Seatbelt Laws

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Monkey muppet

Originally posted by: Ornery

That's REALLY weak spidey, but the only answer that makes any kind of sense. I'll put cell phone use at about fifty times the risk of your two points. Ban them?

Cell-phones whilst driving are already banned here for that very reason.

They're not banned as much as they should be. People losing control, and flying out of their cars and hitting other people from not wearing belts is pretty damn rare.

A few more quick points to make:

1) Airbags were originally developed to help protect those persons who decided not to wear seatbelts. Therefore peoples own stupidity for not using supplied safety equipment has forced a different approach to protect lives. Take this as you will. (Airbag are not legally required either)

Detroit is mandated to include airbags in their cars, which is BS IMO.


2) Are you arguing that it's your independent right to chose weather or not to use a seatbelt, just as it's your "right" to own a gun?

Guns are pretty dangerous to others, so I can certainly see a need for regulations there. I can see a need for laws to require kids to be buckled, if their parents are too stupid to make them wear one. But it's nobody's damn business if the parents choose not to wear one.


With all the answers given in this thread I'm still waiting to hear a half-acceptable excuse for not wearing one (seatbelt) other than "I don't want to"

That is NOT the point of this thread. It's a given that it's stupid not to wear one

IF everyone who gets into an accident while not wearing a seat belt pays 100% of their medical expenses. I don't want MY tax dollars spent to subsidize medical care that wouldn't even be necessary if it wasn't for that persons stupidity.

Should smoking be illegal except for everyone who can prove they can pay 100% of their medical expenses? I don't want MY tax dollars spent to subsidize medical care that wouldn't even be necessary if it wasn't for that persons stupidity.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Ornery
There are many other distractions and considerations that effect other's safety more directly than those points, yet aren't regulated. This is truly a nanny state regulation, more so than protection for other drivers.

Yes, there are, but most aren't so easily regulated. The stressed out mom who spends 1/2 her time looking at her kids in the back seat is a much greater danger than you without your seatbelt, but seatbelt use is a very simple yes or no answer.

How can you regulate people driving distracted?

It seems the biggest argument is whether or not seatbelt laws provide protection for anyone other than the wearer. Has anyone ever done a study on this? And how would you quantify non physical injury? Or should you even try?

Fundamentally we seem to agree, I don't actually like seatbelt laws that much myself, but I do see some benefit and protection to others so you won't catch me bitching about my freedom being violated. Nor will you catch me driving/riding without a seatbelt.

Viper GTS

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CFster
Ah, the old natural selection arguement again.

Forgetting for a moment that people in general are stupid, lets have the government take a step back (because hey, they don't really have a responsibility as to the safety of their citizens or anything), and get rid of those seatbelts and airbags.

I'm sure we can trust most people to make the right decision and use their safety equipment! And because they do, their offspring will have a higher IQ and do the same.

As for those that don't, well...

Reminds me of another thread where a guy wanted to overthrow the government because he had no use for law.

Dumbasses.

I really don't know how you expect to be taken seriously when your entire argument hinges upon your hatred and degradation of people in general. People are stupid, people will never make the right decision, we must use the force of government to coerce these idiot masses, etc. In other words, you're a fsckin' bigot. An anti-humanist. And you claim to want to help people. It's pathetic. You're a doublethinking joke. Like every other authoritarian in this world. You hate people so you must control them. For their own good, of course.

:roll: <^>

 

[alm4rr]

seat belt defenses FTW

 

[Azelrok]

Mandatory use of a seat belt should not be a law if your over 17. As stated above if car makers and government really wanted to save lives they would force the use of 5 point harnesses. They are MUCH safer, and you wouldnt need the use of air bags or side air bags, thus a lighter, more fuel efficient car.

I dont wear a seat belt.

I wish there was a way so people can choose whether they want to wear a seat belt or not. If they go flying through the windshield, the medics just give alot of morphin to the non seat belt wearing person, killing them. This way, it lowers insurance, and lowers everyone elses medic and auto insurance. Its my decision not to wear a seat belt and I should be responsible for my decision, death isnt a problem.

