sheilaincali
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 17:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by sheilaincali on May 30, 2013 15:34:11 GMT -5
I wonder if most of those "seatbelt" patrols aren't done to catch people doing more illegal things. Not having a seatbelt on is a obvious way for them to pull you over to check for outstanding warrants, smell of booze on your breath, drug items sitting in plain sight when they approach your vehicle and so forth.
Phoenix I'm sorry you felt that people were picking on you. That wasn't my intention- I honestly don't understand not wearing your seatbelt. I remember a statistic once that said most accidents happen within 5 or 10 miles from your home. I'm assuming that's because it's where you are traveling the bulk of the time. But to not wear it during the times you are statistically most likely to be in an accident seems foolish to me.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 30, 2013 15:35:05 GMT -5
::The overall cost to taxpayers of your death in a traffic accident is considered to be ~1.2 Million. Considering you are far more likely to die when not wearing a seatbelt, then I would say it is in everyone's best interest that people wear their seatbelt.:: What's the overall cost to taxpayers if you are wearing a seatbelt and so only get horribly injured in that same accident? Some of that cost I woudl bet is the same whether you die or are fine (either way police come out, they have to tow your car away, send an ambulance, etc). Do you think it actuallys costs more if you go to the hospital and die that night as compared to going to the hospital and receiving treatment for a few months? $55,000 - we don't consider the severity of the injury though, so that would be the average. I am sure some are very high. I am sure some fatalities are very low. We only deal in averages to calculate B/C ratios & on average fatality accidents are far more costly. If no one gets injured in the accident, then the average cost is $8,000.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 4:25:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2013 15:35:14 GMT -5
That is the figure my state uses for the cost of a fatality accident. We use it when calculating if a specific safety improvement is worth completing. Does the cost of the improvement outweigh the benefit of reduced accidents? My guess is that it includes all first responder's time on the accident, cost of potentially closing the road, cost to the public of the delay due to additional traffic and/or road closure, cost to file a fatality report - which is treated differently than most accident reports & has to be filed into the FARS system as well, additional costs of people like me who then write up safety reports due to fatalities, cost of the family trying to sue the City/County/State/other driver for wrongful death due to poor intersection design or whatnot, cost of govt potentially having to pay on that lawsuit, and so on. I wasn't involved in the calculation of this amount, so I only guessing. I've heard figures between 1 Million & 3 Million. We just happen to use 1.2 Million. So...overstated government numbers then? Okay. A lot of these costs would be there whether the person dies or not...regardless of whether a seatbelt was worn. Of course you're going to come up with a huge number when you're taking EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO into account...even when a majority of the time you won't need all of those scenarios in an accident event.
|
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 26,210
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on May 30, 2013 15:37:33 GMT -5
I was pulled over years ago crossing into Texas from Louisiana. Don't know if local cop or trooper. He politely told me that it was the law in Texas to buckle up. I told him I was reaching for seatbelt since I knew it was the law in TX. Then I told him that I didn't see the sign until I was crossing the border and I thought they should put the sign about the law closer so out of towners would know. He laughed and told me that they couldn't put the sign in Louisiana. He told me to buckle up and be on my way No ticket!!
|
|
sheilaincali
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 17:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by sheilaincali on May 30, 2013 15:37:33 GMT -5
As for the hiking and getting lost scenario. When I lived in Alaska they had to rescue a number of people they felt were morons and had to be rescued for basically failing to have common sense. I moved before it was put to a vote but they had some serious discussions about charging people if they had to be rescued due to their own stupidity (they worded it nicer than that).
|
|
toomuchreality
Senior Associate
Joined: Sept 3, 2011 10:28:25 GMT -5
Posts: 16,861
Favorite Drink: Sometimes I drink water... just to surprise my liver!
