advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Nobody's listening.

HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL GLENN RICHARDSON KILL THIS YEAR?

By
Neal Boortz
@ March 30, 2009 9:09 AM
Permalink | Comments (167) | TrackBacks (1)

Who is Glenn Richardson? My home town listeners probably know. He's the Republican Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives. By the end of this year he will have blood on his hands. Sounds rather strong, doesn't it? Well ... actions have consequences. Read on:

Several years ago, when Georgia passed its mandatory seatbelt law, the esteemed legislators in Atlanta decided to exempt pickups and light trucks. The exemption of light trucks like SUVs was later lifted, but pickup drivers can still drive around without buckling up.

Statistics show that fatalities in pickup accidents in Georgia exceed fatalities in other vehicles by 31%. You want an example? On March 15th Jack Sandifer was driving a Dodge pickup near Hawkinsville, Georgia. He lost control in the rain and hit a tree. Sandifer and his grandson died at the scene. Sandifer's wife died later at the hospital. None of them were wearing seatbelts. Georgia law didn't require it.

There is a picture of Jack Sandifer taken just after the accident. He's lying across the hood of his pickup - half in and half out of the car - his body sticking through the windshield. You can see the gash in his neck where the windshield sliced it. He was alive when the picture was taken .. but bled to death very soon after. I thought about posting it .. but out of respect for the Sandifer family I did not.

Georgia is the ONLY state in the nation where pickup trucks are exempted from mandatory seatbelt laws. There is a bill in the Georgia General Assembly this year to lift the exemption. It has already passed the Georgia Senate and there are enough votes in the House to pass it. It doesn't look like the House is going to get to vote on the bill however. I'm told that Speaker Richardson is refusing to allow it to come up for a vote. When asked why, he mutters something about government intrusion into our lives. Who knows what the real reason might be.

You want to talk about government intrusion? How about the government seizing money from me to pay for the medical treatment of idiots who don't fasten seatbelts? How about the expanded Medicaid costs? How about the danger from secondary collisions caused by people who aren't kept behind the wheel when they get into a wreck? Oh .. and how about the millions of Federal highway dollars the State of Georgia loses every year because of this pickup exemption?

And ... what about Jack Sandifer, his wife and his grandson. There's Jack ... lying on the hood of his pickup with his life pouring out of his severed neck.

Don't give me that "You're not a libertarian" crap either. You can drive your car all you want .. 24/7 .. on your own property or on the private property of another person without wearing a seatbelt. Go rent a racetrack and do it. When you elect to drive on public highways you are a party to a contract with every other driver. If that contract, which requires insurance, headlights, brakes and such as well as seatbelts, is too inconvenient for you .. then catch a cab.

How many people will die on Georgia roads during the next year because of one obstinate politician in Atlanta?

Oh ... someone asked me for Richardson's office number. Wait .. I think I have it around here somewhere. It's 404-656-5020. I'm not telling you to call. In fact, I'm asking you NOT to. He wouldn't understand what you're trying to tell him anyway. I just thought you might like to have the number on your rolodex in case you should ever need it.



1 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL GLENN RICHARDSON KILL THIS YEAR?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/26099

» Disagree with the Talkmaster from iamtheeviltwin

Disagree with the Talkmaster Read More

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Belinda Skelton, Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!


Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • are you stupid?
    the poeple asked for it no to be a law, when the people want it to be a law then go ahead and post this. They could chose to wear a seatbelt if the wanted to- but they didn't. You can choose to wear a seatbelt in a regular car. It's all about choice.
  • you deserve this
    Dude, why even try on this. Fair Tax Rules. Best regards, Keith
  • Milton and Ayn just rolled over in their graves!
    Neal! Say it ain't so! Maybe the blood you gave yesterday contained some of your rational brain matter too. I certainly don't want to pick up the tab for some ignorant SOB who is injured/killed for not wearing his/her seatbelt, but you are skating on thin ice my friend. Now, take the weekend off and brush up on "Free to Choose."
  • Hard to charge higher rates to the ignorant.
    I don't have a problem with seatbelt or motorcycle helmet laws. The issue is there will always be ignorant people who ignore them. The cost benefit in reduced insurance rates decreases in direct proportion to compliance. The problem is how do you pass on higher rates to those who don't comply with the legislation? It's difficult to charge them higher rates after the fact, when they are dead.
  • Buckle up!
    What happened to personal responsibility that Neal is so fond of? If there is no law then there is no contract. Not using a seat belt is like smoking- knock your self out doing it but don't make taxpayers pay for the the resulting health care costs.
  • Seatbelts
    As you posted..."which requires insurance, headlights, brakes" when referring to the "contract" we all have on public roads. I think all of those are in place to protect all other drivers. The seatbelt is there only to protect the driver. I personally think anyone is a fool to not wear one, especially if you happen to be hauling around your family, regardless of the law. My condolences to the Sandifer family. Accidents happen, especially in inclement weather. personal responsibility is at play here and not increased role of government. Dont use this crisis to embolden an already out-of-control government (local, state, or federal) I am all for tax-payer dollars to be used for educating the public on the ramifications of not wearing a seatbelt, but let each and everyone make that decision, and please, dont use one horrific example to emotionally draw one's opinion towards bigger government. Shame on you Mr. Libertarian!!!
  • Well, well, well
    This is how they get us to toe their line and hand over more control. They make us financially responsible for the actions of others and then allow our feeling of not wanting to pay for the actions of others against us. They have redirected us to exactly where they want us. Instead of controlling the debate toward the freedom of individuals to run their own lives without interference or assistance from others, they have gotten us to basically agree to the principle of forced altruism in regards to the health of others and focused us on controlling how much they take from us. I say we redirect the entire thing back to what it should be, individual freedom vs forced servitude.
  • Seatbelts and pickups
    Ok. So maybe you are talking about the stake picking up the healthcare costs if you are in an accident.

    I would care if the government would stop paying for all the other irresponsible (and avoidable) healthcare costs. Such as smoking, alcoholism, babies, illegal drug use, illegal aliens, and then someone can complain about not wearing seatbelts.
  • the problem with seat belt laws
    It is terrible that this family died probably because they weren't wearing their seat belts but the question I have is would a law have mattered? Do we really think that this family got into their truck thinking "we don't have to wear a seat belt because it's not required by law?" No. People who don't wear their seat belts don't do it because a) they don't want to or b) they don't care. I don't think a law really matters to them.
  • Seat belts
    Why does the .gov have to tell you to wear your belt? Just do it. You have not chance of controlling an out of control vehicle if you have slid out of your seat.
  • Really?
    Neal, you do realize that this is the same argument that liberals use for every government intrusion into our lives, right? It's the same argument people use for the keeping drugs illegal, "protect ourselves from ourselves". Not governments job. I own my body. It's my property and if I don't want to where a seat belt I don't have to (I always where a seat belt).
  • Seatbelt laws
    This is why I condider Neal to be to left wing. As others have stated, just don't pay their medical bills. Don't dictate that they wear seat belts. Banning butter and whole milk is in the logical progression from seat belt and helmet laws. A difference in degree, not in kind.
  • Interesting.
    So, we are under a "contract" on the roads? The closest thing to a contract I know of for said roads would be the law, and, look!, the law doesn't require pickup drivers to wear seatbelts, so ipso facto, that's not part of the contract. Neal, what you are really trying to say is "We need this bill to pass because I prefer it," which sounds awful, I dunno, liberal. Instead of "do it or get off the road", which is pretty arrogant considering that those people pay for the road as much as you do, how about getting rid of those pesky restrictions and laws that basically make you pay for others? Treat the disease, not the symptoms?

    BTW, this family not wearing their seatbelt has nothing to do with the topic at hand. My state requires seatbelts, and I drive a pick up. I don't wear it half the time. I know it's stupid, but the LAW doesn't buckle me up, common sense does, when I actually use it. This family? They probably wouldn't of worn them anyway.
  • So be it
    It's funny how sometims Neal is so-anti civil liberties. Why should a grown adult be forced to wear a selt belt ?

    Jack, the guy in the article is dead because of his own decision not to wear a seat belt, so be it. You don't want the government to be in charge of our healthcare, but you want a law in which they're in charge of our health (while driving) ?