Over time natural selection will go its course.

 

[sygyzy]

I definitely think they are fair.

 

[AdamSnow]

After being at many many accident scenes, I have to say that yes - I agree 100% with the laws on seatbelts.

 

[Ornery]

1. Ever seen people wither away from AIDS? Guess you're all for these laws as well, eh?

 

[CFster]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CFster
Ah, the old natural selection arguement again.

Forgetting for a moment that people in general are stupid, lets have the government take a step back (because hey, they don't really have a responsibility as to the safety of their citizens or anything), and get rid of those seatbelts and airbags.

I'm sure we can trust most people to make the right decision and use their safety equipment! And because they do, their offspring will have a higher IQ and do the same.

As for those that don't, well...

Reminds me of another thread where a guy wanted to overthrow the government because he had no use for law.

Dumbasses.

I really don't know how you expect to be taken seriously when your entire argument hinges upon your hatred and degradation of people in general. People are stupid, people will never make the right decision, we must use the force of government to coerce these idiot masses, etc. In other words, you're a fsckin' bigot. An anti-humanist. And you claim to want to help people. It's pathetic. You're a doublethinking joke. Like every other authoritarian in this world. You hate people so you must control them. For their own good, of course.

:roll: <^>

Ooh, strike a nerve did I?

What makes you think I hate people? Why are you taking it to the extreme?

I simply believe that people in large groups can be irrational. Any given person doesn't have to be stupid. But when you get a large group (pear pressure) - they follow the trend, or hysteria of the moment. From buying gas masks and duck tape because they're fearing terrorist attacks - to rioting 5000 strong in Australia today, attacking anybody of Middle Eastern decent.

When people don't wear seat belts because it's not cool, then I think they're being stupid.

And how do think things would go in your world without any government at all? How are things going over in Iraq?

 

[MustangSVT]

you should wear seatbelts.

but like op said, its just another way for fvcking pigs to collect some money. fvcking cops.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

No, it's not. I consider any law passed to protect me from myself to be an abuse of power, and the Constitution.

the US constitution doesn't inhibit state police powers, and this clearly falls under those.


of course, i could say that if you don't wear a seatbelt you stand a much higher chance of dying, which fscks up everyone's day behind you as the police clean your guts off the pavement.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused
Freedom is the default. Not oppression. That was the whole point of the Constitution and the long ago forgotten 10th Amendment.

living in fear of your life and your property (if you even have any) is the default.

the long forgotten 10th amendment specifically kept the states' traditional police powers with the state. the 10th amendment places no limit on states' powers.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Monkey muppet
(Airbag are not legally required either)

either an airbag or one of those retarded automatic seatbelts is required by federal law in the US.

 

[Ornery]

...how do think things would go in your world without any government at all?

Passing laws for "your own good" is overstepping their place. That is NOT supposed to be the function of government, unless of course you're a Democrat, who feels the need for someone to watch out for our own best interest. Ugh...

 

[Lifted]

Originally posted by: Ornery

IF everyone who gets into an accident while not wearing a seat belt pays 100% of their medical expenses. I don't want MY tax dollars spent to subsidize medical care that wouldn't even be necessary if it wasn't for that persons stupidity.

Should smoking be illegal except for everyone who can prove they can pay 100% of their medical expenses? I don't want MY tax dollars spent to subsidize medical care that wouldn't even be necessary if it wasn't for that persons stupidity.

So what you are saying is that because every law is not optimal, or certain laws aren't on the books yet, we should not pass any new laws? If I was to say yes, smokers should not receive government money for healthcare, and a law was passed stating as much, would you then agree to a law stating that people don't have to wear their seatbelts, but they'd be put into their own insurance pool with much higher premiums, and not receive any "free" medical care?

