A simple and quick poll about "seat belt laws".

[Angela Shelley]

Poll question: A simple and quick poll about "seat belt laws".

What are seat belt laws to you?


Choice 1: Common sense laws, because seat belts save lives.

Choice 2: Revenue generation scheme for the government.

Choice 3: Police state tool.

Choice 4: Other, I will tell you why.


Thanks!

[Angela Shelley]

1. Kick.

[DangerDave921]

2. OTHER

It is a law with good intentions -- saving lives -- that is still an infringement on personal liberty. The government has no business trying to ensure that I take the proper precautions to safe-guard my life. Same thing with helmet laws.

[Angela Shelley]

Would it be difficult for you to hear

that there are many people in your community and your country who actually care about you, even though they don´t know you, they just don´t want you to have your head smash into a windshield in a car accident?

Would it be difficult to accept that the government who makes these laws represents those citizens who care about safe-guarding your life?

I know, with a warmongering federal government, it´s hard to accept any type of laws.

I personally enjoy this type of "infringement on personal liberty", because I truly want other people to be safe-guarded, even if I don´t know them.

Peace :-)

[DangerDave921]

16. Honestly?

That's a silly argument. I don't mind people caring about me; that's fine. But when it comes to the government forcing me to alter my behavior, it's no longer a sweet and caring gesture.

And also, isn't your heart warmed by the fact that Bush wants to keep you safe? And that he's reviewing your phone records just to be extra careful you're kept safe? I personally enjoy that type of infringement on personal liberty because I want other people to be safe-guarded, even if I don't know them.

[Angela Shelley]

18. There´s a difference,

and mature thinking allows me to make the difference between wearing a safety belt and having a phone tapped.

There are humans in the government, not just monsters and creatures.

[mondo joe]

43. Conflating violating a Constitutional safeguard with a personal preference

is not helpful.

[DangerDave921]

49. I disagree

If the goal is to have everyone be safe, then I want my government to do everything in its power to achieve that. Don't you want people to be safe?

:)

[mondo joe]

56. I'll try a sincere response to your straw man.

Firstly, it is well established that liberty or freedom is not absolute, but is weighed against other matters of public interest and safety.

The question is not: can laws be passed which may infringe on your personal wishes, because we know the answer is YES, but what is the balance we can agree on broadly between those sometimes competing interests.

Where there is a conflict between public interest and personal liberty, decisions must be made that meet constitutional scrutiny. Neither side in that conflict has absolute sway, so your straw man fails on two counts.

[DangerDave921]

67. There is no public interest in seatbelt laws. Only private.

That is where your argument breaks down.

[mondo joe]

70. To the contrary: the public funds ERs and pays insurance premiums that cover

the considerable cost of care for people injured in car accidents.

If you were soley responsible for that, I'd agree it's no one's business but yours.

[Mnemosyne]

64. Angela, you are so kind hearted, but it actually is done for the insurance

companies benefit.

We need more that care about others, as you do, but mostly they don't.

I wore my seatbelt before it was law simply because I felt safer.

Kids should always be buckled, but adults should have the choice, even if a bad one, jmho.

:hi::hug:

[The Gunslinger]

90. Bingo

This law is for the insurance lobby.

[crikkett]

20. The public has an interest in whether you wear seatbelt/helmet or not

since it's public servants who get pulled to your aid and public resources spent cleaning the smear you'd leave on the pavement.

Also, no fair turning the person who hits you into a murderer just because YOU don't care whether you survive an auto wreck. It hurts them and their families unnecessarily.

Selfishness has repercussions.

[DangerDave921]

25. Fine

I think everyone should be required to wear a life preserver if they go swimming in a pool. Because hey, if you end up drowning, some cop or EMS guy is going to have to come drag you out. And that would be selfish.

Let's sign a petition and get this much-needed law passed!

[mondo joe]

37. You could seek such legislation, though I don't think you'd get far at all.

[DangerDave921]

39. I know

Because everyone would say I can certainly make my own decisions about wearing a life preserver while swimming.

[mondo joe]

42. So that goes back to the people deciding what are reasonable risks and

burdens and which aren't.

:shrug:

[RB TexLa]

50. A car accident is not murder. The person would be no more a murderer

than if they hit someone wearing a seatbelt and helmet and they died.


