Click It or Ticket Insanity

[Powershift1038]

Originally Posted by 427sharpe

And again, if it's all about 'saving lives'..why the dichotomy with motorcycles?
I can ride without a shirt or helmet, wearing shorts and flip flops and that is ok? Where the rush to protect me from myself?
The government which governs least governs best.

Yes, but should you crash your bike without wearing a shirt or helmet, while wearing shorts and flip flops, you would have to accept the responsibility for your major injuries which could have been prevented. Just as those who choose to ignore a simple seat belt law have to accept their fines.

I'm sure this issue could be debated for 10 more pages. But again.. wear you seat belt to help protect your own life, and prevent getting a ticket. Simple as that.

[427sharpe]

Originally Posted by Powershift1038

Yes, but should you crash your bike without wearing a shirt or helmet, while wearing shorts and flip flops, you would have to accept the responsibility for your major injuries which could have been prevented. Just as those who choose to ignore a simple seat belt law have to accept their fines.

I'm sure this issue could be debated for 10 more pages. But again.. wear you seat belt to help protect your own life, and prevent getting a ticket. Simple as that.

I guess I did not state my point clearly enough. IF the seat belt laws are all about saving lives (as opposed to revenue generation/powerful lobby manipulation) why are the laws on motorcycles so lax? Clearly a motorcycle presents a greater danger (to operator) in case of accident, yes? And if so the laws for safety should be tighter, should they not?
And if a collision occurs (regardless of vehicle) I accept what happens so how does the state get to mandate what is good for me? This to me (a religious seat belt user, btw) is another example of nitwit legislatures being manipulated into performing work for a powerful lobby (insurance). It is no more about 'saving lives' than the 55 mph speed limit was/is. In my view, what I do (and the risks I accept) are my responsibility, not the states. And finally, I believe the red light cameras showcase this clearly! Here in Texas, the cities are raising he// because revenue from the cameras has been dropping drastically, and some of the contracts prohibit moving them w/o substantial fees. If it were all about safety, the municipalities should be overjoyed that the cameras did their stated purpose...and people became safer drivers. Instead...the mantra goes lets move them to make more money.