Why does one have to happen before the other in order for you to agree with it?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER

Originally posted by: Ornery
But, it IS enforceable, and people do have to cough up money for not complying. I'd STILL like to know why the "nanny protect people from themselves laws" aren't extended to other dangerous practices, like:

• Skateboarding
• Skiing
• Ultra lights
• Mountain climbing
• Hell, even downsized cars!

I notice nobody can oblige me with an answer for that... figures. :roll:

Not that I care about the seatbelt argument (but I think higher insurance rate for eveyone is a VERY valid argument). I happened to read the article that you linked to, and you have got to be kidding. Smal cars increase death rate??!! Someone needs a little lesson in how inertia is related to mass. And BTW an opinion piece from some random journal is hardly fact.

Using your logic, a motorbike is the safest type of transportation. How about roller blades that go 70 mph? The tank effect is what you get with a heavy car that you don't get in a tinfoil riceburner. No amount of airbags and fake seatbelts will compnesate for sheer steel!

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Originally posted by: MastaTam
It's a proven fact that seat belts not only saves lives, but it also greatly reduces bodily harm during an accident. Quite honestly, I couldn't care less if you were to not wear your seatbelt, but if you were to not buckle up children whom you're responsible for in your car, you are putting that child at risk.

Heres a quick story about my friend who didnt wear his seatbelt. He went out with a few friends, none were drinking but he happened to sit in the back without a seat belt. They got into a crash, he got thrown through the front windshield 20-30 feet away from the car in the street and was in a coma for 4 months.... after hearing that... i dont care what people say... seatbelt on...

 

[Ornery]

Why does one have to happen before the other in order for you to agree with it?

I agree with neither. It's just that the smoking one is so absurd I can't believe anybody would agree with it. I mean, if you're going to follow that path, there's no end in sight! No fast food for obese people, no more roller-blading or skateboarding. No more drinking alcohol or eating sushi... 😕

 

[HardcoreRobot]

i always wear my seatbelt and wont drive if my passengers arent

its a GREAT idea, and everyone should do it, but its absurd to think you should be PENALIZED for not

the downside to not wearing a seatbelt is already BUILT-IN - you have a higher chance of dying in an accident. why do we need to stack more sht of top of it.

government should NOT be in the business of protecting people from themselves

 

[JACKHAMMER]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER

Originally posted by: Ornery
But, it IS enforceable, and people do have to cough up money for not complying. I'd STILL like to know why the "nanny protect people from themselves laws" aren't extended to other dangerous practices, like:

• Skateboarding
• Skiing
• Ultra lights
• Mountain climbing
• Hell, even downsized cars!

I notice nobody can oblige me with an answer for that... figures. :roll:

Not that I care about the seatbelt argument (but I think higher insurance rate for eveyone is a VERY valid argument). I happened to read the article that you linked to, and you have got to be kidding. Smal cars increase death rate??!! Someone needs a little lesson in how inertia is related to mass. And BTW an opinion piece from some random journal is hardly fact.

According to the National Academy of Sciences' 2001 CAFE study, this downsizing contributes to between 1,000 and 3,000 additional fatalities per year.

What's your source for your claims?

nested hell, but anyway. Look at the #'s all the heavy autos do worse. I'll say it again, if we all drove lighter cars there would be a lot less deaths for a host of reasons, but elementary physics is always at the heart and heavy=momentum=bad for cars. Stop worse, handle worse, cause mor deaths, etc.

 

[JACKHAMMER]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER

Originally posted by: Ornery
But, it IS enforceable, and people do have to cough up money for not complying. I'd STILL like to know why the "nanny protect people from themselves laws" aren't extended to other dangerous practices, like:

• Skateboarding
• Skiing
• Ultra lights
• Mountain climbing
• Hell, even downsized cars!

I notice nobody can oblige me with an answer for that... figures. :roll:

Not that I care about the seatbelt argument (but I think higher insurance rate for eveyone is a VERY valid argument). I happened to read the article that you linked to, and you have got to be kidding. Smal cars increase death rate??!! Someone needs a little lesson in how inertia is related to mass. And BTW an opinion piece from some random journal is hardly fact.

