Seatbelt laws

[Homicidalheathen]

Having had abdominal stiches 3x I say, let it be up to the person. There are times you can't wear one.

[Msterbeau]

Having had abdominal stiches 3x I say, let it be up to the person.  There are times you can't wear one.

I think the officer would understand.. The law may even be written to allow that.

I think I'll go look.... :-)

[kellygrrrrrl]

How about healthcare/hospital costs?  All the uninsured motorists out there drive up the price for all of us when they get in accidents and can't pay.  If they were belted they would very like not sustain as much injury.  Same goes for helmet laws.  Even more so.

I'm not disagreeing with the Darwin thing, though...  More of a pocketbook issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(Which is why I have my clients sign "i will wear my seatbelt while operating the insured vehicle - clause"...when writing insurance policies.)

This way, if they were found not using a seatbelt, they can decline the claim....

But the state is still responsible for the payments to injury...unfortunately. :confused

[BrassFusion]

Hospitals are closing because they can't sustain the costs of the uninsured...  It's not all motorists, obviously but each drop in the bucket gets you closer to the tipping point.  I'd prefer to have hospitals over not having them and keeping a "freedom" like being belted. 

Here's a thought:  If you don't want to be belted.. YOU pay the cost by paying for the ticket instead of making us all pay for it in higher healthcare.  Seems reasonable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That might make sense if the money they made off ticketing people went to pay for ANYONE'S health care instead of beer and hookers for cops and state politicians.

But it doesn't.

[Msterbeau]

That might make sense if the money they made off ticketing people went to pay for ANYONE'S health care instead of beer and hookers for cops and state politicians.

But it doesn't.

MMmmmm. Free beer.

Career change? :-)

[BrassFusion]

MMmmmm.  Free beer.

Career change?  :-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm up for it if you are.

[Msterbeau]

I'm up for it if you are.

Sweet. I'm tired of watching police do whatever they want while driving while I'm stuck driving only 20mph over the limit and having to use turn signals.

What city do we sign up for? :woot:

[BrassFusion]

Sweet.  I'm tired of watching police do whatever they want while driving while I'm stuck driving only 20mph over the limit and having to use turn signals.

What city do we sign up for?    :woot:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

figure ferndale or sterling heights would make sense.

i have connections in SH so it might be easier to get us on the force, but ferndale would be better because all the gay civilians would be easier to smack down and steal from.

[Msterbeau]

figure ferndale or sterling heights would make sense.

i have connections in SH so it might be easier to get us on the force, but ferndale would be better because all the gay civilians would be easier to smack down and steal from.

Plus they have better taste in stuff. Except for music.

[Scary Guy]

Seatbelts I place into the same catagory as motorcycle helmets, drugs and suicide. I think it should be up to the individual to decide. Especially suicide/assisted suicide (like when you're too dissabled to do it yourself).

However they are not victemless crimes as people they know are effected if and when they die (or drug users just freaking out in general too). Sure people do get hurt but they'll get hurt eventually when the person dies anyhow of other causes.

[DarkVampire]

Seatbelts and kids yes no question. Adults? That's their decision. I don't like them because I don't like the feeling of being restrained. Being restrained drives up my anxiety.

[phee]

Seatbelts and kids yes no question. Adults? That's their decision. I don't like them because I don't like the feeling of being restrained. Being restrained drives up my anxiety.

To me not being in a seatbelt makes me think that I might be perminantly injured or make me wonder what my daughter would be like as she grows up.... but I wouldn't see cuz I would be dead... So I wear a seatbelt

[Scary Guy]

My cousin doesn't wear hers because her friend got decapitated by a seatbelt. Though I'm sure that's a rare case.

So kids don't know any better. Darwinisim knows no age. When I was younger I felt no need to wear a seatbelt and usually didn't.

[BrassFusion]

My cousin doesn't wear hers because her friend got decapitated by a seatbelt.  Though I'm sure that's a rare case.

