How Far “For Our Own Good”
By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist
How far should the authority of the state extend when it comes to forcing us to do things “for our own good”?
The outcome of Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) tells us quite plainly that there is virtually no corner of our existence into which the probing finger of the state may not extend.
Back in In 1997, while driving her kids home from soccer practice, Gail Atwater of Lago Vista, Texas, was arrested, handcuffed and carted off to jail … for the crime of not buckling up for safety. No moving violation, no threat to public order. She merely drove past a cop who spied her without her seatbelt on. Cue the red flashing lights, badges and guns.
According to witnesses, the cop bullied and threatened Atwater, “aggressively jamming his finger toward Atwater’s face” and “screaming” at her about the seatbelts. Witnesses to this ugly scene further testified that when Atwater requested — quietly and politely — that the cop lower his voice because he was scaring her children, he screamed “you’re going to jail!” — and handcuffed her in front of her kids. The children were — luckily — taken away by friends who happened upon the scene; the cop had threatened to take them to jail, too.
And to jail Atwater went — where she was forced to remove her shoes, jewelry, eyeglasses, empty her pockets and submit to fingerprinting just as if she’d robbed a 7-11 at gunpoint. A magistrate later permitted her to go after she posted a $310 bond.
In Texas at the time, it was legally permissible for police to treat motorists like criminals merely for committing a minor traffic infraction. The law bestowed upon police authority to perform so-called “custodial arrests” for routine traffic violations. The infraction need not involve public safety, or even rise to the level of a misdemeanor, as was the case with the seat belt issue. It was enough, under Texas law, merely to run afoul of someone else’s idea of what’s “for your own good.”
No one — including the arresting officer — alleged that Mrs. Atwater had been operating her vehicle in an unsafe manner or did anything to endanger anyone else. She simply decided not to buckle-up. That may or may not have been a wise decision as far as her personal safety is concerned. But it’s not a matter of public safety. And it certainly couldn’t be characterized as criminal — at least, not in the land we used to call the land of the free.
After she got out of jail, Mrs. Atwater, furious about her experience, sued the city of Lago Vista on the grounds that the treatment she experienced amounted to a violation of her constitutionally protected right against unreasonable arrest as defined by the Fourth Amendment — which by any sane standard seemed a reasonable argument.
Not surprisingly, given the times in which we live, the Supreme Court decided otherwise.
In the case of Atwater v. Lago Vista, the court ruled that it is neither unreasonable nor excessive to arrest and jail people merely for failing to wear a seat belt. The Court held that (police officer ) “…Turek was authorized (though not required) to make a custodial arrest without balancing costs and benefits or determining whether Atwater’s arrest was in some sense necessary.”
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had already found the arrest and incarceration of Mrs. Atwater “reasonable” because the arresting officer”…had reason to believe she violated the law” and “because the arrest was not conducted in an extraordinary manner.”
These statements — and subsequent rulings stamping “approved” on even worse abuses of our former liberties — reveal the mentality possessed by those who sit on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of the Unites States. A mentality able to reconcile the plain language of the Bill of Rights and more importantly, the principles behind that document, with the spectacle of an officer manhandling a soccer mom for no greater offense against society than her failure to “buckle-up for safety.” It is not extraordinary, according to these judges, to assault a peaceable citizen for an “offense” that doesn’t even carry with it the possibility of jail time upon conviction.
Whether you believe “seat belts save lives” is beside the point. In the Old America, rapidly fading away, the state’s power to impose its will on us was at least somewhat limited.
The general standard was that a person had to be doing (or threatening to do) something that clearly, directly, threatened harm to others. We were still free, in those days, to do things our neighbors may not have approved of but which were still regarded as our own business.
That concept no longer exists — as far as the law (and the power of the state) is concerned, at least.
In addition to mandatory buckle-up laws, we must also kow-tow to random stops and interrogations at “sobriety checkpoints” (even though no probable cause for suspecting anything exists) and groping of our persons (and the pawing through of our effects) in order to get onto an airplane.
Our e-mails may be filched through, our phone calls monitored, our financial and medical records laid bare — all without warrant or even notice.