Also since when did anything a victim do or not do cause something to be murder? Your saying it's murder because the victim wasn't wearing a seatbelt sounds a bit like "it's not rape because she was asking for it."

[unpossibles]

94. not to mention, what if the deceased's family decided to sue me

and the accident would have been a non-fatal one had I been wearing a seatbelt?

[unpossibles]

26. but it's not just you

seat belt laws and helmet laws reduce fatality in crashes, which keeps my insurance lower.

As someone who barely walked away from flipping a car and was not wearing a seatbelt (because at the time I agreed with you), I have to say that I got lucky.

I guess I don't understand why anyone would not want to wear one. For the record, I also ride motorcycles, and wear a helmet. I hear better with it on, and it's saved my head a few times. Shit, I've wrecked a bicycle without a helmet and got my head cracked open at fairly slow speeds. I just don't see the point of complaining about them, unless it's that they mess up your hair.

[DangerDave921]

29. I wear a seatbelt

Every single time. And I wear a helmet when I ride my bike. I make my kids wear helmets. It's stupid not to wear one.

BUT: It is not the government's role to protect me. That is my decision.

[unpossibles]

57. well, I agree it's your decision, and that it should be

but... I just don't see why it's a big deal either. And if we can keep fatalities down for avoidable things like this, I am fine with that too. Where do we draw the line? Is it my decision to drive at night with no lights on? I know it's rare that things like this affect people other than the individual, but they can in several ways, including the idea that if I am in an accident and kill someone who decided not to wear their protection, it will make me feel like total crap even if not my fault.

[DangerDave921]

68. Wow

You cannot compare not wearing a seatbelt with driving with no headlights on!

Lack of a seatbelt endangers ME. Driving without headlights endangers OTHERS. That is the distinction. And that is why laws requiring headlights are a fine use of government authority.

Jeez people.

[unpossibles]

93. ok - I admit the headlight thing was hyperbole in traffic

so should you be allowed to do so on a country road?

Seriously though, you not wearing a seatbelt DOES affect more than just yourself. Again, I kind of fail to see how it's even an issue, how it's something worth getting upset about in the first place.

[IdaBriggs]

60. The problem has to do with education.

You say its stupid not to wear one, but unfortunately, there are A LOT of stupid people out there who either can't be bothered to study "why" its important, or think they are immortal (read: usually young people), or decide to do other things with their money other than basic personal safety issues.

At some level, its a "tax" -- if you want to ride a motorcycle, you have to spend money on a helmet. BUT you can choose how much to spend (expensive and safer or cheap or used or whatever) as long as it meets "safe" standards. You can even pick up a helmet (using it as an example) for free from a site that helps prevent stuff from going into landfills, or cheap at a garage sale, or whatever.

I understand why some folks say "nanny state" but those same folks would be squawking for benefits if they or someone they loved was injured or killed, nor would they fork over the money the "state" has to put out to scrape them off the pavement (as another poster put it very eloquently).

If everyone actually used "common sense" it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but since idiocy abounds, Nanny State Laws.

:shrug:

[DutchLiberal]

75. *ROFL!* Great imitation of a clueless brainwashed right-winger!

:rofl:

[Hippo_Tron]

91. You don't have the unconditional right to drive on a public road

By your logic, setting conditions, like having a drivers' license and car insurance, is an infringement on personal liberty.

[Buzz Clik]

3. They are laws designed to protect me from myself, and I object strongly to them.

[Angela Shelley]

9. Please read message Nr. 4

and buckle up, we need you here at DU :-)

[Buzz Clik]

21. I buckle up everytime I get in the car.

I don't need and do not want laws telling me to do so.

I fully support legislation that forced car manufacturers to provided seat belts in every car sold in the US so that I have the opporutnity to buckle up in every car I drive.

[Jed Dilligan]

53. It's just another reason for police to stop cars

What they really want is to find a stash or smell booze on someone's breath. They stand around laughing when someone flies through the windshield and gets gushed on the freeway--unless it's one of their own.

The cop's division of the world: Group 1: cops; Group 2: scumbags; Group 3: does not exist.

[cnk_clark]

27. Thank you.

I am a firm believer in less government intervention. But common sense says we should wear seat belts and helmets.

I hate riding my bicycle to work with my helmet. But I don't want to end up a vegetable in a nursing home for the rest of my life over a simple fall and massive brain injury.