Using your logic, a motorbike is the safest type of transportation. How about roller blades that go 70 mph? The tank effect is what you get with a heavy car that you don't get in a tinfoil riceburner. No amount of airbags and fake seatbelts will compnesate for sheer steel!

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Older cars from were all "sheer steel" and heavy as hell, and well the death rates back then are WAY higher. Jesus, think before you post.:disgust:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER

Originally posted by: Ornery
But, it IS enforceable, and people do have to cough up money for not complying. I'd STILL like to know why the "nanny protect people from themselves laws" aren't extended to other dangerous practices, like:

• Skateboarding
• Skiing
• Ultra lights
• Mountain climbing
• Hell, even downsized cars!

I notice nobody can oblige me with an answer for that... figures. :roll:

Not that I care about the seatbelt argument (but I think higher insurance rate for eveyone is a VERY valid argument). I happened to read the article that you linked to, and you have got to be kidding. Smal cars increase death rate??!! Someone needs a little lesson in how inertia is related to mass. And BTW an opinion piece from some random journal is hardly fact.

According to the National Academy of Sciences' 2001 CAFE study, this downsizing contributes to between 1,000 and 3,000 additional fatalities per year.

What's your source for your claims?

nested hell, but anyway. Look at the #'s all the heavy autos do worse. I'll say it again, if we all drove lighter cars there would be a lot less deaths for a host of reasons, but elementary physics is always at the heart and heavy=momentum=bad for cars. Stop worse, handle worse, cause mor deaths, etc.

You are mistaking bigger cars for SUVs rather than understanding the real issue: Downsizing the average car.

Try again.

 

[JACKHAMMER]

"Are the best performers the biggest and heaviest vehicles on the road? Not at all. Among the safest cars are the midsize imports, like the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord. Or consider the extraordinary performance of some subcompacts, like the Volkswagen Jetta. Drivers of the tiny Jetta die at a rate of just forty-seven per million, which is in the same range as drivers of the five-thousand-pound Chevrolet Suburban and almost half that of popular S.U.V. models like the Ford Explorer or the GMC Jimmy. In a head-on crash, an Explorer or a Suburban would crush a Jetta or a Camry. But, clearly, the drivers of Camrys and Jettas are finding a way to avoid head-on crashes with Explorers and Suburbans. The benefits of being nimble--of being in an automobile that's capable of staying out of trouble--are in many cases greater than the benefits of being big."

 

[Ornery]

CAFE carnage: Death by fuel economy standards

• The National Academy of Sciences and The Brookings Institution have each individually found that CAFE standards result in traffic fatalities. New research from the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that CAFE was responsible for 2,500 to 4,400 deaths nationwide in 2000, and that 27 to 47 of those deaths occurred in Oregon. Raising the standard to 40 mpg, as some in Congress want, would kill an estimated 1,100 additional Americans every year, 12 of which would be in Oregon.
  
  More Americans are now buying SUVs and light trucks for safety reasons, particularly in rural areas where travel is more extensive, at higher speeds, and on less safe roads. If passenger cars are subject to stricter CAFE standards, SUVs will become even more popular. Instead of reducing our choices further, Congress should let each of us make responsible decisions about our use of energy and the safety of our families.

Fuel Efficiency Regulations Cost Lives and Money

• The CAFE program was established by Congress in 1975. Current CAFE standards require motor vehicle manufacturers' fleets of cars to average 27.5 miles per gallon of gasoline and their fleets of light trucks (which include minivans and SUVs) to average 20.7 miles per gallon.1 The only affordable way for automakers to meet these standards is to reduce the mass and weight of their vehicles.2
  
