wearing seatbelt is an option

[Mark R]

The research describing the safety benefit of seat belts is old - it was the US military that first mandated it for their staff after they found that more soldiers were killed in car wrecks than in battle. Ask any trauma surgeon - he'll tell you that the type of injuries he sees from car wrecks have dramatically changed to become less severe (especially in Europe where seat belts are compulsory).

The tenedncy not to wear seat belts has had another knock on effect as well as the financial aspects already discussed - US SRS air bags are designed to protect a person who is not wearing a seatbelt, European ones are designed only to protect those who are wearing a seatbelt. The differing inflation speed, leads to far less risk of injury from a European air bag - fewer burns, less hearing damage. There has only been 1 air bag related death in Europe, compared to many more in the US.

 

[LAUST]

.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: pyonir
Jesse Ventura said it best: "You can't legislate stupidity"

the world would be a better place with more people like him and NM gov. johnson.

 

[Stiler]

Here in TN wearing a seatbelt is the law now, you can get a ticket for not wearing one.

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: Stiler
Here in TN wearing a seatbelt is the law now, you can get a ticket for not wearing one.

Seat belt laws exist in all but one state now (not in NH i believe). just some are primary and some are secondary.

 

[LiekOMG]

Hmm, you must be one of those people that think not wearing a seatbelt is "cool", and wearing one is for nerds. Yeah... flying through your windshield is just so damn cool 😕

Since its the law in just about every state, you have a few options.

1.) walk
2.) take public transportation
3.) move out of the country


Take your pick.

 

[Derango]

Originally posted by: Lucky
Wheee!! Another moron who blindly believes seatbelts can save your life in all accidents.

It can't save your live in all situations, but it sure helps.

 

[Amused]

I always wear a seatbelt when driving or riding in a car. It's just common sense.

That said, I'm 100% against any law forcing us to do so. The government has no place protecting us from ourselves.

If insurance costs are your justification for this asinine law, I'm all for clauses in insurance contracts that nullify the policy if the driver or passengers are not belted.

 

[AreaCode707]

In Cali, it's law. If you're in my car, you better have your seatbelt on.

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
I always wear a seatbelt when driving or riding in a car. It's just common sense.

That said, I'm 100% against any law forcing us to do so. The government has no place protecting us from ourselves.

If insurance costs are your justification for this asinine law, I'm all for clauses in insurance contracts that nullify the policy if the driver or passengers are not belted.

so what is your stance on requiring children and toddlers/infants having to be strapped in?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
I always wear a seatbelt when driving or riding in a car. It's just common sense.

That said, I'm 100% against any law forcing us to do so. The government has no place protecting us from ourselves.

If insurance costs are your justification for this asinine law, I'm all for clauses in insurance contracts that nullify the policy if the driver or passengers are not belted.

so what is your stance on requiring children and toddlers/infants having to be strapped in?

That's up to the parents. Honestly, if the parents are too stupid to protect their kids, do you really want their offspring to survive?

 

[bsobel]

If insurance costs are your justification for this asinine law, I'm all for clauses in insurance contracts that nullify the policy if the driver or passengers are not belted.

That just makes the problem worse. It's not insurance, it's state medical expenses. All those people without insurance that are hurt, the state winds up paying for. And it's damm expensive.

Bill

 

[BigJohnKC]

I'm sure it's been said (too lazy to read all the posts) but if you don't want to wear a seatbelt in your own car, fine, don't. But if you're riding with me, you're wearing a seatbelt. Period.

 

[JellyBaby]

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the safety design of automobiles. If you believe Nader, the industry should burn in hell for making unsafe cars. 🙂

Seatbelts. They're good enough for Nascar drivers so they're good enough for you.

It's a matter of the benefits of mandatory protection easily outweighing the hit on personal liberty.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: bsobel

If insurance costs are your justification for this asinine law, I'm all for clauses in insurance contracts that nullify the policy if the driver or passengers are not belted.

That just makes the problem worse. It's not insurance, it's state medical expenses. All those people without insurance that are hurt, the state winds up paying for. And it's damm expensive.

Bill

This is why socialism is dangerous. It allows the state to dictate how you live.

Today it's seatbelts and helmets, drugs tobacco and alcohol. Tomorrow it's fatty foods and sweets.

End any and all socilized medical care and you no longer have to worry about this.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JellyBabyIt's a matter of the benefits of mandatory protection easily outweighing the hit on personal liberty.

A very dangerous slippery slope, to say the least. Just wait until they limit a personal liberty YOU hold dear...

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

That's up to the parents. Honestly, if the parents are too stupid to protect their kids, do you really want their offspring to survive?

*shrug* ya never know how someone will turn out. IMO: i would rather it be a law, and the child that can't make the decision survives, than have a dead innocent child (not knowing what he/she would have done in life).

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

That's up to the parents. Honestly, if the parents are too stupid to protect their kids, do you really want their offspring to survive?

*shrug* ya never know how someone will turn out. IMO: i would rather it be a law, and the child that can't make the decision survives, than have a dead innocent child (not knowing what he/she would have done in life).

ex post facto darwinism is evolution nonetheless. All the nanny state does is allow the stupid to breed, and their off spring to survive and breed yet some more.

 

[goodoptics]

His seatbelt saved his life.

Learn from it!

 

[crystal]

If insurance costs are your justification for this asinine law, I'm all for clauses in insurance contracts that nullify the policy if the driver or passengers are not belted.

Try and do that, then see how many will cry fouls and claim discrimination. (Usually by idiots that choose not to wear seatbealts in the first place.)

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
ex post facto darwinism is evolution nonetheless. All the nanny state does is allow the stupid to breed, and their off spring to survive and breed yet some more.

interesting generalization. you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[JellyBaby]

Just wait until they limit a personal liberty YOU hold dear...

If it protects me and my fellow citizens and there's little debate about its merit, I can live with it.

There are many personal freedoms that are infringed upon because the government is out of control. I don't believe this is one of them.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: crystal
If insurance costs are your justification for this asinine law, I'm all for clauses in insurance contracts that nullify the policy if the driver or passengers are not belted.

Try and do that, then see how many will cry fouls and claim discrimination. (Usually by idiots that choose not to wear seatbealts in the first place.)

How many are crying foul over seatbelt tickets, and why have most states made it a secondary (read: unenforcable) offense?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Just wait until they limit a personal liberty YOU hold dear...

If it protects me and my fellow citizens and there's little debate about its merit, I can live with it.

There are many personal freedoms that are infringed upon because the government is out of control. I don't believe this is one of them.

This is my point. What you believe has merit, another may not. In the case of restricting personal liberty to protect you from yourself, I feel that any such law is intrusive. Seatbelt laws do NOT protect you if you would wear your seatbelt regardless.

 

[Viper GTS]

I've been wearing a seatbelt since my earliest memories, it's such a part of riding in a car that I feel like there's something wrong if I don't have the belt on. Even in parking lots. If I'm driving, everyone wears their seatbelts.

What really pisses me off is the moron parents who drive around with their children climbing around unbuckled. If you hit anything, you're going to get a Susie sized hole in your windshield & a Susie smear on the pavement. Teach them from a young age to wear their belts, & they won't abandon it when they're older.

Viper GTS