[cnk_clark]

19. I agree only...

...if you agree that putting yourself at risk you promise not to take any taxpayer money when you are permanently disabled.

There are so many needs and so little money.

[Buzz Clik]

23. I understand your point and totally approve of seat belt awareness.

I just don't like the laws.

[cnk_clark]

38. I don't like the laws either.

I don't like paying taxes,

I don't like registering my vehicle,

I don't like speed limits,

I don't like zoning laws,

I don't like building codes,

I don't like drivers licenses,

And most of all I don't like zucchini!!!!

[XemaSab]

83. Best response ever.

:rofl:

Welcome to DU! :D

[mondo joe]

46. I would suggest the law might actually be more about mitigating the cost to others

who pay for costly emergency hospitalizations in taxes and insurance premiums.

[Tesha]

47. That's not the whole truth.

> They are laws designed to protect me from myself,
> and I object strongly to them.

That's not the whole truth. Your chances of *AVOIDING*
the crash entirely (or lessening its severity) are much
better if the seat belt is keeping you safely located
in your driver's seat. Therefore, you're less likely to
kill me and others nearby if you're still driving your
car rather than having your body steam-rolled by a
semi after you've been ejected from your vehicle.

That is: You may be able to better execute an
emergency-avoidance maneuver if you don't have to
spend all your effort and conscious thought trying
to avoid being ejected from your vehicle.

Tesha

[cnk_clark]

4. As a Paramedic...

...I have to say that seat belts do save lives. I am an old guy and remember the time before seat belt laws. There were a lot of deaths in simple car wrecks. Now I see totally destroyed cars and the people are standing outside exchanging information.

It saves taxpayer money by requiring seat belts. Those severely disabled from injuries in car wrecks soon run out of insurance and end up being supported by taxpayers. This can be prevented with seat belts and the money can be used elsewhere.

[JackintheGreen]

7. It still infringes on my rights

I would NEVER get in a car without my seatbelt, and i am constantly haranguing my wife for it. Just as i would never get on my motorcycle without my helmet, or take up a four pack a day smoking habit.

But it really isn't too far a road to the new law (Georgia?, Alabama?) that refuses food service to "fat people." It may save lives and taxpayer money, but the price is too much to bear.

[LanternWaste]

66. I'm afraid I don't understand how wearing a seatbelt...

I'm afraid I don't understand how wearing a seatbelt (a law) whilst driving a car (a licensed privilege) infringes on any rights...

:shrug:

[JackintheGreen]

74. It's the external force telling me I have to do it.

Choosing to wear it is my right. Choosing NOT to wear it should also be my right. It's a dumb decision, but it's mine to make.

Do you want the State telling you that you have to lock your door every time you leave the house? It's a good idea, but what if you're walking the dog and your mom is coming over any minute now.

Do you want the State telling that you can't rock climb, ride horses or a snow mobile? They're all dangerous, and some insurers already refuse to cover injuries caused by them.

Do you want the state telling you that your child has to take Prozac or some other med because their school administrator has determined that they are ADHD and too disruptive in class?

Do you want the State forcing you to accept a life-saving blood transfusion, even though your religion forbids it? It's a good idea. You won't die. But will you still go to Heaven?

The State already forbids the recreational use of narcotics, etc. How about if they regulate cigarettes and alcohol similarly? They tried it once and it worked out OIK, right?

It's my life inside my property. The state already regulates HOW I use it on the roads (as they absolutely should because the roads are public). But some states regulate how you use private ORV on your own property.

I try to avoid the "slippery slope" argument, but here it it all too apropos.

[Lorien]

77. If I hit you and you die because you aren't wearing a seat belt, that WILL

effect me, hence the law. It's NOT just something that protects the person wearing it. If you are in a rollover accident, for instance, you can easily be thrown from the vehicle if you aren't buckled up. If another driver swerves to avoid hitting your body and then causes another crash, you are the one responsible for it.

I find it pathetic that states have to have seatbelt laws at all. You would think that if someone is "adult" enough to drive a vehicle they are also "adult" enough to buckle up like a sane and rational human being-but many are not. Laws are often necessary when stupidity governs a significant enough percentage of the population.

