StarGateWars Forums

glad to see your still here mate

ok, i had a thought that you might use such an argument regarding the seatbelts, but didn't think you would use it...

i have never heard of a human projectile going through THEIR windscreen and killing someone else because of a lack of a seat belt but anyways, lets suppose that however unlikely such a scenario is, a person doesn't wear their seatbelt and has a crash, lets further suppose that after flying through the windscreen, they go through someone else windscreen and kill the passenger, lets further suppose that after such an accident the person is still alive (even though the passenger in the other car has been killed...then the husband (or wife) who is the surviving victim would deserve to kill the person who flew through 2 windscreens, killed a passenger in another car and lived to tell the tail!

you have still failed to convince me that ANY Govt has a right to interfere with peoples lives....

quad face-palm!

oh btw, mate its not about who is right and who is wrong, its about what is right and what is wrong, and Govt interfering in peoples lives is wrong...cant you see that?

Kit-Fox wrote:let me explain pops, it means we must stick within our laws even when those laws dont deal with something.

In that case it is up to the country to create a new law to deal with the problem, but the new law should be properly debated in your country's parliment and not brought in with a rubber stamp and a knee jerk reaction.

We have to stick to our principles and our laws or we are no better than the very people we are venting against. It doesnt work if we do 'bad guy stuff' we have to stick to our laws even when they make us uncomfortable or cause us difficulties.

It is the very basis of civilised behaviour

My country is FULL of laws ready to be used regarding parasites...sadly not used/hard to use.
Don't know for UK's case (time for Parliament to propose laws I suppose if not already done!). But my country is fully ready laws basedly. Now there is just the need of action..sadly, as I said, the same problem remains:

Those defending their "enemies" in the name of good principles abused by said "enemies".

They represent a good % of voters, and thus...not much is being done because of said people (yes I blame them, and will blame them even more, when EU will be in a mess bigger than now, because of their blindness).

glad to see your still here mate

ok, i had a thought that you might use such an argument regarding the seatbelts, but didn't think you would use it...

i have never heard of a human projectile going through THEIR windscreen and killing someone else because of a lack of a seat belt but anyways, lets suppose that however unlikely such a scenario is, a person doesn't wear their seatbelt and has a crash, lets further suppose that after flying through the windscreen, they go through someone else windscreen and kill the passenger, lets further suppose that after such an accident the person is still alive (even though the passenger in the other car has been killed...then the husband (or wife) who is the surviving victim would deserve to kill the person who flew through 2 windscreens, killed a passenger in another car and lived to tell the tail!

you have still failed to convince me that ANY Govt has a right to interfere with peoples lives....

quad face-palm!

Did you see the video linked?
That explains you the link between seatbelt and accident I refered to. You lose control of the vehicle and of yourself, thus, you are less likely to control vehicle, and chances of accident rise up.
If nobody controls the vehicle properly, what is going to attempt to stop it?
Now I'm not going to describe scenarii, because it's not really needed.

eh? what link??

Jim, your not trying to say that wearing a seatbelt reduces the risk of someone loseing control of their car are you?

if someone has a bad enough accident where they will go through the windscreen of a car if not wearing a seatbelt, then in all likelihood, its a MAJOR accident and you will lose control of the car whether your belted in or not.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:eh? what link??

Jim, your not trying to say that wearing a seatbelt reduces the risk of someone loseing control of their car are you?

if someone has a bad enough accident where they will go through the windscreen of a car if not wearing a seatbelt, then in all likelihood, its a MAJOR accident and you will lose control of the car whether your belted in or not.

Previous page probably. Dude flying in his car for not having seatbelt.

And in this case, there's a need of "lesser" accidents to cause the same damages. Not even a major accident is needed. Remember, *nothing* maintains you. Not to mention, side effects if you got someone on passenger side...

ANYWAY, even IF YOU would be able to avoid any problem or accident, such way of thinking means there's no "I can but others can't", afterall. My point is, many people can't be permitted to act this way. That's why such system is in place. Just because there's a good 1.2% (example %) of very skilled drivers, doesn't mean the rest is, and considering their amount, giving everyone choices without lines to follow...would mean the road being a real life Destruction Derby!

at the end of the day, i have right to drive without Govt telling me (or you) what i can and cannot do. the same applies to all aspects of my life so long as i commit no fraud, do no damage or harm another human being.

Jim, we cant live a life surrounded by unjust laws because of what MIGHT happen...that's not freedom...





Rights are not given, they are taken.

Frederick Douglass

i Cant believe KMA that you are using the idea of not wearing a seatbelt as an argument. So what if its your life and your car, you have no right to risk the lives of any passengers you might carry in your car (even if they are part of your family, its still not your damn right to risk their lives) or to risk the lives of other drivers or pedestrians.

An unrestrained person in a vehicle is more likely to seriously injure / kill others if a collision occurs. It is only common sense that all of us wear seatbelts to minimise such risk.

And as the benefits are obvious and the downsides non-existant lots of governments have taken steps to make it a requirement for driving, this again is only common sense. Its not the gov interfering with your life, its trying to protect your life.

A better example would be the CRB/ISA checks needed (well uk example anyways) before you can take a job that thanks to the gov & judicary are allowed to pass on false/unfounded allegations and instances where you have be proven innocent to the employer making the check. Thats interfering with your right to a private life, your right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law etc etc

EDIT: you might have the right to drive, but in most countries the actual roads belong to the gov, so if you dont abide by their rules you have no right to use their roads.

sigh...

i only use seatbelts as an example and its not the be all and end all of this discussion...i past my driving test (first time after 14 lessons, never having driven a car before) on my 17th B-Day and i'm now 41 (do the maths). when i was learning to drive i had it drilled into me by my instructor to always check my mirrors and see what other road users are doing. with that method i have driven all these years and have NEVER caused an accident or been involved in an accident, i have come VERY close on a few occasions but because i take note of what other road users are doing i have always m,managed to avoid others, even when they clearly have not noticed me and have been a liability....

anyways, i digress...as i said, Govt has NO right to make any safety decisions on my behalf or yours for that matter, if the seatbelt law was in fact put in place to protect drivers and occupants, there wouldnt be a fine, what they would have done is put a law in place that says something to the affect of "ALL occupants in a vehicle, be they driver or passenger MUST wear a seatbelt and it it is the drivers responsibility to make sure everyone wears their seatbelt. failure to wear a seatbelt will result in a 6 month driving ban. 2nd offence will carry a 1 year automatic driving ban."

the fact that there is a fine attached should tell you that the seatbelt laws are money spinners and nothing more, and as such, the Govt has no right to tell me to wear one.


my point STILL stands that Govt is getting way to big and back on topic...is wrong of them to put
cameras in peoples homes...because you know it wont stop with just the anti social.

btw, please show me the paragraph in the magna carta and the bill of rights where it says all highways (roads) belong to the Govt

the fact of the matter with regards to travel is, this country's laws are based on the laws contained in the bible...the bible states we have a right to travel unhindered and unencumbered...

so technically, i can travel in my vehicle whenever and however i choose to.