Seatbelt Laws...

[Fat0eknee]

a christmas tree eh?

[NeedleBender]

I seem to have been misinterpreted. i wear my seatbelt and encourage my passengers to do so as well. if they choose not to then thats their choice. thats what i meant. i didn't mean that i didn't care if they got hurt.

[RIDETHEWALRUS]

I agree with his arguments, but I do not agree with his choice. It is a shame that his desire to spite the government and do as he pleased resulted as it did. Today I will finally be installing seatbelts into my 69 mustang despite the fact they harm the aesthetics. I do not believe it is the government's job to tell us we must wear our seatbelts, I believe that it is our own common sense that should require this. What is worse, a $50 fine or your life? That is the argument that should exist.

For Derek's sake I truly hope he believed in what he wrote and is at peace with the results of his decisions.

Furthermore I am truly dissapointed about the loss to society with the death of this man who was obviously political in nature and willing to stand up for what he believed in.

[2001GTPEWTER]

I used to think they were an April quota excuse, the last of 17 seatbelt violations in the last 6 years just came off my record...this is the reason I'm still not a FedEx driver. But I'm on the side of the law..If they had ticketed my uncle three years ago he'd probably still be alive...on the other hand the seatbelt took off his wife's arm in the same accident...Maybe what they should do is rethink the design.

[DeltaMustang65]

Oh god, I hate this subject...I can't even believe I'm posting on this thread...

Anyway, is anyone else here sick of these people that think they should be able to rebel against everything and do whatever they want, regardless of consequences to themselves and others and the "big picture" (be it car insurance, medical insurance, etc)? This guy sounds like some spoiled college kid (no offense to anyone in college, I'm a college student too. Just not spoiled) that thinks the world revolves around him or something, and who got all upset when he got a ticket for something "he didn't feel like" doing.

"If one is doing the math, that is more than $138 million spent on seat belt laws. But the kicker is this: It is estimated, by researchers for Congress, that ---->ONLY 6,100 LIVES <---- are saved per year because of new seat belt wearers. Moreover, the increase in the percentage of those who wear seat belts has leveled off."

You sir, are a ******-bag.

You also unwittingly kill your own argument by saying this...

"I’m from the school of thought where everyone should have the right to do as they please as long as they are not infringing on the rights of other people. This comes from the political philosophy that inspired our founders and freedoms."

He apparently didn't realize that he IS infringing on the rights of other in the case that the unthinkable happens. But that's common sense, or so I thought.

I'd like to raise a few arguments against this moron, but it looks like you guys did a good job already. Since I work part time as a hospital orderly, the only things I WILL say are:

1) 6,100 lives saved translates to trillions of dollars saved in medical bills per year, I'd wager. This guy can appreciate $$$, even if he can't appreciate a human life.

2) Maybe WE should have a choice in who WE help at the hospitals, HUH??? How would you like that? Maybe we should deny treatment to anyone who didn't wear their seatbelt? NOTE: This is sarcasm. This would not only be incredibly inhumane, but would kill the economy. Think big picture here.

3) This guy's arguments are proof that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

P.S. I know there are things that the government gets wrong, but that's a poor argument for not having to wear your seat belt.

[Unit 5302]

Originally Posted by mattgoveiagt

...
I'd like to raise a few arguments against this moron, but it looks like you guys did a good job already. Since I work part time as a hospital orderly, the only things I WILL say are:

1) 6,100 lives saved translates to trillions of dollars saved in medical bills per year, I'd wager. This guy can appreciate $$$, even if he can't appreciate a human life.

2) Maybe WE should have a choice in who WE help at the hospitals, HUH??? How would you like that? Maybe we should deny treatment to anyone who didn't wear their seatbelt? NOTE: This is sarcasm. This would not only be incredibly inhumane, but would kill the economy. Think big picture here.

3) This guy's arguments are proof that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

P.S. I know there are things that the government gets wrong, but that's a poor argument for not having to wear your seat belt.

Considering he's dead from an auto accident most likely because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt, he's probably not going to debate you on the subject.

[DeltaMustang65]

Aw man...and I was soooo looking forward to debating with this genius, gosh golly-gee darn CRAP!

I know the guy isn't around anymore, but thank you.

[2001GTPEWTER]

Wow, somebody more obnoxious than I can be..thats a rarity.

[DeltaMustang65]

Hmmm...maybe I should have listened to my gut and not posted on this thread.

