Click it or Ticket!

[V3n]

Is anyone else seeing this new push for the "Click it or Ticket" campaign in their state?

Is anyone else pissed off by this?

If I choose to drive without a seatbelt and I get into an accident, and I fly through my windshield, how is that anybody's business but my own?

I believe in seatbelts, I always wear my seatbelt, but I take my own responsibility to do that. If someone chooses not to, that's their problem. There is no good reason, in this "free" country of ours that someone should be fined for making their own decision not to wear their own seatbelt.

 

[Fields]

Is anyone else seeing this new push for the "Click it or Ticket" campaign in their state?

Is anyone else pissed off by this?

If I choose to drive without a seatbelt and I get into an accident, and I fly through my windshield, how is that anybody's business but my own?

I believe in seatbelts, I always wear my seatbelt, but I take my own responsibility to do that. If someone chooses not to, that's their problem. There is no good reason, in this "free" country of ours that someone should be fined for making their own decision not to wear their own seatbelt.

There is always a push for that program down here in socal. I just got one the other day too. Weak, is the best way to explain my feelings toward their actions.

 

[bkreigh]

they have been pushing this thing for years. Heck up in Bangor, Maine you cant smoke in a car if you have a child in the car with you. Even if it is your own.

 

[V3n]

they have been pushing this thing for years.

Yeah, they have been in my state too, it just never bothered before.

That red pill is a helluva thing to swallow!

 

[Bryan]

Yes, I hear them on AM talk shows in Houston-- the big problem is that it is the US Department of Transportation that is running the ads- three points of note:

1- yet another victomless crime.
2- total waste of tax dollars- the gov't is $9+ trillion is debt and they run ads to wear seatbelts? It's no wonder they are broke.
3- They are pushing a campaign of enforcement, which is obviously to be done with local LEO, so what is the arrangement here? Are the local LEO's saying "we'll crack down if you run the ads" or what?

That said, I've always wore a seat belt.

 

[sidster]

Is anyone else seeing this new push for the "Click it or Ticket" campaign in their state?

Is anyone else pissed off by this?

If that is pissing you off (and I don't know why it is), wait 'til they
implement the "no cellphone while driving law" in your state. It goes
into effect July '08 in California.

Driving isn't a right. It is a privilege. Do you complain that you need
to pass a driving test (written and driving) before you are given a driver's
license allowing you to operate your vehicle on public roads?

 

[Scofield]

If that is pissing you off (and I don't know why it is), wait 'til they
implement the "no cellphone while driving law" in your state. It goes
into effect July '08 in California.

Driving isn't a right. It is a privilege. Do you complain that you need
to pass a driving test (written and driving) before you are given a driver's
license allowing you to operate your vehicle on public roads?

they have been pushing this thing for years. Heck up in Bangor, Maine you cant smoke in a car if you have a child in the car with you. Even if it is your own.

1. Talking on a cellphone while driving can lead to an accident (which could involve other drivers/pedestrians)

2. Taking a test is completely different than being forced to wear a seatbelt. The test ensures that you are capable of driving, as to not put other lives in danger. The seatbelt law only protects your life, a decision we should be able to make, not assholes who sit at a desk all day.

3. Smoking in the car with other passengers is a risk to the other passenger's life. I don't care if you smoke, but risking the health of an infant (or anyone for that matter) SHOULD be against the law.

Seatbelt laws are absolutely ridiculous. If I don't wear a seatbelt, I am endangering no one buy myself; therefore, it should be my decision to wear one or not (I always do). The other aforementioned scenarios all involve other individuals, whom you have no right to endanger.

 

[Sandra]

Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits!!!!! All Blaming the government for NOT MAKING the deceased to wear a seatbelt.

The free market was principle in creating the seatbelt law as per insurance companies to lower rates.

Your insurance company could just as easily restrict your driving privileges in a free market society.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

3 Point Seat Belts...
Air Bags... EVERYWHERE!
Crumble Zones...
ABS disc brakes...
Safety Glass...
high visibility lighting...
daytime running lights...
fast illumination Bright LED Brake lights...
SAFER ROADS and barriers...
MORE REGULATIONS...
MORE SAFETY LAWS...
MORE VEHICLE LAWS...

How come my Auto insurance rates keep going up when they should ALL be dropping?

How come my credit rating is used for my MANDATED INSURANCE Premiums?

How come the INSURANCE companies have the lowest P/E rates on Wall street?

If I'm mandated by STATE AND FEDERAL LAW to PAY for Insurance and obey all the laws(thanks INSURANCE Co.'s)... why are the INSURANCE companies making MAJOR BANK and rates continue to go up?

Aren't we all getting sick of the deluge of INSURANCE COMMERCIALS on ALL the media formats?

