Michigan Votes Forum

 Can anyone explain the reason why we would want to exempt a newpaper carrier from a safety standard. This is an occupation who historically cuts in and out of traffic making their access to paper boxes. I would think that there chances of being rear ended would be high.

Are we on a downward slide for injury reduction?

 first, the seatbelt mandate is an unfunded federal mandate, and as such i oppose it.

second, the very fact that the legislature is considering this, and a joint resolution concerning our sovreignity and federal mandate abatement is very uplifting.

the left is going to say that this law cannot be passed, as it will put us on a 'slippery slope' to seatbelt freedom, which is all the more reason to abolish the seatbelt mandate completely and make seatbelt use optional at the driver's discretion.

Free all citizens imprisoned in seatbelts, especially those most likely to get rear ended.

 why is it the only two options for those on the left is ban or mandate? why is "choose to" or "choose not to" ever an option?

 i'm interested to know exactly how many of them are rear ended? this would be a pertinent piece of information on which to base a logical decision. it would seem that if numerous newspaper delivery drivers were rear ended, that the law need not pass, strictly for their protection.

it would also seem that if very few of them are rear ended, that the added protection of seat belts could be viewed as superfluous, even hazardous. now, looking at this from a freedom loving perspective, i believe that the seat belt mandate should be removed at once and seat belt choice be the order of the day.

i see legislation based on what MIGHT happen to be obstructionist and nannying. laws are not meant to control chance, only behavior.