This is the “freedom” we’re supposedly fighting for in places like Afghanistan and Iraq?
Pray (for their sake) that we don’t succeed in imposing on the people in those countries what we have already permitted to be imposed upon ourselves.
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
First one should know that the City of Lago Vista is more of a failed housing subdivision than a real city. It is located in a rural area by the lake with little in lighting for the roads that are twisty and rise and fall constantly. It is an area we motorcyclist favor for riding because of the turns in the roads and the hills. Also the laws for seat belts have been in effect here for at least a decade when this happened. While some of you argue the rights of people to do what they want you missed the other side of the story which is we the citizens end up paying for the cost when that freedom loving person hits a deer, yes it happens daily in that area, and one of those kids smacks their head and ends up out at the head and brain injury rehab home. I have done a lot of work out there and some of their people end up there for life which most insurance companies stop paying after a while if they have insurance at all. Since the story was only from the arrested persons point of view it is hard to determin if they had been repeatedly stopped and how they actually reacted prior to being arrested.
The cell phone thing, come on, it is more for these kids that text while driving and pay no attention to something they think that can actually do in their sleep. Since I ride a mortorcycle I have to watch these kids constantly as they roll along and then over into my lane while they text someone. I use my cell phone while I drive but then I have bluetooth in my car and truck in an attempt to keep me focused on driving over turning down the radio or holding the phone. I think we should be able to use the phone since we might need directions and you cannot pull over each time you need to know where to turn. Yes we need to keep our rights but I want to keep my rights when it comes time to pay for your kids services required because you decided not to use the seat belt on them. You are not going to be happy when I vote to turn off your kids life support system.
Randy, Randy, come on home now. You’ve done your part; come back to http://www.yclusa.org and go back out for the cause tomorrow! you need your rest now, you’ve done well my comrade. Cell use is up over 30X in the last two decades (source J.Quinnell associates one of the first cell dealers in the earl 80′s) and fatals and accies have fallen yet you have proven that the decrease in fatals is due to the increasing use of cell. Text…that is dangerous, otherwise cell has had a massive impact on the continuing decline in fatals and accies despite the more cars and miles driven. Who is this Randy? After nearly 30 years fighting the good fight I now have to run into this jacka&#…ah…”rabbit” every post. grrrrrrrrr….
Karl M, I have no idea what you were trying to say because you were jumping all over the place. If you were sayng that I inferred that fatalities are down because of more cell phone use then you are wrong. I know the fact that the number of fatalities (caused by cell phone use) are significantly up with the increase of cell phone use. If you are saying that the number of fatalities are only caused by one thing you do not have a clue. The number of fatalities are down because the government made it go down. They made it go down by enforcing DUI laws, enforcing seatbelt laws and making maditory car crash standards and many other things. They have also made it against the law to use a cell phone when driving in many states because they saw the number of accidents and deaths that it cause.
Did this answer your questions?
Randy,
Ya’ need to lay back on that Jack Daniels in u’r eggnog bro. You bleat in frustration that “Darn, I wish at least one of you only had a brain.” Yet it’s patently clear that you’ve totally missed the point with regard to seat belts in school buses. Sorry, but I just gotta’ ask whose skull is vacuous here ?? But, no problem. I’ll just blame it on the Jack…
Randy the point clearly is that hundreds of thousand of kids are at POTENTIAL risk as they are transported, daily, in school buses. The risk to individual humans transported in cars and trucks is also a POTENTIAL risk. Remember that for many decades, legally, no seat belts were fitted to cars or trucks. And, golly gee, human mobility proceeded without a hitch. So what we have is a situation where a POTENTIAL risk to hundreds of thousands of school children is waived off as unimportant but the POTENTIAL risk to individual motorists and society at large is judged as so significant that citations and fines ensue when one doesn’t “buckle up”. Hmmm, my pea brain is compelled to ask “What’s wrong with this picture ??”. But gosh, maybe I’m just one of those great unwashed out here who lacks the brain you wish we all had. I dunno’…..