So kids don't know any better.  Darwinisim knows no age.  When I was younger I felt no need to wear a seatbelt and usually didn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I bet all those horror stories you hear about death by seatbelt would be reduced by proper use of seatbelts. A lot of people don't wear theirs correctly, and many cars don't have seatbelts that adjust very well.

When I drive my dad's goat (VROOOOOOOOOM!!), the shoulder thing doesn't adjust very low, and for how close it is from the seat to the frame, the thing bites right into my neck. So I wrap the shoulder around behind and keep the lap belt on. I believe that's probably legal, but if it isn't, I got one hell of a good excuse...

[Hellion]

:devil Air bags have killed several kids and other people before,don'nt trust them.IMO

[Msterbeau]

:devil Air bags have killed several kids and other people before,don'nt trust them.IMO

This also goes back to dealing with the whole unbelted occupant thing. In order to protect them, the airbags have to deploy faster. In order to deploy faster, they have to have a more powerful explosion to get them out. The compromise was that people too close to the bag got hurt. If the manufacturers didn't have to deal with that they would have been free to design a system solely for belted occupants which very likely would never have killed a child even if they were in the wrong seat. And the whole thing with children... they should never have been in the front seat in the first place. Cars are now required to have sensors in the front passenger seat in order to deactivate the airbag if they detect small/out of position occupants. These should only be necessary in two-seat vehicles where there's no choice on where to place the child.

[phee]

This also goes back to dealing with the whole unbelted occupant thing.  In order to protect them, the airbags have to deploy faster.  In order to deploy faster, they have to have a more powerful explosion to get them out.  The compromise was that people too close to the bag got hurt.  If the manufacturers didn't have to deal with that they would have been free to design a system solely for belted occupants which very likely would never have killed a child even if they were in the wrong seat.  And the whole thing with children... they should never have been in the front seat in the first place.  Cars are now required to have sensors in the front passenger seat in order to deactivate the airbag if they detect small/out of position occupants.  These should only be necessary in two-seat vehicles where there's no choice on where to place the child.

Very true....

[Anathema]

My theory on seatbelts:

if you are under 18 it should be a law you have to wear them. over 18 you are considered an adult able to make your own choices. therefore if you choice not wear a belt and fly threw your window and die that should your decission to make.

[Dubh Aingeal]

My theory on seatbelts:

if you are under 18 it should be a law you have to wear them.  over 18 you are considered an adult able to make your own choices.  therefore if you choice not wear a belt and fly threw your window and die that should your decission to make.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hence the reason I don't wear them. Only diffrence is not wearing it has been the one thing that saved my arse. Being able to move myself from the seat I was in to avoid the tree branch that would have skewerd me otherwise, being thrown from a vehicle that otherwise would have cruched me when the roof caved in, and my list can go on. Granted any one of those could be considered a unique case for why not wearing one at that given moment was a good thing. The consitancy of having every accident I have ever been in being of that uniqueness is why I don't wear them.

[gorfgirl]

Seat Belts only help as long as your not hit from the side. Then they help to kill you.

I don't have a problem with the laws... only the way they are inforced and fined.

Someone brought up Helmet laws. They should most likely look into the research that has been done since helmet laws were passed. When they were passed, noone had done any studies to prove that helmets were safer than not wearing one. They just seemed safe, so laws were passed. All these laters people have done research and studies. Turns out helmets kill more people than they save. Helmets bounce far more than skulls do. That bounce causes the brain to bounce inside the skull. This causes brain damage and death. In most cases, the same hit to the head would only cause minor damage if not for the helmet. The helmets also break your neck more often than they protect your head.

[torn asunder]

I don't have a problem with the laws... only the way they are inforced and fined.

Someone brought up Helmet laws. They should most likely look into the research that has been done since helmet laws were passed. When they were passed, noone had done any studies to prove that helmets were safer than not wearing one. They just seemed safe, so laws were passed. All these laters people have done research and studies. Turns out helmets kill more people than they save. Helmets bounce far more than skulls do. That bounce causes the brain to bounce inside the skull. This causes brain damage and death. In most cases, the same hit to the head would only cause minor damage if not for the helmet. The helmets also break your neck more often than they protect your head.

total agreement, which is why when i get out of michigan, the helmet comes off. i wish they'd repeal the mandatory helmet law here... =(

[gorfgirl]

They tried. Granholm (the bitch) vetoed it... last week I think.