    What next ? Want the Government to pass a law forcing people to eat healthy (because eating healthy saves lives). Perhaps a Law forcing people to exercise. That's healthy also.
  • Neil Is right about seatbelts
    The same thing can be said about guns ... the public should not have to pay for the care of the victims that the guns shoot -- the gun owner should pay for this. Right now it is against the law to have a gun if you are a felon, but legal in some states for a felon to vote. We need uniform gun laws that make it illegal for anyone to own a gun.
  • We need government?
    I should have read the entire bit before posting. Boortz's reasons do seem to make sense.
  • We need government?
    This part of Neal'z Nuze is surprising. I thought people were free to make decisions... then, free to pay the consequences. However, it sounds like people are free to wear a seat belt or not wear a seat belt; but, if they choose not to, and get into an accident, it's "the government's fault" and some politician "has blood on his hands."

    I'm a huge Boortz fan; but, the attitude here just doesn't seem right.
  • Had enough
    If you have had enough, visit http://taxdayteaparty.com/
    To find your closest party on April 15th
  • Leave it up to insurance companies
    Should be left up to insurance companies.

    If they have strong evidence that you didn't wear your seatbelt then they aren't liable for coverage.

    Problem is, in this welfare state, the rest of us will pick up the tab.

    Choice of freedom to make your own choices, or freedom to open your wallet to others through wealth redistribution. Victim mentality has brought this country down, and quickly headed towards third-world status.

    Lose either way.
  • Seatbelt laws
    Hey Neal,

    I wear my seatbelt. I feel like someone is stupid not to wear one. I really would urge people to wear their seatbelts. But forcing people to wear them through the police power of government simply isn't the way to do it. I'm not going to scream hypocrite, I just think you are leading with your heart on this one. That makes you a human being, but not a good basis for law.

    Neal, the example you are using is tragic, and you cant help but feel for this family, but the fact is the kid made a bad choice. IF we are going to use the pain of the family as rationale to pass a law, where does that stop? Isn't this the same logic behind those who want trigger lock laws...how tragic it is when some kid shoots himself? Of course it is, but the fact that someone makes a bad choice with tragic results isnt a basis for encroaching on my freedom.

    As for medical costs to the public,doesnt this rationale for lawmaking start us down a slippery slope? Can you imagine the gerrymandering of logic that politicians will embark upon trying to prove that there is some cost to the public if their particular pet project doesnt get passed? We dont want to go there.
  • Responsibility anyone
    Agreed with the social contract on obeying rules when operating a vehicle on public roads. Lets face it though, as cold hearted as it may sound, we have known about the value of seatbelts for over 3 decades now. Is there nothing more infuriating than seeing an ADULT riding around in a vehicle with kids and no one is strapped into a child seat or seat belt? I have not so gently chided people when they have their rug rats running all over the car. You can't govern out the level of ignorance that surrounds us. You can only teach them.
    Here is an idea: Make the law so that a first time offender has to go see an exhibition of a real crash with a "dummy" that is not strapped in and get to view the results. On the second offense, they get to be the "dummy".
  • huh!!!!
    I have to say i am disappointed in your stand on this. How can you possibly say you're for personal liberty and be against the right to make bad decisions at the same time...if someone chooses to make a hazardous decision then it should be THEIR RIGHT not the STATES...What's next,, the right to own guns should be regulated because someone might get shot or the right to fart should be regulated because soemone might be offended or it contributes to global warming!!!! Come on, personal freedom is PERSONAL FREEDOM. Things happpen in life, we can not and shoud not be the abriter to mae sure others abide by rules that we feel we feel will protedt us during our lives. You're going down a slipeery slope here!!!!
  • Doesn't Need to be Law, Just common Sense
    Legislating away Stupidity doesn't work--wearing seatbelts is the smart thing to do. If you wear your seatbelt, great, if you don't, your stupid and please take Public Transportation.
  • You
    Neil, You want to force people to "buckle up", however abortions when they feel like it are OK. You don't like tobacco users, but pot smoking (legalized) is, in your mind fine. I'm confused. The Fair Tax is a good, albeit fantastic dream.
  • Government interference..Public good?
    Where will it stop? Mandate seat belts! Sure it makes sense to wear them. But the government telling us what makes us safe? What next healthcare? Gun laws? Fast food?
  • Freedom or Finances?
    This article is so far off it almost sounds like a joke, coming from a conservative host. Here's another one: Mr. Richardson needs to decide that airplanes are too dangerous for Georgians; after all, some of them are gonna crash, and seatbelts or no, he wouldn't want that on his conscience, would he?. Sorry Neal ol' boy, you'll just have to mount that Mooney on a pole and look at it.
  • seatbelt
    If Neal is so concerned with lives he needs to work on banning smokes, beer, junk food etc. Till then.....sit down hypocrite. If he believes we should stay out of a woman's impregnated womb then stay out of my truck.
  • right conclusion, bad logic
    Neal, Glen Richardson will not be responsible for any deaths. People make their own choices for seatbelt choices...and they live or die by the consequences of their own actions.

    The problem in this instance is that a single individual has the power to prevent a legislative body from discussing and voting on a topic. A legislative body should never allow such an event to happen. Similar things happen at the Federal level with the power of a Senator to put a "hold" on a bill to prevent discussion and vote. Glen is wrong to prevent discussion.....but he will not be responsible for any deaths.
  • What?!
    Neal, you are so wrong here. It doesn't even warrant a response, but I'll give you one anyway. If you're willing to support government intrusion into my vehicle and my decision to NOT wear my seatbelt, you might as well bend over and join the Socialists. Good riddens. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
  • Seatbelt laws
    You ought to be smart enough to wear your seatbelt without waiting for the nanny state to make you put it on. People who don't wear seatbelts have been exposed to enough reports on seatbelt death rates to know better. It is not Glenn Richardson's fault these people are dead.
  • Post the link!
    I believe everyone under the age of 18 should be seatbelted, Just because a few idiots choose not to buckle in, those kids with underdeveloped brains cannot make the choice on their own.

    I would like you to post the link, as I have two driving teenagers who could use a little visual jolt. The posted video a few days ago of the driver shot out of his car, doing a header on the freeway was quite helpful in this, but a photo of a man through a windshield should be even more effective.
  • Seat belts in Pick Ups
    Neal. Normally you always speak my thoughts, and I generally agree. But the seat belt deal is still a personal thing. Not wearing a seat belt does not make me a criminal. If the government thinks they need to be involved, do all the educating they feel necessary. Pulling people over for moving violations is dangerous enough along a busy highway. Pulling some one over for a seat belt violation adds more risk than it prevents. While my sympathy goes to those families who lose some one to an auto or truck accident, it is still a personal choice. Hey, I wear mine, my kids wear theirs. But we don't need laws from the government to protect us from ourselves.
  • seat belts
    Boortz it looks like you only want the government to step in when u think it is a good idea... Could it be you are just a little like that scum Obama?? I don't see you saying anything about the truckers that ride your ass or nearly knock you off the road when they decide to come over on you on the interstate. But the interstate is littered by the signs don't pull to close in front of the big proffesional truck driver or he might run over you. We all know it takes twice the distance for the truck driver to stop at the same speed as a car. How about signs that say the truck drivers should go half the speed of the car. And the catch all oh they have a blind spot and can't see you. Has anyone heard of high tech.. Maybe a few low cost monitors on a $200,000 vechile to save a few lifes nahh makes to easy and logical....
  • seat belts
    Yeah neal, because laws always make people follow the desired outcome and enforcing your will down other peoples throats is always better than persuading people to see it your way.
  • Glenn Richardson
    Who is Glenn Richardson you say. Just another useless moron in a long list of morons (as in Tom Murphy) in the Ga legislature. This arrogant jerk thinks he is Lord Over Georgia, as Murphy did! I hope all the morons who refuse to use seatbelts in trucks or cars get their just rewards. The only problem is, if they live, we will have to cover the bast***s hospital bills!

    Speaking of hospital bills how about the legislative morons having to be forced to push thru a trauma bill. I hope every one of the jerks have major trauma over an hour away from the 4 level 1 centers in Atlanta,Macon,Savannah or Augusta. We need less idiots in our world!!!
  • Bravo Listeners
    Biggest response to a topic I've seen yet on the forums. Neal, the problem is government health care not seat belt laws.
  • I wear a seatbelt everytime I'm in a car. Why? because it's a good idea, not becasue the government puts a gun to my head and says that it is for my own safety.
  • seat belt
    I hope you're joking on being all worked up on this one. What happened to personal freedom? Are you sipping the Koolaid or sniffing the powdered mix?
  • Yeah he's a libertarian
    Don't give me that "You're not a libertarian" crap either. You can drive your car all you want .. 24/7 .. on your own property or on the private property of another person without wearing a seatbelt. Go rent a racetrack and do it. When you elect to drive on public highways you are a party to a contract with every other driver. If that contract, which requires insurance, headlights, brakes and such as well as seatbelts, is too inconvenient for you .. then catch a cab.