Moreover, the issue is not: “SOME MUST WEAR BELTS VS. SOME DON’T NEED TO WEAR BELTS”. The question is: “WHY MUST USURIOUS FINES AND HIGHER INSURANCE PREMIUMS BE LEVIED ON OUR CITIZENRY ??” If the nanny state wants to “nanny” us, I say fine. But do they have to fee us and fine us as well ?? Is something as trivial as not “buckling up”, which was overtly legal for decades, a proper excuse for the statists to take money from us thereby stealing a bit more of our freedom in the process ?? Sorry, I’m not buying that.
If a cop wants to stop, rap me on the knuckles, lay a citation and a de minimus fine on me for not buckling up or using a cell phone, I really have no problem with that. However, when the fines reach their current level, we’ve then gotten to the point where they are significantly intruding on liberty. This is unacceptable in my book; and should be in yours.
Merry Christmas…and go easy on the nog.
Rick Gold
Rick maybe you are right that there should be seat belts in buses but at the same time according to what I read you are 172 times safer in a bus than in a car even without seat belts. You start with the most risky behaviors first and then go from there. They have increased enforcement on drunk driving and then seat belts and now cell phone texting. All of those add up to decreased deaths and a significant change. Of course this site will say that the decreased deaths are a cause of everyone driving faster and running red lights.
I am not sure what the fine is in my state but this is what I found and I am not sure how old it is. My guess it is between $55 and $75. I thought the description fit and was right to the point.
Just got a ticket the fine is $55.00
The fine for not wearing a ticket and being caught would range from 50 to $750. The fine for being in an accident with no seatbelt? More than you can imagine.
RICK GOLD since almost everyone would agree that we should try to get everyone to wear seat belts how would you recommend doing it? There are many people that I know of only started wearing seat belts because it was a law and enforced by a fine. How would you replace that? The only thing I can think of would be jail time or be beaten lightly with a stick. Maybe you can think of something.
If you as others say it is up to the person to decide then you can go to the thousands of funerals that it will cause and mostly of young people.
Randy, Schwinn, et al:
I’d have a lot more passion for seat belt compliance and the attendant fines and penalties that ensue if we didn’t have thousands of school buses across the nation transporting kids daily where no seat belts are even installed in those buses. I guess the upleg question would be: If we’re not even concerned enough to install them on our childrens’ school buses, then what divine bit of governmental righteousness allows the state/local authorities to fine folks in individual cars for not wearing theirs ??
The answer, of course, is that little or nothing about these laws and compliance thereto has much to do with any sincere governmental desire to protect the citizenry. It’s all about revenue generation and control; where, of course, one begets the other.
Welcome to Amerika…..
RICK GOLD
RICK GOLD I only have to ask one thing. How many kids are killed without seatbelts in cars and trucks and how many are killed in school buses. If you say there are more in buses then you are making it up just like everything else around here. Buses are far safer without seat belts than cars will be any day.
Darn, I wish at least one of you only had a brain.
What makes a bus ‘far safer’ than other transport conveyances?
Rick: If compartmentalization if good enough for school busses, then it should be good enough for aeroplanes.
If you don’t wear a seatbelt in a cab, do you get a ticket, does the driver of the taxi, or does the taxi company?
George [C] go figure it out for yourself why buses are safer. My conclusion is the size of a bus and the extra large crash zones and few go 120 mph or faster like you do.
Buses do not hit air turbulance that thows you into the roof and do not go 300 mph like planes do.
Here is what I found:
Q: What do I do if my bus breaks down… can I just call a regular tow company?
A: It depends on the size of your bus. Normally, typical tow companies can’t accomodate larger buses. Your safest bet in an emergency is to call BusWest on 800.458.9199. Our service departments have the contacts you need to safely tow your vehicle to the nearest BusWest/Velocity Vehicle Group service facility. Once the bus arrives at any of our locations, our techs will work diligently to resolve the issue with your bus, and fix it, with your permission, as fast as possible, so you can go back to your business with the least amount of down time.
Q: Where can I find parts for my bus, its not a common bus?
