Guess what, David. You are on the right track. Many folks who complain loudly about tax increases, social services, rising health care costs, rising insurance premiums. government interference etc. somehow fail to see the direct relationship with the costs incurred by death and disabling injuries which can be greatly diminished by the mandatory use of seat belts.
Additionally, it is my understanding that all kinds of insurance providers factor in these "catastrophic"costs in the formulas used to determine the premiums we all must pay.
It is also true that a significant number of the homeless are permanently disabled ( hence their homelessness and all the attending costly services required for their survival) as a result of preventable traumatic injuries such as those incurred in crashes where seat belts were not used.
I could go on and on, but let it suffice for me to say that we ALL pay dearly one way or another for these preventable deaths and disabling injuries.
For those this doesn't bother, fine...... just please spare me the whining about taxes, health care, costs of services etc. if there is not a willingness to do something about it, i.e. enact a primary seat belt law to help control costs and reduce the need for spending for a start.
Oh, and by the way, may I remark the obvious and address this state's dire financial situation? To leave $13.6 million of federal transportation money sitting on the table is, to me, "cutting off our noses to spite our faces". Don't complain about increases in tolls or gas taxes either......... $13.6 million would have gone a long way toward easing that situation.
On balance, a primary seat belt law is the fiscally responsible option. We don't have to like it, but I feel we do have to respect it's protective benefits and perhaps look beyond "I and Me" to what is best for "Us" as residents of MA..
Sadly, political aspirations seem to take priority over public safety and related
cost control. We need to remember this when the next state elections are held.
steve - 15 years ago
if I chose to were a seat belt I will it is my perrogitiv. no buddy is going tell me that i have to they can stick the seat belt law up there ass do you the police were them no they don't they do more damage then you will ever no
Mike - 15 years ago
Richard Carlton, you're purposefully trying to read into something that isn't there. I'm simply answering the poll question which is "WOULD THEY SAVE LIVES?" And not what you think the poll reads "do you think we should have tougher seat belt laws?" Please reread the poll question, and my first response, and you'll understand, or I hope you can for the sake of humanity.
Also, social babying, NOT FISCAL (don't misinterpret), is what Republicans do. That's the Republican way, and has been for quite sometime. So to say that it's a "left wing liberal" belief is completely incorrect. Us "left wing liberals" believe in civil (or social) libertarianism. Which would make this law completely against what us "left wing liberals" stand for.
Your FOX News and talk radio insults are elementary and pathetic.
david galligani - 15 years ago
A tougher seat belt law would assure that people would use them. If it was a primary offense it should not be tied to insurance fines on top of the original fine. This would also save on hospital bills because it would reduce injuries because you would not be thrown out of the car. It would also bring money into the state and cut insurance costs.
At least I have half a brain, that's half a brain more than you have. You must be one of those left wing liberals who wants the government to control your life. I seemed to make it just fine for the past 70 years without the government telling me what to do and how to do it. Another thing, all those polls and percentages are all a bunch of crap. Have you ever been ask to participate in any poll?
Mike - 15 years ago
Well, anyone with half a brain would know that "tougher seat-belt laws and higher fines save lives." The people who voted "no" obviously are too ignorant to comprehend a simple sentence. It's not "would you like you to see tougher seat-belt laws and higher fines" it's "would tougher seat-belt laws and higher fines save lives."
Guess what, David. You are on the right track. Many folks who complain loudly about tax increases, social services, rising health care costs, rising insurance premiums. government interference etc. somehow fail to see the direct relationship with the costs incurred by death and disabling injuries which can be greatly diminished by the mandatory use of seat belts.
Additionally, it is my understanding that all kinds of insurance providers factor in these "catastrophic"costs in the formulas used to determine the premiums we all must pay.
It is also true that a significant number of the homeless are permanently disabled ( hence their homelessness and all the attending costly services required for their survival) as a result of preventable traumatic injuries such as those incurred in crashes where seat belts were not used.
I could go on and on, but let it suffice for me to say that we ALL pay dearly one way or another for these preventable deaths and disabling injuries.
For those this doesn't bother, fine...... just please spare me the whining about taxes, health care, costs of services etc. if there is not a willingness to do something about it, i.e. enact a primary seat belt law to help control costs and reduce the need for spending for a start.
Oh, and by the way, may I remark the obvious and address this state's dire financial situation? To leave $13.6 million of federal transportation money sitting on the table is, to me, "cutting off our noses to spite our faces". Don't complain about increases in tolls or gas taxes either......... $13.6 million would have gone a long way toward easing that situation.
On balance, a primary seat belt law is the fiscally responsible option. We don't have to like it, but I feel we do have to respect it's protective benefits and perhaps look beyond "I and Me" to what is best for "Us" as residents of MA..
Sadly, political aspirations seem to take priority over public safety and related
cost control. We need to remember this when the next state elections are held.
if I chose to were a seat belt I will it is my perrogitiv. no buddy is going tell me that i have to they can stick the seat belt law up there ass do you the police were them no they don't they do more damage then you will ever no
Richard Carlton, you're purposefully trying to read into something that isn't there. I'm simply answering the poll question which is "WOULD THEY SAVE LIVES?" And not what you think the poll reads "do you think we should have tougher seat belt laws?" Please reread the poll question, and my first response, and you'll understand, or I hope you can for the sake of humanity.
Also, social babying, NOT FISCAL (don't misinterpret), is what Republicans do. That's the Republican way, and has been for quite sometime. So to say that it's a "left wing liberal" belief is completely incorrect. Us "left wing liberals" believe in civil (or social) libertarianism. Which would make this law completely against what us "left wing liberals" stand for.
Your FOX News and talk radio insults are elementary and pathetic.
A tougher seat belt law would assure that people would use them. If it was a primary offense it should not be tied to insurance fines on top of the original fine. This would also save on hospital bills because it would reduce injuries because you would not be thrown out of the car. It would also bring money into the state and cut insurance costs.
At least I have half a brain, that's half a brain more than you have. You must be one of those left wing liberals who wants the government to control your life. I seemed to make it just fine for the past 70 years without the government telling me what to do and how to do it. Another thing, all those polls and percentages are all a bunch of crap. Have you ever been ask to participate in any poll?
Well, anyone with half a brain would know that "tougher seat-belt laws and higher fines save lives." The people who voted "no" obviously are too ignorant to comprehend a simple sentence. It's not "would you like you to see tougher seat-belt laws and higher fines" it's "would tougher seat-belt laws and higher fines save lives."