Why don't people wear their seat belts?

[Ducimus]

The seat belt ad (http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/2012ciot/index.html) being shown here on subsim, got me to remember this accident (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865554630/Morgan-woman-killed-in-I-15-accident.html)we had locally last month.

What that news article doesn't tell you was
a.) After she was ejected from her vehicle and hit the Semi, she was literally smeared across the road. From what I understand, there were bits and pieces of her all over the place.

b.) I heard she had kids.

I cannot for the life of me fathom why people do not wear their seat belts. I mean, i was taught at a very young age to wear the damn things. If you end up the military they drill it into your head. In fact if you die in a vehicle and weren't wearing a seat belt, they wont pay out your life insurance. (SGLI). That and it's common sense that if you get in an accident and don't want to be kissing the windshield, or as a hood ornament, or as a greasy smear on the road, to buckle that damn belt. This isn't rocket science! (It's called inertia!) And yet, people don't wear them, and obviously enough people don't wear them to warrant ads like the one above, not to mention the local woman who for all intents and purposes earned a Darwin award. I don't understand these people at all.

[soopaman2]

In New Jersey, it is a huge no no to drive without a seatbelt.

They can pull you over for your front seat passenger not wearing a belt, they usually get ticketed .

But, on the garden state parkway, I can fly along at 85-90 miles an hour in the middle lane, and wave to a trooper as he passes me on my left at 120 mph. (mind you, [because most of you do not know] you are a moron if you do the speed limit on the GSP and not stay in the right lane. Even the cops speed.) Maybe it is because it should have been toll free years ago, but our crooked politicians kept robbing the fund. (But that is besides the point, and off topic)


(I love the NJ autobahn!)

Now in the townships it is different, I have alot of small towns around here, and they use a seatbelt as probable cause to screw people. As you know, if they do not spend the entire budget, it gets reduced, as it is with most taxpayer funded industries.


I also watched a car (6 car lengths in front of me) try to agressively pass, clip someones bumper, and nail one of those Steel posts on the overhead signs. He ejected through the windshield.

There is also a video floating about of a man who had a siezure on the same road (Garden state parkway) and ran into the triangular piece of cement between toll lanes. He was ejected too.

Jerseyans drive terribly, but you should see how the New Yorkers drive when they visit my shore.:D j/k

NJ is so congested with cars, I seen alot of messes, due to morons. Things that belts could save. I wonder myself why people do not wear them.

Safety is so lame, screw you squares man!

[Seth8530]

agreed

[Sailor Steve]

I always wear a belt, just as I always wear a helmet when I ride. While I think anybody who doesn't wear one is an idiot, I also stand squarely against seat belt and helmet laws.

[Morts]

I always wear a belt, just as I always wear a helmet when I ride. While I think anybody who doesn't wear one is an idiot, I also stand squarely against seat belt and helmet laws.
I honestly dont have a problem with seatbet and helmet laws.
As one of my friends explained at airsoft to someone who wanted to use shooting glasses (?? google translate, think Oakley M frames),
sure, you can say "I do this, and im responsible for the outcome", but that doesnt take the guilt away from the other person when he shoots his eye out.
It's the same with the seatbelts/helmets, sure, he isnt responsible for the other person not wearing it and dying as a result, but i doubt that takes away the feeling of guilt after an accident.

[Herr-Berbunch]

I'm 100% certain that I wouldn't be here if I didn't wear a seatbelt. Rollbar helped too, but definitely the seatbelt.

And I always wear a bike helmet, they may not be perfect but they're obviously going to help over nothing!

[Sailor Steve]

I honestly dont have a problem with seatbet and helmet laws.
I agree about the guilt part, but it's not my place to make someone else be safe from himself. I can think of several places where similar laws could be enacted, but others might think were extreme. I also believe that such laws aren't about safety but control.

I'm 100% certain that I wouldn't be here if I didn't wear a seatbelt. Rollbar helped too, but definitely the seatbelt.

And I always wear a bike helmet, they may not be perfect but they're obviously going to help over nothing!
I'm also certain that a seatbelt saved my life. That said, I still believe it's wrong to protect adults from themselves.