ONCE AGAIN... SCAMMED BY Government and BIG BUSINESS FIXING THE SYSTEM!

 

[Danke]

Driving isn't a right. It is a privilege. Do you complain that you need
to pass a driving test (written and driving) before you are given a driver's
license allowing you to operate your vehicle on public roads?

You're right. "Driving" is a privilege (defined as a commercial activity and licensable). But to run your private automobile is a right. Your right to travel.

 

[pcosmar]

I have opposed helmet laws for years. This is the same thing.

3. Smoking in the car with other passengers is a risk to the other passenger's life. I don't care if you smoke, but risking the health of an infant (or anyone for that matter) SHOULD be against the law.

Sorry, but BULLSHIT.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html
http://www.smokingaloud.com/ets.html
Your so called "facts" are in dispute.

"Political science" has taken on a whole new meaning.

I don't care what your reason for crashing a car is (cell phone, drunk, stupid, asleep) the results are the same. You are responsible for what you do, not for what you might do ,maybe.
People should not be punished because they MIGHT do something.

 

[Sandra]

I have opposed helmet laws for years. This is the same thing.

Sorry, but BULLSHIT.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html
http://www.smokingaloud.com/ets.html
Your so called "facts" are in dispute.

I don't care what your reason for crashing a car is (cell phone, drunk, stupid, asleep) the results are the same. You are responsible for what you do, not for what you might do ,maybe.
People should not be punished because they MIGHT do something.

an arguement only a smoker would make. Sorry. I'm tired of having to breathe in your crap!

 

[pcosmar]

an arguement only a smoker would make. Sorry. I'm tired of having to breathe in your crap!

Fine.
I think your perfume stinks.

Maybe we should outlaw that crap in public too.

 

[sidster]

1. Talking on a cellphone while driving can lead to an accident (which could involve other drivers/pedestrians)

So is drinking your latte on your way to work.

2. Taking a test is completely different than being forced to wear a seatbelt. The test ensures that you are capable of driving, as to not put other lives in danger. The seatbelt law only protects your life, a decision we should be able to make, not assholes who sit at a desk all day.

No it is not. The driver's license test is to make sure you know how
to operate your vehicle as well as to ensure you understand the traffic
laws and are able to obey them. One such law is wearing of your seatbelt.

Seatbelt laws are absolutely ridiculous. If I don't wear a seatbelt, I am endangering no one buy myself; therefore, it should be my decision to wear one or not (I always do). The other aforementioned scenarios all involve other individuals, whom you have no right to endanger.

With that argument, suicide should be looked upon the same way.
You are only killing yourself. But you forget that you are in fact
harming others. That's why you will get prosecuted if you attempt
a suicide (and fail)

You're right. "Driving" is a privilege (defined as a commercial activity and licensable). But to run your private automobile is a right. Your right to travel.

I agree with that statement so long as you are not driving your vehicle
on public roads.

 

[Danke]

I agree with that statement so long as you are not driving your vehicle
on public roads.

Bring it up with the Supreme Court then.

 

[Danke]

Seatbelt laws are absolutely ridiculous. If I don't wear a seatbelt, I am endangering no one buy myself; therefore, it should be my decision to wear one or not (I always do). The other aforementioned scenarios all involve other individuals, whom you have no right to endanger.

If you are alone in your car, most probably not. But with passengers, then you could actually be endangering others.

This is especially true for those sitting behind one another. They become lethal projectiles as their head smashes into the back of the head of the person in front of them.

 

[pcosmar]

I agree with that statement so long as you are not driving your vehicle
on public roads.

It is this same mentality that some want to use to license and regulate the internet.

It is all those folks that don't secure their computers that cause the rise of "botnets".
People need to be required to secure their computers and be certified in their use. We can't have all these uneducated people owning computers and useing them on the net.

 

[sidster]

Bring it up with the Supreme Court then.

I don't have to. The current vehicle codes are in agreement with
my statement.

In order for you to drive your vehicle on public roads and highways,
you must obey all traffic laws.

 

[Danke]

I don't have to. The current vehicle codes are in agreement with
my statement.

In order for you to drive your vehicle on public roads and highways,
you must obey all traffic laws.

Privately or commercially?

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

an arguement only a smoker would make. Sorry. I'm tired of having to breathe in your crap!

Obesity is a HUGE problem taxing our medical system, and driving up food prices. I think eating should be outlawed!!!

Seriously Sandra, you are not forced to ride with, eat with, or hang out with smokers...

About seatbelts, I was in a car accident where if I had worn one I would certainly be dead, If the driver had worn one I would not have been criticaly injured, go figure. While states can do as they wish I think this is a waste of federal taxpayers money and NONE of the feds business