It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Case Dismissed" There is justice.

page: 5
52
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Domo1
If it was built in the 70's it's not very safe. It has bad brakes, bad glass, bad seat belts (that you don't use), bad seats, poor handling, no crumple zones to mitigate force, no airbags, awful traction and crappy lights. I've owned a few (well the oldest was a '70). I loved them all, but even with a complete overhaul of the suspension and brakes they are unsafe. Being well maintained does not mean safe.






Sounds pretty arrogant. Although I will readily agree that cars in the 1970's could not hold a candle to cars from the 1960's

The standard brakes we have today are no different than the standard brakes we had then (anti-lock was just starting). Indeed, some of the brake pads we had back then were superior. I don't recall any problem with auto glass from that period as it was all standard safety glass. A lot of vehicles back then had lap-only seat beats or two-piece lap and shoulder belts .... made out of the same material used today. The seats were every bit as good as what we see today. Handling was as good as most cars on the roads today. Even back then, some of us were upgrading headlights and risking trouble with "the law".

So ok ... most did not have airbags and most had standard RWD traction. But old Detroit iron had one thing in abundance. Physical Mass. We still had real frames in vehicles in a number of cars from that period. Another thing we had was simplicity of maintenance. I did not take a damn rocket scientist to tune and repair it.

I'd still take my '68 goat over most anything I can buy today in it's class.




posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I know the OT is about the letter of the law, but wanted to add my 2 cents about the seatbelt laws. It should be the law that kids be belted. That said, if you as an adult choose not to, I would have no problem with there being no law IF IF IF my legally mandated (rightfully so) insurance rates weren't calculated to some degree on injury payouts (the highest dollar claims). Seatbelts statistically reduce injuries and related costs significantly, so as long as I am somehow connected financially to your choices, it needs to be the law.

Also, if you have children or a spouse and choose not to wear a seatbelt, you are simply a selfish person. You are choosing to avoid a nearly nonexistant inconvenience over a significantly higher chance of being alive for your children or spouse after certain kinds of accidents. If you have no one who cares about you, then think of the EMT or ER doctor that has to get dragged out of bed to deal with your choice.

Don't get me wrong, if it were some minor effect or questionable safety feature, I am not for laws without clear basis in fact, but seatbelts laws are akin to many other necessary traffic laws that reduce injury-accidents like yielding/speeding etc. If it was your "right" to drive however you feel, the roads would be a mess.



Research has shown that lap/shoulder seat belts, when used, reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger car occupants by 45% and the risk of moderate-to-critical injury by 50%.

Source:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Traffic Safety Facts 2008 Data – Occupant Protection



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by diggindirt
 


I'll do as you asked and not tell you that you are stupid for not wearing a seatbelt.
You're a genius (sarcasm).



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I love how many people presume that it is their business whether or not someone ( that they don't even know) wears a seat belt.

Where will all of you busybodies be in one hundred years?

You will be rotting in the grave just like the people that didn't wear their seat belts.

The only difference would be that they lived a comparatively more free life.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


It isn't about telling someone what to do arbitrarily. Accident injuries are a huge insurance cost. If I am mandated to have insurance, then something that can reduce serious injury by 50% and causes no harm should be required so I don't have to pay more for someone's poor choices. If it didn't affect me, then I would really not care if people preferred to not wear them (adults).

As to your "living a comparatively more free life", I don't see how it has anything to do with being free. It's a seatbelt. It literally goes unnoticed if it isn't your first day wearing one.
edit on 29-3-2014 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Wow, too bad to see a good thread turn into a silly discussion about seatbelts between a bunch of dummies totally not qualified to do so, but I digress. Cops are nothing more than a well equipped gang of thugs for the rich, anyone who claims otherwise is a mafia wife enabler, if there were any "good" cops they'd be doing something about the bad ones. You're not part of the club and their courts are not for your benefit, they don't even follow they're own rules.

But like the OP has clearly demonstrated a little actual knowledge goes a long way, and can be fun. However I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that there is a MUCH BETTER way of doing things, which is just not playing.

Like I said your not part of the club... you're they're rape victim. So what kind of idiot goes around appealing to his rapist or making application to his rapist?

