Tammy Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I was watching Millionaire and saw a question above....what is the ONLY state with no ADULT seat belt law? New Hampshire......I wonder why. Anyone from New Hampshire can shed some light on that.....? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrganicAnn Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I'm sure you can google to find out, but I always thought that some federal road improvement funds were tied to seat belt laws or is it speed limit laws. So that is why the other 49 states have those laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 There are states that only require them for the front seat and for kids, but not the backseat. I find that weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nestof3 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I personally find it weird that a law is written to tell adults to wear a seatbelt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starr Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 New Hampshire's motto is "Live Free or Die", I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angela in ohio Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I personally find it weird that a law is written to tell adults to wear a seatbelt. You and me both. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caraway Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Um, Live Free.... Or Die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jujsky Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I live in NH. We're the, "Live Free or Die," state. Native New Hampshire people take that pretty seriously! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phathui5 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Maybe because they know that adults can figure it out for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 It's strikes me as very sad that being seat-belt-free is the sort of "freedom" for which people are willing to die. It further seems that people have lost all sense of what true "freedom" is. I have a hard time swallowing that smashing your head through the windshield is the way to show that you are a person of liberty. (To be clear: wearing a seat belt is a separate issue for me from political liberty. I think intertwining the two is ridiculous.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nestof3 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 It's strikes me as very sad that being seat-belt-free is the sort of "freedom" for which people are willing to die. It further seems that people have lost all sense of what true "freedom" is. I have a hard time swallowing that smashing your head through the windshield is the way to show that you are a person of liberty. (To be clear: wearing a seat belt is a separate issue for me from political liberty. I think intertwining the two is ridiculous.) I wonder, though, if fewer people in NH wear seatbelts, or is their statement just a way of asserting that they don't need the gov't reminding them to use their common sense. Just because there is no law doesn't mean fewer people buckle up. What sort of adult buckles up only because it is a law? There's a survival of the fittest in the animal world; perhaps there is a survival of the smartest in the human world. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammy Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 According to what I read, yes. Only about 69 percent wear seatbelts....national average is 83 percent. I think the whole thing is so stupid. But think about it, you get into a car accident (your fault or not)....and someone in the other car DIES because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. Let's say it was your fault....and now does that mean you are arrested for manslaughter...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nestof3 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 According to what I read, yes. Only about 69 percent wear seatbelts....national average is 83 percent. I think the whole thing is so stupid. But think about it, you get into a car accident (your fault or not)....and someone in the other car DIES because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. Let's say it was your fault....and now does that mean you are arrested for manslaughter...... You raise a really good point. I guess I just expect too much intelligence out of the human race. You think I'd know by now. I don't wear a seat belt because it's the law, and I don't use booster seats for my boys because it's the law. I do it because it's safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maria from IN Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 You would think that New Hampshire would rather not pay for people who decide not to wear seatbelts and wreck their cars and need state support for healthcare and nursing home care and feeding-them-pudding-for-the-rest-of-their-life-care... Along those same lines, I had always thought whether people on motorcycles who don't bother to wear helmets and become permanently disabled by a preventable head injury were really thinking beforehand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angela in ohio Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 The answer is not to mandate seatbet use, but to hold people responsible for their use or lack of use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcjlkplus3 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 The answer is not to mandate seatbet use, but to hold people responsible for their use or lack of use. :iagree: I don't think common sense should have to be made into law just to protect those who refuse to use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathy in MD Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 :iagree:I don't think common sense should have to be made into law just to protect those who refuse to use it. The problem is as another poster mentioned that we don't just let the individual suffer for his stupidity. All to often, we could find ourselves picking up the tab for the long term health care of someone who couldn't be bothered to wear a seat belt. Or someone else could find themselves facing manslaughter charges instead of following too closely. Fortunately, we don't live in a society where we just tell others "tough luck". Even though there are times I'd love to do just that. :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jujsky Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I wonder, though, if fewer people in NH wear seatbelts, or is their