[JackintheGreen]

80. If you get in a wreck with me, I'll be wearing my seatbelt

You could always try to avoid the wreck in the first place. :P

It *is* pathetic that there are "adults" out there that make bad decisions. But it is still their decision. It is not hard to extend the concept of state control "for your own goos" out to ridiculous proportions (e.g. the above mentioned proposed state law that refuses food service to fat people).

Everybody should be forced to serve in the military, right? It's for the good of the country. Besides, other countries (like Israel, Switzerland, Norway) do it.

Everybody should be limited to 4 oz. of meat per day. It's for their own good.

Fast food restaurants should be outlawed, by the way. They are not good for you.

Everybody must drive SUVs. If you get in an accident driving a Fiat, you're gonna get destroyed.

Speed limit: 25 mph. Oh, and no passing. Unsafe passing is dangerous, and we can't trust you to do it well.

Working parents? Your kids have to go into a licensed day care after school until you get home. Unsupervised kids get into too much trouble.

You MUST BUY health insurance. We don't care that you make $8/hour and can barely make rent. If you need health care and do not have insurance, your wages will be garnered to cover the cost. Good luck with rent next month.

I'll wager any amount that within 5 minutes you can think of 5 things that you do that might be dangerous or unhealthy in some way that could invite regulation that disallows you from doing them.

It's always fine when you're talking about somebody else, but them roosters still gotta come home to roost.

[LanternWaste]

79. There's an outside force telling you...

There's an outside force telling you that you have to have a license to drive. Is that an infringement also?

And the slippery slope argument is actually a logical fallacy...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. Question? How many of those wrecked cars have airbags? Thanks in advance!

[cnk_clark]

24. There are more and more with airbags....

..but airbags don't replace seat belts.

I had a fellow Paramedic in a BMW killed because she didn't have a seat belt on. The airbags deployed and the crumple zones worked. She would have been really sore for a month or so but would have survived.

As it was some other fellow Paramedics had to work on her while they were crying. They knew she was dying. Then the staff at the hospital also had to work on her knowing who she was.

She left behind 4 kids ages 4-12.

[crikkett]

28. tragic story

I'm sorry it happened :hug:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

61. What a very sad story. I am sorry for the loss of your co-worker.

[seabeyond]

17. then you educate and teach and encourage.... for people to chose seatbelts

but not a law.

[bullwinkle428]

40. Word...and welcome to DU!

I think growing up as fan of various forms of auto racing from around the age of 8 or so, I saw so many horrific-looking crashes where the driver walked away from it, or at the very least, sustained only minor injuries. This totally reinforced in me the idea that I needed to take full advantage of the safety equipment equipped on whatever vehicle I happened to be operating. I have been in some crashes over the years (most in my younger years, fortunately), and have to receive the even the slightest cut or bruise from any of them...

[Lorien]

73. Sounds like common sense to me

but I'm afraid that you'll never convince the "it's my RIGHT to be a complete imbecile"! crowd of that. I can't believe that anyone is actually bitching about having to buckle up! I wonder if they refuse to brush their teeth as well?

[NoGOPZone]

5. Other. Effective means for insurance companies to reduce claim payments nt

[stellanoir]

6. Yeah we get fined 50 bucks per every unrestrained individual

but every morning and afternoon, up to 60 kids bounce around on each school bus all across the land.

They're too pricey to retrofit.

[JackintheGreen]

11. Bingo!

F*** the children. But don't smoke with them in the car!

[LanternWaste]

65. Or in the bus?

"But don't smoke with them in the car!"

Or in the bus?

[Midlodemocrat]

13. One of the reasons it was suggested NOT to put seat belts on buses

here was that in the event of a fire, it would be too difficult for the driver to unbuckle the myriads of small children who couldn't unbuckle themselves.

Not sure how much water that holds actually, because most buses run on diesel which is less inflammatory.

[Fireweed247]

31. and with no supervision

A friend of mine who is a teacher, wanted to ride the bus to school with the kids, but could not because of Insurance.

[cnk_clark]

32. Actually seat belts are not as important in school busses.

It has to do with mass. Simple physics.

A car could hit a bus and the bus would hardly move. It would take another bus or semi to do serious damage to the bus. Cars to buses are like flies to an elephant. Nothing more than annoying.

In 25 years of being a Paramedic and all the bus wrecks I have been on I have never seen any serious injuries. Everyone was out walking around and most were transported just in case there was something wrong. No deaths or serious injuries.

