![]() | |
This is a discussion on Big Brother wants Alcohol Detection System in every car within the Science and Technology forums, part of the US Discussion category; more statist bullshit. the first time someone is harmed b/c their breathalyzer broke or a woman is raped b/c she couldn't get the car away ...
| |||||||
| Science and Technology Developments that shape how we live our lives |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| |||
| more statist bullshit. the first time someone is harmed b/c their breathalyzer broke or a woman is raped b/c she couldn't get the car away due to this bullshit I will personally pay all her lawyer fees as he/she sues the government for millions. get the fuck out of my life government |
| Sponsored Links |
|
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free! |
| |||
| also, the car engine will still work without the breathalyzer, the dayy i get a car with one mandated I won't move it out my driveway until I figure out a way to get the car running with out it. Then i will post it all over online and completely end their big brother bullshit. |
| The Following User Says Thank You to blu For This Useful Post: | ||
Quantum Windbag (06-30-2010) | ||
| |||
![]() I made my post with the same train of though before seeing this |
| |||
| and when YOU are in an emergency? |
| ||||
|
__________________ I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything -- you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him. |
| ||||
| Immie
__________________ "To confess you were wrong yesterday, is only to acknowledge that you are a little wiser today; and instead of being a reflection on yourself, it is an honor to your judgment, and shows that you are improving in the knowledge of the truth." Charles H. Spurgeon in his sermon on Election. |
| ||||
| Immie
__________________ I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything -- you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him. |
| ||||
| Immie Duh, looking back at the link, it says NH has enacted neither type of law. I believe, but am not certain, that the federal government, has tied some funding into a state requirement for use of seat belts. Here are a couple of articles in this regard: Did State Legislators Sacrifice Federal Funding to Kill a Seat Belt Law? | 5280 Magazine Quote: The Legislature has sidestepped a bill that would have allowed police officers to pull over drivers who are not wearing seat belts and has likely lost $12 million in federal grant money for safety projects in the process. Quote: COLUMBUS, Ohio — Drivers better buckle up or pay the price: More cash-strapped states want to give law enforcement officers the authority to pull over motorists just for not wearing their seat belts. More than a dozen states that are considering making the switch to primary seat-belt enforcement laws need to do so before July to be eligible for millions in federal money. One of those states is Ohio, which would get $26.8 million if it changes its law. Currently, officers in the state must first have some other reason to stop drivers over before issuing seat-belt citations. Quote: The U.S. Senate this week backed a provision promising federal aid for safety programs to states that enact laws allowing police to stop motorists for seat belt violations. On a 86-14 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment to a $295 billion highway bill that would have stripped from the bill a provision giving federal incentives to states with primary seat belt laws. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have laws that permit police to pull over drivers not using their seat belts. Another 28 states have secondary laws under which police can ticket drivers for seat belt violations only after they stop them for a different violation. New Hampshire has neither primary nor secondary enforcement laws. Under the Senate bill, states that adopt primary safety belt laws would receive a one-time grant equal to 500 percent of the highway safety money they received in 2003. States that already have primary laws would get one-time grants of 250 percent. Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., citing National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates, said the enactment of primary seat belt laws by all states would result in 1,200 fewer deaths and 17,000 fewer injuries annually. This was simply what I understood when I mentioned that I thought the Federal Government required seat belts. In other words, they couldn't pass a law forcing us to wear seat belts, but by God, they were going to do so one way or another. Immie
__________________ "To confess you were wrong yesterday, is only to acknowledge that you are a little wiser today; and instead of being a reflection on yourself, it is an honor to your judgment, and shows that you are improving in the knowledge of the truth." Charles H. Spurgeon in his sermon on Election. |
| ||||