A: BusWest, or rather Velocity Vehicle Group can help. We operate several bulk warehouses across multiple VVG locations, with dedicated truck, bus, motorhome and trailer parts for just about every type of vehicle around, old and new. We can find you most parts and get them to you very fast, and at a great price too. If you don’t want to pay shipping, we have an internal shuttle system that can take parts to any of our local facilities where you can go to pick it up at no extra cost. PLUS, we also operate a 24/7 parts hotline to give you access to our parts anytime. Call 877-PartsLA for 24/7 parts.
Q: Do you sell environmentally friendly buses?
A: Everyone is concerned with the environment and our impact on air quality, especially in California. We have several models of buses that our manufacturers have introduced to try and reduce the carbon diesel impact we produce. We offer a CNG version of our larger ThomasBuilt HDX school bus, and we are bringing to the market a Hybrid Conventional C2 School bus this year. On the commercial side, we offer a great Hybrid Transit style bus, that can run on battery power, i.e. zero emissions. We can also build our regular shuttle bus types with low poluting diesel engines, or CNG/LNG conversions for some models. Call us and we can help find you the best solution for your company and the planet.
School Buses
Q: Is a Freightliner chassis the only chassis choice for a new Thomas conventional school bus?
A: Yes. Due to the outstanding features of the Freightliner chassis, demand for a Thomas body mounted on other brands of conventional chassis has declined significantly. Continuing to produce low volume models increases manufacturing and support costs to Thomas and its dealer organization because there are numerous exclusive parts required to interface with various chassis brands. Continuous improvement of our processes will ensure the level of quality you expect and deserve from a Thomas Built bus. So that we can focus our efforts on delivering the finest integrated conventional bus on the market, we are only accepting orders for Freightliner/Thomas conventionals.
Q: Are school buses really safer than a passenger car?
A: Yes. According to National Safety Council Statistics, School buses are 172 times safer than passenger cars in terms of occupant deaths per 100 million passenger miles traveled. In fact, school buses rank much better than any other form of surface transportation.
Tickets are controlled by the state so go check for yourself which states do what.
I do believe there was a study about seatbelts on school buses and they concluded it was safer without them. Kids could swing the seat belts around and cause physical harm to other students. Not to mention how does a bus driver force a whole bus full of kids to where their belts. My buses were crazy, kids bouncing off the walls, throwing things out the window, ect. I feel sorry for the bus drivers.
Also the occupant not wearing their seat belt gets the ticket. Happened to my brother once. He was driving and his friend was the passenger. His friend wasnt wearing a seat belt so the friend got the ticket.
The school busses that I have looked at don’t have M+S tires. 25% void ratio. Less safe.
I will look again.
Their ‘record’ of improved safety is due to people giving wide berth to busses.
This is a perfect example of why laws are not the right way to gain support for “social causes”. The lawmakers always say this will improve compliance, and that no one would ever have “the book thrown at them” for such petty violations… yet, the fact, is the law makes it that they CAN do this. And all it takes is one dirty cop (yes, I’m calling this cop dirty, because there was simply no need to do this) to screw it all up for the rest of the people.
Frankly, if it doesn’t affect other people financially or physically, then it shouldn’t be a law. Now, granted, an argument can be made for people who don’t wear their seatbelts (they cost the society more when they get into an accident). I’ll admit, I don’t have a clear way to deal with this one… but as a Libertarian, I’m always for fewer laws, so that’s fine with me… we can figure something out… or let the capitalist system figure it out somehow… bottom line, it shouldn’t be a law.
Let me be clear, I wear my seatbelt ALWAYS. I also wear the proper gear when riding my motorcycle… but I don’t believe everyone else should be forced to. If people want to drive around without these, that’s fine with me… Darwinism is a wonderful thing. But, who am I to force them to do so, “for their own safety”?
http://www.dump.com/2009/12/20/the-philosoraptor-has-spoken/
Schwinn are you saying then that it is fine for teenagers not to wear seatbelts? You must know that they would not for the most part without any laws telling them to. They think they are invincible and nothing will happen to them. YOu are saying that they should be killed for their stupidity because of course they have not learned everything yet. They think that texting while driving is ok also even though every study have shown that hundreds of accidents are caused by it. I guess texting and no seatbelts should take care of removing many of the teenagers off the road for good. I agree that there should be as few of laws as possible but when you get dumb people that drive 120 mph through traffic or run red lights a few seconds after the are red or do not wear seatbelts or do a dozen other stupid things you have to correct them some way. How would you do it?
