If I don't wear my seatbelt and I'm fined, does this violate my civil right?

[drmoore_01]

What is the name of your state? MS

This law does not effect anyone but me. This law cannot guarentee my safty, if in an accident. I may even die as a result of obeying this law where my life may be saved by breaking it. With these facts, would any fine not be considered excess (in my opinion, yes)?

Yes, I know driving is a previlage and can be regulated, but I have the CIVIL RIGHT against the government imposing excess fines on me.

Is there any way I can get the courts to determine if this law violates my Civil Rights without getting fined for it? What are some options other than contacting my elected senators and representatives? (They basically said thank you for your opinion, but you'll do what we say for you to do. Get over it. Thank you.)

 

[mlane58]

They basically said thank you for your opinion, but you'll do what we say for you to do. Get over it. Thank you.)

I second that motion--GET OVER IT AND YOURSELF!

 

[drmoore_01]

You must be a politician. The last time I checked, a representative is supposed to represent the people that elect him or her. Not dictate their lives. If the people roll over on this issue, what's next? The government telling me where to live, work, who to marry (if I'm worthy), etc... I think I'm a big boy and can make some decisions for myself. Maybe you should consider the ideal of being free to make decisions for yourself, too. After all, I think this is America, the land of the free.

With no government, there is caous. With too much government, there are no freedoms. We need government regulations, and we need to regulate the government. There is a balance, and in my opinion, the government is overstepping it's authority.

 

[CraigFL]

You must be a politician. The last time I checked, a representative is supposed to represent the people that elect him or her. Not dictate their lives. If the people roll over on this issue, what's next? The government telling me where to live, work, who to marry (if I'm worthy), etc... I think I'm a big boy and can make some decisions for myself. Maybe you should consider the ideal of being free to make decisions for yourself, too. After all, I think this is America, the land of the free.

With no government, there is caous. With too much government, there are no freedoms. We need government regulations, and we need to regulate the government. There is a balance, and in my opinion, the government is overstepping it's authority.

I think you're right--- the representative is elected to represent the people for the best interests of the majority. It's good that we have representatives that see the big picture and realize that a few short sighted. self centered people shouldn't be able to set policy. I personally am unwilling to pay for the additional cost associated with your accident because you chose not to wear a seatbelt. This means all the costs involved in transporting your near lifeless body to some trauma center as well as the costs to support your brain damaged life through social security disability payments.

 

[cbg]

I'm wondering where the Constitution grants you the guaranteed right to not wear a seatbelt.

 

[drmoore_01]

CraigFL: Even though we disagree, thank you for a logical argument. mlane58's statement was ignorant and rude. As for your argument, please allow me to comment. 1st of all, the big picture is not the seatbelt law itself, but the ideal of not being free to make decisions for myself. Our forefathers fought the American Revolution to free themselves from a dictatorship. Even now, we have brave soldiers fighting overseas in the name of freedom and we are giving ours away by allowing the government to take away our right to make even simple decisions for ourselves. 2nd of all, unless your the hospital or doctor, or where you live, you have socialism with a government owned hospital, the government doesn't pay for trauma centers. The hospitals where I live are private organizations, either Non-for-profit or For-profit. This means that if I was involved in an accident and my near lifeless body was sent to some trauma center, I (or my insurance) would be liable for the expenses. If I filed bankruptcy and didn't pay, the hospital and doctors would just not record the revenue and write off any expenses as non-collectable debt. No where in this transaction is the government involved. As for social security disability payments, per the statistics I've seen, more lives would be saved in the case of serious accidents. To me, (just my opinion) this would cause more claims for disability due to injuries from accidents. Besides, if you look at the big picture, most fatal accidents involve speeding, reckless driving, DUI, etc... EX. Not to long ago in the area where I live, two autos collided head on. The driver of the car was drinking and driving. She was killed instantly. The driver of the truck was reported to be exceeding estimated speeds of 80 MPH in a 50 MPH zone. He was killed instantly. The passenger of the truck was flown to the local hospital where he died the next day. All three victims were reported to be wearing their seatbelts. If the speed laws and the DUI laws were being obeyed, I don't think the accident would have occured to begin with. Both of these laws help to prevent someone from injuring other as well as themselves. I fully agree with the protection of the innocent.

cbg: The point I made, is the Constitution (the Eighth Amendment) guarantees me the right as follows: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.

Once again, our forefathers wanted to protect us from government dictatorship and created the Constitution. Within the first ten Amendments, they attempted to set guidelines not to be crossed. They set up three branches of government so each branch of government could keep the other two in line. In all, these guidelines and the three branches of government were ment to protect the people. Rights or privileges, they are freedoms fought for.

 

[cbg]

And MY point is that requiring you to wear a seat belt is not a violation of your civil rights, since you do not have a guaranteed right to NOT wear one. And I do not agree that fining you for violating the law that says you must wear one, is an excessive fine and therefore not a violation of the 8th Amendment.

You're all wet on this one.

