Seatbelt use and enforcement

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

I want every safety feature available used and actively enforced.

Why?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Ask the republicans, it's been one of their primary debate points for ages.

Considering there are loads of laws currently set up to protect them, are you suggesting all those laws don't have merit and should be done away with, or are you just suggesting that for some reason this is different, in which case I'd like to hear why you think it is.

Nope, I'm saying that if you can't come up with a better reason than "it's for the children" then your argument is pretty weak to begin with.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

About 35 years ago I got into a car in Germany and the driver sat patiently until I fastened my seat belt.

When I asked if seat belts were required, she responded that, while legal, one was uninsured if driving with anyone in the front seat without a seat belt.

I kind of like that.

If we add a YOYO (You're On Your Own) clause regarding behavior of which we disapprove, it could greatly simplify the issue.

You want to motorcycle without a helmet or drive without seat belts? Fine, but you give up all rights to sue if you get hit, or to be covered for medical costs or have your vehicle fixed - or even to receive life insurance if you croak. When you do not try hard enough to stay alive, it falls under the suicide clause.

Passing laws to mandate behavior is the brute force and ignorance approach. Tweaking the rules so as to achieve the desired behavior patterns is much cheaper and more effective. BSBD,
Winsor

This was almost word for word what I was going to propose, but you beat me to the post. So to add to these points:

- Some states have the exact opposite of this proposal - i.e., laws that prohibit civil defendants from using the "seat belt defense" (the plaintiff would not have been injured, or at least so badly, had he been wearing his seat belt) at trial in MVA personal injury lawsuits. If ever there was an example of irresponsible behavior being officially enabled, that's one.

- The main reason I do favor seat belt and helmet laws (mind you, I'm a skydiver) is not to force "nanny state" responsibility on others, or even because of an amorphous "health care burden on society". It is because lack of such laws increases everyone's (in that state) auto liability insurance rates, since if you negligently cause an accident with someone who's not wearing a seat belt or helmet, there's a higher risk that your insurance company will wind up paying a much larger award due to your victim's death or more serious injury. That enhanced risk translates into higher premiums. Why the hell should I have to subsidize an un-helmeted biker's "personal freedom to not wear a helmet" by paying higher insurance rates?- because that's exactly what happens in states that don't have helmet laws. Nullify that factor with laws of the type you propose, and I'd be more open-minded to "freedom first" laws.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Unless of course it's the regulation of homosexual marriage, you know... To save all those poor kids from having two fathers or two mothers.

Got to love the conservatives solely for entertainment value. KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES! (Unless of course your life contradicts our personal values).

And I love laughing in the face of left-wingers who assume all conservatives think the same. But please be my guest, it beats actually considering each person as an individual, capable of having their own set of values and allows you to chortle to yourself and think you are superior.

[hcsvader 1]

So why don't insurance companies not cover people not wearing seatbelts?
They don't cover you if your driving drunk and cause an accident.

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[Meso 38]

Quote

And I love laughing in the face of left-wingers who assume all conservatives think the same. But please be my guest, it beats actually considering each person as an individual, capable of having their own set of values and allows you to chortle to yourself and think you are superior.

I'm sorry, I must be totally confused and incorrect in assuming conservative Republicans generally cry out for small government that doesn't interfere with others lives. I must have been even more confused to assume the majority of such people oppose gay marriage and that a popular reasoning.

The funniest part is that you called me a left winger, you best not tell the rest of the left wingers that, they definitely will want to tar and feather me for some of my thoughts then.

One can also logically assume that my statement was for a majority, not every single person. So to make my statement 'correct' all I would need is a poll of conservatives who support the banning of gay marriage and a poll of conservatives who believe in 'small government' that does not infringe on personal activities. And if the percentages overlapped, that would be that. I'm fairly certain such a poll would not be difficult to find either.

But I don't think I even need to waste time finding them. I'm sure you know the general answer already.

[skypuppy 1]

So to make my statement 'correct' all I would need is a poll of conservatives who support the banning of gay marriage and a poll of conservatives who believe in 'small government' that does not infringe on personal activities.
__________________________________________________

Here's the point, though. You don't have a poll of conservatives about either point, and yet you still made the statement....

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[DanG 1]

Quote

And I love laughing in the face of left-wingers who assume all conservatives think the same. But please be my guest, it beats actually considering each person as an individual, capable of having their own set of values and allows you to chortle to yourself and think you are superior.

You owe me a new irony meter.

- Dan G

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

And I love laughing in the face of left-wingers who assume all conservatives think the same. But please be my guest, it beats actually considering each person as an individual, capable of having their own set of values and allows you to chortle to yourself and think you are superior.

You owe me a new irony meter.

Why?

[Gravitymaster 0]

You made a blanket statement about Conservatives. You seem to have trouble seperating Republicans from Conservatives and you seem to have trouble figuring out that there's not a clear group-think.

Some of us just want government out of our lives, period and are consistent in our thinking. Some of us also don't care for "think about the children" as a justification for more government intrusion into our lives.