    Yeah Neal's all about Librty when it is somebody wanting him to do something he does not want. But grant someone else and all of a sudden . . . Public roads and public airways. Same same. Government owns it cause they say they do. You want to smoke. Ride in a car with no seat belt. Or listen to dingdong blather on the radio you should be allowed to. But if you are going to control people don't get all picky and high and mighty when other people want to do the very same thing to you.
  • seatbelts in pick up trucks
    Fine, I don't care if an unbuckled driver of a pick up is killed. But said driver must ALWAYS be a sole occupant. NO passengers. Then, if said driver is fortunate enough to survive an accident, the TAXPAYER does NOT have have to pick up ANY of the tab for said driver's medical care, rehabilitation, or disability resulting from that accident.

    Anyone who drives without a seatbelt is a loser with a capital "L" on his or her forehead. I am tired of paying for bums, baby mamas, gun shot wouunds of gang members, unhelmeted brain injuries, and anyone else to stupid too care for themselves.
  • Seatbelt laws
    Look, you pay insurance and with full coverage that covers medical bills that come from the accident.

    Here is how you solve this, it is real easy, the insurance company asks do you wear your seat belt, if you say yes great you are covered in the noraml policy. If you say no, then you have to pay higher premiums.

    Oh but you say someone will just lie, thats ok, if they get a seatbelt ticket, they then pay double the premium if they had said no up front. They would also sign a line stating if they are in a accident with no seat belt on, they would be liable for all costs of the accident. They would get no government funding/assistance, no medicaid, nothing. If they blatently lie they wear a seat belt and dont, then they should suffer for not answering truthfully and paying the extra fees for insurance.
  • seatbelts
    Sorry, have to go against you. You should not have to wear seatbelts, wear a helmet, or anyother protective gear on any highway. It is your right to be free. However, ALL health and vehicle insurance policies that are purchased should have these clauses in them that if you are not wearing a seat belt, safety gear, etc...they are not liable to pay any of your bills, or damages you cause. Simple. Less government, more freedom, more consequences of actions.
  • Seatbelt law
    so Neal shows his true colors...a "cafeteria Libertarian"...picking anbd choosing which rights you should have in your life...when the Govt says they know what good for you , he squeals like a piggie....but when HE knows what's good for you other drivers...and you call him on it...he takes the typical liberal stance - attack the accuser
  • GA Seatbelt Law
    Neal,

    Love you long time but sometimes you really contradict your Libertarian foundation. You are correct that our money should not be seized to pay for the medical costs of idiots. But to me, this should just be another Boortz "DRT" story. Too stupid to wear a seatbelt? Too stupid to live.
  • Clearly not consistent
    It's been said before in the comments, but clearly you're being inconsistent about this. Irrationality and inconsistencies are supposed to be the hallmark of liberals; it's too bad you have succumbed in this case. I can only hope you're testing the libertarian-ness of your readers.
  • Neal's seatbelt rant
    Neal, I once heard you say that you didn't believe there should be a law against any person's actions as long as those actions do not infringe upon another person's property, freedom, economic liberty, or rights as an individual. Why then would you be in favor of a law that takes away an individual's right to choose (to wear or not to wear a seatbelt) when that choice has no effect on any other person? Haven't you contradicted yourself? Maybe/maybe not? I don't really buy the contract argument since the seatbelt in my vehicle in no way negatively affects that safety of other drivers on the road. At any rate, great job with the show!! Love it.
  • Helmets in cars
    I wore my bicycle helmet once in my car. I felt extremely safe...
    Maybe we should mandate that too.
    We should probably put big stickers on peoples dashboards reminding them to wear their seat belts and helmets. Maybe add some statistics too with an image of someone flying through a windshield.
  • Sticking to what they know...
    After recieving a notice from my insurance company about a premium increase for uninsured motorists...you don't want to get me started! Why do we have to increase coverage for uninsured motorists? Because the Ga. State Legislature says so. Why do we have so many people driving without insurance? How do they get around it and stay on the road? Or how about why do we have to cover their burden? I wonder of this weasel voted for that gem of a law? And anyone who chooses to ride without their seatbelt should have a waiver signed to prevent a penny being paid out to their own family or their own medical bills. How's that for clever legislation? If I have to pay more, shouldn't I have a say in the matter? And I'm waiting for an explanation as to why I have to cover the uninsured. I pay my premiums, have a clean record, wear my damn seatbelt, why am I being punished?
  • Helmets and bright colors
    Neal, it sounds like you would be in favor of mandating we all wear helmets inside our cars too. While we're at it, we should paint every car bright yellow-orange so that they are more visible. Both would save lives for certain, but the cost to liberty and freedom is too high to pay in my book. That is why I wear my seat belt and oppose laws that mandate their use, except for minors. Children should be forced to wear them, adults should not.
  • No seatbelt laws
    No public money for health care for idiots that don't wear seat belts either. And the insurance companies should have a clause that if you don't wear them they don't pay. But NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT!
  • two days early
    Just curious... if this had been posted on Wednesday, would any of you taken it seriously?
  • A Question for Neal
    You claim that helments shouldn't be manditory for motorcycle drivers, but we shouldn't be responsible for covering their medical costs... isn't this a bit hypocritical?
  • Richardson
    Damned it must be difficult being perfect.
  • M.C.
    Seatbelts can injure a person depending on the accident, size of the person (big or small), etc...
    Your friend's statistics are a bit skewed. I guess if you ask ONE tunnel vision hippy-type person (not saying your friend is one of these) - you will get an extremely condensed, biased opinion.
    My 5yr old son was injured by a seatbelt. He met the height/weight requirements to not have to use a car seat. We were in a head-on collision and his neck was broken by the seatbelt. He was paralyzed for 6wks. He's fine now (and 20yrs old). I had severe facial injuries from the steering wheel. These are facts.
    You would think that after such an experience, I would have sworn off seatbelts and steering wheels.

    A seatbelt WILL more likely than not protect you in an automobile accident. A steering wheel is an absolute safety feature that I would not do without. Laws or no laws I am utilizing every piece of safety gear available in a car.

    On the other end of this spectrum – When I was a kid growing up in Buckhead, I saw a car stop very suddenly at a yellow traffic light. The car behind him following too close smashed into the back of the car that stopped suddenly. His head went partially through the windshield. He lost one of his eyes. I was at a bus stop at that light when this happened – I had the best view possible. Lucky me! I have no idea of the extent of his injuries. He was conscious. Wouldn’t that be a great thing to go through???

    If he’d had his seat belt on, he would have had a torn up car but he wouldn’t have lost his eye – and whatever else…
  • Seat belts
    I have to agree with the other comments, Neal. You are talking from both sides of your mouth on this one. Freedom of choice must always prevail unless there is a direct and evidential link between the choice not to wear a seatbelt and the jeopardy of some other person's rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, etc.). Just like someone smoking or being overweight - the onus is on them, and it only hurts them.
  • Seatbelts
    Why not just amend the law to say that any idiot who is not wearing their seatbelt and involved in a wreck and seriously injured waives his right to any State funded medical care? Or better yet, apply the DNR or assisted suicide rule to them?
  • Re: HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL GLENN RICHARDSON KILL THIS YEAR?
    The fact that vehicle seat belts help protect drivers and passengers is an undeniable fact. Trying to mandate their use through government regulation is a pretty futile endeavor.

    Actually, the automotive industry could resolve the problem quite simply by interlocking the vehicle's ignition system with the seat belt and shoulder restraint system. In other words, the vehicle won't start unless seat belts are fastened in all occupied passenger seats.

    You know, sort of like the squat switch on aircraft with retractable landing gear to keep really dumb pilots from retracting the landing gear while the plane is parked.
  • @ Perdidochas
    We are not missing the point. Our point is that the solution to the problem is not more government interference. It is less.
    If the only argument for seat belt laws is that of increased health care cost, then we should do away with the government’s role in health care. You cannot have it both ways. If government is in charge of your health, then it is essentially in control of your life and how you live it. This is the problem we freedom fighters have with the seatbelt laws. This is the ideological issue we are arguing against.
  • Don't tell me what to do.
    If people don't want to wear seatbelts who cares....Are we going to get rid of motor cycles? Are they not more deadly then cars and pick-ups...Neil, you are start to sound very much like a democrat. Depression is a killer to, are we going to make it illegal too?
  • right on
    I think everyone's missing the point here and it has nothing to do with passing or not passing a stupid seat belt law. As Neal stated you want to talk about government intrusion look at this healthcare reform that will have us all paying an unearned benefit to jerks who don't want to wear a seatbelt.
  • I agree with the majority on this one
    I drive a truck and ALWAYS wear my seat belt even though the law says I don't have to do it. I wear a seatbeat in my car long before it became a law also. I hope my wife never recieves the life insurance policy payout simply because that means I'm dead.

