PDA

View Full Version : Seatbelts


Thrackan Solo
06-08-2003, 08:06 PM
Do you think wearing your seatbelt should be a law?

ET Warrior
06-08-2003, 08:58 PM
No.


While I do, and always have worn my seatbelt whenever i'm in a car, and I believe that everyone SHOULD wear them, I dont think that anyone has the right to MAKE me wear it. It's a personal choice, if I want to make an attempt to save my life it's up to me. I'm not endangering ANYONE else by not buckling up, so it should be my choice.

I can understand laws about speeding, driving recklessly, etc. because those can cause injury or death to others. But not wearing a seatbelt would only hurt someone if my body got launched out of the car in an accident and my body were to slam INTO somebody.......but the odds of that happening are not good.

Thrackan Solo
06-08-2003, 09:04 PM
I agree, it isnt the governments job to keep you safe from yourself, its there job to keep you safe from others

Breton
06-08-2003, 10:48 PM
Yes, it should stay a law.

Most people simply do not know the dangers of not wearing a seat belt, and therefore they are unfit to make a proper desiscion on whether or not they should wear it. The goverment's job is, amongst other things, to protect you from both others and from yourself. There is no doubt that the amount of seat bealt-using car drivers would go down if the law had been removed.

There's simply too many dumb people in the world, but we can't risk their lives just because of that.

ShadowTemplar
06-08-2003, 11:03 PM
It is a law in Denmark. Makes a lot of money for the State in fines, lol. Seriously, though, a fine works a lot better than any kind of ad campaign, IMO. And since it doesn't exactly hurts to buckle up, I can't see what harm such a law does.

I'm not endangering ANYONE else by not buckling up

Not quite correct. If you get yourself killed or injured, the state will have to:

1) Find some way to cover the loss of tax-income.

2) Patch you up/dig you down.

3) Take care of any minor children that you may have, which are left unsupported.

4) Pay for psychological counseling for your family and others who may be traumatized by the experience of seing you hurt/dead.

All of this nice money could have gone into hospitals, which could have saved people's lives. So, in a way, you are starting a contingency that costs lives, other than your own.

it isnt the governments job to keep you safe from yourself, its there job to keep you safe from others

But you would expect the govt to send probes to find out whether the ice on the local lake was thick enough to support you, no? And place a 'Traffic on ice illegal' sign if it wasn't, no?

Solbe M'ko
06-09-2003, 02:22 AM
We have a law about seatbelts in Canada. It's just an attempt to get more funds for the state (just like Photo-Radar), so that Jean can spend taxpayer dollars on a new private jet. I love this country, but I have a great distrust of our government. One problem is that Government and Politics get mixed together sometimes, so we conform to the majority sometimes. The bigger problem, tough, is that we have elections by the people. Democracy doesn't work in real life, I'm afraid, just like Communism doesn't work in real life. Stupid people can vote, and they do vote (usually for the guy with the best ad campaign). Well, now you've got me rambling so I'll just stop now before I upset someone.

ET Warrior
06-09-2003, 04:14 AM
There's simply too many dumb people in the world, but we can't risk their lives just because of that.

WE aren't risking anything. THEY are risking their lives. And if they are too stupid or too careless to buckle their seatbelts, then i'm sorry, I don't feel sorry for them. EVERYONE is told hundreds of times when they are little and when they get older that buckling their seatbelt can save their life. They force-feed it to us in school.

If we can choose to smoke cigarettes and choose to drink alcohol, then I think we can choose whether or not to wear our seatbelts.



The loss of tax income would probably be negated by the amount of money that the government would end up paying in social security/ medicare once this person grew older.

In the US medical/funeral bills would be the problem of the family of the deceased.
as would Psychological treatment, which the majority of families who go through such events do not even resort to.




And since it doesn't exactly hurts to buckle up, I can't see what harm such a law does.

And it doesn't exactly HURT to have government cameras installed EVERYWHERE, and it sure would make catching criminals a lot easier.....

griff38
06-09-2003, 11:34 AM
Well i believe in individual responsibility, and don't like when the "state" imposes these types of rules. You and I and everybody else pay in the long run for the careless drivers.


SO yes i guess it is a good thing.

ShockV1.89
06-09-2003, 02:25 PM
WE aren't risking anything. THEY are risking their lives. And if they are too stupid or too careless to buckle their seatbelts, then i'm sorry, I don't feel sorry for them.

Try telling that to the wife or child of the guy who was propelled through the windshield of his car when he was hit by a drunkdriver. All that pain and suffering could have been avoided if there had been a law that forced that man to wear his seatbelt.

Granted, he still might not wear it. But it makes it more likely that he would.

That aside, if there were no seatbelt laws, then car manufacturers might not even install seatbelts in their cars. Perhaps they would make it an option that you pay out the nose for...

ET Warrior
06-09-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
That aside, if there were no seatbelt laws, then car manufacturers might not even install seatbelts in their cars. Perhaps they would make it an option that you pay out the nose for...

Why would they ever do that? They made seatbelts in cars LONG before there were laws about wearing them. Car dealers want to make their cars as safe as possible so that people will buy THEIR cars because they are safer.

That family should have pushed their father/husband to wear his seatbelt, because they KNEW it could save his life.

C'jais
06-09-2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
That family should have pushed their father/husband to wear his seatbelt, because they KNEW it could save his life.

But the state can't push it?