[Schroeder]

@Sailor Steve

A person who doesn't wear his seatbelt will be thrown around inside the car in case of an accident. If the person sits on one of the rear seats they might fly through the whole car and kill the people on the other seats as well. That's why I say that everybody HAS to buckle up. If not for his safety then for the safety of the other passengers.
Then there is the problem with group pressure: "You want to wear a seat belt, ohhh you're such a wimpy baby...". This would keep a lot of the younger drivers from using seatbelts and this group is especially prone to get involved in accidents.

On a secondary note a young death costs the society a lot of money. People went to school for years, parents got tax cuts etc. A person must have worked for several years to pay back what society has spend on them before they could work and so I think the society has a right to tell them to prevent some unnecessary early deaths by using a seatbelt.

@Ducimus
Yeah, it's also beyond me why a lot of people don't use them. When we drive to a local restaurant for lunch where I work a lot of my colleagues don't use their seatbelts which is especially stupid as they have cars with airbags (have fun facing those when not wearing a seatbelt....).
When it's my turn to drive I've always have to remind them that the seatbelts are paid for and can be used free of charge....:roll:

[Blood_splat]

My dad has a phobia of being strapped into seatbelts after being blown off an APC in Vietnam. We always had to remind him to put his seatbelt on. Here in Michigan motorcycle riders don't have to wear helmets now. I think their insurance goes up though.

[mookiemookie]

I'm 100% certain that I wouldn't be here if I didn't wear a seatbelt. The firemen who cut me out of my mangled car that night 10 years ago told me that. I never go without my seatbelt and never have.

I also believe that such laws aren't about safety but control.

I don't know about it being about control, but it's definitely about raising revenue. Laws don't prevent anything - they only enact penalties for breaking them. Given that, they can't be about control by definition. Just because they made a seatbelt law doesn't mean that everyone wears them. But anyone who is caught not wearing one is assessed a hefty fine. The fact that it makes people safer is a good side effect and makes it more politically palatable and an easier sell to voters rather than calling it what it is: a scheme for the local governments to make money.

[AVGWarhawk]

A seat belt saved my arse back in the 80's

I feel naked without a seat belt. I need to have it on.

My 54 Buick originally did not come with seat belts. I installed seat belts both front and rear as my family rides in the car. Safety first. Originality second.

[vienna]

Seat belts = attempt to control;

Seat belts = attempt by Gov't to increase revenue;

Hmm...

NO Seatbelts = increase in severe injuries, often to people under-insured or not insured whose costs are passed on to insured motorists and the taxpayers;

NO Seatbelts = increase in demand on trauma centers already spread thin resulting in decreased level and/or qulaity of care for all including non-driver injuries, increased costs passed on to insured patients and the taxpayers;

Just because there is a law or regulation, it isn't always "Big Brother" out to getcha'. I only gave two examples of the need to get as many people as possible to use safety belts and helmets. I also agree that it should not be necessary to legislate adult behavior; however, when there is a decided lack of adult resposibility, there is a need to indemnify, as much as possible, those who do act responsibly from those who do not. You wanna ride your cycle without a helmet, by all means go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to pay for your rehab or burial costs because you choose to do so and don't expect an insurance compny to cover your stupidity, either. Same applies to drivers and passengers in cars without seatbelts. Think of the traffic ticket in the same light as Bill Engvall's routine about stupidity; the ticket is really just your "Stupid Sign":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvj_acGhbPk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ZkdHImCuQ&ob=av2n

I see no reason for the rest of us to pay for the stupidity of the few. If you want to be stupid. then prepare to ante up to cover your costs...

...

[CaptainHaplo]

Seat Belt Syndrome....

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Seat+Belt+Syndrome

[Sailor Steve]

@Sailor Steve

A person who doesn't wear his seatbelt will be thrown around inside the car in case of an accident. If the person sits on one of the rear seats they might fly through the whole car and kill the people on the other seats as well. That's why I say that everybody HAS to buckle up. If not for his safety then for the safety of the other passengers.
And your point is? First, by the time a belt is needed the car is already out of control and the belt is the only option left. Second, what I need to do to protect myself is my business, not yours.

Everybody HAS to buckle up? If you really believed in automobile safety then you would be insisting that every car built comes with a full NASCAR-approved roll cage, five-point racing harness and the everyone in the car wear a helmet.

As I said, I always wear a belt and insist that anyone who rides in my car wear theirs as well. Seat-belt laws, however, are not about being safe. They're about mandating that others fit your belief that they should be safe. You have a right to guarantee your own safety, which is why cars come with belts. You have absolutely no right to force others to be safe from themselves.