    Responsiblity!!!

    And yes it is kind of silly to exempt one type of vehicle.
  • Seatbelts??
    Neal, aren't you a libertarian? I think each person has the right to wear a seat belt, wear a helmet or not but it shouldn't be our problem to pay for it if they don't
  • Neal, please stop defending and promoting the nanny state. Seat belt use should be an individual choice by adults regardless of vehicle type. Will you have the gov goons come by to check if I have brushed my teeth? How about checking for clean underwear? Mandatory seatbelt use inappropriately limits my liberty as protected by the 5th amendment.
  • Put financial teeth in seatbelt and helmet laws
    I don't always agree with you but we are in perfect tune of the subject of seatbelts and helmet laws. When I was 21, I was not smart enough to wear a seatbelt. I was in the Navy at the time and they came out with a policy that they would not pay to put you back together if you were in an accident and didn't have your belt on. That changed my ways. Now, I'm 47 and feel loose in my car if I don't have my seatbelt buckled.
  • New Hampshire
    I seem to remember an article a couple years ago in the Chicago Tribune about seat belt laws and how Illinois was getting better with its new laws (still among the worst in the nation). But analysis of the data screamed the case of New Hampshire, the ONLY state in the union without seat belt laws and the lowest fatality per capita of all the states. Why? Maybe NH has more responsible people? Funny how the Tribune article didn't talk about NH at all...
  • Solution...
    I don’t think changing the laws is going to solve anything. It is unfortunate that they excluded trucks if they must have a seatbelt requirement for cars. That just doesn’t make sense. Do you not have to have a child in a car seat if they are riding in a truck?
    I really do agree with most of the posters before me. This is legislating common sense.
    I ahave no doubt that if insurance companies made it policy to reject payment of claims in the case of this sort of stupidity.

    The company I work for (a business to business hardware/software company)informed all employees that if you are in an accident and it is discovered that you were not wearing a seatbelt - medical coverage through our company will not pay anything toward your injuries. They also stated that you will be fired it is discovered that you are not wearing a seatbelt.

    Our company has offices in Houston, TX and Dayton, OH. In the Houston headquarters, when you are hired, you have to sign an affidavit indicating that you do not smoke or use tobacco products. If you sign this and you are caught smoking – anywhere or anytime, on the clock or off – you will be fired.

    In all of the other locations, Atlanta and Dayton and even remote workers – You are required to tell them if you are a smoker. If you are a smoker, your insurance is twice as much as a non-smoker. Not only does my company perform random drug tests on all employees but, included in the test (a mouth swab test) is a test for tobacco use. If you are a smoker and you have not informed them of this, to avoid paying the higher premiums – if it is discovered that you do indeed smoke, you are fired.
  • Seat belts
    Is Neal starting to lose his mind? I second what everyone is saying here. Seatbelts being worn should be upto the individual. I do not see how others would be hurt on some grand scale from a driver not wearing a seat belt. If something would toss you thru the glass of your car, I would assume seatbelt or no seatbelt the individual has lost control over the vehicle. This is so un like Neal. Maybe there is a new Obama beam that is slowly implanting government approved Obama thoughts into his head.
  • nanny state
    Some libertarion you are.Tax only smokers,then your rant about seet belts.Is their any thing you dont want the govt. in charge of?
  • Critics of Neal are missing the point
    The critics of Neal on this issue are missing the point. The point is in this welfare state we live in, if Bubba wrecks his pickup, goes through the windshield and is paralyzed from the neck down, all of us pay for his foolishness through increased taxes to pay for his medical care and upkeep.

    I'm sure that Neal would be against seatbelt laws in a free nation that isn't a welfare state.
  • Glen Richardson
    Bill, by your own logic then if someone is killed by wearing their seatbelt then their blood is on YOUR hands.I know a member of the fatalities unit here in macon and he told me he has seen many many more that were killed because they had seatbelts on than without them.If you are over a certain weight then the danger from injuries from seat restraint is more severe, of course I know you hate large people.
  • Did Neal Boortz Write This Article?!?!
    Neal, you're a great American and you're right 99.9% of the time, but you missed it on this one. Here is what I thought you'd say about this: If you're stupid enough to not wear a seatbelt and you kill yourself because of it; well, that's one less idiot in the world.
  • Total number of deaths caused by Glenn Richardson
    Zero.

    Total number of deaths caused by others not wearing seatbelts: However many the coroner says there are, with the caveat that we are assuming they are being completely forthright.

    Total number of taxpayer and/or insurance dollars paid out to fix those who aren't DRT or DOA: However much they are willing or obligated to pay.

    It's this last part that should be getting the rage, not the first.
  • Seat belts
    Neal?!? Did the government keep Jack Sandifer and his family from wearing their seat belts - seems like it was their own choice - and they paid for their stupidity. You seem to think that they would have worn them if a law was in place - yah right - I never see people breaking the speed limit laws. I wear mine but if someone else doesn't want to isn't that their choice - it only hurts themselves for the most part (hey, isn't that the argument for legalizing drugs)? Are you trying to legislate good judgment? If you are talking healthcare costs when are you proposing we control what people eat and what they do (if you get hurt driving on your own land you still go to the same hospital). Kind of surprised by your take on this.
  • Libertarian??
    How can a Libertarian support seatbelt laws? If you are dumb enough not to wear seatbelts, you risk your own life. You do not pose any risks to others.
  • WOW - April FOOL??
    Neal -
    Like many others, i heard this rant and wondered what your personal agenda is against this particular politician, to come down on him so hard for not wanting government to mandate one more thing in our lives.

    I would be happy if Richardson voted to REPEAL all manditory seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc.

    You cannot legislate responsibility.

    The vehicle had seatbelts. The driver chose not to wear them. The boy's grandmother could have told him to buckle up (and it still might not have saved a life...).

    No LAW would have forced this man and his family to buckle up. Unless, of course, you want to position a police officer in the back seat of every car, or check compliance at every intersection with gulag style roadblocks...
  • Seatbelts and Public Money
    Neal, how much money did the gov't save by have the victims of this crash die right there? Imagine the enormous bills for care if they had survived?! Imagine how much more money would have been spent on their care by Medicare and Medicaid if they lived to be 100!

    The argument doesn't work, Neal.
  • seat belt laws
    Other posters are completely right - if you don't want to wear a seat belt, a law won't stop you. There's a new law in my state that you can only talk on the phone in the car if it is hands free. People still talk on their phones all the time in the car. You cannot legislate common sense.
  • Had to happen sooner or later
    Neal: you absolutely got this one right.

    Now, I have to go rinse my mouth out.
  • Seat belts
    I have to disagree with your position. What ever happened to the concept of greater freedom comes greater responsibility? Your support hinges upon the belief that it is okay for the government to impose its will when the unfortunate consequences cost society in general. Neal, are you for mandatory health care? Using your seat belt logic you should be. It costs all of us if someone is not insured.
  • Inconsistent as you age, Neal
    I don't think there should be any seatbelt law whatsoever. IF you're stupid enough to not wear one: 1. A law isn't going to make you. 2. You are making the gene pool shallower. That's all these "safety" regs do, dumb down America by letting Darwin award candidates live.
  • Holy cow
    Neal is becoming more and more convinced that people are not responsible for their actions. This guy holds up a seat belt law and Neal says he's responsible for the deaths of people who don't use seat belts. So if you're for the second amendment are you responsible for the misuse of firearms in crimes too?

    He's also all for using tax policy to target habits he doesn't like (smoking). Is alzheimers setting in? This is a libertarian?
  • Ahhh....the public roadways excuse. I'm sure you'd support the Fairness Doctrine due to the public airways excuse then. After all you can have your own radio show on the internet or as private recordings you listen to at home where you can say whatever you want. Enter the public airways though and the government gets to tell you what you can and cannot say. Only fair, right?
  • 1.Seatbelts should not be mandatory at all expect for those who do not have insurance (auto or health). In other words, if the state is going have to pay for any part of your medical care, than you should be required to wear seatbelts.
    2. Insurance company could (and I think should) put a clause in their policy that would void the coverage for you and anyone else riding in your vehicle, if they are not wearing seat belts.
    3. But there should be no difference on what type of vehicle you drive as to if you are required to wear seat belts or not. (but please refer back to #1 and #2)
  • Whatever happened to that libertarian called Boortz?
    There once was a fellow named Neal Boortz who believed that as long as you didn't harm anyone else, you should be free to do what you wanted. Wonder what happened to that old boy?