Back on point. I have no problem with the government requiring children under a certain age to wear a seatbelt as there surely are irresponsible parents. I do not want the government telling me, as an adult, that I have to wear a seatbelt (even though I do) a motorcycle helmet (even though I do) or that I have to wear an AAD (even though I do).

[DanG 1]

Because you are one of the worse stereotypers on this site when it comes to what "the left" is thinking.

Duh.

- Dan G

[killler 2]

"My facility received 2 unrestrained TBI's last month, they are going to be on venilators and tube fed for the rest of their miserable lives, 10 years on average. At $35,00 a month and no insurance, "

Why would you even waste your time on keeping them alive... That's the trouble with our system... Just what we need more dead weight....

And insurance should "NOT" be part of the decision making .... It's not really that hard to pick and choose who gets to live and who needs to go, if you just use the same set of values we use for our pets..

Killler...

[billvon 3,132]

>It's not really that hard to pick and choose who gets to live and who needs
>to go, if you just use the same set of values we use for our pets.

Having had both pets and family members I've had to "let go" - it really is that hard, and I hope you never find out how hard.

[champu 1]

Quote

I believe in seat belt law enforcement not for the driver but for those around him. In many collisions there is still opportunity and necessity to keep driving the car but you can't do that if you've been tossed over to the passenger side.

I was thinking about that too as I started reading the thread but I don't know how often it's going to come up. You don't have to be in a total wreck for a seatbelt to help you and keep you at the wheel, but I'm not sure how good a job most drivers do in terms of damage control driving after an accident has occurred. That may just be my cynicism talking, I really don't know.

Quote

It's done for the same reason we have building codes; because if you let every person practice their own personal preferred version of liberty cities would be burning down left and right from people who felt those nuisance laws about how to properly wire a house were infringing on their liberty (beating chest in psuedo-macho patriotic manner).

That's a really poor comparison. Most people don't do their own general contracting. I'm guessing those who don't approve of seat belt laws still approve of crash safety ratings and the requirement that auto manufacturers fit proper seat belts in their cars.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Or just require automobile insurance. Don't most States require it?

In California it's just a 30k liability minimum.

Just raise it to $1m and good to go.

You seem to be confusing the point of liability insurance. That, or you're suggesting people who don't wear seatbelts should expect others to be able to pay for their more extensive injuries, which I don't think you meant.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quotas are illegal

Lots of things police do are illegal and really difficult to prove. How about cops arresting people for wire fraud for taking video of an arrest? How about pulling people over for an "unsafe lane change" - something so subjective that pulling the person over is not for an unsafe lane change but because the person just looks dirty?

I'm not saying you do this. I know, however, that plenty of cops DO. The usual cop on the street thinks he or she is doing the right thing and keeping society safe and orderly. Police are tasked with enforcing the laws. It's easier to do your job when you believe that what you are doing is just and right.

However, the whole protecting people from themselves thing is per se "nannyism." It's where my pragmatic and philosophical biases collide.

A person not wearing a seatbelt increases the danger to nobody but himself or herself. (Obviously, there is some associated trauma at those who need to scrape the unrestrained person off the pavement with a shovel.)

Quote

Over the past few years I've seen quite a few dead bodies due to cars and motorcycles (including auto/ped accidents) and I have to say that seatbelts would have helped significantly in a large majority of those accident

This is where I can see socialized medicine actually encouraging NOT using seatbelts. Here are people who die quickly. A person who dies on impact is much less expensive than a person who makes it through the life flight. Or the person who suffers a pneumothorax. Etc.

People know the risks. People just don't buckle up. (Incidentally, maybe you can explain why so many cops don't wear a seatbelt. Seriously. I see it frequently!)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Shotgun 1]

I have mixed feelings about seatbelt laws. I'm not too fond of laws that only protect us from ourselves. But then, that only applies if a driver is alone in the vehicle. Once you have other people in the vehicle, especially underage people who have no say in the matter, you become a potential projectile and are therefore putting others in danger by not wearing your seatbelt. So I guess I'd be more inclined to want to see the laws enforced when there are multiple people in a vehicle.

I've learned the hard way how important seatbelts can be, so I always wear mine regardless of the law. And I wouldn't let anyone ride in my vehicle without wearing one.

[killler 2]

Quote

>It's not really that hard to pick and choose who gets to live and who needs
>to go, if you just use the same set of values we use for our pets.

Having had both pets and family members I've had to "let go" - it really is that hard, and I hope you never find out how hard.

Been there.... Done that... I had no trouble with it... Now does that mean I was happy about it... NO... But it was and is the right thing to do... I just hope that if the time comes for someone to have to make that choice for me... They do it... Because it's just the right thing to do... I would hope that they don't want me shitting myself, Drooling in a wheel chair so they can still have me in their lives....

killler

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

However, the whole protecting people from themselves thing is per se "nannyism." It's where my pragmatic and philosophical biases collide. A person not wearing a seatbelt increases the danger to nobody but himself or herself.

