:
__________________________________________
Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law.
- Oliver Goldsmith, The Traveller (l. 386)
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
- Alexander Hamilton
Good men must not obey the laws too well.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
______________________________________________
It's much more cost-effective for the police to come up with innovative and effective means of catching people violating seat belt laws than it is for them to pursue people whose actions might actually cause harm to someone else. If they didn't protect me from myself, who knows what I might do....
Originally posted by collemanWasn't there an organization called "The Gestapo" that had this philosophy? You would probably prefer to live in that society, maybe?
...
You cannot pick and choose which laws you are going to obey and which you are not. ****The method of enforcement is irrelevant, the most effective means should be used. ***...
Originally posted by SiskinYou hit the nail on the head!
Police have got wise to the fact there's no point in targetingcriminals ... if you go after murderers rapists and muggers then they'll just deny it, and may be violent -> expensive investigation -> expensive trial -> expensive incarceration on the off chance they get convicted, it's a loss of revenue all the way down the line. Whereas targeting law adid ...[text shortened]... ty fine without any expensive trial -> offender likely to pay up .... it's got to be a winner.
Originally posted by mokkoOnly if the treatment of your injuries is not, to any extent, subsidized by tax dollars. Fuirther, the treatment of your injuries will require the use of space and time and equiptment. If these resources are in high demand by others who are sick or injured, then your recklessness has a serious effect on other citizens.
No, traffic offences should not be ignored. But a failure to comply with wearing your sealt belt is not harming anyone else but myself.
Originally posted by bbarrWhere's the limit to that logic, Bbarr? For example, it is a medical fact that people who are obese have enhanced health problems and thus can require more extensive use of taxpayer subsidized resources. Would a law saying that consuming over X amount of calories is illegal that was enforced by random checks of people's homes at meal times be OK by you?
Only if the treatment of your injuries is not, to any extent, subsidized by tax dollars. Fuirther, the treatment of your injuries will require the use of space and time and equiptment. If these resources are in high demand by others who are sick or injured, then your recklessness has a serious effect on other citizens.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe "random checks" point sounds interesting, how much privacy are you willing to give up?
Where's the limit to that logic, Bbarr? For example, it is a medical fact that people who are obese have enhanced health problems and thus can require more extensive use of taxpayer subsidized resources. Would a law saying that consuming over X amount of calories is illegal that was enforced by random checks of people's homes at meal times be OK by you?
Originally posted by KneverKnightI live in a residential neighborhood which is heavily populated by college students. Last Wednesday I was walking to my local watering hole to shoot darts and there were two police cars and about 5 cops in the middle of the intersection of my street and the adjoining one. We are several blocks off two main throughfares, but the police officers were stopping every car and looking inside to see if the people were wearing seat belts. This was about 6:30 PM. I wonder whether 5 police officers in an urban environment couldn't have been put to better use and whether the use of a seat belt in a residential neighborhood with a traffic control device at virtually every corner and a 30 MPH speed limit is really a big deal.
The "random checks" point sounds interesting, how much privacy are you willing to give up?
Originally posted by no1marauderMakes me wonder too
I live in a residential neighborhood which is heavily populated by college students. Last Wednesday I was walking to my local watering hole to shoot darts and there were two police cars and about 5 cops in the middle of the intersection of my street and the adjoining one. We are several blocks off two main throughfares, but the police officers we ...[text shortened]... traffic control device at virtually every corner and a 30 MPH speed limit is really a big deal.
They have seat belt blitzes around here too, what I object to is the use of unmarked police cars to catch people speeding instead of using white cruisers to deter people from speeding. Trade the unmarked cars for regular cruisers and keep a high profile.
The folks around here refer to the local police as "tax collectors"
1 edit
Originally posted by D43M0NSorry about that; I'm sharing a computer with my nephew tonight and inadvertently posted under his username.
Would you like to be flung through a windshield at 30 MPH? Every bit of speed counts.
Even assuming it is physically possible to be "flung through a windshield" as the result of a crash involving a car going 30 MPH, if I didn't "like" the possibility sufficiently, I'd buckle up without a law to coerce me to. I wouldn't need 5 police officers who could undoubtedly be of more use elsewhere to require me to.
Originally posted by KneverKnightMany small localities in New York state receive a significant amount of their muncipal revenue from fines from traffic infractions, esp. those that border the New York State Thruway. This is a way to keep local taxes down and get revenue from non-local residents and is thus quite politically popular.
Makes me wonder too
They have seat belt blitzes around here too, what I object to is the use of unmarked police cars to catch people speeding instead of using white cruisers to deter people from speeding. Trade the unmarked cars for regular cruisers and keep a high profile.
The folks around here refer to the local police as "tax collectors"