Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Chat Lounge
California reduces possession of marijuana from misdemeanor to “infraction” >

California reduces possession of marijuana from misdemeanor to “infraction”

California reduces possession of marijuana from misdemeanor to “infraction”

Reply

Old 10-04-2010, 01:17 PM
  #31  
Suspended
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 609
Trader Rating: 7 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Marcos.J View Post
im a firm believer on the seat belt , i worked many crashes involving fatalities and if some of those victims were wearing their seat belts they could be very well much alive today. something so simple to use and people still refuse to wear it.
The main reasons for seatbelt laws are for federal highway funding. Not Safety.
Much like federal mandated 65MPH limits.
Storydude1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 02:27 PM
  #32  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (1)
 
R40Victim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N.W. FL___L.A.___Lower Alabama
Posts: 7,827
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Seat belt laws for children and infants make sense. Let "Darwinian" rules decide which adults survive. Same with bikes, its your choice to take a chance at being road pizza.
R40Victim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 02:43 PM
  #33  
Tech Initiate
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 36
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

wLdNout is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 03:20 PM
  #34  
Tech Lord
iTrader: (24)
 
wingracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,002
Trader Rating: 24 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by R40Victim View Post
Seat belt laws for children and infants make sense. Let "Darwinian" rules decide which adults survive. Same with bikes, its your choice to take a chance at being road pizza.
I wish it was that simple but again:

Should you be held responsible for killing someone that would have survived with little or no injuries had they been wearing a seatbelt or helmet?
wingracer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 03:52 PM
  #35  
Suspended
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 609
Trader Rating: 7 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by wingracer View Post
I wish it was that simple but again:

Should you be held responsible for killing someone that would have survived with little or no injuries had they been wearing a seatbelt or helmet?
No, that's what Insurance is for.
Storydude1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 04:46 PM
  #36  
Super Moderator
iTrader: (203)
 
Marcos.J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Semper Fi
Posts: 29,484
Trader Rating: 203 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Storydude1 View Post
The main reasons for seatbelt laws are for federal highway funding. Not Safety.
Much like federal mandated 65MPH limits.
you are kidding , only 16% of each citation goes to the agency everything else goes to court cost and other state fees small % does go to a general highway and safety fund.. Yes they generate some revenue , not worth risking your life by not wearing it. If you have seen what I have seen and expirience going to someone's house at 3am to tell some parents that their 17 year old son died on a car accident, you would be wearing a seatbelt too.
Marcos.J is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 04:51 PM
  #37  
Tech Lord
iTrader: (24)
 
wingracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,002
Trader Rating: 24 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Storydude1 View Post
No, that's what Insurance is for.
The responsibility is still on you. Insurance can't keep you from being charged with criminal negligence or involuntary manslaughter. And if you get sued for an amount over your insurance coverage, you could be on the hook for that.

Also, should the insurance company have to pay hundreds of thousands in medical bills and other expenses for an accident that would not have been serious had the other driver been wearing a seatbelt?
wingracer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 05:09 PM
  #38  
Suspended
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 609
Trader Rating: 7 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Marcos.J View Post
you are kidding , only 16% of each citation goes to the agency everything else goes to court cost and other state fees small % does go to a general highway and safety fund.. Yes they generate some revenue , not worth risking your life by not wearing it. If you have seen what I have seen and expirience going to someone's house at 3am to tell some parents that their 17 year old son died on a car accident, you would be wearing a seatbelt too.
Missed the total point. If your state doesn't have a SeatBelt Law, they get REDUCED Federal Funding via the Highway bill and DOT. Same with a 65MPH max speedlimit. Montana has a daytime limit of "whatever is safe and prudent" and they get reduced Federal Funding as a result.

Originally Posted by wingracer View Post
The responsibility is still on you. Insurance can't keep you from being charged with criminal negligence or involuntary manslaughter. And if you get sued for an amount over your insurance coverage, you could be on the hook for that.