Anyways my point is if you're unfortunate to be dragged into one of their courts JUST DONT PLAY, right at the outset you ask them; BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU ATTACH A NAME DERIVED FROM A PUBLIC DOUMENT TO ME and don't let # proceed without having your question answered and you tell them that I CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS until they answer your question and stand on it!

I take zero credit for those two advanced tidbits I just gave you, just spreading the knowledge to see what you guys will do with it. I'm sure many will whine and call bull#, that's fine though cause then I know that PERSON is talking out their ass.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Halfswede
 



As to your "living a comparatively more free life", I don't see how it has anything to do with being free. It's a seatbelt. It literally goes unnoticed if it isn't your first day wearing one.


There is no hope for you if you think that a law forcing a person to protect themselves from risk isn't an encroachment on personal freedom.

As far as insurance goes.. see my earlier post where I covered the point that insurance companies were the parties that bought and paid for seat belt laws... to their financial benefit.

If the insurance companies feel like passing that cost savings on to you....Why should a law be the driving force that puts money in your pocket at the cost of my freedom?

I support a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body.
Why don't I get the right to do what I want with MY body?



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperSeeds
 


SuperSeeds
Anyways my point is if you're unfortunate to be dragged into one of their courts JUST DONT PLAY, right at the outset you ask them; BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU ATTACH A NAME DERIVED FROM A PUBLIC DOUMENT TO ME and don't let # proceed without having your question answered and you tell them that I CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS until they answer your question and stand on it!

Very interesting stuff...

The first thing that caught my attention after Googling the author (Dean Clifford) was this:


And how much of the below page is actually based on reality?:


When the "justice" starts speaking, interrupt them. Say, "Point of order!" They will immediately be silent. At that point, state "I believe I am the only party with standing, so barring objection from the court, I wish to RESERVE ALL RIGHTS now, and henceforth. Are there any objections from the court?" As the court has no standing to respond, simply speak to the record as such, "Let the record show that I have reserved all rights, and the court has not objected." At this point if they say anything to you, you simply say, "Objection. The record shows that I have reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak. Why are you speaking?"

12160.info...


Search's I used:
NOTICE OF MISTAKE "Dean Clifford"
NOTICE OF MISTAKE POINT-OF-ORDER Dean Clifford



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 

So using your own logic, since the insurance companies have saved so much due to the laws, you would have to agree that going back to to no seatbelt laws would increase their costs. I am fine with going back to that so long as I get to check a box on my insurance that says "I will always be wearing my seatbelt. If I get caught not wearing it, I will pay double premiums". I get to keep paying the rates that only include the belt wearers, and you get to check a box that says "I choose to not wear my seatbelt" and you get to absorb whatever the increase to their costs are based on being in the not wearers group. Would you be for that? You get your freedom back, and both of us are fairly charged for insurance based on actuarial analysis. That severs the tie between your freedom and my wallet.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
LOL Dean Clifford wishes he wrote that, but he is NOT the author of the awesome document know as the Notice of Mistake, look harder.
It wasn't written by him but for him. Im not going to reveal the authors name here, it probably wouldn't help you anyway




And how much of the below page is actually based on reality?:


All of it. Why? If you are suggesting otherwise please, do tell.
edit on 29-3-2014 by SuperSeeds because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperSeeds
 

Ahhhh, I see... my bad.

I stand corrected, thanks for the update.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Halfswede
I know the OT is about the letter of the law, but wanted to add my 2 cents about the seatbelt laws. It should be the law that kids be belted. That said, if you as an adult choose not to, I would have no problem with there being no law IF IF IF my legally mandated (rightfully so) insurance rates weren't calculated to some degree on injury payouts (the highest dollar claims). Seatbelts statistically reduce injuries and related costs significantly, so as long as I am somehow connected financially to your choices, it needs to be the law.

Also, if you have children or a spouse and choose not to wear a seatbelt, you are simply a selfish person. You are choosing to avoid a nearly nonexistant inconvenience over a significantly higher chance of being alive for your children or spouse after certain kinds of accidents. If you have no one who cares about you, then think of the EMT or ER doctor that has to get dragged out of bed to deal with your choice.

Don't get me wrong, if it were some minor effect or questionable safety feature, I am not for laws without clear basis in fact, but seatbelts laws are akin to many other necessary traffic laws that reduce injury-accidents like yielding/speeding etc. If it was your "right" to drive however you feel, the roads would be a mess.



