Community Forums

greatlakes · 07-23-2013, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFlinn181

We live in a world that needs a better sense of shared responsibility. If I dump pollution on my land, it doesn't stay there, it flows onto someone else's. It always puzzles me, I know a lot of ranchers out west who express their frustration with 'Guvm't meddling in their business' but they scream if they don't get their allotment of shared irrigation water or get charged an extra nickel for grazing their herd on public land. We need each other and we should respect each other.

So if the "gov" decided it was unsafe for individuals over 65 to drive on the hwy based on data to support it just like the data that supports seatbelt and helmet use. You would support taking all the elderly folks off the road? Because its a strain on society for them to continue to drive.

BFlinn181 · 07-23-2013, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatlakes

So if the "gov" decided it was unsafe for individuals over 65 to drive on the hwy based on data to support it just like the data that supports seatbelt and helmet use. You would support taking all the elderly folks off the road? Because its a strain on society for them to continue to drive.

Our elected representatives, many of whom are over 65, would have to weigh the political ramifications against the societal benefits. Sort of a empty argument.

BCooke · 07-23-2013, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFlinn181

Our elected representatives, many of whom are over 65, would have to weigh the political ramifications against the societal benefits. Sort of a empty argument.

?
The argument for many laws is if it saves one life. 'For the collective good', gets thrown out if the political ramifications are negative?
That sort of makes many arguments empty.

greatlakes · 07-23-2013, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFlinn181

Our elected representatives, many of whom are over 65, would have to weigh the political ramifications against the societal benefits. Sort of a empty argument.

How is that an empty argument? Youre saying people should take responsibility and wear helmets and seatbelts because of the strain it puts on the rest of society to pay for their "bad" decisions. which I'm not arguing seatbelts save lives and there is plenty of data to support it.
However there is also plenty of data that supports that people over 65 are as at much risk of having an accident as new drivers. So based on YOUR theory that w should not allow people to do things that put a strain on society then the government should limit the age in which people can still drive.
My point being it can save lives and it might be a strain on the rest of us to who make the "good" decisions but we start to give up our freedoms for the sake of money..

I would rather pay 50% in taxes and keep our freedoms than give them up to save a few bucks.

BFlinn181 · 07-23-2013, 11:03 AM

I believe what happens, rather than an outright banning of elderly driving, is higher insurance costs and more frequent and intense recertification each time a license needs renewing. If all laws were enacted for the 'common good' or could save one life, tobacco and alcohol would be banned rather than the trend of a few stated relaxing laws on marijuana. We are often driven more by economic forces than any common good.

greatlakes · 07-23-2013, 11:15 AM

Double post

greatlakes · 07-23-2013, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFlinn181

Everything in today's world depends on shared resources, research, expertise and cooperation. If you injure yourself because you don't have a seat belt buckled or a helmet on, who is going to come scrape you off the highway? A government funded EMS. How will they know to come for you? A government sponsored emergency response communications network. It goes on and on.

We live in a world that needs a better sense of shared responsibility. .

So now I'm confused about your stance. Are you for banning things for the sake of the greater good or just having those who make risky decisions pay higher insurance rates?

Francesca · 07-23-2013, 11:36 AM

Hey, y'all! Remember the O.P. (see below quote)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trode

In talking with others about travel habits in their MH, I am beginning to think that only the driver and co-pilot belt up. I usually get answers like,...the kids lay on bed watching tv, they sit in dinette play games, don't even have the belts pulled up through the sofa, etc....

Curious what you good folks do.

Ramzfan · 07-24-2013, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFlinn181

So you don't use your Itasca Meridian or Jeep Grand Cherokee on the public roadways? A lifetime of fuel tax, tolls, registration and license fees wouldn't pay for a mile of highway or a few inches of a bridge or tunnel.

This 'pioneer' spirit is a bit out of date in today's world, unless you wish to go live on an island and not have any contact with society. Everything in today's world depends on shared resources, research, expertise and cooperation. If you injure yourself because you don't have a seat belt buckled or a helmet on, who is going to come scrape you off the highway? A government funded EMS. How will they know to come for you? A government sponsored emergency response communications network. It goes on and on.

We live in a world that needs a better sense of shared responsibility. If I dump pollution on my land, it doesn't stay there, it flows onto someone else's. It always puzzles me, I know a lot of ranchers out west who express their frustration with 'Guvm't meddling in their business' but they scream if they don't get their allotment of shared irrigation water or get charged an extra nickel for grazing their herd on public land. We need each other and we should respect each other.

No. 1, I have paid for my share of public highways over my lifetime. I'm not claiming to have paid for "a full mile of highway" but I've paid my share.
No.2, Please don't use that liberal lingo on me that "it will cost all of us if you get hurt driving without a seat belt"...who does it cost every time a welfare recipient goes into Emergency with a toothache...? I'll gladly accept seat belt & helmet laws as a trade-off for eliminating welfare!

J79Eng · 07-24-2013, 10:50 AM

We have the standard 4 seat belts 2 in the front and two on the couch. Swival chair is loose with no seat belt. I agree with the seat belts but if we get in an acccident with a 18 wheeler we are toast. There is so much loose stuff and as stated TVs will become missles so the chances of survival are much less if involved in a majotr accident compared to a modern car with air bags. I told my wife, jokeing ly, if she sees I am crashing run for the rear of the coach to survive.

wa8yxm · 07-24-2013, 06:26 PM

Though I may make an exception in a 5mph campground, the basic rule is one of the following will always be on

1: Seat belt
2: Parking brake

Seriously, I have 25 years of getting paid to tell cops where to go, MOST of them at a freeway post.. I have seen either in person, via remote camera or via still shots hundreds of accidents where people did, or did not wear their seat belts.

I'm convinced.

I have seen accidents where HAD the driver been belted, there would not have been an accident, and 2 of 'em were fatals!!!! (3 dead total).

I have also seen accidents where the belt would not have made any difference. One too many of those (my wife's) (She had her belt on).

What I have not seen is an accident where an Air bag saved a life.

greatlakes · 07-24-2013, 06:51 PM

Quote:

What I have not seen is an accident where an Air bag saved a life.

That's the thing about air bags.people have walked away from accidents without a scratch that may have killed them but who knows. Its not like anyone is going to duplicate an accident with and without the airbag to see what would have happened.
The DW is an ICU nurse and has seen the goofiest things that kill people yet others who have survived things that should kill a person 9 times out of 10. Head injuries are the worse and even has the kids calling people on bikes "donorcycles".