Yes, it should be required by law. It's such a small thing, it doesn't hurt, it takes no time to do and you'll be all the better for it. I can't imagine why people would want to drive without it.

It's like those lines on train stations where they mark how close to the rails you can go before the train stops. Surely it's up to people themselves to determine how far they're willing to risk their own life?

El Sitherino
06-09-2003, 04:37 PM
seatbelts give me a rash.:( i still wear it but it gives me a horrible rash and i break out. so they do hurt me. at least those over the shoulder ones. i don't like the idea of someone telling me to do things but i mean if it effects the people pushing me that's ok(like family) but the gov. won't miss me... unless they want me to be part of their nationwide army recruitment to take over the world.

C'jais
06-09-2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
seatbelts give me a rash.:( i still wear it but it gives me a horrible rash and i break out. so they do hurt me.

I stand corrected.

Me wrong.

Thrackan Solo
06-10-2003, 06:16 PM
but the gov. won't miss me... unless they want me to be part of their nationwide army recruitment to take over the world.


I will miss you Insane, and who knows maybe I am part of the govt.:eyeraise:

Breton
06-10-2003, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
but the gov. won't miss me... unless they want me to be part of their nationwide army recruitment to take over the world.

Sure they will. You pay your taxes, right? Any goverment's job is to take care of the people, and to do so, they are dependent on the people itself. This is why there is a law that makes you wear a seatbelt, because it's the goverment's job and because the goverment needs you. What would a goverment be without its people?

And in any case, just think of what any goverment does to protect its people. Hell, all laws are to protect them, so why not have a law that forces people to take responsibility for themselves if they can't do it without the goverment's help?

Echuu Shen-Jon
06-11-2003, 12:43 PM
Yes.

While ET Warrior is right, but it's not right on the other hand. Think if I chrashed up in the *** (I blanked out the word myself :D) of yours, and you flew through the front window and, of course, died. Would I have good feelings after that? Sure not. I would blame myself for killing a fellow forumer :D :rolleyes:

Airbag does also have an effect (that's why they're equipped ;))

ET Warrior
06-11-2003, 01:47 PM
But how often does anyone fly through TWO windshields with enough force to kill another person?

I've never heard of that happening.

I just dont think we should be responsible for other people's stupidity. If i'm in a hurry and my seatbelt doesn't buckle right and comes undone while i'm driving, (which has happened to me) I dont think I should get a ticket.

Echuu Shen-Jon
06-11-2003, 04:06 PM
I said YOU!!! flew through the window...But you're right...Just my opinion!

Breton
06-11-2003, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by ET Warrior

I just dont think we should be responsible for other people's stupidity. If i'm in a hurry and my seatbelt doesn't buckle right and comes undone while i'm driving, (which has happened to me) I dont think I should get a ticket.

People does not deserve to die due to stupidity. People with a lower-than-average IQ still has the right to live. And just because they aren't smart enough to wear a seatbelt unless there is a law about it, does not mean we should just forget about them and let casualties in car accidents go way up.

If your seatbelt comes undone while driving, then you probably didn't take enough time to fasten it. And in any way, it will be extremely easy to fasten it again. I think you should get a ticket if you are caught without belt on.

But there is one thing that's a bit strange though. There is a law tat forces us to use seat belts. Yet, there are no laws that forces us to wear helmets when biking. I really think there should be a law that makes people use bike helmets. We see way too many serious damages due to biking that could be avoided if people were wearing helmets.

El Sitherino
06-11-2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Breton
Sure they will. You pay your taxes, right? Any goverment's job is to take care of the people, and to do so, they are dependent on the people itself. This is why there is a law that makes you wear a seatbelt, because it's the goverment's job and because the goverment needs you. What would a goverment be without its people?

And in any case, just think of what any goverment does to protect its people. Hell, all laws are to protect them, so why not have a law that forces people to take responsibility for themselves if they can't do it without the goverment's help? i don't pay taxes. well not in my name. i help my parents out sometimes when they don't have all the money for it. its usually no more than 200 dollars though.

El Sitherino
06-11-2003, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Echuu Shen-Jon
Yes.

While ET Warrior is right, but it's not right on the other hand. Think if I chrashed up in the *** (I blanked out the word myself :D) of yours, and you flew through the front window and, of course, died. Would I have good feelings after that? Sure not. I would blame myself for killing a fellow forumer :D :rolleyes:

Airbag does also have an effect (that's why they're equipped ;)) airbags have killed more people under the age of 30 than it has saved. just a friendly statistic i got from doing research on safety when i was in the 8th grade.

Echuu Shen-Jon
06-12-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
airbags have killed more people under the age of 30 than it has saved. just a friendly statistic i got from doing research on safety when i was in the 8th grade. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat???????? But it saved my father!!

ET Warrior
06-12-2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Breton
If your seatbelt comes undone while driving, then you probably didn't take enough time to fasten it. And in any way, it will be extremely easy to fasten it again. I think you should get a ticket if you are caught without belt on.

Of cousre it's because I didn't take enough time to fasten it. And you know what? It's my own damn fault. If I die it's MY fault, and nobody elses. And lets say that my seatbelt comes undone while I'm driving, and since I'm so freakin worried about getting a stupid ticket about it I take one hand off the wheel to pull it back across me, but while my attention is sorta divided a little kid runs out in the street after a ball, the extra fraction of a second of reaction time i lose because i'm not paying full attention to the road could cost that innocent kid his/her life.

