Traffic Laws

[djrules5454 5]

Originally posted by: Rymac91

Originally posted by: SourMilk If you don't wear seatbelt, you will put others in danger too. Passanger from backseat flying to front benches can kill the driver and person next to him. Seen it, it's very gore.quote>

That's where the flaw in the law is, it only applies to front seat passengers(at least in Ohio).quote>

 

The law in Minnesota is that ALL passengers have to wear it.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: sedimenjerry not having it required by law is asking for a lawsuit. quote>

How? If I'm an idiot, don't wear my seatbelt, and get hurt in a crash, who am I going to sue? Myself? Because that would be where 100% of the fault lies.

besides anything that saves lives will probably be required by law.quote>

Depends. If I'm putting others at risk, there's a problem and the law must intervene. If I'm not putting anyone at risk but myself (which is the case with seatbelt use), why should that be anybody's problem but mine?

Requiring people by law to wear seatbelts is exactly the kind of nanny-statism that I can't stand.quote>

 

If you had a child would you put them in a car seat or just set it on the pasanger seat not even seatbelted in?

there was  time when infants were not required to be in car seats, would you go back to those times?

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: Duke87 I think some of you are missing the point on the seatbelt thing.

Yes, seatbelts save lives. Yes, you absolutely should wear your seatbelt. No, you should not be required by law to wear your seatbelt.

There's a difference.

As for speed limits, obviously there is a problem with allowing anything but having no limit doesn't need to mean allowing anything. I'm not suggesting we legalize street racing. Keep that banned.

And if we absolutely must keep the limits, stop purposefully undersetting them or lowering them for political reasons. Set the speed limit as the maximum safe speed and nothing else.quote>

Where I find this logic flawed, is that the majority of people going over the limit are 1) drunk 2)hot shot idiots with cars that are usually sporty in nature and red 3)experienced drivers who go with the flow and know how to be "good" (as in, not get caught ).  Why revise a law(s) because everyone breaks it even though it makes perfect sense (like the piracy thing, but I'm not going into that here)?  There are so many factors that come into play with the speed limit thing, one thing being that some cars can't handle "modern speeds" (they basically top out at 70 or so then start to act 'sick', raise the standard interstate speed limit past 70 or so and they're already pressured).

Setting the speed limit to the absolute max; how much sense would that make?  Yeah, that's fine if everyone's driving an automobile with perfect handling and acceleration, going down an excellently paved interstate in a perfectly straight line on the most beautiful, clear day of the year with perfect spacing between every car and a perfect driver behind every vehicle.  If that's how the USA's transportation system is though, then by all means, let's pull all the stops (pun intended) and raise those speed limits!!

Come down by me in Florida, throw in the common overheated attitude, the curves, and that ominous severe weather that tends to shut down half the bay area bridges if not bringing them to a screeching halt, and you'll find that no one even does 55 mph.  And I know I'm not the only one who's seen similiar road conditions, am I?  You should see my point, that it's not just the condition of the roads, it's the experience/mood of the drivers and their cars.

As for the seat-belt thing, as to why someone would complain that the government is doing a favor and saving your life makes absolutely no sense to me.  It takes like 2 seconds to click in and, is usually comfortable (I believe you can adjust it, correct?).  And no offense, but saying "I don't wanna wear it because I don't want to, and I shouldn't have to;  If I wanna be stupid and kill myself, ending all hopes I've had for the future, that's my choice" sounds sort of immature.  Not saying anyone here said it, but seriously...

And for the No Turn signs, I heard from somewhere that a no U-Turn sign was in place at an intersection because the way the road was built, doing so could cause a roll-over...IDK about the no right turn thing though.  Maybe it's to control congestion or something?

[mightygoose 92]

do as they do in germany, no speed limit on the motorways but your insurance is null/void over 80MPH

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Setting the speed limit to the absolute max; how much sense would that make?  Yeah, that's fine if everyone's driving an automobile with perfect handling and acceleration, going down an excellently paved interstate in a perfectly straight line on the most beautiful, clear day of the year with perfect spacing between every car and a perfect driver behind every vehicle.  If that's how the USA's transportation system is though, then by all means, let's pull all the stops (pun intended) and raise those speed limits!!quote>

Well, Duke actually suggested there would be no speed limits. Not set them to absolute max.

Also, if they have no speed limits in rural areas, it would be great incentive for the DOTs to improve the roads, and manufacturers to build better cars.

Come down by me in Florida, throw in the common overheated attitude, the curves, and that ominous severe weather that tends to shut down half the bay area bridges if not bringing them to a screeching halt, and you'll find that no one even does 55 mph.  And I know I'm not the only one who's seen similiar road conditions, am I?  You should see my point, that it's not just the condition of the roads, it's the experience/mood of the drivers and their cars.quote>

Well, if you drive over 100 in a thunderstorm you're pretty much putting yourself in a severe danger. Most sane people would know enough to go slow if they can't see the road ahead of them.

As for the seat-belt thing, as to why someone would complain that the government is doing a favor and saving your life makes absolutely no sense to me.  It takes like 2 seconds to click in and, is usually comfortable (I believe you can adjust it, correct?).  And no offense, but saying "I don't wanna wear it because I don't want to, and I shouldn't have to;  If I wanna be stupid and kill myself, ending all hopes I've had for the future, that's my choice" sounds sort of immature.  Not saying anyone here said it, but seriously...quote>

1. Duke was talking about a "nanny-state attitude", enforcing a law that the vast majority follow anyway, and diverting police resources away from more important matters.

2. More people than "immature" (however you define that) youth would agree with that statement about nanny-state attitudes.

3. I think that Duke and 98% of other people would wear their seatbelt. What he said was that it should not be required by law.