I disagree. As I specified in my post #53, it's not just self-affecting, and it's not just nannyism. Protect me, as well as my liability insurance company, from liability for enhanced damages if I negligently cause an accident with an unhelmeted motorcyclist, an un-belted cager, a kid w/o a bicycle helmet, or a small child not strapped into a kiddie car seat - and then I'll entertain the nannyism argument.

ETA: Shotgun also makes the great point that an un-belted person is a potentially deadly projectile vis-a-vis anyone else in the vehicle.

Quote

Incidentally, maybe you can explain why so many cops don't wear a seatbelt. Seriously. I see it frequently!

I've noticed that, too, over the years, as well as cops very frequently making turns without using turn signals. I have an educated guess why, but before I speak I'd be interested in hearing an answer from any current or former LEOs.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Protect me, as well as my liability insurance company, from liability for enhanced damages if I negligently cause an accident with an unhelmeted motorcyclist, an un-belted cager, a kid w/o a bicycle helmet, or a small child not strapped into a kiddie car seat - and then I'll entertain the nannyism argument

I get that. This is an exception. For kids - I make the exception. Belt them in because now you are playing with the lives of others. If riding with others, yes, you and they become projectiles so seat belted. Nannyism is not an argument when protected others from a dumbass.

And as far as non-seat belted getting more damages, I'm living here in Cali where failure to use a seat belt is an affirmative defense to damages. It's something I would like to see everywhere.

Quote

cops very frequently making turns without using turn signals

Out here I can spot cops fairly easily. If I see a vehicle weaving it's usually a cop. They frequently don't use turn signals. It is an odd thing and I figure there must be a reason for it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[normiss 906]

I've always thought the poor driving by cops is one of two things.
Complacency.
Distractions. You ever see how much gear is in those cars these days? They want laws against texting and cell phone usage yet cops are running a computer, talking on multiple radios, radar guns, possibly one or two more systems as well - such as license plate scanning.

Reminds me of a friendly lift home from a cop one night....doing 120mph, sitting in the back seat with no belt on, watching him surf the internet, facebook, and IM with some chica he was meeting up with....

[jackwallace 3]

Seat belts should be outlawed and there should be a minimum speed limit of 85 mph. Weeds out the weak.

U only make 2 jumps: the first one for some weird reason and the last one that you lived through. The rest are just filler.
scr 316

[livendive 8]

Quote

If we add a YOYO (You're On Your Own) clause regarding behavior of which we disapprove, it could greatly simplify the issue.

You want to motorcycle without a helmet or drive without seat belts? Fine, but you give up all rights to sue if you get hit, or to be covered for medical costs or have your vehicle fixed - or even to receive life insurance if you croak. When you do not try hard enough to stay alive, it falls under the suicide clause.

Passing laws to mandate behavior is the brute force and ignorance approach. Tweaking the rules so as to achieve the desired behavior patterns is much cheaper and more effective.


BSBD,

Winsor

I'm mostly cool with this approach, minus the vehicular damage thing. The repurcussions should be limited to those affected by ones decision to wear/not wear a seat belt. If I rear-end you and you're not wearing a seat belt, I should be responsible for any damage I did to your car, but not for any medical issues that are (likely) exasperated by your decision.

I think a similar respect for "reasonable" should apply to cases involving the impaired. If I cross the centerline and hit the side of your car, that's my fault regardless of how much beer you may or may not have drank. It seems like there a presumption of guilt as soon as alcohol is involved, and it doesn't match up with reality. I went to a safety expo last week and they had a totalled 'Vette on a trailer. Turned out it had been wrapped around a telephone pole by a (now deceased) 25 year old who had a blood alcohol content of 0.03, which they used to proved "buzzed driving kills too!" I wonder how far down they'd take that...0.00005%? The fact is, sometimes accidents happen for reasons other than alcohol.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

People know the risks.

Actually, they think they know the risks, but for the majority of people, it is an abstract idea. They don't have any personal experience with the serious injury or death.

Quote

(Incidentally, maybe you can explain why so many cops don't wear a seatbelt. Seriously. I see it frequently!)

That is something I don't agree with. In the area I work cops will get written up and days off with out pay (which costs a lot more than a ticket) for doing that.

Part of the reason why that started is that it is easy to get caught up in the large amount of gear being worn. The driver's seat of a patrol car is commonly referred to as the "death chair" in the law enforcement world, simply because that where the suspects would aim their shots.

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

[wmw999 2,602]

Quote

Actually, they think they know the risks, but for the majority of people, it is an abstract idea.

Kinda like some young skydivers wanting to downsize, huh
Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Contrary to popular belief, that is incorrect. Ask a random police officer about the money. They really don't care about the money, they don't see a dime, they have no quota, no secret *wink* number, nothing. Quotas are illegal and will get a department investigated by the Justice Department.

So, if an officer assigned to a traffic unit does not write a single ticket for 6 months. That would not raise any eyebrows? They would not question his (lack off) performance?