 

[sgtdanmurphy]

I think you're right--- the representative is elected to represent the people for the best interests of the majority. It's good that we have representatives that see the big picture and realize that a few short sighted. self centered people shouldn't be able to set policy. I personally am unwilling to pay for the additional cost associated with your accident because you chose not to wear a seatbelt. This means all the costs involved in transporting your near lifeless body to some trauma center as well as the costs to support your brain damaged life through social security disability payments.

Do you make his social security contributions for him? I didn't think so....

 

[moburkes]

Do you make his social security contributions for him? I didn't think so....

Sorry. Social security disability isn't the only insurance that would cover this. Auto insurance and life insurance come to mind. Disability insurance does also.

 

[fairisfair]

Do you make his social security contributions for him? I didn't think so....

Um, yes as a matter of fact I do. In fact, we all do. What, do you think he has his own little account at social security or something??? DUH

 

[panzertanker]

You must be a politician. The last time I checked, a representative is supposed to represent the people that elect him or her. Not dictate their lives. If the people roll over on this issue, what's next? The government telling me where to live, work, who to marry (if I'm worthy), etc... I think I'm a big boy and can make some decisions for myself. Maybe you should consider the ideal of being free to make decisions for yourself, too. After all, I think this is America, the land of the free.

With no government, there is caous. With too much government, there are no freedoms. We need government regulations, and we need to regulate the government. There is a balance, and in my opinion, the government is overstepping it's authority.

By utilizing your same logic, one can assume you think it is unnecessary to have speed limits.
Perhaps we should not have gun laws..
Or larceny laws...
Or...you name it.

Your arguement does not hold water. You cannot agree that it is acceptable for there to be some laws (that dictate your very actions, which you so despise) such as speed limits, yet rally against other laws of the same intent (seatbelt laws).

The truth of the matter is that laws must be enacted for certain things/situations/ideals to maintain the fabric of morals that the people have collectively agreed upon.

If you are unhappy, run for a political position to instigate change.

 

[drmoore_01]

cbg: I never said that the seat belt law violated my civil rights. The point I wanted to make is that any fine is excessive for violating any law that: 1) in no way effects no one but the one violating the law, 2) the law cannot guarntee his or her safety, nor 3) the law cannot guarantee that it will not kill him/her by obeying it when he/she might be saved by breaking it. That to me is a violation of my civil right.

panzertanker: If you would read my last reply before this one, I said the speed limit and DUI laws help to protect the innocent from the actions of others. This would also apply to gun laws, larceny laws, you name it. The problem I have is with the government portecting me from myself with no assurances other than I will be fined for not obeying them. Why don't the government pass a law telling me where to work. That way they can guarantee what my job description is, what my responsibilities are, and what my pay would be. That's more than what they can guarantee with the seatbelt law. And as for running for a political office, currently I am not in the position to do so. However, I have already considered that and (with God willing) would like to run for Governer one day. If I ever could run and get elected, protecting the people from government dictatorship would be a concern of priority. This does not mean to an extreme of trying to do away with making murder illegal. But a rule of thumb-- If a decision doesn't effect anyone but the one making it, it's none of anyone elses business.

So, I do believe my arguement does hold water.

 

[CdwJava]

Okay, WHY is the seatbelt fine "excessive""? Keep in mind that "excessive" is purely subjective and there is no objective standard in the law to say whether your seatbelt fine is "excessive".

In my state a seatbelt fine is the least expensive fine that there is! I imagine it is much the same everywhere. How would the lowest fine be - by any stretch - "excessive"?

In any event, the law is there. You can choose to disobey the law and then you can deal with the consequences of that disobedience. I know there are people that believe as you do, but they either roll the dice or they comply even as they grumble.

As for a practical need for the seatbelts, there are many instances where an impact or sliding car has caused a driver to slide from their seat. Without belts to help secure them in place, this driver would slide across the car or out of the seat and lose the ability to control the vehicle at all. While this is rare, it is one reason why the lack of wearing seatbelts CAN be a danger to others.

- Carl

 

[moburkes]

Your lack of a seatbelt affects me when you are seriously injured, unable to work, and my tax dollars pay for your care.

 

[panzertanker]

I said the speed limit and DUI laws help to protect the innocent from the actions of others. This would also apply to gun laws, larceny laws, you name it.

The truth of the matter is that laws must be enacted for certain things/situations/ideals to maintain the fabric of morals that the people have collectively agreed upon.

You have the "right" of civil disobedience.

It means that you are fined for your disobedience (read: seatbelt violation), which is no different than being fined/jailed for having a peaceful "sit-in" demonstration against.... say the seatbelt laws.

You still have the choice.

It is against the law to evade taxes and you can be fined or imprisoned for doing so, yet, there is no "physical innocent" who is hurt by your action. It is a "collective innocent" (taxpayers, insured members of your policy group, etc.) that is harmed if you are in a car accident and become injured.

The gun laws do not " the law cannot guarntee his or her safety" as you are quoted while rallying against seatbelt laws. So why are the gun laws not a target of your attention?