Introduction It is the governments obligation to protect every one that falls under the laws that are set for the protection of all people. When looking at this in any perspective following the leader is a good way to help describe the effect that is expected for us all whom are governed must comply with in order for society to run smoothly(Timmerman,2014). All laws are put in effect too help with the obligation for safety of others and not just self(Timmerman,2014). Seat belt law is just one of many laws that may or may not have a positive effect upon individuals. Seeking the laws that inform of individual their rights can be both an imposition yet can also have a positive aftermath if individuals see that the all laws are made and because of obligations they should be followed(Smith,1973). Laws That Need to be Followed
There is a many law that were made that need to be
…show more content…
Yet seeing that safety belt’s help save lives they are also the cause of death of many individuals that wear them as well(Smith,1973). It is known that helmets for motorcycle drivers is not a law any longer in some states, but the insurance for said driver who doesn’t feel the obligation to wear the helmet an increase of insurance fee. But those whom do wear a helmet get a fair fee on their insurance(Timmerman,2014). Everyone has a right to decide what is ethical for them as an individual, included in this should be the safety belt law. Ethical issue with laws carry the weight of the constitution on their shoulders. It is fair when the big picture can be seen as an afterthought that all the laws governed by the constitution an individual should have a right to
In 1989, plaintiff Joseph Benning was cited for a violation of § 1256 for operating a motorcycle without wearing approved headgear in Caledonia County, Vermont. The statue states that “No person may operate or ride upon a motorcycle upon a highway unless he wears upon his head protective headgear reflectorized in part and of a type approved by the commissioner.1 The headgear shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap.1” The County State’s Attorney dismissed the citation because he deemed the statue vague and unable to establish the elements necessary to prosecute the crime.1 However, the plaintiffs filed suit against the state, seeking to have § 1256 declared unconstitutional.
1. September 4, 2003 was a sad day for Pennsylvanians. Governor Rendell signed the new motorcycle helmet law into effect, sentencing riders to death and increasing the tax burden caused by this new law. Pennsylvania is the 31st state to repeal its all-rider helmet law (Berenson 2). The new law states “no helmet is required for a person 21 years of age or older who has been licensed to operate a motorcycle for not less than 2 full calender [sic] years or has completed a motorcycle rider safety course approved by the Department of Transportation or the Motorcycle Safety Foundation” (Lobel 3). This new helmet law has increased accident fatalities and the burden on taxpayers.
1. Equal protection clause is part of the 14th amendment according to the clause it governs every citizen to be treated equally under federal law. Furthermore, substantive law follows the 1st amendment rights which has nothing to do with public safety. The 1st amendment and the 14th amendment coincides. The 1st amendment allows freedom to privacy, voting, marriage etc. The 14th amendment allows the government to uphold the equal protection law which states when a law or action limits difference coinciding with the 1st amendment which states fundamental rights includes equally protection. However, the difference is the laws requires motor cyclist to wear helmets and motorist to wear seat belts. However, if a motorist is operating a comfortable
Millions of people all over the United States choose motorcycles over automobiles for the thrill, speed, and high performance capabilities. On the other hand, motorcycles are not at all the safest way of transportation. Motorcycles do not provide the passenger with the outer protection that cars provide, therefore, when one crashes, the results are usually much more serious. Injuries to the head are responsible for 76% of fatalities when dealing with motorcycle crashes many of which could have been prevented had the rider been wearing a helmet. For this reason, many states have adopted the motorcycle helmet law. The law states that every passengers must wear a helmet at all times when riding on a motorcycle. This law has created a great deal of controversy. One side supports the law, believing that it protects motorcyclists from danger and saves the economy a great deal of money. The other side argues that the law is unconstitutional and it violates our right to freedom. However, statistics show overwhelming support in favor of the motorcycle helmet law. Although wearing helmets cannot prevent motorcycle crashes, they can greatly reduce the number of deaths caused by head injury as well as lowering taxes, insurance rates, and health care costs. Therefore, the helmet law should be put into effect in every state across the United States.
...f such a decision, the government has aright to step in and help the person. This is because at this understanding of the situation, the person is not capable of making a decision that he would likely consent to at after fully understanding the situation. As in the seat belt case, often times, a person does not fully understand that not wearing a seat belt contradicts his true desires and that no possible good or benefit can come from not wearing it. However, when a person is making a rational decision between two things that he values, he is the only person that can decide which is best for him. An important condition to remember in this conclusion is that all of this is assuming that no other individuals are being harmed or put at risk by the actions of these people. Under this condition I have come to the conclusion that there do exist certain circumstances where the government has a right to legal paternalism. These circumstances include times when an individual is unable to make a rational and logical decision for himself either because he does not fully understand the issue or because he is unable to logically assign value to specific possible consequences of a decision.