[stellanoir]

35. that's good to know

it's always bothered me

[LeftyMom]

58. Busses work differently.

They're enormously heavier, and move fairly slowly most of the time, so they tend to sustain much less damage in accidents. On newer buses the seats are very high, and thickly padded- the idea is "compartmentalizaion" which is a fancy way of saying "keep them in a padded area where they can't bounce around too much. Combined with the high vehicle weight and slow speeds, it actually makes school buses much safer than family cars.

In terms of adding seatbelts, part of the problem is that they have to work for a very wide range of sizes. Good luck devising a system that safely secures everybody from three year old head start kids and eighteen year old seniors well, let alone one that the smaller kids can get themselves in and out of unassisted. Lap belts would do that, but they increase risk of abdominal injury, so you'd probably have fewer injuries in rollovers and more in everything else, assuming that they were even used and adjusted properly.

[stellanoir]

59. Yeah post #32 explained it quite well also.

Good to know and thanks for the additional info.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

10. My husband and I were just talking about this the other day....

...after being pulled over at an inspection check. The officer was making sure we were all belted.

My husband believes the seat belt law is a money making scheme, where I believe it was put into place to save insurance companies from paying out on accidental death policies.

[Angela Shelley]

14. Can you imagine that there are police officers

who care about other people and are glad that people are wearing safety belts?

I can imagine that officers would rather make an inspection check than to pull people out of wrecked cars who weren´t wearing a safety belt.

Peace :-)

[maui9002]

22. Agree, and I don't know a single person who's been cited

for not wearing a seat belt except after an accident. I do know several folks (me included) who've been stopped by an officer and reminded that (1) wearing your seat belt is the law and (2) we don't want you to get hurt. Given my experience, I don't think most police see it as a revenue generator, but the law gives them a little more ammunition to make a point to someone they've stopped for another reason.

[madinmaryland]

51. I actually got cited a couple of years ago.

Passed an officer, and he pulled me over for only that. (It was mid morning)

:shrug:

And I generally always wear my seatbelt.

[cnk_clark]

41. Hey what about me????

I don't like pulling people out of wrecked cars either.

Especially when I know that seat belts would have prevented their serious injuries.

We just had a car wreck with 7 people in it. Five are dead. None were wearing seat belts. The baby was not in a car seat but somehow survived with minor injuries. The mother is dead and the father is seriously injured.

Just another senseless waste of life.

[RB TexLa]

54. LOL, too funny!

[cnk_clark]

34. I think it is a law for people who lack understanding of physics.

[NutmegYankee]

84. And to think...

Police officers, firemen, and coroners not having to spatula your brains in a plastic baggy was just a nice side benefit.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

88. I believe the seat belt law saves lives. I also belive it's to save insurance comapanies money.

Is it so hard to believe that maybe our government rather benefit corporations over it's people?

Shocking, but it happens.

[mondo joe]

12. Other: The public foots the bill for the costs of not using belts, so there is an

incentive to limit or mitigate that expense.

Rights and responsibilities always go hand in hand. If you're responsible for the bill, you get some rights.

Finding the balance is the hard part.

[Angela Shelley]

15. I agree, rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.

Peace :-)

[cnk_clark]

36. Very well put Mondo Joe.

[slackmaster]

30. Other: I will tell you why

Seat belt laws mean nothing to me. I made a decision, when I started driving, that I would always use them regardless of what anyone said about it.

[Fireweed247]

33. Do you honestly believe the "people" demanded that Congress pass this law?

Do you also think the "people" demanded the law that we all have insurance?

[RB TexLa]

55. If you call State Farm, Farmers, Allstate and such "people"

then yes, they demanded it.

[XemaSab]

85. Mandatory insurance sucks

but if some bimbo in a Lexus runs a stop sign because she's talking on her phone and hits MY car, she'd better be buying me a new Toyota. That's all I'm sayin'.

[Echo In Light]

86. Apparently that's how some {choose to} perceive it

[Ichingcarpenter]

44. My best friend in High School went through the windshield

When we hit a fire hydrant after losing control on black ice.