[AVGWarhawk]

You have absolutely no right to force others to be safe from themselves.

Or the government. You are correct Steve. However, one would hope that logical thinking would prevail and seat belts utilized. It is not the case sometimes. As a result the consequences are usually bad. Often I believe the nanny state oversteps their bounds but in this instance I do believe seat belts should be mandatory.

[Takeda Shingen]

The reason that people do not wear seatbelts is the same reason that people don't wear helmets, drive drunk, play with loaded firearms, mess around with fireworks and bait dangerous animals. That is that people are stupid.

[Kaye T. Bai]

One reason that people often give that they don't wear seatbelts is that they're uncomfortable. Well, I've been wearing them for so long, it's uncomfortable if I don't wear a seatbelt.

Think of it as insurance, like having a fire extinguisher in case of a small fire in the kitchen, a pump-action for home defense, or a spare tire in your trunk.

[Takeda Shingen]

When people tell me that it is uncomfortable, I usually ask them if they think it would be more comfortable to have their sternum impaled by the steering collumn.

[u crank]

I think that wearing a seatbelt is a habit you have to develop. Telling my age now but I remember when seatbelt laws were first enacted. I was stubborn and only consistent nagging from a wife who works in the insurance business convinced me. Now I don't even think about it. In fact I've even put it on to move a car in the driveway.:DL

[TarJak]

I honestly cannot fathom why people are stupid enough to think it won't happen to them.

I recall a bus trip my family and I did to France from England a few years back. In France if the bus is fitted with seatbelts its mandatory to wear them so everyone dutifully buckled up.

Getting back on the bus on the ferry at Dover almost no-one except my family did so. Whilst driving up the M25 back towards our destination we drove into quite a nasty thunderstorm. My wife who was sitting a few rows in front of me called back and asked if the girls all had their seatbelts on. The pommy bloke sitting next to her said "Its all right love, were back in England, you don't need to wear them."

She replied, "Are you kidding? With this weather and slippery roads anything could happen, don;t you remember that bus accident a few months ago in Egypt?"

All you could hear for the next few seconds was click, click, click as everyone on the bus buckled up.

Just buckle up. It saves lives. Mind you I suppose its a form of natural selection if you choose not to.

[Ducimus]

You have absolutely no right to force others to be safe from themselves.

Or the government. You are correct Steve.

A thought just hit me. If someone is stupid enough to
a.) Think it can't happen to them
b.) Not buckle up

And they eat big heaping helping of asphalt as their ejected from the vehicle, then I wonder who pays for the mess? Ambulance, corner, police, Fire department, they all show up as first responders. On top of all that, possibly even disposal of the body if there are no next of kin. Who pays for all that? The Taxpayer? If so, then im inclined to disagree with ya gents. If the public has to pay the tab for someones idiocy, then the law is fine i think.

[TarJak]

A thought just hit me. If someone is stupid enough to
a.) Think it can't happen to them
b.) Not buckle up

And they eat big heaping helping of asphalt as their ejected from the vehicle, then I wonder who pays for the mess? Ambulance, corner, police, Fire department, they all show up as first responders. On top of all that, possibly even disposal of the body if there are no next of kin. Who pays for all that? The Taxpayer? If so, then im inclined to disagree with ya gents. If the public has to pay the tab for someones idiocy, then the law is fine i think.

Agreed. We have had laws in place here for some time making it mandatory to wear a seatbelt if travelling in a vehicle including buses where fitted and taxis.

It made a big difference to the number of deaths on the road and reduced the number of serious head traumas as well.

[Schroeder]

And your point is?

Have you also read the second part of my post? My point is my money. Simple as that.


First, by the time a belt is needed the car is already out of control and the belt is the only option left. Second, what I need to do to protect myself is my business, not yours.
Well, over in the US maybe but here I would be indirectly paying your medical costs with my insurance fees. So I think it is my business if I have to indirectly pay for people who will be sitting in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives.


Everybody HAS to buckle up? If you really believed in automobile safety then you would be insisting that every car built comes with a full NASCAR-approved roll cage, five-point racing harness and the everyone in the car wear a helmet.
Don't you think you're going a bit out of proportion?;)
To build cars like that would make them much more expensive and reduce the usable space in it by quite a margin, or you would have to build them bigger in order to get the same space as now + the roll cage.
Seatbelts are cheap and effective. They don't add much in the way of extra costs or discomfort (at least I never felt discomfort from a seatbelt, I actually don't even feel that thing is there at all while driving.)


You have absolutely no right to force others to be safe from themselves.And here our opinions differ again.:yep:

Again, I pay for the treatment (I'm not sure how your medical system works exactly but over here everybody has health insurances and the fees are, at least to some degree, coupled to the overall costs the insurance has to pay. The more people need treatment the higher the fees become).

[Platapus]

When I was an EMT and we rolled on an MVA the first thing we would look at was the windshield. If there was a starburst, we knew it was a going to be a bad call.

If we saw a small starburst lower on the windshield, we knew pretty sure that we would be sponging up a kid. :nope:

As for seatbelt laws?

I am ok for getting rid of seatbelt laws as long as the liability falls on the adult who chooses not to wear a seatbelt. That includes all hospital bills and any civil actions for any "wrongful death" lawsuits. If you were in an accident where, if you wore a seatbelt, you would have less injuries, then you choose to accept all the consequences of your decision not to wear a seatbelt.

But as long as other people (who were not involved in your decision not to wear a seatbelt) or insurance companies (who were also not involved in the decision) are held liable, then I think it is reasonable to have laws to protect them.

What is not acceptable is for people to choose not to wear seatbelts and then want societal protection when they get hurt (or their families when they get killed). You can't have it both ways.

Many states have culpable negligence laws on the books. These need to be applied to any adult who chooses not to wear a seatbelt.

But until any of this happens, I see no problem with seatbelt laws.

[iambecomelife]

When I was an EMT and we rolled on an MVA the first thing we would look at was the windshield. If there was a starburst, we knew it was a going to be a bad call.

If we saw a small starburst lower on the windshield, we knew pretty sure that we would be sponging up a kid. :nope:

As for seatbelt laws?

I am ok for getting rid of seatbelt laws as long as the liability falls on the adult who chooses not to wear a seatbelt. That includes all hospital bills and any civil actions for any "wrongful death" lawsuits. If you were in an accident where, if you wore a seatbelt, you would have less injuries, then you choose to accept all the consequences of your decision not to wear a seatbelt.

But as long as other people (who were not involved in your decision not to wear a seatbelt) or insurance companies (who were also not involved in the decision) are held liable, then I think it is reasonable to have laws to protect them.

What is not acceptable is for people to choose not to wear seatbelts and then want societal protection when they get hurt (or their families when they get killed). You can't have it both ways.

Many states have culpable negligence laws on the books. These need to be applied to any adult who chooses not to wear a seatbelt.

But until any of this happens, I see no problem with seatbelt laws.

That wouldn't work in the US. Most of the people likely to not wear seatbelts are probably lower-class, judgment proof types without enough assets to reimburse public or private parties for the costs they are responsible for. In practice they'd just claim to have worn seatbelts, receive treatment, & then stiff the government and hospitals once the truth came out; there are no debtors' prisons to enforce payments. And there are all sorts of ways these people could evade liens, wage garnishment, and so on if the courts tried to work out a payment plan.

My line of work (legal/medical affairs) has shown me how often taxpayers foot massive bills - $100K or more - because people make bad decisions and are too poor to pay for their own medical costs.

I firmly agree with seatbelt laws because, as someone mentioned earlier, NOT using them transfers costs from the irresponsible person to the general public. And I'm about as small-government as they come. :shifty:

[Sailor Steve]

Well, I made my point that seatbelt laws don't go far enough. If it was really about safety then you should also mandate the other things I mentioned. As for costs, it is also against the law to drive without insurance, which covers those costs, so your dollars aren't being spent.

As for safety, where is the law requiring people to have little plastic doodads on the shower floor so they don't slip and break their necks? The inspectors to come around and make sure we have them? I have to have car insurance. I don't have to have home-safety insurance.

[mookiemookie]

Well, I made my point that seatbelt laws don't go far enough. If it was really about safety then you should also mandate the other things I mentioned. I'll start by saying I completely agree with you, as I've already stated - let's just look at the other side of it. As for costs, it is also against the law to drive without insurance, which covers those costs, so your dollars aren't being spent. Not exactly true - everyone pays those costs in the form of higher insurance premiums.

As for safety, where is the law requiring people to have little plastic doodads on the shower floor so they don't slip and break their necks? The inspectors to come around and make sure we have them? I have to have car insurance. I don't have to have home-safety insurance. The incidence and severity of injuries from motor vehicle accidents are much greater than those of slip and fall accidents in the shower.

[Stealhead]

That wouldn't work in the US. Most of the people likely to not wear seatbelts are probably lower-class, judgment proof types without enough assets to reimburse public or private parties for the costs they are responsible for. In practice they'd just claim to have worn seatbelts, receive treatment, & then stiff the government and hospitals once the truth came out; there are no debtors' prisons to enforce payments. And there are all sorts of ways these people could evade liens, wage garnishment, and so on if the courts tried to work out a payment plan.

My line of work (legal/medical affairs) has shown me how often taxpayers foot massive bills - $100K or more - because people make bad decisions and are too poor to pay for their own medical costs.

I firmly agree with seatbelt laws because, as someone mentioned earlier, NOT using them transfers costs from the irresponsible person to the general public. And I'm about as small-government as they come. :shifty:


It would be hard for one to claim to have worn a seat belt in a crash when they in fact did not seeing as the types of injuries suffered form not wearing a seat belt and the obvious damage to the windshield that a big stupid human head does there would a large amount of evidence proving that they where not wearing a seat belt and i am pretty sure that a seat belt failure would be very obvious and the person would suffer specific injuries as well the seat belt and buckle would have obvious signs of having failed.

Furthermore police crash investigators are highly trained and obviously they look for such things.

I also think that income and level of education has nothing to do with it.I know well educated seemingly intelligent people that refuse to wear seat belts I have seen people in some really worn out junk cars obviously poor low income people driving down the road wearing theirs.

I can understand the one poster said his father due to his experience of having been thrown out on an APC in Vietnam an M-113 I bet many troops sat on top rather than inside getting thrown out of one would indeed save your life that is about the only reasonable excuse/reason I have ever heard.

[P_Funk]

People not wearing seatbelts is just further proof that human beings for all our technology and accomplishments are unbelievably stupid.

It really boggles the mind how dumb people can be. The only reason to not wear a standard waist/one-shoulder seat belt would be comfort. However, anybody that's ever worn a watch can attest to the fact that for the first 15 minutes you feel it on your wrist. By the end of the day you'll forget its there unless you look at it.

I think this kind of self neglect is representative of how weak human beings are as creatures when not put into high stress survival situations. Most people exist in a happy little wonderland in their minds. That oft spoken thing of how people will suddenly change how they behave once they've had a near death experience I think attests to how a lack of danger or of the attendant awareness of danger leads to the kind of absurd complacency that one could summarize in a pop culture way as "If there was a Zombie Apocalypse tomorrow, they'd be F**'d!"

My dad has been in 9 car accidents, none of them his fault. All were ultimately proven to not be his fault. He was once struck from behind sitting at a red light and had he not been wearing his seat belt he'd have surely died. As it was he now has permanent back problems because of that accident, his ninth.

Now... ironically, in another accident he was sitting in the left turn lane in an old volkswagon beetle years and years ago. A semi was turning into the oncoming lane and cut it well short and as a result the entire driver's side of the Beetle was crushed. The ironic bit is that he only survived because he WASN'T wearing his seat belt, affording him the ability to very quickly leap into the passenger's seat. They tried to say he wasn't owed insurance on account of that fact, but then he had to point out rather obviously to them that had he in fact been wearing his seat belt they'd be peeling his flattened corpse off the pavement instead.

I think that last paragraph gives some food for thought on seat belt laws. Mostly, that no law is perfect, but statistically 8 out of 9 accidents they saved my dad's life. In one however it would have killed him. :rolleyes:

[Onkel Neal]

I always wear a belt, just as I always wear a helmet when I ride. While I think anybody who doesn't wear one is an idiot, I also stand squarely against seat belt and helmet laws.


Same here, cept I disagree vigourously about being against seat belt and helmet laws. I'm for them, 100% People need to be protected...against their own stupidity.

[antikristuseke]

I disagree with mandatory helmet laws but agree with seatbelt ones.

The reason is simple, if you crash a bike without a helmet you are no more of a risk to others than with a helmet. Crash a car without wearing your seatbelt and you will become a safety risk for others because you become a projectile.

[Stealhead]

I disagree with mandatory helmet laws but agree with seatbelt ones.

The reason is simple, if you crash a bike without a helmet you are no more of a risk to others than with a helmet. Crash a car without wearing your seatbelt and you will become a safety risk for others because you become a projectile.

And what of the person who was not wearing a helmet and and they suffer brain damage and now society has to pay for their care not to mention the increase in insurance costs that everyone gets to share. People do not die in every motorbike crash even the ones not wearing helmets.

Sure motorcycles are dangerous but much more so without a helmet there are accidents that wearing a helmet will save your life or save you from permanent disabling head injuries or from your face getting skinned off by the road.It cant save you from everything just like a seat belt can not but would you think a solider was stupid for not wearing every bit of armor possible even though it can not stop everything either better something than nothing.

the way I see if an event has a good chance of occurring you might as well protect yourself as much as possible there are plenty of vehicle accidents so such a thing is likely.A cop or solider is much more likely to get shot at than the average Joe so might as well wear body armor.

[antikristuseke]

That is an indirect thing, though I see your point. Then again some times the gene pool needs a bit of chlorine, if that is by peoples own action and choise so much the better.

[Stealhead]

That is an indirect thing, though I see your point. Then again some times the gene pool needs a bit of chlorine, if that is by peoples own action and choise so much the better.


So you want some guy that is stupid enough to not wear a helmet suffer brain damage now he cant work and he will collect disability for the rest of his life perhaps need care as well now some form of insurance must cover all this so via taxes or private insurance you will get to pay for his mistake to some extent.

I'd rather have laws that stop at least some from doing what is described above and let disease and DNA itself do its work.

Also nearly every person on this planet has done at least one stupid thing in their life that might have killed them so if doing a foolish thing that may harm or kill yourself is worthy of your genes being removed from the pool then we would not be around.

[Sailor Steve]

So maybe we need to outlaw anything that can harm us - cigarettes, fatty foods, skateboards? You seem to want to pick and choose your dangers. Motorcycles? Flight? Everything?

No, just the little ones you think you can affect without incurring the wrath of everyone you're trying to control.

[Kaye T. Bai]

When people tell me that it is uncomfortable, I usually ask them if they think it would be more comfortable to have their sternum impaled by the steering collumn.

True that. :salute:

[antikristuseke]

Steelhead, no, I do not want that, but if someone decides to taake it upon them-self to increase the likelyhood of permanent injury or death by their own action then it is their call to do so.

Also I never said that every stupid move should result in leaving the gene pool, survival has an element of chance in it, but in the long run that balances out. Hell, I have been in several situations where I could have ended up dead due to my own stupidity, had I died, that would have all been fair enough in my book.

As to rest of society paying for someones mistake, well yes, that happens, humans are social beings and at times we do pay for the mistakes of others, like it or not, but it is still better to leave people as much freedom what to do with their life as possible.

[Stealhead]

So maybe we need to outlaw anything that can harm us - cigarettes, fatty foods, skateboards? You seem to want to pick and choose your dangers. Motorcycles? Flight? Everything?

No, just the little ones you think you can affect without incurring the wrath of everyone you're trying to control.


Well if we outlawed everything that is harmful then that would mean outlawing being alive as well seeing as sooner or later we will all die our DNA is also coded to kill us.


Actually it is an instinct to pick and choose dangers fight or flight for all living things including humans.A starving animal may choose to take a greater risk in order to feed than it does under normal circumstances.

As to human activities sure many are possibly dangerous but you can reduce the risk by not attempting something beyond your skill/experience level when it comes to something like riding motorcycles or on a skateboard.

[Sailor Steve]

As to human activities sure many are possibly dangerous but you can reduce the risk by not attempting something beyond your skill/experience level when it comes to something like riding motorcycles or on a skateboard.
That's good advice, and when it comes to motorcycles and automobiles you have to prove at least a minimal skill level to be awarded a license to operate them on public streets. This is to minimize the danger to others. As for danger to ourselves? As I said, I think you're an idiot if you don't protect yourself, but it's not my place to force you to. Stupidity is one of the basic freedoms.

[Stealhead]

Stupidity is one of the basic freedoms.

:hmmm:

Maybe that explains all of the worlds problems then of course at the same time many people gain power because others are stupid enough to allow them to so the stupidity benefits someone.

[MH]

So here natural selection comes into play....that's way smart people want as many idiots as possible to be alive.:haha:

[Stealhead]

Speaking of everyday activities being dangerous I wonder how many people have died from choking to death because they tried to swallow too large a morsel?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

In head-on collision - guess where that idiot not wearing seatbelt is going to?

Thats right - directly to you or your passenger.

If not wearing seatbelt would only cause harm to person refusing to use it I wouldn't care. Unfortunately they are danger to others when accidents happen and are most likely causing the society unnecessary expense.

I don't mind if they pay that potential extra expense in fines beforehand.

[Onkel Neal]

I disagree with mandatory helmet laws but agree with seatbelt ones.

The reason is simple, if you crash a bike without a helmet you are no more of a risk to others than with a helmet. Crash a car without wearing your seatbelt and you will become a safety risk for others because you become a projectile.


It's not all just about the risk to the individual. I guarantee you over 50% of MC riders have no kind of insurance to cover the medical bills when they crack their skulls. You and I are paying from them.

Now, if we agree to a system where the first responders check the injured party for insurance, I would be ok with no helmet law.

"He looks pretty bad, broken leg, shoulder, probable concussion and head injuries. Bob, check his driver's license, does he have the medical insurance box checked?"

"No, George, he does not. Apparently he can afford a $28,000 Harley, $40 HD shirt, $20 doo-rag, and some pretty extensive tattoo work, but he didn't think it was important to pay for insurance or a helmet."

"Ah, well, let's go. (shouts at downed rider) Good luck, buddy!"

[Stealhead]

The "wallet biopsy" they do not do that and I argue that such a thing would discriminate against any person who lacks medical insurance.Should a 6 year old kid receive no aid if his arm gets broken and his parents have no insurance?

Now if you mean a "wallet biopsy" on a person who clearly has the coin that is a different story.

[Onkel Neal]

I know they don't do a wallet biopsy, that's my point :) Six year old rarely take their Harley on the street, either.

And if you can't allocate your income to have insurance but you can afford a motorcycle, you have no business riding.

[Stealhead]

I know they don't do a wallet biopsy, that's my point :) Six year old rarely take their Harley on the street, either.

And if you can't allocate your income to have insurance but you can afford a motorcycle, you have no business riding.

This is true and riding is a fairly expensive hobby if you have the proper gear you should be able to afford the insurance.I understand that some people ride and do not even have a license.

A paramedic friend of mine he works for volusia county (Daytona Beach Bike Week) he says that cops bust people for no motorcycle endorsement or motorcycle only license all the time.Last year he saw a dead rider and his dead wife he lacked the required license and the crash was his fault as well oh and they also had skulls for helmets or what was left of them.

[Nicolas]

A seat belt saved my arse back in the 80's
I feel naked without a seat belt. I need to have it on.


I feel the same when i look ahead and imagine the posibilty of a crash. The panel of the car looks hard to crash into. When i drive first thing i do is to remember myself the dangers and if i'm concetrated enough. People tend to soften precautions over time. Also, with today technology cars can be made safer, imho i say the cars are not safe enough, still too much deaths by accidents.

[Platapus]

My father's life was saved because he did not wear a seatbelt when he rolled his Thunderbird. But he wears a seatbelt every time he drives. :yep:

[Stealhead]

That might be because in an old Thunderbird getting tossed out was about the only thing that might save you.:haha:

Assuming it was a 1950's T-bird it might not have had a belt and I doubt the safety of those early lap belts isn't that why they got rid of them in back seats in the early 90s because they found that they where actually causing injuries.

I know a former schoolmate that was the passenger in a 94 Camaro the person driving lost control at a very high speed over 120mph according to the Highway Patrol investigation and this guy claims that he took his belt off and jumped out the window because he knew that the car was going to get totally destroyed and he with it.(the cops did not believe his claim of taking the belt off)
Now that might not be entirely true I think that that is how he recalls it but that he really did not have on a seat belt and just got thrown out as the car rolled but it took a few turns because his right hand finder tips got cut off or burned off by the car/road surface he also got lucky because the car was on a swampy road with soft muddy shoulders.The driver did not have a belt on either I think that the passenger just got very lucky and got tossed out in such a manner that he landed in the soft muddy ditch he probably would have died if he had stayed in the car because his body would have hit the drivers body along with every hard surface inside the car.The Camaro was almost unrecognizable as being a Camaro.