According to the Governor’s Highway Safety Administration, helmet laws for motorcyclists in Missouri and the surrounding states are not consistent. For example, while everyone riding a motorcycle in Missouri must wear an appropriate helmet, Oklahoma and Arkansas have partial helmet laws. In Oklahoma, only those younger than 18 are required by law to wear them, while in Arkansas, the age limit is 21.
Is there in the world anything more essential than having a new opportunity of life? Although several individuals may possibly think an obligatory use of seat belt is a technique for causing people to feel a prisoner in their own car, putting on a seat belt would make the difference in a car accident. The use of seat belts provides security while driving; shows self-consciousness and has a role in government. That is why, the use of seat belts should be mandatory for drivers.
“August 2000, our family of six was on the way to a wedding. It was a rainy day, and Gregg was not familiar with the area. The car hit standing water in the high-way, and started hydro-planing. Greg lost control of the car. Then, the car went backwards down into a ditch and started sliding on its wheels sideways. After sliding for 100 feet or so, the car flipped, at least once. After flipping, the car came to rest on its wheels, and the passenger window broke out.
IIn 1978, a seatbelt law began in Tennessee for infants and young children. By the middle of 1985, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had enacted any child restraint using seat belts, and then New York extended this law for other ages. The law starts requiring all front seats to use safety belts on December 1987 (Williams & Lund, p. 1438). According to 625 ILC 5/12-603.1, driver and passengers are required to use safety belt (Public). The penalty from this law, depending on the states such as New York’s fine is 50 USD and 25 USD for Illinois states. Does the safety belt help save people’s life? Absolutely, using the safety belt is an option to save a driver and passengers life from any accidents but should it be a law? Should people obligate to pay fines if they don’t want to use a safety belt? According to Human rights, people should hold their freedom to choose, if they want to use the safety belt or not on liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, police officers can save their time to do other duties instead of enforcing the seat belt law.
The main concern of new parents is what car seat is right for their newborn baby. Not only do they have to decide what car seat is right for them they have to make the more important decision which is if they should go rear facing or forward facing. In 2008, research was done to provide the information that kids under the age of two are 75% less likely to become injured in a rear facing car seat. Rear facing and forward facing seats have pros and cons depending on the severity and type of crash it is involve in . A rear facing can protect the child better in side impact crashes. During crashes the babies body is completely harnessed in so there is no dangerous movement made to pull the neck in the wrong way. Rear facing also has cons like their legs can be squished against the seat and cause an uncomfortable car experience. If there is a rear collision they could potentially be ejected from the car. Rear facing also can cause their legs to be squished against the seat.
When it comes to school transportation the community believes that is the safest way for their children to get to school, but what everyone does not realize is that lately there have been many school bus crashes where several students have been severely injured and even some have lost their lives because almost all school buses do not have seat belts. The question is how well equipped is the bus and is it safe enough for children to ride? And how do we solve this problem to cut deaths, avoid children getting severely injured, and to protect the community. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, about an average of seven students is killed in school bus crashes each year and thousands students suffer from severe injuries such as: head, shoulders, broken bones, and scratches. This is the reason seat belts should be mandatory even if they will need high maintenance. For instance, when a school bus accident happens and it rolls over, if the children do not have seat belts the chances of children suffering from severe injuries and the chances of deaths should likely to cont...
We have all heard the excuses before, "It's uncomfortable, I'm only going around the corner", I'd rather be thrown out of a car than be stuck in a seatbelt," and my favorite, "I'm a good driver I don't need to wear one." Well you may be a good driver but there are situations beyond your control such as bad weather, road conditions and not to mention other drivers that can affect your safety. Seat belts can mean the difference between life and death in an auto accident. Wearing a seat belt every time you enter a vehicle is not only the smart thing to do it is the right thing because it saves lives, it's the law and it will save you money.
...nturies. Mill presents a clear and insightful argument, claiming that the government should not be concerned with the free will of the people unless explicit harm has been done to an individual. However, such ideals do not build a strong and lasting community. It is the role of the government to act in the best interests at all times through the prevention of harm and the encouragement of free thought.
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have
This is described in a citizen’s point of view as: “As long as I am obedient to the power of the state, the church, or public opinion, I feel safe and protected…my obedience makes me part of the power I worship” (Fromm 127). However, this creates a dangerous unity of a belief. This power is authority. Authority is anyone or anything with the capability to determine the outcome of issues/decisions over a group of people. The most poignant authority figure of today is the government. The government gets stricter based upon the needs of their people; however, with terrorist attacks, the government is the main entity people turn to. Everyone bands together and goes along with the government, but what if the government is wrong? What if the government’s idea of safety is not in the best interest of their people? Disobedience may be the only answer to some of the problems in today’s society. However, since disobedience has such a negative essence in society, most people try to stay away from it. The people who have made the biggest differences have been the most disobedient. With that said, obedience could be the biggest roadblock in the future of safety. Overall, “what is