• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Irony ???????????????? ????????????????????? Seat Belt thing

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Glad seatbelts are not the law here....

See you in the news soon, bucko!

Possibly...but probably not. No one would care...😛

All I'm saying is I don't think people should be forced to wear them, and I'm glad we don't have any such law in my state.

Then you shouldn't be forced to keep your vehicle in servicable condition either. You shouldn't be forced to keep gas in special containers. You shouldn't be forced to drive on the right side of the road. etc...
 
Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
Practice what you preach IMO
rose.gif

what do you mean? he did practice what he preached... he is ANTI-seat belt, he didn't wear seat belt, he died. irony.
 
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Then you shouldn't be forced to keep your vehicle in servicable condition either. You shouldn't be forced to keep gas in special containers. You shouldn't be forced to drive on the right side of the road. etc...

No, those are different and you know it.. You don't buckle up, you face the risks. I don't need the government to tell me what's good for me.

I do support the current law that makes children wear one though.
 
Originally posted by: Savarak
Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
Practice what you preach IMO
rose.gif

what do you mean? he did practice what he preached... he is ANTI-seat belt, he didn't wear seat belt, he died. irony.

Zim approves, as the guy wasn't a hypocrite.

Tragic as much as ironic.
 
<- Works at University of Nebraska
<- Hates seat belts, and thinks they should be optional, but wears them

I was on I-80 that day. The roads were horrible.
[*]At 8 am I went 40 miles on I-80 and there were 2 cars off the road, 2 upside down SUVs, and one jackknifed semi.
[*]At 1 pm I went 40 miles on I-80 back home and there were 3 cars off the road, 3 upside down SUVs, two pickups off the road (one upside down), one jackknifed semi, and one semi without trailer flattened (the semi roof was down with the tires, it must have rolled quite a few times).
[*]I'm very shocked there was only one fatality. Most cars were driving 40 in a 75 MPH zone, most SUVs were driving 80 which is why they rolled over.

Nebraska law (If I recall the laws correctly, things have changed a lot in the last couple years): seatbelts are required for driver and front passenger only. Driver only can be ticketed, and that can only happen if the driver was legally pulled over for a different offense. Children must be in a safety seat up to a certain age, but after that they can go without seatbelts if in the back seat.
 
While you could can argue whether seatblets should be a law or not (there are some reasonable arguments), driving without one is just plain stupid.

natural_selection++;
 
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Then you shouldn't be forced to keep your vehicle in servicable condition either. You shouldn't be forced to keep gas in special containers. You shouldn't be forced to drive on the right side of the road. etc...

No, those are different and you know it.. You don't buckle up, you face the risks. I don't need the government to tell me what's good for me.

I do support the current law that makes children wear one though.


No they are not really different.

Seat Belt laws were put into place as a large % of peopel that did not wear them have no health insurance. So that means I and other tax payers have to pay THEIR med bills because of THEIR choice.

:roll:
 
I could jump in with all of my anti seat belt arguements. But I won't. I'll leave it as there are just as many good reasons to not wear one as there is to wear one.

But the real issue isn't whether or not Derek Kieper was wearing his seatbelt.

The issue is how bad was Luke Havermann driving to fvck up that bad?

All the safety engineering in the world may not save you from idiot drivers.
 
Originally posted by: DBL
Originally posted by: jagec
yes, that would be considered irony.

You'd think by age 21 people would realize that always NOT doing what the government says is as stupid as always DOING it...

Sorry, but this is not ironic. This would have been irony had his two seatbelt wearing passengers died and he survived.

correct.

IRONY

2a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

you would expect the non-seat belt wearer to die...


 
the guy was an idot. Should everyone wear a seatbelt? Yes. Should there be laws requiring us to wear seatbelts? Of course not. MY safety is MY concern, not the government's. As soon as it's proven that not wearing a seatbelt is harmful to others, I'll rethink my position. Until then, I prefer liberty over safety.

btw, I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt.
 
Originally posted by: quakefiend420
i don't understand being violently opposed to seatbelt usage...people act like its a religous choice or something...its a fvcking nylon strap!

I remember when i was a kid, that i hated wearing my seatbelt, and I would always fight with my parents about it...

Soon as I bought my first car... seatbelt went on... wasn't a conscious decision. i just got in, buckled up, drove out, and realized what I had done. now, i won't put it out of park if people aren't buckled in... If they refuse to put it on, it's walking they will go.
 