An unlikely scenario, but possible. Far more likely than me killing somebody else because I wasn't wearing a seatbelt and got ejected out of the car.

People does not deserve to die due to stupidity. People with a lower-than-average IQ still has the right to live. And just because they aren't smart enough to wear a seatbelt unless there is a law about it, does not mean we should just forget about them and let casualties in car accidents go way up.

But shouldn't people be responsible for themselves? At what point do we draw the line between things we should be responsible for and things the government should. MANY people die from AIDS and other STD's every year. Should the government make a law that you HAVE to wear a condom during intercourse unless you and your partner both have blood tests that prove you don't have any STD's? Should there be a law that houses with small children and babies cannot have sharp corners or objects that the child could fall and hurt themself on?

Breton
06-12-2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
Of cousre it's because I didn't take enough time to fasten it. And you know what? It's my own damn fault. If I die it's MY fault, and nobody elses.

Of course it's your fault. That's why you get a ticket. If it was someone else's fault, then it would be unfair if you were punished for it.

If you rob a bank, that's your own damn fault. Yet, those actions are illegal because it does not only hurt yourself. That's the same with not wearing seat belts. If you die due to that, then it would clearly go out of your family and friends, and they do not deserve such pain because of your carelessness. Also, if you die, that would hurt the goverment.

But shouldn't people be responsible for themselves? At what point do we draw the line between things we should be responsible for and things the government should. MANY people die from AIDS and other STD's every year. Should the government make a law that you HAVE to wear a condom during intercourse unless you and your partner both have blood tests that prove you don't have any STD's? Should there be a law that houses with small children and babies cannot have sharp corners or objects that the child could fall and hurt themself on?

People should indeed be responsible for themselves. But some people simply can't be responsible for themselves. That's where laws come in. They forces them to actually be responsible for themselves. Such a law will certainly not hurt people who can take responsibility for themselves, since they would use a seat belt anyway.

ET Warrior
06-12-2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Breton
Of course it's your fault. That's why you get a ticket. If it was someone else's fault, then it would be unfair if you were punished for it.

But WHY should I get a ticket if i'm not endangering anyone else? I'm still driving perfectly safely.

Shotokan
06-13-2003, 12:16 AM
It's not YOU ET, but it's others. I've heard many people say "I'm a very good driver. I'm a very safe driver. Blah Blah Blah..." You may be a perfectly safe driver but it's other reckless drivers that cause crashes.

ET Warrior
06-13-2003, 03:00 AM
I KNOW it's the other drivers that will cause the accident. What I am saying is that my not wearing a seatbelt in NO way affects the safety of ANYONE else, and therefore it is NOT the governments business to make me wear a seatbelt.

Shotokan
06-13-2003, 03:50 AM
oOo:rolleyes: I misunderstood you there.

Breton
06-13-2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
But WHY should I get a ticket if i'm not endangering anyone else? I'm still driving perfectly safely.

Because you are endangering yourself. The seat belt law is a law to protect you from yourself. This is also why suicide is illegal.

I KNOW it's the other drivers that will cause the accident. What I am saying is that my not wearing a seatbelt in NO way affects the safety of ANYONE else, and therefore it is NOT the governments business to make me wear a seatbelt.

But it is. They excist to ensure the people's safety. Making them wearing seat belts is precisely that.

ET Warrior
06-14-2003, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by Breton
Because you are endangering yourself. The seat belt law is a law to protect you from yourself. This is also why suicide is illegal.


I find this to be f***** up. Why don't I have the right to take my life into my own hands? Why is the government so damned interested in protecting me, but they will still make me register for the draft so that I might have to go fight and DIE in a war?

But it is. They excist to ensure the people's safety. Making them wearing seat belts is precisely that.

And just THINK how safe we'll all be when we're under constant surveillance by the government at all times! Then people will ALL be safe ALL the time.

El Sitherino
06-14-2003, 12:53 PM
im eating a huge fries and grilled burger, soaking in it's runny fat (or as i call it a heart attack on a bun) I am endangering myself by taking away those few extra years and giving myself a greater chance of suffering from a heart attack. now im walking up very old stairs that could break. now im swimming, i could drown. see everything we do could kill us. hell even walking there is a chance a plane will crash and hit us. there is always a chance that we could die.why not make all that crap illegal? say i'm swimming and i hit my head on the wall and knock myself unconcious i will drown. should they make swimming illegal because of that, or maybe make us wear "Water Helmets"?
there was a law that they wanted to make bikers wear helmets and knee and elbow pads.what they are doing is making children weak. like those parents that overreact because their kid coughed so they take the kid to the emergency room and say i think my kid is dying. and yes that does happen... and quite alot, atleast here where i live.

El Sitherino
06-14-2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
I find this to be f***** up. Why don't I have the right to take my life into my own hands? Why is the government so damned interested in protecting me, but they will still make me register for the draft so that I might have to go fight and DIE in a war?



And just THINK how safe we'll all be when we're under constant surveillance by the government at all times! Then people will ALL be safe ALL the time. they want you to grow and breed children so they can make those kids soldiers so they can die "protecting" our rights in some war agains rhode island :)

ShockV1.89
06-14-2003, 12:56 PM
And just THINK how safe we'll all be when we're under constant surveillance by the government at all times! Then people will ALL be safe ALL the time.

Am I seeing a lead into a giant conspiracy theory, where the government is conspiring to take away all our rights, and it started with seatbelt laws?