    Seems to me that instead of campaigning to make the people less free (i.e., by passing a law requiring them to wear seat belts), we ought to be campaigning to keep the government from spending tax money to pay people's medical bills.
  • Neal, you are inconsistent...
    Neal, how many times have you decried the "for the children" or the "if it will save one life" arguments, only to pull them here. Here is the reason that we should have truck seatbelt laws:
    because someone could be held responsible for the death of another person when the death would not have occured had the deceased been in a seatbelt. Example: I am driving down the road in a rainstorm, I hydroplane and lose control of my car, and hit a pickup head-on. The three people in the pickup, who would have had nothing other than minor injuries had they been belted, die. The police charge ME with THEIR deaths because THEY did not have seatbelts on and the accident was my fault ("driving too fast for conditions"). It is similar to motorcycle helmet laws. From a libertarian standpoint, people ought to be able to not wear seatbelts or helmets IF they take responsibility for the consequences of any accident no matter who is at fault. Otherwise, someone could be held liable in criminal or civil court for the stupidity of someone else... and that is just wrong. THAT is why we need seatbelt laws for trucks... not because it will save a life.
  • If you're pulling enough Gs to be thrown from your seat...
    ...you aren't driving anymore, you're riding. That said, the control issue is the only argument for adult seat belt laws that has ANY merit.
  • Question
    How many of these people that "kill themselves" by not wearing a seatbelt do not have insurance? How much of that does the state end up paying?
  • Seatbelts
    More people die from smoking and I don't see a bill to make it illegal.
    Doesn't set too well with me when a punk cop telling me he is saving my life by making me pay money for not wearing a seat belt or driving through his town.
    Let's go further and require seat belts and roll cages on scooters. The meter maids can really write some money coupons before the donuts get cold.
    Huh? What do you say?
  • Seatbelt law
    I don't understand why by law you have to wear a seat belt in a car and not a truck. But, for argument, the law does not state that you must not wear a seat belt in a truck, just that you don't have to. Neal, I love ya bud, but this argument is almost the same as saying that if you don't ban cigarette use in GA then you have blood on your hands every time someone dies of lung cancer. In today's world, people should know the importance of wearing their seat belt, it is still their choice. I for one own a truck and I wear my seat belt every time I drive it.

    Chris
  • Seat belt law
    Neal, I normally agree with most of your ideas, but this one I do not understand. Why should the government tell me, a valid driver in the state of Georgia that I have to wear a seat belt. I do not believe in seat belt laws nor helmet laws for anyone over 18 with a valid drivers license.
  • Seatbelt laws.
    And all this time I thought Boortz "got it". Silly me.
  • First cigs, now seatbelts
    This is just another "for the better of society" laws just like the taxes on cigs that I commented on. Neil, what has happened to you? Yes, it is stupid to drive without the use of every safety feature. If this were a free society, then the insurance companies could either have and endorsement for not wearing your seatbelt or not cover those not wearing seatbelts at all. Where did freedom go?
  • Give Me a Break
    I agree that the state should enforce the law for seatbelts in pick-up trucks but Glenn Richardson is not responisible for other people's behavior. Under your logic the government should regulate how much alcohol a person drinks because if you drink to much you die. Give me a break, Neal.
  • Just sad
    Blaming Glenn Richardson because of someone else's lack of personal responsibility..A sensationalist headline...Giving up on fighting the "nanny state". Where is the Neal Boortz I've listened to for so many years? Has he been replaced with a Stepford host? You may not want to hear the "you're not a libertarian" crap but I think you should seriously reconsider whether you should continue to use that term to describe yourself.
  • Seat Belt Law
    Sorry Neal,

    You are definitely being hypocritical here. Same with your stance on motorcycle helmet laws. Laws enacted in the name of safety of the individual are still individual intrusions on freedom.

    Let me ask you a few questions. Would it be OK for me not to wear a seat belt if I could provide proof of health insurance? Should I be required to wear a helmet while riding my bicycle, while I am skiing, what next? Freedom requires us to make personal choices. They aren't always good ones, but that goes with the package. Having a law won't make people wear their seat belts. It is still a choice. That is freedom.
  • Seatbelts
    Neal, you're just wrong on this. Freedom means freedom to be stupid too. In virginia, it is the law to wear seatbelts, yet many people still don't and die needlessly in traffic accidents. Bad luck + bad choices = Bad consequences. You can't change that. I also find it strange that I would ever find myself telling you that.
  • Hypocrisy much?
    It is amazing that boortz takes this position. What is more dangerious, a. a person in a pickup with no seatbelt. b. a person on a motor cycle(as Boortz does).

    I will take "a" anyday of the week.

    on a side note, boortz believes we should OUTLAW a WHOLE breed of dogs(American pit bull terriers) because of a few idiot dog owners. By the way, it is the ONLY truly American breed of dog, and a very fine breed it is.I have owned quite a few.
  • I agree with Boortz
    Will wonders never cease, I actually agree with something Boortz has said.

    I, too, am shocked at how anyone could exempt pickup trucks from seatbelt laws. But, then again, this is Georgia.
  • Some Liberatarian
    All this time I thought of you as a Libertarian. It seems I was wrong; you are only one of those self-proclaimed Libertarians who are seeking the smugness of belong to a different group. “Look at me; I dance to the beat of a different drummer. I’m better than you sheeple.”
    If saving you money is justification for the passing of any law, then skiing should be outlawed; same for skateboards and football and soccer, hunting, boating, horseback riding, and even driving faster than 15 miles per hour. Not wearing a seatbelt or helmet harms no one else, only the potential of harm to the individual who makes the decision. Real Libertarians believe individuals take responsibility for themselves.
    BTW, show me the proof that Jack Sandifer would have been wearing a seatbelt even if your state had a mandatory law in effect.
    Get real Neal, or at least come clean with you public about your Libertarian views.
  • Just a test
    You know what I think? I think Neal is testing his audience to see if they've learned. I bet you he's smiling in his chair as he reads these responses knowing that his message is catching on. Less Government Good, more government bad.
  • Seat Belt Laws
    People not wearing seat belts are making that choice (with the possible exception of children). The million or so people that have died in Iraq since the U.S. invasion did not have that choice. Who has blood on their hands?
  • YOU'RE ALL WRONG!!!!
    Not wearing a seatbelt DOES affect other people. The ability to properly and safely maintain control of a car/truck is directly affected by whether you are strapped in to your seat.

    Example: if you were to blow a tire and begin to swerve wildly, if you weren't buckled into your seat then you are not in control of your vehicle. You could be in thrown into the passenger seat whilst your vehicle careens into a bus full of children. (overly-dramatic yes....but possible)

    Ask any race car driver.... without proper restraint the ability to safely control a 4000lb missile is greatly diminished.

    Same goes for helmets. Going even 60mph and getting hit in the face with debris can cause a chain of accidents affecting more than your precious little butt.

    Believe it or not...you are MORE "free" by having laws like this.
  • Contradictions and Scofflaws
    Neal, this seems to be contradictory to your rants against helmet laws. But that's just me.

    The real question is the necessity of the law. Do you think that the idiots who don't buckle up would change because of a pesky little law that says they have to? That is only partly rhetorical. I'd like to know what you think about that. These are the same type of idiots that know smoking will eventually kill you, but they do it anyway.

    Law or no law, boneheads will be boneheads. With a seatbelt law in place, you just open the door to more government intrusion when the real idiots will drive around without it anyway.
  • Aliens abducted Neal again?
    Must be the case, for if not Neal needs his meds QUICKLY!
    Is this not a similar argument that if Richardson is responciple for people's deaths because they didn't wear a seatbelt in a pickup truck, then GUNS really do kill people and not people with guns killing people?
    Really not your best position here based on previous rants on air and in print Neal...
    Please tell me it's an early April Fool's Day joke!
  • Please God Let This be an April Fools' Joke
    Two wrongs don't make a right... so we are forced (wrongly) to pay for medical care and Medicaid, etc. Does this mean we should commit another wrong (hard paternalism - the opposite of the libertarian values I hold dear) to avoid paying for these? Secondly, there is scarce, if any, evidence that "secondary accidents" are ever caused by the driver not wearing his seatbelt; it's just something politicians came up with to justify dictating something that shouldn't be dictated.
  • wrong
    There shouldn't be a law to require any motorist to wear a seatbelt. What the law should say is that if any passenger in the vehicle is not wearing a seat belt, no individual or insurance company should be required to pay for any realted healthcare costs for any injuries sustained in an accident.
  • There's no law against using seat belts in a truck.
    It's not Glen Richardson's fault others make bad choices.