Research has shown that lap/shoulder seat belts, when used, reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger car occupants by 45% and the risk of moderate-to-critical injury by 50%.

Source:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Traffic Safety Facts 2008 Data – Occupant Protection


Soooo, as I posted earlier, under your belief system, if you are fat you are costing the tax payers and insurance companies a lot more money than non-fat people so you should be charged more taxes for the extra costs of keeping you alive. You should be marching yourself down to the local health department on a regular basis for a "weigh-in" and paying a "fat tax" to balance things out for those of us who exercise discipline in food consumption. Then, if after a year, if your weight hasn't come down to acceptable levels, you should be put in a "weight-reduction facility" and fed only low calorie foods until your ideal weight is attained. "It's for the children," because after all, if you are fat, you can't adequately care for your children because you have multiple health issues, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, joint disease,.....and I could go on and on.
See where this "protecting you from your own stupidity" leads?
Or maybe you would be in favor of "weight reduction facilities" for the overweight people out there? If you would like I can cite plenty of gubbermint studies showing the adverse effects of being fat.... Being fat is a personal choice just like wearing seat belts---so why don't we penalize (by law) fat people for their choices? The simple fact is that if the calories don't enter your body they don't accumulate into fat. There is settled science on that one so why is it not used to fight the War on Obesity?
See, I get it that you think everyone should do and think as you do and think. I'm just not someone who agrees with you so I took the time and effort to get a law worded so that I would have the freedom to live my life as I see fit. I am a law-abiding citizen who happened to come into contact with a cop that was so arrogant he thought he could stand in the street and make up law to fit his belief that if my vehicle had a seat belt I should be wearing it. He was wrong. I am right. The county attorney and the judge, although they might not agree with the law, had to follow it. There are tons of laws with which I do not agree but until I can get them changed, I must follow them or pay the consequences. Not a week passes that I don't contact some legislator about getting some needed changes in the laws that threaten to smother us and turn us from a free society into some kind of nanny world where the "nannies" are jack-booted thugs like the one we happened to meet on the way to the doctor's office. But I suppose that you think his threat to take me to jail was okay? After all, stupid people should all be in jail right?
I've tried very hard to follow the "be nice" rules of this forum on this thread but since some think that being nice includes name calling, don't be at all surprised if some of it blows back at ya.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Halfswede
reply to post by butcherguy
 

So using your own logic, since the insurance companies have saved so much due to the laws, you would have to agree that going back to to no seatbelt laws would increase their costs. I am fine with going back to that so long as I get to check a box on my insurance that says "I will always be wearing my seatbelt. If I get caught not wearing it, I will pay double premiums". I get to keep paying the rates that only include the belt wearers, and you get to check a box that says "I choose to not wear my seatbelt" and you get to absorb whatever the increase to their costs are based on being in the not wearers group. Would you be for that? You get your freedom back, and both of us are fairly charged for insurance based on actuarial analysis. That severs the tie between your freedom and my wallet.


I would be for that.
I would also be for overweight people paying their fair share of the added costs of their health care---a far greater problem in today's society than a few of us who do not wear seat belts. Fair is fair, right?



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by diggindirt
 





posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Halfswede
 


I am fine with that plan.

Now tell me why the government should mandate that non commercial drivers carry insurance.
Shouldn't the government force us all to carry an insurance policy to cover any damage we might cause, whether we are driving or not? I can cause incredible damage whether by negligence or intention without the use of an automobile.

Here is an example: A homeless person steps off the curb into traffic and causes an accident. Whether a car strikes and kills or injures him, or someone swerves to avoid him, he is the party that is at fault. But who pays for the damages? An automobile insurance company will end up paying. Why shouldn't everyone be forced by the government to carry insurance policies for the damages that they might cause outside of their homes? Is it fair that they get a free ride?



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by diggindirt
 


I agree with you on almost every count. I believe it should be up to the individual whether or
not to risk his or her life! Though I believe it is ignorant to not wear a seat belt if you indeed
value your life! As to whether or not you will burn alive because you can't release your safety
device! I believe there are a lot more people whom are saved by wearing a seatbelt then are
ensnared by it while attempting to flee! Like I said before the choice should be that of the
individual unless of coarse there is risk to others! The truth be said if that person has dependents
then there is risk for their children! Without choices in life we are mere automatons controlled
by state written statutes and laws! I for one am all for freedom for individual choice! I am against
the insurmountable amounts of irrational laws even though IMO the seatbelt law is definitely not one!