I hate these..... :rolleyes:

Breton
06-14-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
I find this to be f***** up. Why don't I have the right to take my life into my own hands?


Because you being dead will harm others. Not only family/friends, but it is your tax money that keeps the country up and running. And then you have all the expenses with funeral and paperwork.

im eating a huge fries and grilled burger, soaking in it's runny fat (or as i call it a heart attack on a bun) I am endangering myself by taking away those few extra years and giving myself a greater chance of suffering from a heart attack. now im walking up very old stairs that could break. now im swimming, i could drown. see everything we do could kill us. hell even walking there is a chance a plane will crash and hit us. there is always a chance that we could die.why not make all that crap illegal? say i'm swimming and i hit my head on the wall and knock myself unconcious i will drown. should they make swimming illegal because of that, or maybe make us wear "Water Helmets"?

You eat burger because you think it is good. You walk old stairs because you need to get up/down. You swin because it is fun and healthy. But I really can't see the bloody fun in playing with death by not wearing seat belt.

And perhaps you should compare the number of people who dies due to lack of seat belt and those who die due to hitting their head in a swimming pool.

ET Warrior
06-14-2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
Am I seeing a lead into a giant conspiracy theory, where the government is conspiring to take away all our rights, and it started with seatbelt laws?

I hate these..... :rolleyes:

Not really a lead, just pointing out that giving up freedoms for a feeling of safety COULD eventually lead to this.

Because you being dead will harm others. Not only family/friends, but it is your tax money that keeps the country up and running. And then you have all the expenses with funeral and paperwork.
My being dead will not HARM them, it will sadden them and cause them grief, but they will recover. I've lost 2 friends in car accidents, they were wearing seatbelts but they still died, but it doesn't haunt me every day. I cried a lot when it happened, but life goes on.
And the amount of money lost in tax dollars will be countered by both money they save on paying my social security were I to grow older, and the fact that more kids are born than people Die each year. The government can lose me and not care.

You eat burger because you think it is good. You walk old stairs because you need to get up/down. You swin because it is fun and healthy. But I really can't see the bloody fun in playing with death by not wearing seat belt.
While eating that burger may be good, if I eat nothing but fast food I'm almost 100% guaranteed to die early of a heart attack. So if the government needs me alive so much for their taxes why don't they make me eat healthy?

What about going bungie jumping or sky diving? People can die EASILY from those, they are very dangerous. If the cord breaks or the chute doesn't open......................................

TheJackal
06-15-2003, 12:54 AM
wait... so there is not seat belt laws in the states? Wow! I am just so used to it I thought every country had one!

and as for this post:
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko
We have a law about seatbelts in Canada. It's just an attempt to get more funds for the state (just like Photo-Radar), so that Jean can spend taxpayer dollars on a new private jet. I love this country, but I have a great distrust of our government.


Wow. nice to know your know your politics!

NOTE: that was sarcastic.

My dad works for the DND (Department of National Defense) and his job is to book and coordinate all those flights needed for the members of parlement. Those news planes you are complaining were in GREAT NEAD! The old planes were in ****ty state and couldnt fly quite far without the need of refueling.

Think of it this way. Would you rather have two new Challenger planes (allthough good planes, they are far from being fancy) which did cost a lot of money to the tax payers, but what planes DOESNT COST A LOT OF MONEY.

Here are the options:
- would you rather have the government buy two really expansive 747 airplanes with every possible high tech toys that gives you the ability to run a country on it that costs billions of dollars to maintain and operate... sorta like what the USA has.

- or would you rather get two smaller type airplanes that pretty much the exact commercial duplicate that any nation airline has.

I know a lot about Canadian politics and fairly a lot about internation affairs. Hell, if i dont know something i ask my girlfriend. she's studying political science. Sorry if i seem mean or rude, but i just really get into it when someone talks about national Canadian politics and get the facts wrong.

El Sitherino
06-16-2003, 01:18 AM
there is. we just think it shouldn't be. atleast i don't think there should be.

SkinWalker
06-16-2003, 03:10 AM
A huge driving force in the seatbelt laws of the U.S. (and probably other countries as well) is the Insurance Industry. This is the same driving force behind the Helmet Laws, especially with child bicyclists.

If you think about it, it makes good sense: the number of accidents involving automobiles has increased exponentially since the advent of the automobile itself. The amount of money lost by insurance companies to the victims of accidents is significant. Studies show clearly that seatbelts save FAR MORE lives and avoid FAR MORE injuries than in people who don't use them.

The more people who wear seatbelts, the less death and injury, the less money paid by the insurance companies. All this translates into less money I have to pay in my insurance premiums each quarter.

The current drive to "click-it or ticket" is undoubtedly a direct result of lobbying by the Insurance Industry.

Still, I think that as long as you don't have passengers, seatbelts should be voluntary. Any and all passengers should be wearing them, however, and the driver should be the one held accountable for tickets in that case.

That's just my opinion. I wear the sh*t out of my seat belt. :-)

ET Warrior
06-16-2003, 04:52 AM
I never thought about the Insurance companies......that is a good point, less car accidents = less money I pay for insurance.....


And I agree that it's the drivers responsibility to make his/her passengers wear seatbelts, because then you ARE in control of their lives and it's your job to protect them.

Jah Warrior
07-02-2003, 04:44 PM
Must admit I'm kind of with ET Warrior here, Seatbelts should be worn through choice. However i feel far more strongly that human life is precious so.... I voted yes.