[2001GTPEWTER]

Safety first.

[RBatson]

It could have went either way. One of my cousins was in the exact situation but just the reverse happened. He was relatively unscathed while the driver and front passenger were killed. Being thrown from the car saved his life. I do not know if the two in the front were wearing seatbelts or not(before seatbelt laws) but from what I remember, the top of the car was crushed.

I think it should be a personal choice though I think wearing the belt reduces your chances of injury.

[Unit 5302]

Like I've stated below. I don't care if people die in auto accidents because they weren't wearing their seat belts. I just don't want to have to pay for their stupidity. In other words, let people purchase "no seat belt" insurance that allows them to drive without seat belts for the additional estimated cost.

Then I can purchase "seat belt" insurance for a significantly reduced rate.

If somebody purchases "seat belt" insurance and gets into an accident where they aren't wearing their seat belt, the claim should be denied.

[TXinPA]

What is so horribly painful about wearing a seatbelt anyway? Or is it just that someone is telling them to, so they automatically have to rebel against it?

I've always worn mine, I feel weird without it.

BTW, Hi Kell!

[Fat0eknee]

whats horribly painful is that this thread is over a year old

[StangFlyer]

Originally Posted by Fat0eknee

whats horribly painful is that this thread is over a year old

Nothing wrong with bringing back a good debate though.

[chuck88]

Unit5302 wrote:

"Then I can purchase "seat belt" insurance for a significantly reduced rate."

What kind of a discount do you think an insurance company would provide. The discount would be less then $15 a year and the non seat belt style insurance would be a couple of hundred increase. Then the insurance compnay would sell it as "a significantly reduced rate".

Regarding wearing seat belts, I am from the old generation we never wore seat belts, hell I even ripped them out of my first car and threw them in the garbage. It took a while but I got used to them and if I could get used to them any one can.

Why not wear them?

One complaint I have heard from a lot of folks is that the seat belt doesnt lock (my stang does) and keeps getting tighter. In my other vehicle I have a small orange (spring loaded) wood clamp which I place on the belt where it could lock the belt in place and prevent the annoying "tightening up". It cost a few dollars in the Home Depot.

Where your seat belts guys they do save lives.

While we are saving lives do what I do drive 110 MPH (55 saves lives well 110 should save twice as many).

[2001GTPEWTER]

110!? Awesome I'm going for a drive right now.

[Rev]

Originally Posted by bigred90gt

My dad used to tell us, when we were too young to know any different, that the truck wouldnt start without all the seatbelts buckled.

That actually was true sometime around mid to late '70's. It was called a "seat belt interlock". The front seats had weight sensors in them. If a person was seated in the front seat without the seat belt buckled, it worked like a neutral start switch without the car in neutral or park. The car wouldn't start without buckling up. These contraptions lasted only a short time (a few years?) and were always causing problems. You could defeat them by buckling the belt and then sitting on it, but alas, that was more trouble than actually using it.

And come to think of it, They actually fixed it in the next year or so after the governmental mandate so that the seat belt had to be slightly extended (unreeled enough to cover a skinny belly) when it was buckled to stop that trick.

Historical note: Rear seat belts were an optional extra in my car. I do have them though.

Rev

[CobraJet428]

I seldom wore seatbelts prior to last year because of the seat belt alarm going off in my '07 until I put it own. Do I belive seatbelts save lives? Yes. However, i belive it is a matter of personal responsibility to wear them and should not be a matter of legislation. In the end, it is revenue enhancement for state and local governments.

[6T5PONY]

I started wearing seat belts back when you had to go to the local airport to buy them, because car and parts dealers didn't have them. I ALWAYS have my seat belt buckled, in fact it is such a habit that it will be buckled if I back the car out of the garage for a wash!!

That said: the seat belt laws are the most asinine and ridiculous nanny laws on the books. It's nobody's d**n business but mine whether I'm buckled or not! And the idiotic comment that it costs somebody else if I'm injured is hogwash. I insure myself.

Seatbelt laws are, to use the military term, bravo sierra!

Another beef: the auto manufacturers, in an effort to save a couple of bucks a car, stopped installing inertia locks. Now the belt constantly digs into your neck and makes them much more uncomfortable than when you could lock them in a comfortable position. Only stupid - save a buck and make it less likely that the person will use the d**n safety device. The feds should correct that idiotic move, if they are going to do anything.