Also, should the insurance company have to pay hundreds of thousands in medical bills and other expenses for an accident that would not have been serious had the other driver been wearing a seatbelt?
If it's not my Fault, I won't be charged with anything. Last I looked we lived in a free country. Too bad thinking personal responsibility is someone else's problem is so prevalent. Laws dictating personal actions that in no way effect Public safety are draconian. Like the Seatbelt laws.
Storydude1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 05:12 PM
  #39  
Tech Lord
iTrader: (24)
 
wingracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,002
Trader Rating: 24 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Storydude1 View Post
If it's not my Fault, I won't be charged with anything.
I said from the very first post that it IS your fault.
wingracer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 05:16 PM
  #40  
Suspended
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 609
Trader Rating: 7 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by wingracer View Post
I said from the very first post that it IS your fault.
And? I've personally seen a person eat a bridge abutment at 80 MPH and walk away. I"ve seen another person hit a telephone pole at 10 and die instantly.

In the first instance, a seatbelt would have killed him by keeping him with the car instead of spitting him out and in the 2nd wearing the seatbelt would have made zero difference as the pole sheared and came through the windshield.

Seatbelts do save lives I'll admit.

Too bad the mandated use of such isn't due to increased public safety. It's due to increased Funding and Revenue Generation.


BTW, most LEO's I talk to HATE Seatbelts as a primary offense. Ask one how they feel about traffic stops and you'll understand why.
Storydude1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 05:24 PM
  #41  
Tech Lord
iTrader: (24)
 
wingracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,002
Trader Rating: 24 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Storydude1 View Post
Too bad the mandated use of such isn't due to increased public safety. It's due to increased Funding and Revenue Generation.
And why is that? That very well may be the reason many states pass the law but why do you think the Fed has such requirements? For exactly the reasons I posted.

From a strict legal standpoint, you are not wearing a seatbelt to protect you, you are wearing it to protect the person that hits you from having a higher liability. In other words, you are protecting the insurance companies.
wingracer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 05:48 PM
  #42  
Tech Champion
Thread Starter
iTrader: (11)
 
C_O_jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Wa.
Posts: 9,055
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Storydude1 View Post
Missed the total point. If your state doesn't have a SeatBelt Law, they get REDUCED Federal Funding via the Highway bill and DOT. Same with a 65MPH max speedlimit. Montana has a daytime limit of "whatever is safe and prudent" and they get reduced Federal Funding as a result.



If it's not my Fault, I won't be charged with anything. Last I looked we lived in a free country. Too bad thinking personal responsibility is someone else's problem is so prevalent. Laws dictating personal actions that in no way effect Public safety are draconian. Like the Seatbelt laws.
You must live in Oreeegone, that's the only retarded state on the west coast that has a max of 65, both Wa and Cal both have max of 70.
C_O_jones is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 06:03 PM
  #43  
Suspended
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 609
Trader Rating: 7 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by C_O_jones View Post
You must live in Oreeegone, that's the only retarded state on the west coast that has a max of 65, both Wa and Cal both have max of 70.
Nope. about 1500 miles east and south.
Storydude1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 07:28 PM
  #44  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (1)
 
R40Victim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N.W. FL___L.A.___Lower Alabama
Posts: 7,827
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by wingracer View Post
I wish it was that simple but again:

Should you be held responsible for killing someone that would have survived with little or no injuries had they been wearing a seatbelt or helmet?
If I'm at fault, as in caused the accident; I didn't think it mattered. Otherwise for survivors, its their PIP(person injury protection) right? That's a tricky one, because they might've chosen not to wear it. I've seen people get tickets because a passenger wasn't wearing a belt. That seems a little lame, let them take their own lives into their hands(unless its a child or infant). I also see people riding in back of pickups... right past a cop.
R40Victim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 07:50 PM
  #45  
Tech Lord
iTrader: (38)
 
Oasis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: * Sin Cal *
Posts: 10,470
Trader Rating: 38 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by R40Victim View Post
If I'm at fault, as in caused the accident; I didn't think it mattered. Otherwise for survivors, its their PIP(person injury protection) right? That's a tricky one, because they might've chosen not to wear it. I've seen people get tickets because a passenger wasn't wearing a belt. That seems a little lame, let them take their own lives into their hands(unless its a child or infant). I also see people riding in back of pickups... right past a cop.
You won't see that in Ca..riding in back of a pick up. You can't even have a dog not chained up in the back of your truck..
Oasis is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service