statement just a way of asserting that they don't need the gov't reminding them to use their common sense. Just because there is no law doesn't mean fewer people buckle up. What sort of adult buckles up only because it is a law? There's a survival of the fittest in the animal world; perhaps there is a survival of the smartest in the human world. LOL All of the adults I know in NH wear seatbelts. My MIL (who lives in MA) has tried to get away with it a couple of times in our car and before we can even say anything to her about it, the kids get right on her back about it :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angela in ohio Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 The problem is as another poster mentioned that we don't just let the individual suffer for his stupidity. All to often, we could find ourselves picking up the tab for the long term health care of someone who couldn't be bothered to wear a seat belt. Or someone else could find themselves facing manslaughter charges instead of following too closely. Fortunately, we don't live in a society where we just tell others "tough luck". Even though there are times I'd love to do just that. :tongue_smilie: The person not wearing the seat belt should then be responsible for their own expenses and death. It was a choice they made. It would include a radical change in laws, and it won't happen, but it would be a step twoard a glorious return to freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I'm thinking a new motto is in order: Live Free and/or Die :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammy Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 LOL! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarrow Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 in NH and everyone I know wears their seatbelt. I would guess it's more opposition to a law. Children are required to wear their seatbelts. NH is also a state that doesn't require motorcycle helmets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 The person not wearing the seat belt should then be responsible for their own expenses and death. It was a choice they made. It would include a radical change in laws, and it won't happen, but it would be a step twoard a glorious return to freedom. What happens when they end up critically injured and they have no insurance or money? Do we let them die because they can't pay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathy in MD Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 The person not wearing the seat belt should then be responsible for their own expenses and death. It was a choice they made. It would include a radical change in laws, and it won't happen, but it would be a step twoard a glorious return to freedom. I just remember how a jury awarded damages against a car manufacturer because the minvan owners placed their child in the cargo area of the van. They were rearended, the rear hatch sprung open and the child fell out and died. This was the equivalent of placing their dc in the trunk of a sedan! Yet the automaker lost the lawsuit and the parents got to salve their concious with the fact that the jury awarded them lots of money and blamed the automaker for their not using seatbelts and placig passengers in the cargo area. Sorry, but I don't trust another jury not to do the same to me some day. With a law, I at least have a fighting chance in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angela in ohio Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) What happens when they end up critically injured and they have no insurance or money? Do we let them die because they can't pay? The same system that is in place for others who don't have insurance or money. (Not that I agree with that, but that's a whole other problem.) Edited June 16, 2009 by angela in ohio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiff in TX Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I personally find it weird that a law is written to tell adults to wear a seatbelt. I couldn't agree more. Big government... it just doesn't work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretchen in NJ Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I personally find it weird that a law is written to tell adults to wear a seatbelt. :iagree: I wear my seatbelt at all times. I do feel you have the right to be stupid in this country. I dislike laws where the government is trying to save us for ourselves. It is not their job. Laws like these totally disrupt natural selection.;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 The same system that is in place for others who don't have insurance or money. (Not that I agree with that, but that's a whole other problem.) But that's the fundamental issue. Aren't we as a society justified in expecting people to take measures to prevent themselves from becoming a burden (and in many cases, an *enormous* burden) on the rest of us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 But that's the fundamental issue. Aren't we as a society justified in expecting people to take measures to prevent themselves from becoming a burden (and in many cases, an *enormous* burden) on the rest of us? Yes we are! Just as we are justified in having laws that help prevent children from being left orphans. It's just common sense. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissel Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Unbelted adults in the rear seats of a car can launch over the heads of the car seats and kill passengers in the forward seats in a severe collision. That's MY problem with the lack of the law. New Hampshire does not require its drivers to have car insurance either :confused: Oh, and ETA that neither my uncle nor my dad would wear car seats if they weren't required to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 It's strikes me as very sad that being seat-belt-free is the sort of "freedom" for which people are willing to die. It further seems that people have lost all sense of what true "freedom" is. I have a hard time swallowing that smashing your head through the windshield is the way to show that you are a person of liberty. (To be clear: wearing a seat belt is a separate issue for me from political liberty. I think intertwining the two is ridiculous.) Well, I guess you're "free" to follow the law. Woohoo freedom. How about the freedom to be an idget, yes, even an idget whose head goes through a windshield? Yes we are! Just as we are justified in having laws that help prevent children from being left orphans. It's