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Interesting take. I personally find insurance a weird concept and wish it was never created. Somehow you create a mandatory co-op whereby the damages caused by incidents are paid for, but additionally a large profit is made by the insurer. If people were to save there money and be accountable for their own actions, less money would be spent altogether on the incidents without insurance companies in the loop.

The big drawback is that personal accountability is only as good as the person, and lots of at-fault incidents wouldn't be taken care of as people would just avoid responsibility even though if people saved the amount they pay in ins., they would have (as a whole) more money left over than they would with ins.

People got along fine for countless centuries without insurance and likely paid for or made right whatever "damages" they caused. There is also a larger problem today whereby people refuse to accept that sometimes stuff just happens and nobody is really at "fault", nor do you deserve some payout for it. If you are walking through the park and a wind gust blows a branch on your head, nobody should be liable for that. Sometimes stuff just happens and it is your lot that you need to deal with.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

butcherguy
reply to post by Halfswede
 


I am fine with that plan.

Now tell me why the government should mandate that non commercial drivers carry insurance.
Shouldn't the government force us all to carry an insurance policy to cover any damage we might cause, whether we are driving or not? I can cause incredible damage whether by negligence or intention without the use of an automobile.

Here is an example: A homeless person steps off the curb into traffic and causes an accident. Whether a car strikes and kills or injures him, or someone swerves to avoid him, he is the party that is at fault. But who pays for the damages? An automobile insurance company will end up paying. Why shouldn't everyone be forced by the government to carry insurance policies for the damages that they might cause outside of their homes? Is it fair that they get a free ride?


Life has never been fair and it never will be! I would like to know if this homeless man does not have monies to
pay rent, have health insurance and barely has money to feed himself then where is he supposed to get the funds
to pay for this fictitious insurance policy? Should all our pets have insurance in case they bite someone or cause a
accident? Where do we draw the line on these issues of fault? Isn't it bad enough that so many are being forced into
purchasing insurance when most people don't know where their next meal or rent monies is coming from? In a
perfect world liability would be a part of personal responsibility and we would need no third party to insure others
to compensate for their injuries but we are living in a world that is far from being prefect and IMHO we have far more
problems to worry about then whether a homeless man will cause injury to others! shouldn't we be concentrating on
ending wars, hunger, plagues, holocausts, pollution, greed, intolerance, famines, slavery, etc, etc ,etc!
Liability Insurance is minute in comparison to any of these issues above! I believe if we want to be treated fairly
then it's up to us to treat others fairly the choice is ours!
edit on 29-3-2014 by nosacrificenofreedom because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


I wouldn't pay much attention to anything Dean Clifford says, whether he is the author or not. He is one of a loose group of people know as freemen on the land who believe that they can pick and choose which laws they wish to follow simply by claiming they did not consent to those they dislike. He discovered that he could charge $150 a head for preaching all sorts of legal nonsense to the gullible, all of it discredited well before he started peddling it. In fact, the stuff he is pushing such as A4V and fee schedules is, to the best of my knowledge, currently banned on ATS.

A Canadian, he is currently in a Manitoba jail awaiting trial for a number of charges, including firearms offences and running a grow-op. He is looking at a minimum 3 years on the firearms charges alone if convicted. Based on what he has filed, or claimed to have filed, in his defence, he is going to be convicted.

As for the OP, regardless of my opinion of her choice to not wear her seatbelt, I am glad to see an example of someone possessing knowledge of their local laws and using them as written to legitimately win their case in court. It makes a change from the nonsense you regularly see on the likes of YouTube.

Regarding her comments on the safety of cars built in the 70s versus those built much more recently, I would much rather be in my '05 BMW than either my '72 or '80 BMW in a serious accident. The same goes for any of the other cars I have owned that were of an earlier vintage than my '05 BMW.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nosacrificenofreedom
 


'Automobile' liability insurance is minute compared to the above.

No kidding the homeless guy has no money to buy insurance. I used a homeless guy in the example intentionally.
The government has mandated that citizens buy healthcare insurance..... whether you are homeless or not. Where do you draw the line?

Don't be surprised if the nanny statists mandate that you buy insurance if you own a dog.... many municipalities have outlawed owning certain breeds.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join