The VW didn't have locking seats either (safety law now), which the passenger
in that back braced himself thus pushing my friend through the windshield
or seat belts (safety law now) but it did have safety glass (1950 law)

stupid poll

[RB TexLa]

45. Other: Auto insurance companies donate money, get bill to force customers to do something

to save them money on claims. I'm sure they will one day give enough money to get a mandatory helmet while a passenger in a car law enacted.

[Ian David]

48. Drunk drivers should have their seatbelts confiscated. n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

52. Other

Options 2 and 3 are redundant.

[NV Whino]

62. I only buckle my seat belt when driving to the Olive Garden.

[Tiggeroshii]

63. It's a common sense law because seat belt saves lives, and

at the right speed of a crash, the human body can potentially become a deadly projectile: potentially harmful to innocent bystanders near the scene of a crash. That seems plausible, anyways. I really haven't looked into it very much.

[DangerDave921]

69. LOL

That one cracked me up! I'd love to find a story of an innocent bystander getting killed by a flying projectile human!

[The Straight Story]

71. My seat belt Nazi brother in law was saved once when he took his off

He and his best friend were coming back from hunting, David took off his belt to get comfortable and fell asleep. The driver fell asleep and they hit the back of a truck. David was thrown from the car - had he had his seatbelt on he would have died.

He is still one of those guys that as soon as you get in the car he tells you to put your seat belt on (and all this happened about 1983 give or take a year, before seat belt laws iirc).

It is the only time he can recall taking his off.

[windbreeze]

72. Other....

includes all three of your choices...
I am a mature adult...I don't need anyone making decisions and passing laws to force me to do anything to keep myself safe...it should BE MY CHOICE..and as an adult, I should also be mature enough to make sure my KIDS are buckled in at all times...until THEY are adults...and capable of making their own choices...
I don't look for the gov't to keep me safe...that's NOT the job I want them to do...I want them to look out for the well being of this country...while I look out for myself and my loved ones...Put the seat belts in a car, then let me make the decision as to whether or not to use it...
Yes, it is a revenue scheme...in fact, my husband got a $101 ticket, a year ago..if it wasn't a revenue scheme..then the ticket wouldn't be so expensive, would it?
Police state tool...well, yeah...forcing me to do something by holding the threat of a ticket over my head, when it should be MY CHOICE to wear or not wear a seatbelt, is taking my RIGHT TO CHOOSE away from me...the only person I possibly hurt is me, me, me...I am a threat to no one else in any way, by not wearing a seat belt...I am a threat only to my own personal safety...wb

[DutchLiberal]

76. The pathetic whining about 'infringement on my rights' is SO American!

It's mind-blowing stupid.

One of the reasons Europeans don't understand Americans.

[Lorien]

78. "you'll never make ME grow up"! I think that's what many of them are really

saying.

Hell, I've lived here my whole life and I'LL never understand Americans!

[DutchLiberal]

96. ROFL! That's a good one! I keep thinking: "what right are you talking about?"

The 'right' to get your brains smashed to pieces when you get into a car accident? And what about your loved ones? How will they react when you get killed in an accident because you refused to wear a seat belt? :shrug:

(Love your avatar, by the way.) :hi:

[Angela Shelley]

92. I agree with you.

The words "my rights" are often used in discussions which go nowhere.

[DutchLiberal]

97. And since when is it a right to give other people a trauma because you refuse to wear a seat belt?

:shrug:

[NutmegYankee]

81. Great video on this. Must watch.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/714456/warning_accident_no_seatbelt_no_excuse/


Best PR video I have seen. From England. It shows an accident with one passenger not wearing his seat belt killing the others from colliding with them in the car.

[Throd]

82. I don't want to be injured by your flying corpse.

[Breeze54]

87. I think cops and emt's are tired of scrapping people off the pavement.

Seat belts stop that. I really hate wearing one and I "forget" a lot on short runs to the store
but I know they work and they have saved me from kissing a few windshields, so I think it's a
good idea to use them. Especially for little kids.

[Book Lover]

89. Other

Five-point belts are safer than the current three-point belts in common use. When I can afford to get them installed in my car, I will. However, the law overreaches when it is illegal to be without one (over the age of 18).

[B Calm]

95. Seat belt laws was wrote by INSURANCE COMPANIES.

I think they do save lives, but that's not the reason why it's a law. The purpose of the law is to save insurance companies money. To hell with personal freedom.

[BlooInBloo]

98. Damn Glibertarians.