James it was not a teenager in the car with the lady that was stopped it was young kids and not just one. Where do you get your information from? Are you like NMA in that you enjoy making things up.
Though I agree that the federal and state governments are over stepping their bounds of power and threatening our freedom and liberty, getting on an airplane and being searched to do so is not a violation. Airports are for the most part ran by privately owned companies with some over site by state and federal governments. You dont have to get on the airplane. You can turn around and walk away at the checkpoint. You don’t have to purchase an airline ticket. No One told you you have to fly on an airplane owned by say southwest or american airlines. It just like being searched before you go into a sporting event or concert.
In closing, if you dont want to be searched before flying, BUY YOUR OWN PLANE!
Folks,
Although I would render substantive argument against them, I’ve got no practical objection to enforcement with regard to things like seat belts and cell phones and would be willing to overlook reasonable enforcement efforts. However, I vehemently object to experiences like the lady from Texas had to endure as well as some of the ridiculous and offensive fines administered. A friend, this year, received citations for not wearing his seat belt and another for using a cell phone while driving. The seat belt ticket was a whopping $240 and the cell phone ticket was over $200. I find these numbers to be absurd and downright abusive of the citizenry.
If I’ve “broken the law” at the level described by citations of these kinds, anything more than a $25 fine is ridiculous and insulting. And let’s face it, these citations and the subsequent penalties are nothing more than mechanisms by which cities and states can pad their coffers. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, but of course they are not because these folks have no shame when it comes to revenue generation.
The seat belt and helmet law mandates have societal benefit and it makes sense to wear your seat belts and helmets. However, ultimately, it should still be the individual’s decision which, if any, devices he will chose to protect himself during vehicular transportation. For the state to get involved in those decisions, particularly in light of their penchant for using any means whatever to generate revenue, is an offense against liberty and, really, a conflict of interest.
Cell phone laws are an absolute exercise in absurdity. It’s considered illegal and punishable with fines to use a cell phone while driving yet one can eat a hamburger while driving, turn ones stereo up so loud as to block out important auditory information that the driver needs, repetitively reach down to change the station on an auto radio, have a very diverting and distracting conversation with a passenger, put on make-up, or smoke a cigarette leaving only one hand available for driving. None of these other activities are citable and fineable, but using a cell phone somehow is !!??!!?? What bullshit !!
A couple of years ago a friend, returning home to California during the night from up north, had his daughter in the car who was laying across the back seat asleep. He was cited for having a passenger in the car not wearing a seat belt. He protested the ticket with the officer at the time of the citation stating, obviously, that there was no way to fit the seat belt around a prone, sleeping passenger. He was told: “Sorry, the seat belt takes priority. Have a nice evening.” Of course this ticket was punishable by a monetary fine, thereby robbing another citizen of a little more liberty as our country pursues what I call its “Perpification of the citizenry” project. Real nice….
The 4th Ammendment under seige indeed…..
Rick Gold – owner
ERC FUELS
ph: 510-276-9334-x18
cell: 510-414-3801
fax: 510-297-5586
E-ML: ercracingfuels@sbcglobal.net
The tickets in my state are not nearly that much. Probably about half that. The cell phone/texting use though is one of the worst things to do while driving. Studies have shown that it is right up there with drunk driving. Some of the other things that you mentioned may be close to being that bad except in the cell phone/texting example, that is done for extended periods of time not like your example of changing the radio station or 5 minutes eating a hamburger even though both of them are not recommended and many cars have controls on your steering wheel any more and in many cars they have voice recognition to do many things in the car.
You are right about talking to a person in the car also. Some people use both hands while talking an also look at the person they are talking to. That is not good while driving. That kind of thing would be pretty hard to enforce though unless there was a camera and microphone in the car. That I am sure will be the next article from NMA stating they are planning on doing it. It sounds like something good to make up and something that NMA would do to get people riled up.