| Correct me if I am wrong, I've been in a terribly long discussion with TDM, and forgot what this thread was about, but doesn't that say that all 50 states have seat belt laws? Isn't at least part of that because the Federal Government insists upon it, for funding like they did with the 55 mph laws in the 70's? Immie Duh, looking back at the link, it says NH has enacted neither type of law. I believe, but am not certain, that the federal government, has tied some funding into a state requirement for use of seat belts. Here are a couple of articles in this regard: Did State Legislators Sacrifice Federal Funding to Kill a Seat Belt Law? | 5280 Magazine Cash-strapped states mull seat belt laws - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com Quote: COLUMBUS, Ohio — Drivers better buckle up or pay the price: More cash-strapped states want to give law enforcement officers the authority to pull over motorists just for not wearing their seat belts. More than a dozen states that are considering making the switch to primary seat-belt enforcement laws need to do so before July to be eligible for millions in federal money. One of those states is Ohio, which would get $26.8 million if it changes its law. Currently, officers in the state must first have some other reason to stop drivers over before issuing seat-belt citations. Quote: The U.S. Senate this week backed a provision promising federal aid for safety programs to states that enact laws allowing police to stop motorists for seat belt violations. On a 86-14 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment to a $295 billion highway bill that would have stripped from the bill a provision giving federal incentives to states with primary seat belt laws. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have laws that permit police to pull over drivers not using their seat belts. Another 28 states have secondary laws under which police can ticket drivers for seat belt violations only after they stop them for a different violation. New Hampshire has neither primary nor secondary enforcement laws. Under the Senate bill, states that adopt primary safety belt laws would receive a one-time grant equal to 500 percent of the highway safety money they received in 2003. States that already have primary laws would get one-time grants of 250 percent. Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., citing National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates, said the enactment of primary seat belt laws by all states would result in 1,200 fewer deaths and 17,000 fewer injuries annually. This was simply what I understood when I mentioned that I thought the Federal Government required seat belts. In other words, they couldn't pass a law forcing us to wear seat belts, but by God, they were going to do so one way or another. Immie
__________________ I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything -- you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him. |
| ||||
| Even if there is no overlap between the states with primary and secondary seat belt laws it only adds up to 49 states with seat belt laws. I honestly don't know if the feds tack a rider onto highway funds that talks about seat belts, but if they do it would only cut off a portion of the funds, not all of them. The states the ignore the federal speed limit thing loose up to 10% of the funds they would get otherwise. regardless, there are always earmarks. Duh, looking back at the link, it says NH has enacted neither type of law. I believe, but am not certain, that the federal government, has tied some funding into a state requirement for use of seat belts. Here are a couple of articles in this regard: Did State Legislators Sacrifice Federal Funding to Kill a Seat Belt Law? | 5280 Magazine Cash-strapped states mull seat belt laws - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com Senate Backs Linking Federal Safety Funds to States' Seat Belt Laws Quote: The U.S. Senate this week backed a provision promising federal aid for safety programs to states that enact laws allowing police to stop motorists for seat belt violations. On a 86-14 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment to a $295 billion highway bill that would have stripped from the bill a provision giving federal incentives to states with primary seat belt laws. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have laws that permit police to pull over drivers not using their seat belts. Another 28 states have secondary laws under which police can ticket drivers for seat belt violations only after they stop them for a different violation. New Hampshire has neither primary nor secondary enforcement laws. Under the Senate bill, states that adopt primary safety belt laws would receive a one-time grant equal to 500 percent of the highway safety money they received in 2003. States that already have primary laws would get one-time grants of 250 percent. Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., citing National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates, said the enactment of primary seat belt laws by all states would result in 1,200 fewer deaths and 17,000 fewer injuries annually. This was simply what I understood when I mentioned that I thought the Federal Government required seat belts. In other words, they couldn't pass a law forcing us to wear seat belts, but by God, they were going to do so one way or another. Immie NO RIGHT is involved in the privilege of earning the ability to drive. Thus none is violated if a State required a breathalyzer on every ignition henceforth. Privacy has NOTHING to do with the privilege to drive. None what so ever.
__________________ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. -Bertrand Russell Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable -Laurence J. Peters I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing. -Maineman ( on 12 June 2007) |
| The Following User Says Thank You to RetiredGySgt For This Useful Post: | ||
maineman (07-01-2010) | ||
![]() |
Lower Navigation
| ||||||
| ||||||
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|