[Fierce Critter]

Sorry, but the absurdity of that just totally grabbed me out of the rare lurk and tossed me kicking and screaming into this one.

Where in God's name are you getting your skewed information from about motorcycle helmets? I come from a family that branches very, very deep into the world of lifelong bikers of all manner and description. And ALL of them would tell you you're off your rocker.

Here's what you'll probably call a skewed source on the other side of the argument, because of who funded the study, but I'm willing to bet money I don't have that your sources are just as much, if not more, skewed by babies who - waaaaaah - can't get used to the feel of a helmet on their head:

Look especially around #41 or #43 and down

[BrassFusion]

Sorry, but the absurdity of that just totally grabbed me out of the rare lurk and tossed me kicking and screaming into this one.

Where in God's name are you getting your skewed information from about motorcycle helmets? I come from a family that branches very, very deep into the world of lifelong bikers of all manner and description. And ALL of them would tell you you're off your rocker.

Here's what you'll probably call a skewed source on the other side of the argument, because of who funded the study, but I'm willing to bet money I don't have that your sources are just as much, if not more, skewed by babies who - waaaaaah - can't get used to the feel of a helmet on their head:

Look especially around #41 or #43 and down

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's good that the people on that site did such a broad survey, but why don't they have any actual data in regards to the commonality or severity of head/neck injuries with and without helmets? Like... "20% of the helmet wearers in accidents suffered minor concussion, whereas 75% of the non-helmet wearers suffered from concussion and lacerations to the neck and face."

And yes, I just pulled that totally out of my ass, but why don't they put some real numbers up there instead of just saying "Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity?" What's significant to the researches may not be significant to others.

[torn asunder]

which part was absurd? while it's true that a helmet will keep your skull intact on impact, very few studies have been done that look at anything other than death prevention. my arguments against helmets are more in line with accident prevention, than protection after the fact. helmets (ones that will give adequate protection) are terribly restrictive to field of vision, which prevents me from seeing a lot of things i could without one. it also is very restrictive to hearing, and considering cars are so much quieter than bikes, it inhibits my ability to "sense" any changes in traffic, or any oncoming vehicles. also, motorcycling is an exercise in balance, and helmets can wiegh up to five pounds, which has been shown to not only throw off a person's balance, but also induces fatigue quicker in a rider, and as any rider knows, when you're tired, you're less aware, and this can lead to mistakes and accidents. furthermore, while helmets usually will keep a skull intact, it greatly increases the chances for death or permanent paralysis from a broken neck, due to the extra wieght of the helmet. (think whiplash x100) in my opinion, the best way to stay safe is to give myself the best chance i can to avoid an accident in the first place, and i think my chances are best without a helmet. (and before anyone actually starts into the half-helmet argument... 1) unless you fall on the top of your head, they won't help in the least bit, and in the event you do, you're gonna snap your neck anyway... 2) i have a DOT half-helmet at home - the tag inside it reads (paraphrasing) "this helmet has only been proven effective in impacts up to 15 mph". i don't know about anyone else, but i can't tell you the last time i travelled somewhere on my cycle under 15mph, so why bother?)

Sorry, but the absurdity of that just totally grabbed me out of the rare lurk and tossed me kicking and screaming into this one.

Where in God's name are you getting your skewed information from about motorcycle helmets? I come from a family that branches very, very deep into the world of lifelong bikers of all manner and description. And ALL of them would tell you you're off your rocker.

Here's what you'll probably call a skewed source on the other side of the argument, because of who funded the study, but I'm willing to bet money I don't have that your sources are just as much, if not more, skewed by babies who - waaaaaah - can't get used to the feel of a helmet on their head:

Look especially around #41 or #43 and down