However, people's life insurance should be void if they die in a crash with no belt on, after all they know the risks.

Sometimes I wear mine, sometimes i dont, it depends who is driving. :p

Dagobahn Eagle
07-09-2003, 10:37 PM
When I first saw this thread, I thought it was a survey to learn how many people buckled up. Then I saw the topic of the poll.

Don't get me wrong here. I love America, and I love Americans. But I cannot for the life of me understand these few Americans who willingly put themselves at risk and allow others to put themselves at risk in the name of "democracy" and "freedom". You're not less free or less republican if you wear a freaking seat belt. If you are, then tell me where in the constitution it says that you can't be forced to wear a seat belt:rolleyes:. Same with sitting on the back of a van.

Many of the posts in this thread are fallacies, but I'll just second C' Jais:


Yes, it should be required by law. It's such a small thing, it [almost];) doesn't hurt, it takes no time to do and you'll be all the better for it. I can't imagine why people would want to drive without it.

It's like those lines on train stations where they mark how close to the rails you can go before the train stops. Surely it's up to people themselves to determine how far they're willing to risk their own life?

Nobody on these boards have the least of an argument to not wear seat belts maybe save from this http://www.boomspeed.com/insanesith/alizee.gif girl, who is unfortunate enough to have an allergy (to IS: Keep wearing a seat belt:)).

Not really a lead, just pointing out that giving up freedoms for a feeling of safety COULD eventually lead to this.
Thank you, my democratic friend, for so nicely proving my point. Have a good day.

ET Warrior
07-09-2003, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Thank you, my democratic friend, for so nicely proving my point. Have a good day.


:confused: :confused: uhhhh, what point did I prove?

Pisces
07-10-2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
But not wearing a seatbelt would only hurt someone if my body got launched out of the car in an accident and my body were to slam INTO somebody.......but the odds of that happening are not good.

I've been in a car accident. Had I not been wearing a seatbelt I would've killed my dad as my body would've been thrown straight into his ribs. Trust me, unless you're driving alone, the odds seem low now but they could play out different in a crash. And beyond that, killing a family member (that was wearing a seatbelt and would've otherwise survived) because you weren't wearing one, that's the type of thing that'll mess you up. Many people think they're infallible (not saying you in particular do ET. I do though, whew, learned the hard way many a time :D) and then the bad things happen and stuff gets royally screwed up. Being forced to wear a seatbelt, it's protecting you even if you don't think it'll ever come into play. It's like having to wear a hardhat or safety goggles before being allowed into certain plants or onto certain sites, it's protecting you whether you want it or not.

And yeah, I understand that seatbelts don't save everyone but they save far more than if people didn't wear'em (...that sentence make sense?)

ET Warrior
07-10-2003, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by Pisces
And yeah, I understand that seatbelts don't save everyone but they save far more than if people didn't wear'em (...that sentence make sense?)

Makes sense, yes it does.


And for the record, I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt, I am never in a car without one. I am just saying I think that it should be a choice. I dont think it should be a law. The odds of me going skydiving and my chute not opening correctly and the wind blowing me into a situation where I fall on someone on the ground, crushing us both are miniscule, but it still could happen, and skydiving is still legal..............just something I thought of.


And just curious, how did that accident play out if you would hit your dad? Were you broadsided? Not wanting to sound insensitive, i'm just curious.

ET Warrior
07-10-2003, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Don't get me wrong here. I love America, and I love Americans. But I cannot for the life of me understand these few Americans who willingly put themselves at risk and allow others to put themselves at risk in the name of "democracy" and "freedom". You're not less free or less republican if you wear a freaking seat belt. If you are, then tell me where in the constitution it says that you can't be forced to wear a seat belt:rolleyes:. Same with sitting on the back of a van.


I dont recall anyone mentioning that it is unconsitutional to make such a law, in fact, it seems all but two support it being a law. I just think that It's a personal choice. Smoking cigarrettes will kill you almost certainly, but it's legal, if the government REALLY wants to protect us, why dont we make cigarettes illegal? That'll save a LOT of lives, probably nearly as many if not MORE than making wearing seatbelts a law. I dont know for sure, because I dont know the exact numbers for deaths related to these, and i'm too tired to think about looking them up.

Dagobahn Eagle
07-16-2003, 02:45 AM
You're right, it might seem like a small thing, but a too big number dies in traffic accidents in my opinion, losing your life because you refused to wear a belt around your body is a meaningless way to go.

About cigarette banning, I've lost two grandparents to tobacco and I'd love to see cigarettes banned. If nobody smoked, 400 000 less Americans would die each year. Each year. However, I believe people have learned from the attempt to ban alcohol in the States in the 20's (which went horribly wrong) and figured out that you cannot ban something that's so widely used.

We can, however, regulate tobacco any way we can. I fully support the banning of all forms of tobacco advertisements and the banning of smoking on all public eating/drinking facilities such as resturants and bars. Also, I believe the age limit should be increased, at least to 21.

marichui
07-17-2003, 01:11 PM
Okay seatbelts are both life saving and killers. They can break your ribs or either break your ribs and save you. If there should be a law to wear seatbelts first they have to make safe seatbelts. If not they are just going to make a law that is going to kill us!!!!! These new seatbelt should be safe and comfortable before they put a law to wear a weapon. What if a robber comes up and has no gun? All he has to do is pull the seat belt around your neck, choke you, throw you out of the car and steal it.