    Thank you Mr. Richardson for helping to protect my freedom to make my choices and live or die with the consequences. That's all I've ever asked. I'll continue to wear my seatbelt, and insist my passengers do as well(That's never a problem, the way I drive, lol), because I know what can happen if I don't.

    If the government would stay out of health care like they are supposed to under our Constitution, this would not be an issue. When you give up responsibility for something you lose the freedom to make any choices effecting that responsibility. Freedom and responsibility are inseperable and I will gladly keep them both.
    I'm proud any time the Georgia GOP recognizes I'm an adult, and they aren't my Mother or Father. Nice to know I still have something to vote for, rather than against.
  • Seatbelts for pickups.
    Neal, I'll come to your rescue, since no one else seems to be so inclined. I will go so far as to say that I agree that mandatory seat belt laws are intrusive, but I do think your point regarding the ability of being able to control your vehicle when in an accident is a valid reason for a seat belt requirement for all vehicles. If an individual were involved in an accident that caused them to lose control of their vehicle and veer into oncoming traffic, those other injured (or killed) drivers bear no responsibility for the irresponsibility of the driver who chose not to wear their seat belt. Statistically, it has been proven time and time again that seat belts save lives, why anyone would willingly choose to endanger their own lives, much less those of other drivers is beyond my understanding, but as long as people have the right to do so, they will. I do also agree that legislation should be passed requiring use of a seat belt to be a stipulation for insurance validity, otherwise all bets should be off!
  • Seatbelts and personal responsibility
    So with your logic, nobody would do anything that makes good sense without a law. I'm very disappointed in your position Neal!

    Are you also for the laws against trans fats? Can't have those hard arteries now can we?

    How about speed limits? If we could only go 15 mph there would be a huge reduction in traffic fatalities.

    Government can't insulate people from stupid behavior.
  • wrong wrong wrong
    I put seat belts in my wife's 64 pickup back in the 80s, but that was my decision.
  • Stupidity Should Hurt
    Jack Sandifer was an idiot. Stupidity should hurt. In this case, it hurt a lot. But that is no reason for government to step in. You are as bad on this issue as congress passing a law to ban interstate transport of monkeys after than horrible attack. Just because dumb people do dumb things, government does not need to pass a law.
  • Disappointed with the Libertarian
    You do want it both ways.

    Nanny state protecting you from everything, but keep the Nanny state from forming and keep it out of our lives.

    You can't have it both ways.

    I grew up wearing seat belts. I'm very uncomfortable sitting in a car not wearing one.

    And, yes, I own a pickup truck in the state of Georgia. And I wear a seatbelt because it makes me comfortable to wear it. I didn't even realize there was a law covering it, or there was an option to not wear them in a pickup truck.

    I wear them because I want to, and I'm comfortable with the feeling of safety provided.

    But this politician is responsible for people's stupidity now?

    Nobody forced them to NOT wear their seatbelts in their pickup. Every vehicle manufactured in America since the 70's has seat belts. They're there, they knew better, but decided to risk it and sit on them. They lost.

    Mandating seat belts, no smoking, no drinking, church on Sundays, what's next?

    Sorry. They chose not to wear them because there was no law forcing them to wear them? Stupidity. They're dead now. Their fault.

    I feel bad for the loss their family suffered. My heart goes out to them.

    But this ain't Richardson's fault. This is, was, Sandifer's fault.
  • Seat Belts
    While we're at it, lets mandate helmets for all drivers, since head injuries are the common result of auto accidents. While we're at it, lets also outlaw motorcycles altogether since you're far more likely to sustain a serious injury even with a helmet. We can then move on to a ban on skydiving, skiing, skateboards,ladders and bathtubs.

    You're woefully inconsistent here Neal. If I don't wear a seatbelt (I do), it doesn't directly infringe on anyone's rights. Therefore the government doesn't have a right to tell me to wear one. The insurance argument is bogus and could be used to outlaw ANY activity the government thinks is too dangerous. That's a problem of pooled risk, which is an excuse to control every politically incorrect behavior in the name of controlling costs.

    Seat belts aren't the problem. Government control over health care is.
  • Seat Belts
    Jack Sandifer: DRT!
  • Hypocracy
    I have to agree with many other comments on this show. You don't like laws that force people do do things but you support the idiot seat belt law? As if everyone follows the law? The only reason the seat belt law exists is to collect more money because it's just another form of tax. I feel bad for the people who killed themselves and their families but none are the fault of Glenn Richardson.

    How exactly do we repeal these nanny state laws and taxes if the politicians are responsible for everything after the laws are eliminated?
  • Socialism Begets Socialism
    I've been saying this for a long time. Get some socialist policy in place, and then that becomes the basis for ever more socialism.

    You've just been caught in that trap, Neal.

    Your main argument is that government pays for the health care of people who don't wear seatbelts (that is: socialism). So rather than arguing that *that* is wrong, you use it for a basis that since gov't pays for the health care, they thus have the right to dictate restrictions to save you from yourself.

    I say we outlaw Twinkies and cupcakes; How much do we spend on obesity and diabetes? Let's outlaw alcohol (yeah, that'll work). Hey, why restrict helmets to motorcycles? Let's require people to wear helmets in a car!

    Reducto ad absurdum? Perhaps. You started it.

    Unless you can point out to me where the constitution (Federal or Georgia) grants the government the authority to mandate seat belts, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on here.
  • Time to retire?
    Watching a libertarian drift into statist authoritarianism is a sad thing to see.

    Neal, have you considered retirement? You've obviously forgotten what it means to *be* a libertarian (hint: it doesn't involve the state passing laws to restrict other people's liberties for your benefit), so maybe it's time to go before all conversations about you revolve about how you USED TO stand up for the individual against overreaching government.
  • Lame argument .
    This is a pretty lame argument, Neal. I see your point, but it is a silly argument, and not at all in agreement with your position on the proper role of government. The government is not our nanny. And as for your medical pay argument... Medical coverage is not the government's role either. So fix that problem instead of creating more government intervention.

    I am disgusted with you this morning.
  • Who is reallly Responsible
    Neal: Like many who have commented here, I am surprised by your stance. The death of Mr. Sandifer, his wife and grandson are the sole responsibility of the one person who had control of the situation - Mr. Sandifer. He made the decision not to wear a seatbelt; he did not insure the safety of his wife, and especially his grandson, by insisting they were wearing seatbelts; he did not maintain control of his vehicle and caused the accident. This is not the responsibility of the Georgia Speaker, or any other law maker. Seat belt laws are just another government intrusion to protect us from ourselves.

    Another point: You are using mainstream media shock value by describing the bleeding Mr. Sandifer on the hood of his car, but like the mainstream media, you do not give the whole story... What caused the crash: was Mr. Sandifer speeding? What is his age? (I presume he is older if he had a grandson in the car.) Was he talking on the cell phone? Watching a DVD? Listening to talk radio? Using your argument the Georgia House should maybe pass stricter laws on speeding; cell phone use, DVD’s in a vehicle, listening to talk radio, or letting old people drive.

    I have a better idea, keep the legislators out and if a lack of personal responsibility costs an individual his life, it is his own fault.

    footnote: As I see it, the grandson may be the only true victim here, if he is not old enough to make the decision to wear a seat belt.
  • seat belts
    I don't care how much you say "don't give me that Libertarian crap".Hypocritical is hypocritical.If you are honest,Neal you will admit this is two-faced thinking.
    I never even start a vehicle without buckling up.I feel naked without a seat belt.But..it is not the government's damn business if you do or do not use it.And,no,it does not cause one to loose control of a vehicle it they are not strapped in.Whats next Neal, government requirement of condom use?
  • Seat Belt laws
    I wear my seatbelts because I think it's a smart, safe thing to do. I drive a pickup truck, and still wear my seatbelts every time I drive, no exceptions. Also, this just becomes part of my nature - it's what I do. I do not get in my other car and think "the law says I must wear a seatbelt in this car so I'll buckle up", nor do I get in my pickup truck and think "the law doesn't require me to wear a seatbelt in this vehicle, so I don't have to buckle up". Therefore, whether the law requires it or not, smart people will buckle up. There will always be a percentage of society that won't buckle up, whether the law requires it or not. My take here is that if someone dies because they fail to buckle up, then Darwin is at work. Mature, adult passengers should make that choice for themselves, as well. Children should always be required to buckle up since they can't make those risk assessments for themselves. To completely put the blame on Speaker Richardson is absurd.
  • seat belts
    I have been wearing seat belts since (get this) 1968. I still wear my seat belt. Why? Not to protect me in an accident, but to keep me behind the wheel to maintain control so I DON'T have an accident.