just common sense. Bill Time to regulate food and exercise then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Quote: Originally Posted by Perry But that's the fundamental issue. Aren't we as a society justified in expecting people to take measures to prevent themselves from becoming a burden (and in many cases, an *enormous* burden) on the rest of us? Yes we are! Just as we are justified in having laws that help prevent children from being left orphans. It's just common sense. Bill Time to regulate food and exercise then. Don't forget about high heeled shoes, skiing, skate boarding, boxing, football, wrestling, swimming pools, fast cars, mountain climbing, sky diving, motorcycles, hunting, bicycles, ....oh we can have so much fun and ensure that people "take measures to prevent themselves from becoming a burden". The "I am so much smarter than you that I can, and will, tell you what is good for you and how you will live" crowd would have us living in foam lined rooms. It always amazes me when seemingly educated adults insist on treating the rest of us like children. Thank you.... no. Much as I hate to do so I would rather bear the burden of supporting idiots who choose not to wear a seatbelt than let the "I am smarter than you" crowd tell me how to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) What always amazes me is when seemingly educated adults consistently side with idiocy over intelligence and with and dogmatism over common sense. Seat beat laws save lives. And are not an onerous burden on ones "liberty". Bill Edited June 16, 2009 by Spy Car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingM Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 What always amazes me when seemingly educated adults consistently side with idiocy over intelligence and with and dogmatism over common sense. Seat beat laws save lives. And are not an onerous burden on ones "liberty". Bill Law or no, I feel the same way about skiers on the mountain or motorcyclists on the road who won't wear helmets. Well, I guess if your brains are so unimportant to you that you won't wear a helmet that should be your business. Too bad my taxes might have to support assisted care living for the rest of your life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I find it funny that for many people it comes down to money. How much is your freedom worth? What's even more funny, imo, is that people that support these laws, blanket laws that "protect" us, don't take into account people that CANNOT abide by these laws. Yes, there are people that CANNOT wear seat belts, and hey, they still get tickets. No one is trying to save their hard earned cash though, right? The government is not supposed to protect us from ourselves or regulate us to death. It's supposed to protect us, our rights, from each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Yes, there are people that CANNOT wear seat belts, and hey, they still get tickets. No one is trying to save their hard earned cash though, right? Link All of the 49 states with seat belt laws have medical exemptions to wearing seatbelts.The exemption is based on a licensed physician's written statement that a seat belt cannot be tolerated for a specific medical reason after a medical evaluation. The most common reason is a temporary orthopedic problem after surgery or other injury. In this case, your surgeon or physician can supply the medical exemption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Link Do you have any idea the number of tickets my mom has had to pay in the last few years? Of course not. Thanks for the info. And really, her doc couldn't have told her that?!? Argh! A bilateral mysectomy, that would qualify you... pretty sure... Sincere thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Do you have any idea the number of tickets my mom has had to pay in the last few years? Of course not. Thanks for the info. And really, her doc couldn't have told her that?!? Argh! A bilateral mysectomy, that would qualify you... pretty sure... Sincere thanks. :grouphug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolly Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Because they feel the government should intrude on personal freedoms as little as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nestof3 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) What always amazes me is when seemingly educated adults consistently side with idiocy over intelligence and with and dogmatism over common sense. Seat beat laws save lives. And are not an onerous burden on ones "liberty". Bill Bill, I am really just commenting on people. Come to think of it, my mother-in-law is like this. We were in the van and she asked if the law required her to wear her seatbelt in the back of the van. So, was she essentially saying she would not wear a seatbelt if the law didn't require it? Scary. BTW -- Do buses have seatbelts yet? I'm still just dreaming for a world where the gov't can stop spending its time on things people should have done for themselves already. I know, it's really time to wake up. Edited June 16, 2009 by nestof3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LND1218 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Do you have any idea the number of tickets my mom has had to pay in the last few years? Of course not. Thanks for the info. And really, her doc couldn't have told her that?!? Argh! A bilateral mysectomy, that would qualify you... pretty sure... But in some cases they don't have to honor that. I went round and round on this with our local state police office re such an issue. It's up to the officer on the scene whether or not to ticket. However, I would hope in court it would get thrown out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 What always amazes me is when seemingly educated adults consistently side with idiocy over intelligence and with and dogmatism over common sense. Seat beat laws save lives. And are not an onerous burden on ones "liberty". Bill Educated adults would, I hope, consistently side with freedom to make choices over "the tranquility of servitude." Freedom means the liberty to, at times, be stupid and educated adults certainly understand this. Educated individuals know that when liberties and freedoms are lost, they are rarely regained. Educated adults many point at a range of examples where seemingly reasonable laws that were not deemed an "onerous burden" soon become unreasonable. Educated adults know of the words William Pitt "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." Educated adults, while