ShockV1.89
07-17-2003, 11:23 PM
What if a robber comes up and has no gun? All he has to do is pull the seat belt around your neck, choke you, throw you out of the car and steal it.

Thats why I dont wear a seatbelt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

:rolleyes:

But seriously, seatbelts do break ribs. But if you are going so fast and hit so hard as to break ribs... dude, you would have died in that accident, almost guaranteed. My father had three broken ribs from his seatbelt in his accident. The cop said that if it hadnt been for the belt, he would have been thrown through the side window of the other car.

Sure, they hurt. Like a bullet proof vest. But the alternative?

Dagobahn Eagle
07-18-2003, 02:24 AM
The same way as I don't wear as seat belt as they can hurt me when my car crashes, I won't ever wear a parachute if I am to jump out of a plane 100ft over the ground as it hurts to get it over me:p.

But enough teasing. Seriously, seat belts save more people than they kill. Guaranteed.

Funny thing is, seat belts have not been installed for buses in Norway until the last year and it's not even a law to wear one yet. And if questioned on wheter or not it should be a law, people would go "no, it's my body, my right", pretty much the same way as you do about your car belts. But are we right? No, I think not.

My old kayaking team's bus once crashed. Nobody got hurt, but we got shaken up pretty badly (as in emotionally) and my brother nearly got hit by a speeding car once. Since those two incidents I've been more careful about traffic.

JerAir
08-04-2003, 05:58 PM
I think the law should stay for two reasons:

1. it's better to be safe than sorry.

2. if you get in a wreck, you will very likely get killed or seriously
injured if you are not wearing one.

although, if it's a BAD wreck sometimes a seatbelt won't save your life. (but maybe the air bags and curtains will?)

oh, and if a guy comes up to me and intends to steal my car, I will just run him over.

Writer
08-04-2003, 07:22 PM
I'd say it's a good thing, but there are many people who don't follow it. I was going to a concert one time and when we got to the building it was in, there was a wrecked car on display. The driver had not been wearing a seatbelt and was killed.

Better be safe than sorry.

JerAir
08-08-2003, 03:00 PM
my hair cutter's twin sister's family were driving somewhere in a SUV and got in a wreck. there were 2 little girls in the middle row.
well....
the mom and dad were not wearing a seatbelt, and.....

...you know what happened!

so.. you never know when you are going to get in a wreck, so

you better buckle up!

oh, and the orphaned girs were wearing seatbelts, and 1 got

hurt, and the other one is perfectly fine (besides emotionally)

I said it once, I'll say it again;

Better be safe than sorry!

Kurgan
08-17-2003, 09:56 PM
Yes, it should remain a law.

Why? Because while statistically accidents actually INCREASE with seatbelt laws (people feel safer, so many drive more recklessly), it does tend to reduce accident FATALITIES.


So more accidents, but fewer deaths. I'm for it.


And yes, I think SUV's are a total waste of money and resources 99% of the time (I see rows and rows of them in my town with only one person in them each). And I'd rather I'll take a bruise from a seatbelt over getting my head through the windshield any day. ; p

ShockV1.89
08-18-2003, 02:06 AM
And yes, I think SUV's are a total waste of money and resources 99% of the time

Wait until you get in an accident with one. I used to think the same thing...

But that's a different topic.

SkinWalker
08-18-2003, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
Wait until you get in an accident with one. I used to think the same thing...

But that's a different topic.

This is as good a thread as a new one... I thought it was dead anyway ;)

According to NHTSA, SUVs rollover in 37 percent of fatal crashes, compared to a 15 percent rollover rate for passenger cars._ Rollover crashes accounted for 53 percent of all SUV occupant deaths in single vehicle crashes in 1996. Only 19 percent of occupant fatalities in passenger cars occurred in similar crashes.

Smaller SUVs - with a wheelbase of less than 100 inches - had a disproportionately high incidence of fatal rollover crashes._ Small SUVs were involved in rollover crashes more than four times as often as the average passenger car.

Also, SUVs don't have to conform to the same safety standards as passenger cars... the standards for roof strength are insufficient according to Gillis (1988).

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) conducted a test designed to show how well vehicles protect the driver and passengers in a crash, midsized SUVs were given a rating of "good", "acceptable", "marginal" or "poor"._ None of the 13 SUVs tested was rated "good."_ Five were rated as "acceptable," three as "marginal," and five as "poor." Popular models including the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Nissan Pathfinder earned "marginal" ratings. "Poor" ratings went to models such as the Chevy Blazer, GMC Jimmy and the Isuzu Rodeo._ The tests measured how well head restraints and bumpers performed and damage to the vehicle's structure.

The largest SUVs had fewer driver deaths than average._ However mid-sized and smaller SUVs - like the Nissan Pathfinder, Suzuki Sidekick, and Jeep Wrangler - had driver death rates substantially higher than average._ In examining deaths per million passengers, SUVs had nearly the same death rates in accidents as small cars, but substantially more fatalities than mid-sized or large cars.

In a May 1999 study, the Institute found only two models of SUVs - the Mitsubishi Montero and certain models of the Chevy Blazer - had head restraints that merited a "good" rating. Most were listed as "marginal" or "poor."