    I also get Neal's point. He (and I) do not want to pay medical costs to those fools who are injured and were not wearing seat belts. I say let the insurers dictate seat belt usage, not the governemnt.
  • WHO!
    I wanna know who pissed in Neals Wheaties this weekend. Firt it's smokers tax and now it's seatbelt laws. Sheesh
  • Slippery slope of Socialism.
    Neal wrote, "How about the government seizing money from me to pay for the medical treatment of idiots who don't fasten seatbelts? How about the expanded Medicaid costs?"

    And there you have it. Statists using existing socialist programs to justify even more infringements on liberty. If Govco is providing medical care (whether you want them to or not), this argument by Neal gives Govco carte blanche to regulate every part of our life. Neal, buddy, please re-think this.
  • I agree Neil
    Yeah, while there are alot of things government should keep its nose out of but highway safety falls into the area of things that government must do. Like it or not driving is a liscensed privilege with rules and requirments. If anyone has driven in some of the third world countrys you will appreciate this countries road rules.
  • Seatbelt
    Please...why are you stalling?! Are you waiting for Rush or Hannity to talok about the news headline everyone wants to talk about today..."O'Bama Bucks Blow Business Backwards" i.e O'bama takes one from the Chaves playbook and seizes General Motors...

    Please I could care less about the inane conversation about seatbelt laws... Royal...get out your air horn and wake Boortz up!
  • One Word
    One word why Richardson blocks the bill...
    Mexipacking.

    Maybe this is his way to curb illegal aliens or maybe his district relies on the labor pool one overloaded pick-up could provide.

    Neal's right on this one.
  • Sad story.
    Its a shame about the Sandifers. Please tell me how it is the government's responsibility to make sure they use seat belts. Whose responsibility would you believe it was if the law was on the books and they chose to ignore it?

    Richardson will kill none by his action in the Georgia House. There is a seat belt installed in every pickup sold in this country. There are a lot of people who do not buckle despite the law requires them to. There are a lot of people who buckle up even if there is no law that compels them to. It always comes down to a choice.
  • April Fool's Day all week long?
    Neal, are you running April Fool's Day posts all week long as a feature of the Nuze? Between this post and your gleeful tobacco tax post today, I'm wondering what "libertarian" madness we'll see for the next 4 days. Let's get David Harsanyi or Radley Balko to take over for you while you take a much-deserved time out.
  • Seat Belt Laws
    Just to clarify Neal, Georgia is not the only state to exempt pickup trucks. New Hampshire does not require adult drives/passengers of any vehicle to use their seatbelts, regardless of what they are driving.
  • Neal's double standard
    Earlier this year Neal loudly said that he thinks there should NOT be a motorcycle helmet law. Now he is throwing a temper tantrum because the state will not force people to use seat belts. Nice twisted logic there Neal.
  • seat belts
    It's called "thinning the herd." Anybody who is too stupid not to wear a seatbelt needs culling. It's Social Darwinism. There isn't enough evolutionary pressure on the species these days as it is.
  • Seat Belt Laws vs. ITS
    Ok this is a fine line to walk for Libertarians. Yes seat belt laws have shown to reduce crash fatalities. Unfortunately it does not reduce crashes on our nations roads and highways. The only way we are going to reduce crashes is through Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). Maybe we should spend a trillion dollars on that instead of the stimulus plan. Think of all the lives and billions of dollars we could save each year just by reducing crashes.

    I wouldn't put so much of the blame on Richardson. At least 90 percent of crashes are caused by human error. Thats why we need ITS. Lets face it humans suck as drivers.

    But ask yourselves if it should be the government's role to put a gun to your head and make you wear a seat belt? Its my opinion that we do not need government playing the babysitter role. Educate the public on Newton's law of inertia and leave it at that.
  • How many people will die on Georgia roads during the next year because of one obstinate politician in Atlanta?
    How many people will die on Georgia roads during the next year because of one obstinate politician in Atlanta?

    None. How many people die because they are too stupid to buckle in? All the ones that do so.

    Neal!?!?!?
  • Seatbelt
    You are being very inconsistant with this. How about the goverment just stop paying for these idiots who don't wear the seat belts. It isn't the goverments call whether we have to wear seatbelts it is the individual who has to choose .Richardson is responsible for zero deaths as a previous writter said, because he isn't telling people not to wear seatbelts, he is supporting law not to make them.99.999999% of issues I agree with you on, but I think adding the seatbelt law doesn't make more people wear the belt, isn't going to cut costs anywhere, it just expands goverment laws.
  • Seat Belts.
    1) They do work. My wife (twice) and I (once) will attest to that.

    2) But is Darwinism a bad thing? The only thing I would do is mandate that insurance companies would be exempt from paying claims if it could be proven that a seat belt was not in use.
  • Convenient libertarian
    I suppose Neal is libertarian only when convenient. Other times it is ok to impose your will on others...
  • nanny state
    As per your logic, our Georgia congress has blood on their hands by not mandating airbags in every auto. Or mandating a state wide speed limit of 10mph.
  • seatbelts
    As per your logic, our georgia congress should instantly mandate airbags in all cars. if not, they have blood on their hands.
  • Welcome!
    Nice to see Boortz praising the "social contract" principle, at long last. Now, when will he be applying it to other public activities that affect the rest of us--like pollution, price-gouging, and the like?

    Welcome to reality, Neal. Libertopia will miss you.
  • Libertarianism
    There are two conflicting arguments here...

    Ayn Rand said that government property is government property, and as such they can make any rules they want without limitation. This is where the "driving is a privilege, not a right" crowd gets their basis for their argument. Reducing to absurdity, that means that if the government wanted to make drivers wear a Bozo The Clown suit while driving it would be their right to do so.

    Murray Rothbard, OTOH, said that all government property is "tainted" by the fact that it was paid for by taxpayer money, taken by force. Therefore, government has NO right to arbitrarily establish conditions on its use. Leaning in a utilitarian direction, one could argue that the only proper government regulation of government property is the absolute minimum required to maintain order and protect users from force and fraud.

    If requiring motorists to wear seat belts is proper, then so is keeping drugs illegal, for the same reasons (health-care costs, protecting others, etc.). Neither seat belt laws, drug laws, nor providing health care is a proper role of government.

    If an insurance company wants to say you're SOL if you don't wear your seat belt (or do drugs), so be it and more power to them.
  • Neal's wrong on this one
    First, just about anything made mandatory by the Government should be considered an imposition on individual liberty *until* the case is strongly (very strongly) made that failure to comply directly impacts others' liberty (and safety). Seat belts save lives, sure, but does my wearing of my own seatbelt save lives of other people?

    Second, no law prevents pick-up drivers from wearing seatbelts. These people, unfortunately, chose to risk their own lives.

    Third, like motorcyclists who don't wear helmets, people who don't wear a seatbelt (law or not), are simply in line to be organ donors.
  • April Fools is Wednesday
    Are you kidding me? If you're over the age of 18, the government should have no right forcing you to wear a seat belt. I'm shocked and disappointed that you're taking the anti-libertarian stance on this issue. You know April Fools Day isn't until Wednesday!
  • richardson
    yup boortz, government knows best don't they?
  • Apply this Same Logic to Guns
    and Boortz would be opposed.

    The responsibility is and always will be with the individual.

    The Government should not be responsible for people that make bad choices. And we should not legislate to prohibit those choices.
  • Libertarian Inconsistency
    Mr. Boortz, You are indeed being very inconsistent on this seatbelt issue. As a Libertarian, you correctly hold people resposible for the consiquences of their own decisions. However, with this seatbelt issue, you are holding Speaker Richardson resposible for someone else's decision to not wear a seatbelt. The seatbelt is in the vehicle, as mandated by law. If the driver chooses not to wear it, that driver bears full responsibility.

    Respectfully,
    Dave
  • You ARE a libertarian
    But this is not a libertarian thing to say! I've listened to you and read your books for quite awhile and I agree with you on almost everything, but this is not what I would expect from you!