  This reduction has had deadly consequences. According to a study by the National Research Council (NRC), reductions in vehicle mass and weight necessary to meet CAFE standards increase the risk of death or serious injury in crashes. The NRC study found that vehicle downsizing and downweighting resulted in between 1,300 and 2,600 deaths and between 13,000 and 26,000 serious injuries in 1993 alone.3 A USA Today report, using data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, estimated that 46,000 people - nearly as many Americans as lost their lives in the Vietnam War - have died since 1975 as a result of the vehicle downsizing and downweighting due to CAFE standards.4

Why the Government's CAFE Standards for Fuel Efficiency Should Be Repealed, not Increased

• The evidence clearly shows that smaller cars have significant disadvantages in crashes. They have less space to absorb crash forces. The less the car absorbs, the more the people inside the vehicle must absorb. Consequently, the weight and size reductions resulting from the CAFE standards are linked with the 46,000 deaths through 1998 mentioned above, as well as thousands of injuries. It is time that policymakers stop defending the failed CAFE program and start valuing human lives by repealing the standards.

Fuel Efficient But Dead!

• The Dec. 13 news story about the Department of Transportation's proposal to raise fuel economy standards omitted a major point: Downsizing vehicles to meet corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards reduces their crashworthiness.
  
  According to a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, CAFE-induced downsizing contributes to 1,300 to 2,600 vehicle deaths a year. Any move to make CAFE standards even more stringent probably would raise this death toll.
  
  Advocates of higher CAFE standards for sport utility vehicles argue that this would reduce the hazard that SUVs pose in collisions with cars. The evidence for this is far from clear, because assessing the overall safety effects of reducing one vehicle's mass in a multi-car collision is complex. But in single-vehicle accidents, small SUVs are much less safe than large ones. A higher CAFE standard for SUVs would encourage sales of small SUVs.
  
  The Transportation Department skirts this issue in its proposal, but that shouldn't be surprising. A decade ago the Competitive Enterprise Institute sued the department, arguing that it had illegally ignored CAFE standards' lethal effects. A federal court agreed, finding that the department's approach was based on "lame claims," "statistical legerdemain" and "bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo." Now the department is doing it again. Even regulatory history, it seems, repeats itself.

CAFE's Three Strikes - It Should be Out

• To improve fuel economy, auto makers primarily reduce the size and power of vehicles. Unfortunately, this downsizing has tragic consequences (See Figure). As far back as 1989, consumer advocate Ralph Nader admitted that "larger cars are safer - there is more bulk to protect the occupant." Numerous studies have proved this point. For example:
  
  Researchers at Harvard University and the Brookings Institution found that, on average, for every 100 pounds shaved off new cars to meet CAFE standards, between 440 and 780 additional people were killed in auto accidents - or a total of 2,200 to 3,900 lives lost per model year. [See the figure.]
  
  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data indicate that 322 additional deaths per year occur as a direct result of reducing just 100 pounds from already downsized small cars, with half of the deaths attributed to small car collisions with light trucks/sport utility vehicles.
  
  Using data from the NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Traffic Safety, USA Today calculated that size and weight reductions of passenger vehicles undertaken to meet current CAFE standards had resulted in more than 46,000 deaths.
  
  Since the laws of physics will not change, requiring all vehicles to be smaller increases everyone's overall risk of death or injury in auto accidents. Insurance data bear this out; occupants of small cars do worse than passengers of larger sedans, minivans or sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in every kind of accident.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: AznAnarchy99

Originally posted by: MastaTam
It's a proven fact that seat belts not only saves lives, but it also greatly reduces bodily harm during an accident. Quite honestly, I couldn't care less if you were to not wear your seatbelt, but if you were to not buckle up children whom you're responsible for in your car, you are putting that child at risk.

Heres a quick story about my friend who didnt wear his seatbelt. He went out with a few friends, none were drinking but he happened to sit in the back without a seat belt. They got into a crash, he got thrown through the front windshield 20-30 feet away from the car in the street and was in a coma for 4 months.... after hearing that... i dont care what people say... seatbelt on...

And this is how it should be, you should want to take measures by yourself to protect yourself. The government should not be set up to protect us from our own stupidity.