SUVs and Light Trucks also are a danger to other, more conservative, drivers who are using passenger cars. Of the 5,259 fatalities caused when light trucks struck cars in 1996, 81 percent of the fatally injured were occupants of the car (Gabler, et al, 1998). In multiple-vehicle crashes, the occupants of the car are four times more likely to be killed than the occupants of the SUV (Traffic Safety Facts: 1998). In a side-impact collision with an SUV, car occupants are 27 times more likely to die (IIHS).

Auto manufacturers have maintained that the weight of SUVs make them dangerous to smaller cars, not the design. Yet a recent study (Bradsher, March 1999) by the NHTSA examined the design of many popular SUVs and found that the height and frames of SUVs make them extra lethal to people riding in smaller vehicles._ Differences in vehicle weight did not account for the extra risk.

Placement of headlights is also problematic for drivers of passenger cars, as the head lights of SUVs tend to be higher and shine into the front and, especially, the rear windscreens, blinding drivers of passenger cars. In addition, passenger cars have the ability to "see through" each other to see the brake lights (you know, the one mounted in the rear window) of other vehicles 1, 2, even 3 cars ahead. With an SUV in front, warning of sudden changes in traffic patterns is significantly reduced.

References:
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (http://www.hwysafety.org/)

Gillis, Jack, 1988. The truck, van and 4x4 book. pg. 5.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, May 22, 1999. Status Report "Special Issue: Neck Injuries in Rear-End Crashes," Volume 34, No. 5.

Gabler, Hampton and Hollowell, William, March 1998.The Agressivity of Light Trucks and Vans in Traffic Crashes, U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Document 980908.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, December 1997. Traffic Safety Facts 1996: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System.

Bradsher, Keith, March 2, 1999. Study Cites Fatal Design of Sport Utility Vehicles. New York Times.

Man... you gotta love Nexis-Lexis! If anyone needs to do research for a paper, this is the place to go. :joy:

Dagobahn Eagle
08-18-2003, 03:30 AM
You've just gotta love a cuontry where people want to ban a car because it might roll over, but where sitting on the back of a freaking pickup truck is not considered hazardious enough to advocate a ban...:).

IMO, you're in far bigger trouble if you're on the back of a pickup that crashes, than if you are in an SUV that rolls over...

SkinWalker
08-18-2003, 04:44 AM
In the state of Iowa, I found the following statistics at this .pdf document:


Fatalities & Injuries by Position
......................Number killed...................Number Injured
Driver............. 46........................ 3,229
Front Seat
Passenger........ 8........................... 1,008
Back Seat
Passenger........ 1............................. 158
Third+ Seat
Passenger........ 0............................. 1
Bus
Passenger........ 0............................. 0
Riding on
Exterior............. 2 (3.51%)........ 28 (0.63%)
{delted misc... such as mo-ped driver, etc.}
Total.................. 57 (100.00%).... 4,432 (100.00%)

I'm not sure what year these stats came from.... I didn't get that deep into the document, but "exterior" would be the bed of the pick up. If Iowa is indicative of the rest of the nation (and there is nothing to suggest that it is or isn't that I've seen), then riding in the bed of a pickup would be a negligible criteria.

Just to be sure though, I put the PickUp Truck in the same category as SUV... both are big, gas guzzling, heavy, and dangerous for other motorists... you know.. the ones in Saturns like mine ;)

ShockV1.89
08-18-2003, 01:30 PM
Pretty solid evidence there, Skinwalker.

But look at when many of those studies were done. SUVs are still an emerging product, and I'm sure many of those problems have been corrected (well, not the damn headlights).

If that evidence was more recent, I might trust it more. But heck, one of them even goes back to 1988! ;) Surely things have changed by now, and car manufacturers arent dumb. They're gonna see these things, and make changes accordingly. I know I've seen some incredibly wide SUVs driving around. Maybe a response to increased roll rates in crashes?

In any case, car developers move fast. The effects of a study published in 1999 could conceivably be seen in 2001.

I have my own personal experience to go on. I know I'd be dead if I was in my car. But maybe I just got lucky.

And Dagobahn... In my state (NY), it is illegal to ride in the back of a pickup truck. No restraints there, no real protection, etc.

Dagobahn Eagle
08-18-2003, 09:57 PM
Fatalities & Injuries by Position
......................Number killed...................Number Injured
Driver............. 46........................ 3,229
Front Seat
Passenger........ 8........................... 1,008
Back Seat
Passenger........ 1............................. 158
Third+ Seat
Passenger........ 0............................. 1
Bus
Passenger........ 0............................. 0
Riding on
Exterior............. 2 (3.51%)........ 28 (0.63%)
{delted misc... such as mo-ped driver, etc.}
Total.................. 57 (100.00%).... 4,432 (100.00%)
Probably because a lot more people find themselves inside cars than the ones who find themselves on pickup backs.

Don't let the statistics fool you. If there was an equal amount of people riding on the back of pickups as there were people riding inside cars, sure, then the 46-to-1-scale would make sitting on the back of a pickup one of the safest mode of transportation around.

Jubatus
08-19-2003, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
If that evidence was more recent, I might trust it more. But heck, one of them even goes back to 1988! ;) Surely things have changed by now, and car manufacturers arent dumb. They're gonna see these things, and make changes accordingly. I know I've seen some incredibly wide SUVs driving around. Maybe a response to increased roll rates in crashes?

Don't be too sure about the 'Surely things have changed by now'. It is a pretty common experience that companies of any product or service will twist, stretch or obfuscate around any research and law against their shortcomings for as long as they possibly can if it means a higher profit. They'll utilize the cheapest resources, workforce and subcontractors as much as they can to give the consumer the cheapest product, and if necessary prolong any antagonism against them by ways of stretching the truth of their product information and lawyers (if affordable).

