Maybe it's time we re-examined this "it's a priviledge, not a right" line. I
guess when horses were the prevalent mode of transportation, driving an auto
was a "priviledge" of the rich, who could afford them. Nowadays, how would
one survive without a car, at least in most parts of the U.S.? You'd get
killed trying to ride a bike to work in a lot of big cities, run over by
those "Priviledged" auto drivers. Driver's licenses are still just another
revenue generation tool, since obviously there are plenty of accidents by
all those "trained and approved" drivers.

It reminds me of those parents who get their kid something like a bike or
horse, just to have something to take away to punish them later.

"swatcop" wrote in message
news



"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:46:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

The seatbelts are the only thing that keep you behind the wheel in such
instances. If you're on the median at 50+ mph and you're still driving,
you've probably avoided hitting other cars. You have a much better
chance
of
finishing the episode alive if you're behind the wheel snugly so you
can
drive. Only an idiot would want to be bouncing around the car.

Doug, these laws that take away personal choice are just that. Although
I agree with you on the child protection issues, I strongly disagree
with seatbelt and helmet laws for adults.

No, I don't want to hear about how much it's costing us in medical
bills, blah, blah, blah.

It's erosion of personal freedom, plain and simple.

I disagree - it saves lives, plain and simple. Driving is a priveledge,
not
a constitutional right, therefore there are rules. Personal freedom
purtains
to freedom of religion, etc., not risking other people's lives or your
own.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."