How weird is this? I agree with Randy. It has been proven through statistical and simulated-driving analysis that drivers on cell-phones are a danger to other drivers.
But I agree with you on helmets and seat belts. If people want to chance their life that is their choice. Maybe I’d thrown in cell phones on abandoned roads.
James if you agree that it is the parents option to put kids in danger I have a major problem with your views. It is pretty much like letting someone drive 120 mph weaving through traffic. They are not just putting themselves in danger but making the decision to put others in danger also.
No Randy, I do not believe the parents have the right to place a child’s life in danger, nor do I believe that people should be allowed to dodge traffic at 120mph. Those would put others lives in danger.
I’m assuming the daughter wasn’t a minor, since he wasn’t cited for endangering the safety of a minor or anything. Therefor, she should be allowed to make her own decisions.
In simulated driving experiences, the program can be set to a relatively mundane driving experience when someone isn’t on a cell phone, then set to “volcanic eruption during a 8.5 earthquake while traveling thru a class 5 hurricane” when the person is on a cell phone. OK, that’s a little exaggerated, but the truth is those programs can be set so that the driving experience is harder when someone is in one using a cell phone. Even a driver without a cell phone would have a hard time with the advanced program.
Bill you do not knw what you are talking about. There also has been video cameras installed in cars to monitor things like cell phone use and texting over an expanded period of time and it shows that they still create a more dangerous cituation.
First, Randy, with respect, you are wrong: Mrs Atwater does *not* meet Mr Peters’ requirement. If she was to feed her kids dinner laced with rat poison, or chase them around the house with a baseball bat, or smother them with pillows in their sleep, that would meet the requirement of a clear, present, deliberative danger. Her situation only presented the possibility of something bad maybe theoretically — *if* circumstances combined properly — happening to her kids. The more you remove responsibility from parents, the less they actually take responsibility for raising them properly.
Second, you may be interested to learn that concussions and other such serious injuries are much greater in the NFL than they are in rugby leagues overseas. Why? NFL players, bundled up like the “tick about to pop” (Christmas Story reference) with pads, helmets, bars, and the rest, are prone to take more risks and behave more violently than their rugby-playing counterparts, believing — sometimes erroneously — that their pads and helmets will protect them from everything. I submit to you by this reasoning that those who do *not* habitually wear seatbelts may, in fact, on balance be safer drivers than those who do.
In any event, when someone tells you that you ought to be doing something, or buckling up, or eating this or that, or any other damn thing you don’t want to do, the only proper response from a freeborn American citizen is as follows:
“NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.”
Brother John you are wrong about buckliing up of kids. Since parents are too stupid to buckle up their kids so that they are a lot lot safer if they get in an accident, laws had to be put into place to protect their kids. Kids do not know that they are not safe if they do not have car restraints on so it is up the parent to do it. When parents are too stupid to do it then the government has to get involved to protect the kids. I do not know if you have or had kids but if you did would you leave them ride without seat belts or car seats? If you did I would thnk it would be your responsibility for any deaths or injuries if you got in an accident and be punishable by jail time if you happened to live through the accident. I have heard and read stories of kids in accidents being projectiles through the front windshield. Not a pretty site.
I am not up to the rules of rugby leagues but in the past US football players did not have all the protection that they have now and there were far more injuries even though the players were far smaller and slower than what they are today. I guess you are saying we should have no protection for football players? They would have to change the rules of the game if they did that or there would be dead players at every game. Some of the players would not slow up if they had pads and helmets removed. Can you imagine a kick off when players are running full speed into each other without any protection? Do they have such a thing in rugby?
Brother John I did a quick search on your safe Rugby sport:
Rugby injuries: is the game becoming unsustainable?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/6387574/Rugby-injuries-is-the-game-becoming-unsustainable.html
I guess it is not as safe as you say it is.
Rugby is fantastic, and all the hits are done at full-speed since they don’t stop to line up. Plus, they have none of the 400lb gorilla’s, only the 200lb muscle-bound rockets. And yes, they have kick-offs, and jump-balls – which using your logic would be even more dangerous.