The funny thing is that the consumers are really to blame in that the majority care not to look beyond their wallet to examine if a cheap product really is viable against the standards set for the product of that type. But then again, it's not easy for a single customer to pry the truth from the dealer nor have the necessary insight to make a sound judgement on every aspect of a given product, such as a car.

But for seat belts, I think any aspirant for a license should be presented with 3 things:

1 - A demonstration of a test crash of a vehicle (with dummies not wearing the seat belts of course) doing no more than 20 mph - even at that relatively low speed the damage potential is quite remarkable.

2 - Be presented with this question: Just because you feel confident enough to drive without a seat belt fastened, do you trust your fellow drivers to be as "competent" as you? - You're not alone on the road.

3 - Be presented with this question: Do you think that the ones that do crash and are seriously injured or killed because they didn't wear their seat belt felt any less confident about their driving skills than you do?

SkinWalker
08-19-2003, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
But look at when many of those studies were done. SUVs are still an emerging product, and I'm sure many of those problems have been corrected (well, not the damn headlights).

If that evidence was more recent, I might trust it more.

I have to admit that the studies are a bit more in favor of SUV's in some instances (I went to the IIHS website to see what was current).

Of the current models of mid-sized SUVs, 29 were evaluated for Frontal offset crashworthiness. Crashworthiness refers to how well a vehicle protects its occupants in a crash (IIHS, 2003).

11 received an overall "Good" rating , including the Volvo, BMW and Acura as well as the Lincoln Aviator and the Lexus SUVs.

6 received an overall "Average" rating, which included the Xterra, Land Rover and Durango.

10 received a "Marginal" rating, including Jeep Cherokee/Liberty, Pathfinder, Aztec, Rodeo, and Passport.

3 received an overall "Poor" rating, which were the Chevy Blazer, the Olds Bravada, and the GMC Jimmy/Envoy. The last two were the oldest models tested, but the Blazer included all models from 1995 to 2003.

A representative of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated before a congressional committe, "pickups and SUVs are involved in a higher percentage of rollovers than passenger cars" (NHTSA Statement, February 26, 2003). He went on to say: the rate of fatal rollovers for pickups is twice that for passenger cars and the rate for SUVs is almost three times the passenger car rate. Overall, rollover affects about three percent of passenger vehicles involved in crashes but accounts for 32 percent of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities. Single vehicle rollover crashes accounted for 8,400 fatalities in 2001. Rollover crashes involving more than one vehicle accounted for another 1,700 fatalities, bringing the total fatality count to more than 10,000.

The NHTSA also raised the issue of compatibility and stated that (in 2001) light trucks, which includes SUVs, were involved in about half of all two-vehicle accidents with passenger cars which resulted in fatalities. Of these crashes, 80% of the fatalities were of the passenger cars' occupants.

Other issues were discussed as correlators, such as seat belts and alcohol, but one cannot ignore the significance of the SUV. The SUV occupant survives the crash, but the passenger car occupant is killed more frequently.

SUVs have no purpose. Not for the average consumer anyway. The SUVs I see in Dallas are tricked out with rims and tires that I'm certain would never see the mud, rocks or rough terrain advertised in their television commercials.

They are oversized representations of oversized egos and compensation for those of low self-esteem and confidence. In short, they're status symbols. Just today, I passed an Excursion with no less than four Flat Screens showing some porno... and only one driver. I expect he's still alone, though probably occupied.

SUVs drink gas like thirsty elephants. They create problems in overcrowded parking lots. They back into other cars/people because their drivers can't operate them efficiently. They completely obliterate visibility of the road to other drivers behind them (other SUVs included!). They contribute to increased pollution by having more engine oil and places for it to drip from. They contribute to the increased depletion of petroleum reserves. They cost too much money.

And their added average length, when mathmatically calculated, contributes to a tremendous amount of additional traffic burden to street/highway intersections. --- Don't believe me... do the math. The average SUV is a couple feet longer than my car. Multiply two feet times the number of SUVs that go through a given intersection. Multiply this times the number of intersections in a given metropolitan area.


Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, (2003). MIDSIZE SUVS
Frontal offset crashworthiness evaluations: current models. Found at: http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_midsuv.htm

NHTSA, (February 26, 2003).Statement for House hearing on SUV Safety Found at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/testimony/SUVtestimony02-26-03.htm

Kurgan
08-19-2003, 08:33 PM
I was shocked to learn that volvo (with its reputation for building safe vehicles) had made an SUV... but I guess they were bought out by Ford awhile back, so I should have seen it coming.


Wasn't there a similar thing going on with the safety of mini-vans a decade or so ago?

Are full size vans as safe or less safe than Sport Utility Vehicles?


I guess statistically its still safer to fly, but more expensive and has more hassle involved (plus if you ARE in an accident, the chances of dying are much higher, just the chances of an accident very low compared to cars).

Datheus
08-19-2003, 08:37 PM
Yeah, it should be... Only because if you don't end up getting killed... I'm paying taxes so that your life can be saved because you were to stupid to wear a seatbelt in the first place...

vegietto
09-15-2003, 12:25 PM
i think no because u can still die with one on and i don't like it i think we have our freedoms so i think we should be able to choice if we want to wear them or not