    Richardson will kill exactly 0 people this year, just because seat belt wearing is not mandated does not mean that people cannot or should not wear them! Please Neal move on from this one, there are SO many more important things to talk about.
  • Railroad Crossings
    Who exempted everyone except school busses and hazmat trucks from stopping at every railroad crossing? Do you know how many people died IN GEORGIA in the past year because they were too stupid to NOT stop on top of a railroad grade crossing?
  • Seatbelts and pickups
    I agree with you alot, but this is one time where I don't.

    I ride a motorcycle (like you do), and I wear a helmet, even if NC didn't have a helmet law. I think it' a really good idea. I just don't think that there needs to be a law forcing you to.

    The same goes for seatbelts. I don't think there should be a law telling you to wear one. If you don't, and you die, that's your own problem. How does wearing a seatbelt prevent you from running into another person?

    The only thing you may be able to argue is that it keeps you in the cab where other people on the road don't have to look at your dead, bloody, mangled body.
  • Sorry, I disagree...
    Here's a quote from your article: "You want to talk about government intrusion? How about the government seizing money from me to pay for the medical treatment of idiots who don't fasten seatbelts? How about the expanded Medicaid costs?"

    Instead of railing on legislators to be nannies, you should be railing on them to fix THIS problem, that YOU are forced to pay for other people's stupidity. Now if it could be shown that it's dangerous for OTHERS on the road, I'd agree with you, but the body flying out and hitting by-standers argument doesn't fly with me.

    One thing I could agree on is that minors don't need to be given a choice... mandatory for minors would be fine with me.
  • An answer
    How many people will Glenn Richardson kill this year? The answer is NONE. Not requiring people to wear seatbelts IS NOT THE SAME as requiring them to not wear seatbelts.

    Whether the law exists or not, people still have the choice to buckle up or not. I make my children buckle up every time we get in the car, not because of the law, but because its the smart thing to do. There will be others that will not make their children buckle up, in defiance of the law requiring them to, and the law will not save their lives.

    Glenn Richardson cannot be held responsible for each individual's choice. The individual is responsible for his own choice. Luckily, the other person's poor choice will kill only themselves (and, unfortunately, their own children), it will not harm those who make the right choice.
  • Neal Neal Neal
    I can see you've fallen into the same crowd that Copyleft, Hugo's Ghost, and Stan GayBull have fallen into. Who the HELL are you to tell me that I should wear my seatbelt to begin with?? You have a problem with leeches sucking taxpayer money to pay for medical expenses? Then fight for the abolishment of that, not my right to ride around without a seatbelt. I thought you was a libertarian Neal?? Apparently, you're not even close. Sheesh.
  • seat belt laws
    Neal, I am surprised you support the legislation of private behavior on the grounds that it raises costs for taxpayers. This argument can be thus used to support any legislation that would lower costs such as a 15 mph speed limit. Tremendous number of lives saved. How about a tax on obese people at McDonalds? Seat belts do save lives but it is not up to the government to impose regulations determining which behavior should be regulated based on tax saving policy. Shame on you!
  • Disagree
    People who don't have enough intelligence to preserve their own well-being--

    (and I am not talking about liberals in this case, though they are the most self-destructive bunch of drones out there--the War on Islamic terrorism being changed to the 'overseas contingency' or whatever it now is called by the Obamabots...I digress)

    --anyway, people who do not think buckling up is necessary will not do it regardless of if it is a law or not. Frankly Neal, I am surprised at your comments. Did Richardson somehow unbuckle Sandifer's belt himself and kill him? No, it was a dumb decision that the man paid for with his life. Normally Neal would be outraged by someone blaming somebody else for stupidity, I don't know what is going on here.
  • Are you serious Neal?
    Come on Neal. Just because government makes a law doesn't mean that people will follow it. Part of being free is accepting the consequences of your actions. I personally choose to use a seat belt every time I drive, but this law actually enables the police to have another reason to pull all of us over to generate more state revenue and/or further violate our rights. Liberals use the same flawed logic to justify gun control and the argument that if guns are illegal gun crimes will stop. Go post this over at Daily Kos--it will receive a warm reception.
  • Neal, Is That you?
    Neal, I'm surprised at you. You advocate seat belt laws? Do you not realize that seatbelt laws are less about public safety and more about a revenue grab? You, as a Libertarian, should the last person who would advocate this kind of government intrusion. Seatbelt laws were never, ever about protecting the public. They've always been nothing but a cash cow for the government. Wearing a seatbelt while driving should be a personal choice. Like wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle. Are you in favor of helmets for bicycles for adults? And I find it funny that you're all for everyone being able to own and carry a firearm and the government intruding on such being a travesty yet you're advocating the government's policy on seatbelts. Way to be consistent there, bub.
  • Poor Logic
    So Neal, by that same logic you could make a case to ban anything that places a burden on society. Alcohol, cigarettes, soda, gambling? How far do you go? Just because our socialist form of government makes me accountable for your actions, do you further limit our freedoms to prevent additional burdens to the taxpayers? This is a problem with socialism, not liberty.
  • seatbelts
    Actions have consequences. When you don't put your seatbelt on, you could die. No law changes that.
  • seat belt laws in pickum-up-trucks
    Neal,

    While there is no law requiring seat-belt use in pick-up trucks, there is also no law preventing their use! The people who died in that crash could have used their seat belts!

    Glenn Richardson won't kill anyone this year - but ignorant people will kill themselves by not using their seat-belts.
  • Poor Logic
    So Neal, by that same logic you could make a case to ban anything that could lead to a burden being placed on society. Alcohol, cigarettes, soda, gambling? How far do you go? Just because our socialist form of government makes me accountable for your actions, do you further limit our freedoms to prevent additional burdens to the taxpayers? This is a problem with socialism, not liberty.
  • you sound irritated neal
    jack and his family made their decisions not to wear seat belts. the deaths are on their hands not georgia's. life's not fair and it sounds like you got stuck with a bum contract.
  • I Will Give You Crap
    Neal,
    I love you, man. I really do. But what is the true crime here? That there wasn't a seat belt law in effect or that Mr. Sandifer decided that it was OK to not buckle up just because there wasn't a law? Honestly. If victim A chose not to wear their seatbelt while in a car and they got in a wreck, they'd still be dead - whether or not there was a law specifically prohibiting it or allowing it.

    I AM sick of laws that have exceptions. I recently moved from New Mexico, where in Albuquerque they passed a hands-free-only cell phone law. Unless you were a cop. Or a city worker. Or if your last name started with a B and ended in a Z.

    The point is, any time ANY law is passed with an excepted class, it's either too stupid to be a real law, or they are endangering the excepted class.

    Am I waffling here? No, not really. I know that it's unsafe to drive ANY vehicle without a seatbelt. I had a friend who had a 1960's era Chevy pickup that only had lap belts, and I chose not to ride in that vehicle for my own safety.

    I'm so very very very sorry for the Sandifer family. However, the data is out there. He could have chosen to wear his seatbelt, but he didn't.

    You know, it's safer driving with two hands than one. How many laws do we have to write to cover every bit of stupidity out there?
  • I don't agree with an all inclusive seat belt law. I feel that up until a person is 18 it should be mandatory that a seat belt be worn. After that though, I believe it should be up to the individual. Do needless deaths suck? Yeah, but as Boortz likes to state, actions have consequences, adults should have the freedom to live, and die with theirs, as long as they put no one else at risk while doing so.
  • You're not a libertarian. :-P
    If the problem is that people get hurt and taxpayer dollars go to helping them, the solution isn't to mandate personal decisions, the solution is to stop taxpayer dollars from benefiting private citizens who make poor personal decisions.

    Glenn Richardson didn't hurt anyone. They hurt themselves.

    As we can see with Neal's logic, socialism begets more socialism in a vicious cycle.
  • seat belts
    The White House is ousting the CEO of GM and you are ranting about seat belt laws! Georgia Representitive Richardson does not have the power to make anyone wear a seat belt, only pass laws to punish those that do not.
  • seat belt law
    I am really surprised, Neal, that someone like yourself who is against government getting involved would be for a seatbelt law. I feel once you are over 18, it should be your choice to wear one or not. People are aware of the risks of not wearing a seatbelt. If you choose not to wear one, and you get injured or die in an accident, it's your own fault. I feel the same should apply for motorcycle helmet laws too.
  • I call BS
    Listening to you right now, Neal. You're sounding pretty silly. This isn't the same Neal that hates seeing the airbag warnings in his sun visor.

    Blaming a congressman on the deaths of people who choose not to wear their seatbelts is pretty idiotic.
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement