Mar
12
2008
CIOT Checkpoint in Tulsa, OK Nets 48 Tickets, Cops Declare Victory
Posted by: Keith in All Items, Citations, Media, Oklahoma, Spin, United StatesFox News in Tulsa, OK is reporting that cops successfully issued 48 tickets and declared it a “victory”. The officers say they setup a checkpoint to catch seatbelt violators on South Lewis Street due to the occurrence of many wrecks. We’re not sure the police department has any reason to celebrate, because increased seatbelt use has been proven to NOT reduce the number of crashes. Unless they are celebrating the financial windfall - at $20 per ticket - $960 is not bad for an hours work.
March 21st, 2008 at 11:21 am - Edit
I note two comments on the Fox website, one from a reader whose wife had her neck broken by a belt, and one from somebody who was told after a wreck that she survived only because she was NOT buckled in. These are all too familiar stories.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pm - Edit
You, sir, are a moron. Yes, sometimes not wearing a seatbelt is what saves your life, however, it is more often that wearing the seatbelt is what saves your life. I have only heard of a handfull of cases where not wearing a seatbelt saved someones life, while I have heard of much more cases where wearing saved lives. Your OnStar site is moronic too. If they provided a way to easily remove OnStar from vehicles, any theif would be able to do it. Most people don’t realize their car has been stolen until several hours later. By that time, Onstar could have all ready been removed, and there would be no way to track it. The only thing I agree with on that is the ability to choose whether you want it or not. Consumers should not have the ability to remove it themselfs though.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:15 pm - Edit
Hi Jason, nothing like keeping the conversation professional, eh? Usually, folks that have to resort to calling names right out of the gate have little to no point. You claim to have heard of several instances where people who buckled up were saved. Who told you this? The news? Law enforcement? Where is the proof that shows that so and so survived because they put a seatbelt on? Where is the proof that people who died unbuckled would have survived had they buckled up? You cant simply say “OK, we had 40,000 people die in accidents last year, 60% of them were unbuckled, so if everyone buckled up we’d only have 24,000 fewer deaths next year.” It just doesn’t work that way. Some people drive like lunatics and they are gonna be flower food no matter what is done. And even if we agree, for the sake of argument - that seat belts do save everyone who wears them, what gives you, the government or anyone else the right to tell someone else what to do in their car?
March 26th, 2008 at 4:32 pm - Edit
Keith…. Safety laws are there for a reason. The proof is right in front of your face. According to the numbers, more people die in accidents when not wearing seat belts, than accidents where everyone is wearing their seat belts. Especially in high speed accidents. Of course you have the right to your opinion, just like I have the right to mine. My opinion is you are a moron if you are naive enough to think that not wearing a seat belt is just as safe as wearing one. Personally, I know first hand. About 2 years ago, I was in a severe car wreck. My car 4 cars were totaled. I was wearing my seatbelt. Upon crashing, my seatbelt broke my shoulder, and a few ribs. However, I was told by the doctors at the hospital, had I not been wearing my seatbelt I would be dead.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:39 pm - Edit
I am going to start a couple of new websites. Boycott SITCIOT and Boycot Keith.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:57 pm - Edit
The above was a joke. I would however like to do a video debate with you. It would be uploaded to Youtube. We could use video conferencing software to do the debate. Email me if your interested. (Even though other people can’t see my email, I am sure you can.)
March 28th, 2008 at 10:29 pm - Edit
The doctors told you that you would have been dead. What were they basing this on? Their detailed examination of the accident scene? Did those same doctors ever want to cut you open and tinker around a little? Would you say “Where do I sign?” or “Let me get a second opinion first.”? Do you believe everything doctors say? I sure as hell do not. Sure, cops, doctors and law makers all say seatbelts are good, effective and so on. So that makes it so? I don’t think so.
You still never explained what gives you or anyone else the right to make a law requiring OTHER people to wear a seatbelt. Its fine that you have your opinion, but you’re forcing your opinion on me against my will. As if thats not bad enough, you’re trying to tell me I have to use a device that has been proven to kill people under certain conditions. Don’t you think thats a choice I should be able to make for myself, whether or not I’d like to assume those risks? Or do you feel entitled to run my life as well as yours?
As for your wanting a video debate, well, no thanks. I don’t have the time to get into a mud slinging contest with the opposing school of thought.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:34 pm - Edit
That just shows your weak (Not wanting to debate using the excuse that it is a “Mud slinging contest”. A DEBATE is not a mud slinging contest. Keep on showing your intellegence level if you want, because in my opinion, you are just embarassing yourself.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:36 pm - Edit
And no, I don’t. You do have the choice to not wear a seatbelt. I am not going to stop you. The police can’t stop you either. They might give you tickets though. Remember, in the United States, having a drivers license is considered to be a privilage, not a right.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:53 pm - Edit
Driving is a right, not a privilege. It became a right when they started taxing us to build highways. You can believe that crap if you like, but thats up to you. Also, thanks for making your opinion known.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:48 pm - Edit
If it was a right, they would not be able to take your licence. Your logic is flawed. It does not matter whether you pay taxes for the highways or not. Trust me, I have studied all of this shit in the past. The United States Government can take away your licence when ever they damn feel like it, because it is not in the constitution as a right.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:52 pm - Edit
Ask any judge Keith. You act just like this person I saw on TV the other day. This person thought they could buy a new house, and then secede from the union, making them exempt from taxes. Do you know what happend? The government came to visit one day and put his ass out on the street. Yes, you have to pay taxes. Even if you lose your driving privilages, you still use those roads. It is called walking down the sidewalk, which are technically part of the road system. Its people like you who should not have drivers licences. The only thing you should be using for transport is your chevrolegs.
May 25th, 2008 at 1:40 am - Edit
I completely agree with Keith. With a law such as this, it is essentially a government attempting to exert increasing control over the population. Whether wearing a seatbelt is safer or not is not the question here. It’s the issue of creating a government that feels they can tell you to do something that may or may not be good for you depending on the situation. One analyst compared seatbelt laws to the issue in America of obesity. If they have laws requiring seatbelts, why not have laws then that prevent you from eating unhealthy foods? Studies show the larger BMI a person has the increased risk of heart disease and other health complications that individual has. If that’s the case the government should then step in and prevent those persons from obtaining unhealthy food, no? I’m just following the same line of logic So really, the safety record of seatbelts is a mute point, its really just how far are you willing to let the government control your life?
P.S.~And yes, driving might be a privilege, but the law is clear that your civil rights are not removed just because you get behind the wheel. Courts have continually upheld the right of drivers to resist illegal searches of their vehicles as well as other violations of their rights.
May 25th, 2008 at 1:45 am - Edit
And yes, calling others a “moron” might be considered fair debate by Jason, but others would just consider that to be rude behavior by a person who realizes their argument is running out of fuel. The term that Keith used is appropriate, “mud-slinging” is what a debate with you would consist of, as you would resort to calling Keith names instead of arguing the issues.