But the players compensate for the lack of pads and attack differently. That is why there are no dead after every game, and fewer concussions than in American football.
Similarly, there are things I will do when buckled in that I would not if I was unable to buckle, rarely (but occasionally) while driving on the roads, and much more commonly while racing (no Randy, not street-racing).
James you are always misinformed:
http://www.injuryresearch.bc.ca/Publications/Fact%20Sheets/rugby%20fact%20sheet.pdf
The reprt said there was a highest number of injuries under the age of 18. In football there are few injuries particularly the younger groups under 14. Before you make your statements go check the facts.
One thing about seat belts James, do you drive more dangerously when you put your seat belt on or do you put your seat belt on or make sure it is on when you are going to drive more dangerously?
If it is the first case then I guess you drive danerously almost all the time if you are in a state that requires you to wear seat belts.
To the facts on rugby: Statistical breakdowns of injuries within one group cannot be used to compare it to another sport. It’d be like saying “100% of injured concert pianists are injured. 100% of trombonists aren’t injured. Therefore, trombones are safer than pianos.”
To your question on seatbelts: I put it on before doing anything stupid (in a car/cart, I mean, I don’t wear one while arguing with you on the internet) , but if I am prevented from doing so, then I will choose not to perform the aforementioned stupid action.
THANKS JAMES, I understand. We should require you not to wear a seat belt while driving because we do not want you to do anything stupid while driving.
As for Rugby being a safer sport, everthing I have read says that it is much more dangerous than football with much more injuries. I guess you would rather tackle someone without a helmet or pads so you then think you are safer. What I was saying about football at youner age is that there is almost no injuries. When you look at team there are very few times when a player is not playing because of an injury. How would that compare to Rugby?
Don’t you know, you are government property, and they don’t want you to jepordize their there assets.
Look up any thing pertaining to “Strawman” ( like “meet your strawman”) and WAKE UP PEOPLE
All cops are is a bunch of latent homosexuals.
You are blatantly a latent homosuxial.
It sounds to me like this is a biased report that did not say what the lady did or said after she was stopped. If the lady “Mrs. Atwater, furious about her experience, sued the city of Lago Vista” you wonder how she acted and what she did when she was stopped. That probably came out in court but Eric seemed to leave that information out of this article. I am sure the officer did not arrest every individual for not wearing a seat belt so what happened in this case we will never know because it was left off because only one sided articles are placed on this site.
An update. I read the court decision. Mrs. Atwater not only did not have her seat-belt on but also her kids did not have theirs on either in the front seat of a pick-up. She had been stopped before by the same officer. There was not anything written how she acted or what she said when she was stopped. Witnesses came later upon the scene when the officer was making the arrest. The officer was determined to be legal in what he did.
It is pretty bad when we have to go back to an individual arrest about 13 years ago. There is nothing else going on in the present?
By not having her kids have their seat belts on in the front seat Mrs Atwater met Eric’s requirement:
“The general standard was that a person had to be doing (or threatening to do) something that clearly, directly, threatened harm to others”
This is just another expample of this site clearly leaving out that it was not just a personal decision not to have your own seat-belt on. Clearly these kind of facts always seem to be left out of any artcile that Eric writes or that are posted on this site.
Randy the retard says “The general standard was that a person had to be doing (or threatening to do) something that clearly, directly, threatened harm to others”
This is just another expample of this site clearly leaving out that it was not just a personal decision not to have your own seat-belt on. Clearly these kind of facts always seem to be left out of any artcile that Eric writes or that are posted on this site.”
Sorry retard but not buckling the kids doesn’t constitute threatening harm to others. We didn’t wear seat-belts when I was a kid and the majority of us lived through it just fine.
Juan you show your stupidity. STUPID. We did not have seat belts when I was little either. Thousand of kids died from not having seat belts during those many years also. You say a majority lived through it.
That was a stupid statement.
Are you also saying that we should not have air bags in our cars also because we did not have them back then, How about football players wearing helmets. I guess they do not need to wear them.
There are some ignorant people that belong to this organization and Juan you rank right up with the best of them.
hillbilly a–hole