Originally posted by: WW
Originally posted by: DBL
Originally posted by: jagec
yes, that would be considered irony.

You'd think by age 21 people would realize that always NOT doing what the government says is as stupid as always DOING it...

Sorry, but this is not ironic. This would have been irony had his two seatbelt wearing passengers died and he survived.

correct.

IRONY

2a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

you would expect the non-seat belt wearer to die...

the irony is in the fact that it is the anti-seatbelt guy whom expected to live in a crash despite seat belts were worn or not. although from REASONABLE peoples' point of view(WW and DBL are correct in this aspect), there is no really no irony.
 
Originally posted by: WW
Originally posted by: DBL
Originally posted by: jagec
yes, that would be considered irony.

You'd think by age 21 people would realize that always NOT doing what the government says is as stupid as always DOING it...

Sorry, but this is not ironic. This would have been irony had his two seatbelt wearing passengers died and he survived.

correct.

IRONY

2a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

you would expect the non-seat belt wearer to die...
You've got it all wrong. Irony is like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.
 
Took me one instance of stupidity to learn that seatbelts are where it's at when I was 20. Rear ended somebody and hit the bridge of my nose on the steering wheel. Never again did I think I was "too cool" to wear a seatbelt. Thinking back on it I cannot even fathom how I would drive around without one since it seems so natural now.

Almost three years ago my entire family was involved in an accident when my SUV hydroplaned and we went down and embankment and flipped over onto the driver's side. Had I not strictly enforced seat belt wearing to my entire family things would have ended up much worse. My wife and kids were literaly hanging by their belts. Only my son nearest the window had a few minor cuts due to glass but we were all just fine.

Thank goodness for belts!

 
Originally posted by: Savarak
the irony is in the fact that it is the anti-seatbelt guy whom expected to live in a crash despite seat belts were worn or not. although from REASONABLE peoples' point of view(WW and DBL are correct in this aspect), there is no really no irony.
The bolded part is where you are wrong. The anti-seatbelt people generally would rather die in a crash than be severely mangled but alive. No where did he say he expected to live in a crash.
 
Thats what he gets. I don't really care if people wear seatbelts or not though. This is a case I don't see as affecting other people. 18 and under should be required to wear seatbelts since they're not considered adults yet and are stupid (people over 18 are stupid too, but I'm saying 18 since thats the legal limit here).

People in my car wear their seatbelts though. I don't want to scrape their remains off my car because the drive through wash couldn't get them off completely.
 
Originally posted by: Kyteland
Originally posted by: WW
Originally posted by: DBL
Originally posted by: jagec
yes, that would be considered irony.

You'd think by age 21 people would realize that always NOT doing what the government says is as stupid as always DOING it...

Sorry, but this is not ironic. This would have been irony had his two seatbelt wearing passengers died and he survived.

correct.

IRONY

2a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

you would expect the non-seat belt wearer to die...
You've got it all wrong. Irony is like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.
Or a death-row pardon, 2 minutes too late.

 
Maybe it'll get his friends who campaign against the horrendous violation of his constitutional rights to sit back and think for a minute.

Tradegy, but comic at the same time.
 
Originally posted by: TwinkleToes77
Originally posted by: Kyteland
You've got it all wrong. Irony is like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.
Or a death-row pardon, 2 minutes too late.

Heh. Perhaps most in this thread are fans. Alanis Morissette would consider that quite ironic.




 
How many of us actually use the backseat seat belts (past childhood)? I think in the past 20 years, I only did once.
 
Originally posted by: WW
Originally posted by: DBL
Originally posted by: jagec
yes, that would be considered irony.

You'd think by age 21 people would realize that always NOT doing what the government says is as stupid as always DOING it...

Sorry, but this is not ironic. This would have been irony had his two seatbelt wearing passengers died and he survived.

correct.

IRONY

2a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

you would expect the non-seat belt wearer to die...

Well, obviously he didn't expect to die in a car accident or that seatbelts were in his best interest to wear. So, the fact that he died in an auto accident because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt is ironic.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
wow, that would be the very definition of Irony.

Sure that's a tragedy whenever a life is lost. But his own stupidity caused it.

actually, it's the exact opposite of irony. it's sad coincidence.
 
Back
Top