4. If people want to kill themselves, there are far more efficient ways of doing so than not wearing a seatbelt.

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Well, Duke actually suggested there would be no speed limits. Not set them to absolute max.

Also, if they have no speed limits in rural areas, it would be great incentive for the DOTs to improve the roads, and manufacturers to build better cars.quote>

Really?  Because I believe here he said:

Set the speed limit as the maximum safe speed and nothing else.quote>

Also, that may be an incentive for them to do so, but that means the possibility of higher priced cars that were once considered middle class range or so, and the possibility of a tax raise...

Well, if you drive over 100 in a thunderstorm you're pretty much putting yourself in a severe danger. Most sane people would know enough to go slow if they can't see the road ahead of them.quote>

Heh, you'd be suprised how many people I see speeding by us while driving in blinding rain.

1. Duke was talking about a "nanny-state attitude", enforcing a law that the vast majority follow anyway, and diverting police resources away from more important matters.

2. More people than "immature" (however you define that) youth would agree with that statement about nanny-state attitudes.

3. I think that Duke and 98% of other people would wear their seatbelt. What he said was that it should not be required by law.

4. If people want to kill themselves, there are far more efficient ways of doing so than not wearing a seatbelt.quote>

All of these points have been taken.   I especially understand the "nanny-state" attitude as well.  But the reason I said immature, is because a good handful of kids will complain on and on about restrictions their parents set, despite being live saving, if not just protecting them in general (like not running up and down the stair well).  So perhaps not immature, I don't mean acting cheery and youthful  with the "you only live once" attitude or whatever; what I meant is that they choose to act stupid because of the constitution or whatever that says they can.  Maybe "nanny-state attitude" fits that better.  Also, may I re-instate a quote by yours truly:

And no offense, but saying "I don't wanna wear it because I don't want to, and I shouldn't have to;  If I wanna be stupid and kill myself, ending all hopes I've had for the future, that's my choice" sounds sort of immature.  Not saying anyone here said it, but seriously...quote>

Maybe the "no offense" thing kind of threw you off, but like I said, I am NOT accusing anyone here of not wearing a seat-belt or explicitly saying they don't.  I was just saying what I feel about people who choose to act like rebels and violate a very simple to follow a law that saves their lives; like not driving around the gates when a 200 ton freight train is seconds from ripping your car to shreds.  I suppose I see your point, that the police should focus on more important things, but really, the government is trying save to peoples' freaking lives here, so I just have a hard time seeing why they should stop caring about our nation putting it's own lives at risk...

And if you count the "wear the seat-belt on the interstate, don't in the neighborhood" type of people, that's a helluva lot of endangered lives here.  Especially since most fatal crashes are usually within a few miles from home...

But, Simtropolis is full of very wise folk, so I certainly believe everyone here knows better.

[saltandsauce 0]

well why do we HAVE to buy some crappy child seat where you have to wrestle them into the seats because the child is a child, in not so fab Britain we HAVE to buy a stupid child seat by law even though it "may" i quote "may" save a handful of lives but to force everyone to buy a car seat for each child under a certain height no

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Really?  Because I believe here he said:

Set the speed limit as the maximum safe speed and nothing else.quote>

Well, I guess Duke was misquoted. Sorry about that. I'm going to proceed to edit my post to remove the misquotation.

I was just saying what I feel about people who choose to act like rebels and violate a very simple to follow a law that saves their lives; like not driving around the gates when a 200 ton freight train is seconds from ripping your car to shreds.quote>

Well, if they are not violating any laws they aren't much of a rebel. Most simply don't put their seatbelt on because it is against the law and they want to be rebels. However, I do agree that putting a seat belt on you greatly increases your chance of crash survival.

And if you count the "wear the seat-belt on the interstate, don't in the neighborhood" type of people, that's a helluva lot of endangered lives here.  Especially since most fatal crashes are usually within a few miles from home...quote>

That doesn't make much sense to me. It would make more sense vice versa, since most crashes don't happen on interstates. But it is good to wear it on both.

Also, a question.

Heh, you'd be suprised how many people I see speeding by us while driving in blinding rain.quote>

Were they going over the speed limit or not? Also, how fast were you going and how fast were they going?

Just wanting to know some specifics.

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Well, I guess Duke was misquoted. Sorry about that. I'm going to proceed to edit my post to remove the misquotation.quote>

Don't worry about it, honest mistake.

And if you count the "wear the seat-belt on the interstate, don't in the neighborhood" type of people, that's a helluva lot of endangered lives here.  Especially since most fatal crashes are usually within a few miles from home...quote>

That doesn't make much sense to me. It would make more sense vice versa, since most crashes don't happen on interstates. But it is good to wear it on both.quote>

Well, the logic of only wearing seatbelts on major highways makes little sense to most people, so you're not alone.   I agree, it is good to wear it on both, and all the time.

Also, a question.

Heh, you'd be suprised how many people I see speeding by us while driving in blinding rain.quote>

Were they going over the speed limit or not? Also, how fast were you going and how fast were they going?

Just wanting to know some specifics.

quote>

Well, it usually depends, but I find that we're going about 50 or so on an interstate of the limit 70 or 65; even lower if we're driving on the Sunshine Skyway bridge and these lights are flashing:

And when you get to the top of the bridge, the winds are really high, and going fast will surely get a compact car blown off; yet I still see people going 75-80 miles an hour on the proceeding interstate if not higher...

An even better example, is if you watch this video.  I haven't seen it myself (It'd be really awesome if I did though, lol), but notice how people are so much in a rush, that they're trying to hurry past the tornado?  Seems to me they were drifting off the center of the lane because the winds were so powerful.  Note comment of the recorder "I hope people were smart", where he proceeds to watch debris lift off of the highway; I doubt that's the road either: