Seat belt police

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

They (the police) have become the "hall monitors" of life.
It sucks - and it's amazingly disappointing that we are after our own. Given the reduction of revenue sources for the local and state governments, it seems to be increasing.

Taking it out on the police is flawed. they inforce the laws, they don't make them.
and they do not have arbitrary rights over which to enforce.

I think they have lost the ability to use common sense. And they do have arbitrary rights over which ones to enforce.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3259398;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread
Flash back to just out of high school...late 70's. We were in one of the metro parks that surround Cleveland. Playing loud music and getting high. Turn around and here's the ranger. Long story short he destroyed our bong, made us put the weed into a puddle and proceeded to mix it in the mud, and told us to get out. That would never happen today.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I'm questioning the increasing presence of those who feel it's their responsibility to make those decisions for us. Think it's not a problem?

With most traffic law like this, it comes down to insurance companies. Too many prior law suits and too much money paid. Now they can deny claims if you weren't wearing a seat belt. Beyond that, think about the amount of non-recouped money in a fatality accident because someone wasn't wearing a seat belt. I don't think you understand the full scope and scale here.

Initial response:

4-6 police officers to shut down traffic and secure the crime scene while conducting the investigaion.

That's 4-6 officers at $20-30 an hour. That typically takes 1-2 hours with the initial. The follow up and paperwork involved can take 5-6 hours if it was DWI, 3-4 hours if it wasn't. That's with two officers at $20-30 an hour.

1 Detective at $20-30 an hour for about an hour.

2 Engines and EMS, that's about 12 people at $20-30 an hour, they will typically be there for about a 1-2 hours initially.

The "start up" cost of a fatality accident is now at $1100 for the initial response. Not including the non-replaceable medical equipment used, which is around the $300 mark from the EMS.

Now factor in the rest of the costs. Look at the reconstruction guys who are coming in after their working hours so they're being paid over time. So you're looking at 4 officers at $45-50 hr for about 6-8 hours to mark and plot each important piece.

You're also not factoring in the costs of autopsies, follow up investigation, tow trucks, morgue personal, time with the county attorney and or the district attorney's office in looking or perusing criminal charges.

Basically the average cost of a fatality accident is about $15,000 in the first week.

I bet you've never thought about that. You know who pays that money? Look to your left and look to your right. Yup, your neighbors. Go next door and ask them if its cool that you don't wear your seat belt and tell them that if you're killed in a wreck it'll only cost the tax payers about $15k in the first week.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kallend 2,148]

What he said.

Buckle up.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I have no interest in paying high insurance rates because other folks choose not to take advantage of safety features and in turn cause insurance payouts.

That's the reason I favor both seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws - because if you get into an accident with an unbelted/unhelmeted person, there's a much higher chance they will be more seriously injured or killed, which means more & larger liability claims & payouts, which means higher auto insurance rates for everyone. That's why it's not simply a "freedom of choice" issue.

[normiss 896]

So where's the difference if it's a biker with no helment? A jumper with no insurance with lifeflight??

We ALL pay!

edit to add:
Florida doesn't require me to carry insurance on my bike....the bike is over 800lbs dry weight...any clue how much damage can be accomplished with a 1000lb projectile doing 80mph??
It doesn't make sense!


but I still carry full coverage plus..."I'm older and have more insurance"

[riddler 0]

Quote

So where's the difference if it's a biker with no helment?

Nearly every state DOES have a helmet law. Only four do not, and I live in one. Every time I see bikers without helmets, I think "just that much closer to death". (For the record, I always, always wore a helmet).

Helmet laws

Seat belt laws

There isn't much difference between the two. Edit for spelling.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[AggieDave 6]

I tossed in the helmet stuff up there a couple of posts ago. I also have full coverage health insurance. I carry an extra $15k personal protection on my motorcycle insurance as well.

The thing is, though, how prevalent are drivers not wearing a safety belt? Now consider the number of fatality accidents where safety belts were not worn. Now compare that to the number of jumpers who are life flighted.

Argue all you want, safety belts save lives.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[bodypilot90 0]

Yes in Florida we have to have them in school buses, no one uses them. Well other than beating each other with them. Cost tax payers a lot of money.

[LongWayToFall 0]

I totally agree with you. Maybe you missed my point. What I meant to say, is that if you are the only one affected, I see no reason to make a law against it. Kill yourself, smoke some crack, eat butter for every meal. Whatever. As long as your body doesn't land on me from that tall building, or your crack smoke fumes aren't going into my house, I say go crazy. But I really do believe that during an accident, not wearing your seatbelt can hurt other people. This would happen from not being able to control the vehicle while being thrown around. So please buckle up yo! I gotta agree about insurance increases due to injuries as well, but I think a much more pressing matter is uninsured drivers.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

They (the police) have become the "hall monitors" of life.
It sucks - and it's amazingly disappointing that we are after our own. Given the reduction of revenue sources for the local and state governments, it seems to be increasing.

Taking it out on the police is flawed. they inforce the laws, they don't make them.
and they do not have arbitrary rights over which to enforce.

I think they have lost the ability to use common sense. And they do have arbitrary rights over which ones to enforce.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3259398;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

I bet if I hadn't been wearing my seatbelt I would have gotten four tickets yesterday since it is a primary offense here in WA.

Funny thing about seatbelts is thanks to the quite thorough brainwashing I got from my parents growing up I've just about lost all free will in the matter. Putting on a seatbelt isn't even a conscious action anymore. Cars that I was in as a child did not move until all belts were on.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[n23x 0]

Quote

Argue all you want, safety belts save lives.

Not being a tubby, overweight piece of shit saves lives too. I demand regulations, please!

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Florida doesn't require me to carry insurance on my bike....the bike is over 800lbs dry weight...any clue how much damage can be accomplished with a 1000lb projectile doing 80mph??
It doesn't make sense!

The motorcycle isn't going very far after a collision with you no longer on it. It's going to fall over and come to a stop. But a 4 wheel car, esp those with automatic transmission in Drive and a high idle rate, will continue to motor along at a good speed until it hits something.

I was in quite such an accident in the 80s. Grandmother pulls out into a crossfare without due care, gets broadsided, and after impact the car continues on until it ran into the side of a house.

So I'm sorry - the wish to drive without the HUGE inconvenience of a nylon strap across your chest doesn't override your obligation to drive your multi-ton vehicle in a responsible manner.

[n23x 0]

Quote

The motorcycle isn't going very far after a collision with you no longer on it. It's going to fall over and come to a stop. But a 4 wheel car, esp those with automatic transmission in Drive and a high idle rate, will continue to motor along at a good speed until it hits something.

I was in quite such an accident in the 80s. Grandmother pulls out into a crossfare without due care, gets broadsided, and after impact the car continues on until it ran into the side of a house.

So I'm sorry - the wish to drive without the HUGE inconvenience of a nylon strap across your chest doesn't override your obligation to drive your multi-ton vehicle in a responsible manner.

What's to say that the person wearing the seatbelt won't be rendered unconscious/dead, and be incapable of stopping the vehicle anyways.

I demand an device to monitor for alert/cognizant drivers that default to a motor off/full brakes applied state should an appropriate driver not be found!

I'm sorry - your wish to drive only with a seatbelt doesn't override your obligation to drive your multi-ton vehicle in a responsible mannor.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[normiss 896]

Bike?

ONE bike can easily kill a carload and start a chain reaction....that's all I was saying.

[pirana 0]

Quote

I despise how the local "authorities" feed off of us in many ways...

*seat belt road blocks
*DUI road blocks

Yeah, it's a nasty and thankless job interupting people just having fun, but somebody has got to do it.

But ticketing the multiple DUI offender is so ineffective. Better way would be to take them to the nearest test drive track/police training facility. Make sure they are good and drunk, strap them in the seat, set the cruise at about 120MPH and jimmy so it can't be released no matter what for at least 2 minutes. Force them to navigate a course, but not with cones. Build it out of those huge concrete barriers. And if they've also had a seat belt ticket, make them go at it without one.

Sometimes I think we should just remove all the warning labels and let nature take it's course.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[normiss 896]

as is usually the case...you're totally missing the point here.

Unless you have reasonable suspicion to stop me ... leave me be.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What's to say that the person wearing the seatbelt won't be rendered unconscious/dead, and be incapable of stopping the vehicle anyways.

And who's to say that aliens won't abduct the driver with a teleporter, making the seatbelt irrelevant and the car still crashes along?

It's a stupid argument. There is no question that the driver has a better chance on survival/control when they are secured to the driver's seat. The valid means of attack would be if the seat belt has downsides. The airbag can be challenged along these lines - smaller woman are killed by them on occasion, and many people suffer injuries. But with the seat belt, you're limited to incredibly rare times when the person actually benefits from being hurled through a windshield and lands on a stack of hay.

Should a car automatically brake if the driver is unconscious? Given the huge number of accidents/deaths caused by sleepy drivers, it would be a positive innovation if it can be done effectively, efficiently. IOW, the Cypres2 of today, not the AAD of 1990. But this too is irrelevant to the reasons for mandating seat belt use.

[AdamLanes 1]

I think you and the government need to stay out of other people's business.

Quote

I think getting your ass shredded by a windshield because you weren't wearing a belt should either make your insurance invalid, or that you have to pay a higher premium as someone that knowingly ignores safety features. I have no interest in paying high insurance rates because other folks choose not to take advantage of safety features and in turn cause insurance payouts.

[AdamLanes 1]

Imagine the sun explodes tomorrow.

Quote

If driving without your seat belt only effected you, then I would have no problem with it. But imagine this situation: You are driving on a 4 lane road, and the car next to you all of a sudden swerves into you. You are driving a truck, and get launched into the passenger seat, and all the while run over a family who is walking on the side walk. If you had been wearing a seat belt, maybe you would have been able to control the vehicle enough to keep it on the road. You deserve the ticket. Motorcycle helmets however, I believe would not change your ability to avoid hurting someone.....

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think you and the government need to stay out of other people's business.

Stay off the public roads if you don't want it to be everyone's business.

[n23x 0]

Whatever you say, mom.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[n23x 0]

Quote

Quote

What's to say that the person wearing the seatbelt won't be rendered unconscious/dead, and be incapable of stopping the vehicle anyways.

And who's to say that aliens won't abduct the driver with a teleporter, making the seatbelt irrelevant and the car still crashes along?

It's a stupid argument. There is no question that the driver has a better chance on survival/control when they are secured to the driver's seat. The valid means of attack would be if the seat belt has downsides. The airbag can be challenged along these lines - smaller woman are killed by them on occasion, and many people suffer injuries. But with the seat belt, you're limited to incredibly rare times when the person actually benefits from being hurled through a windshield and lands on a stack of hay.

Should a car automatically brake if the driver is unconscious? Given the huge number of accidents/deaths caused by sleepy drivers, it would be a positive innovation if it can be done effectively, efficiently. IOW, the Cypres2 of today, not the AAD of 1990. But this too is irrelevant to the reasons for mandating seat belt use.

It IS a stupid argument. To suggest that any motivation for seatbelt laws is to prevent additional damage AFTER the initial car accident is retarded. You have absolutely no data to compare secondary accidents, and whether or not the drivers in the primary accident were wearing seat belts.

This is 'chicken running around screaming the sky is falling' overreacting bullshit.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[AdamLanes 1]

The government requires me to have insurance even if I stay off the roads. I take offense to FlyingJ who is trying to dictate the terms of other peoples insurance. If I choose to buy insurance, that is a contract between myself and my insurer. If you don't like the terms of your insurance, that is your problem.

[PLFXpert 0]

I could argue either side of this argument, frankly.

Two years ago there was a similar thread and whereas I'd previously never worn one, I started then and have ever since. It's habit, now.

It still rubs my clavicle bone no matter how I adjust it, but I'd hate to think of someone else's dashboard wrapped around my face. Eww.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It IS a stupid argument. To suggest that any motivation for seatbelt laws is to prevent additional damage AFTER the initial car accident is retarded. You have absolutely no data to compare secondary accidents, and whether or not the drivers in the primary accident were wearing seat belts.

No, I absolutely have datum, I provided it. I have little doubt that more is available out there - the CHP are excellent at accident investigation and it's not hard to tell when the driver wasn't belted.

Was it the primary motivation? Who cares? Barring reasons to the contrary, it's why I support enforcement of the law. I don't really care if people get themselves killed driving, so long as they don't threaten others. Unfortunately, it's long been clear that others are at risk for the irrational or stupid decisions that cagers would choose to make.

For reasons I suggested, I do not support the mandate of air bags. I don't think the gain to seat belted passengers exceeds the downsides.