understanding that "Seat belt laws save lives" can and do see the bigger picture. Finally regardless of where they fall on this issue (and educated people certainly fall on both sides), educated adults will admit that the "I am smarter than you" crowd are generally not and that they do insist on treating the rest of us like children. Laws against mountain climbing and having fast cars would save lives. Should we have them too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretchen in NJ Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 What always amazes me is when seemingly educated adults consistently side with idiocy over intelligence and with and dogmatism over common sense. Seat beat laws save lives. And are not an onerous burden on ones "liberty". Bill There is a price to liberty. We have a right in this country to be stupid if we want to. I think they are an onerous burden on ones "liberty". Otherwise, where does it stop? Are we going to make everyone wear a safty strap in the shower? A helmet? Rubber shoes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathy in MD Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Do you have any idea the number of tickets my mom has had to pay in the last few years? Of course not. Thanks for the info. And really, her doc couldn't have told her that?!? Argh! A bilateral mysectomy, that would qualify you... pretty sure... Sincere thanks. Did you mean mAsectomy? From my sisters and my experience, there's no reason you're mom could't use a seat belt. I was wearing one going home from the hospital. I have discovered sometimes there is pain due to an udetected infection. If you mom's still having problems, maybe she should ask about an infection. They aren't always accompanied by fevers or red streaks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingM Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 There is a price to liberty. We have a right in this country to be stupid if we want to. I think they are an onerous burden on ones "liberty". Otherwise, where does it stop? Are we going to make everyone wear a safty strap in the shower? A helmet? Rubber shoes? How many protective laws would you repeal? Seatbelt laws, it sounds like. How about anti-drug laws? Indoor smoking bans? Would you do away with food safety laws, drunk driving laws, and laws regulating inflammable materials in children's clothing? How about laws prohibiting the dumping of raw sewage or hazardous chemicals into the water supply. Surely you agree that there's a reasonable point somewhere between safety straps in the shower, as you put it, and prohibiting the distribution of crack cocaine on school grounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaik76 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 How many protective laws would you repeal? Seatbelt laws, it sounds like. How about anti-drug laws? Indoor smoking bans? Would you do away with food safety laws, drunk driving laws, and laws regulating inflammable materials in children's clothing? How about laws prohibiting the dumping of raw sewage or hazardous chemicals into the water supply. Surely you agree that there's a reasonable point somewhere between safety straps in the shower, as you put it, and prohibiting the distribution of crack cocaine on school grounds. Actually, some of the laws you have stated here, I am against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingM Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Actually, some of the laws you have stated here, I am against. Yes, but which ones? And how did you decide where the line between personal freedom and safety should be drawn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaik76 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 How many protective laws would you repeal? Seatbelt laws, it sounds like. How about anti-drug laws? Indoor smoking bans? Would you do away with food safety laws, drunk driving laws, and laws regulating inflammable materials in children's clothing? How about laws prohibiting the dumping of raw sewage or hazardous chemicals into the water supply. Surely you agree that there's a reasonable point somewhere between safety straps in the shower, as you put it, and prohibiting the distribution of crack cocaine on school grounds. Yes, but which ones? And how did you decide where the line between personal freedom and safety should be drawn? Seatbelt laws, drug laws, indoor smoking bans (in certain situations). I'm a theoretical anarchist (I know it wouldn't work in practice), so I tend to feel we should have the least amount of laws practically possible. I believe safety is a personal responsibility and shouldn't be state-mandated. I am okay with laws for corporations (sewage and such...and I think the effects of that are in some ways worse than some of the other things you mentioned). I don't support anti-drug laws at all, even though I do no drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingM Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Seatbelt laws, drug laws, indoor smoking bans (in certain situations). I'm a theoretical anarchist (I know it wouldn't work in practice), so I tend to feel we should have the least amount of laws practically possible. I believe safety is a personal responsibility and shouldn't be state-mandated. I am okay with laws for corporations (sewage and such...and I think the effects of that are in some ways worse than some of the other things you mentioned). I don't support anti-drug laws at all, even though I do no drugs. Well, at least you have a certain consistency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cindy in the NH Woods Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I couldn't agree more. Big government... it just doesn't work! Town meetings on the village square are still very much alive here in NH. Quite a bit of power lies in the hands of the few, lol. Issues regarding property taxes, zoning, plowing, building codes, town renovations of historic buildings, and more are decided in town meetings. I can't tell you how many times we have sighed passing the town line after a snowstorm to a virtually unplowed road because that tiny town had voted a certain way toward plowing. No, I'm not kidding. In my view, New Englanders do have a more independent (I didn't say stupid) spirit. I can't think of anyone I know personally who is foolish enough to drive without a seat belt. Oh.... and we are one of the very few states to have no sales tax. There's a little freedom I can believe in. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.