|
Post by toomuchreality on May 30, 2013 15:39:24 GMT -5
I was in an accident- my fault, I rear ended the lady in front of me. When I tried to go around a slow moving van, she was stopped in the next lane. ugh. I was wearing my seat belt, yet still managed to bend the steering wheel, and my head took out the windshield. Your height and weight make a difference on if and how well a seat belt can/will hold you. I was 5'7" so no problem there. However, I only weighed about 80 lbs. The lap belt held. I had wicked marks on my hips where the skin had been torn off. But the shoulder belt did not restrain me at all. Ahhh... the joys of anorexia. I began wearing my seat belt back when they made it mandatory for kids to wear them. How could I expect my child to do the right thing, if I did not. Now my kids are grown, and I still wear my seat belt. So does everyone else riding in my car. That's the rule. If not, your free to walk, or find other means of travel. No one is forcing 'you' to ride in my car, just to wear a seat belt, if you do.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on May 30, 2013 15:39:40 GMT -5
Was that the argument? Since vehicular travel is governed by the Commerce Clause, I don't think there needs to be any financial benefit to justify a law requiring seatbelt usage.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,488
|
Post by Tiny on May 30, 2013 15:47:12 GMT -5
I guess this is the "rip on phoenix" thread for not always 100% wearing a seatbelt. I actually usually do, the problem I have is I often forget to put it on when going to work in the morning. I'm just not all there and often forget. I always wear it when traveling on the highway or interstate, or any trip longer than 5 miles.
I just think that sending cops on seatbelt patrol is a waste of resources, and you aren't usually endangering anyone else. I can agree with texting laws, since you're endangering others. I'm not sure about cell phones. I think you can talk on your cell and still be attentive while driving under certain conditions. I've done it before, but I always evaluate the situation first. I never talk on my cell phone while driving in heavy traffic, bad weather, or at night. You bring up what I think is an important point - that your 'auto pilot' isn't set to "put on seatbelt" when in the car. I suspect that those of us who wear a seatbelt do it on 'autopilot' - it's our 'default' setting - get in car, put on seatbelt, start car (or if a passenger get settled for the ride). There's no forgetting or choice involved. It's an action you do when getting in a vehicle - like stepping on the brake before you put the car in gear. I truly think that's what all the ads/marketing and maybe even tickets are about - getting people to make the change from choosing to wear a seat belt (or not) every time they get in a car - to it being an automatic action of buckling up. I also suspect that when parents buckle up - they are more likely to buckle up their kids (or not do other stupid stuff like let a little kid ride on front seat passengers lap...).
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 30, 2013 15:51:31 GMT -5
I think the rational for forcing people to wear seatbelts is that it is easier to control your car if you're still in your seat and unhurt and if you don't have passengers flying into you. A fender bender can easily turn into something much worse if you completely loose control of your car the moment it gets bumped. 1. If you're the kind of person who completely loses control the moment it gets bumped, a seatbelt isn't going to help you. 2. If the accident is forceful enough to make a seatbelt of great use, then your airbags deploy (assuming you have them), you are jolted, you almost certainly aren't in good control of your car. If this were really the rational, then people in the backseat would be required to wear seatbelts, it's going to be hard maintaining control as they crash into your seat, into you, etc. There's no hidden rational of "you can control your car better", it is what it is, the government trying to regulate people from doing things that don't harm anyone, but which they don't like.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 30, 2013 15:51:35 GMT -5
And just because someone wants to go hiking in the mountains doesn't mean I want to pay taxes for them to be rescued when one of them falls, or when they get stuck in a storm... And just because someone wants to go snowmobiling doesn't mean I want to pay taxes for them to be pulled out of a lake when they fall through the ice... And just because someone wants to protest some injustice doesn't mean I want to pay taxes to clean up the mess and have police presence (and not to even mention the costs of riot damage)... People do a lot of stupid shit...having ridiculous regulations to try to manipulate their stupidity is just as stupid. I agree responsible people wear rheir seat belts, but you can't make people be responsible by charging them a penalty/fee (and if you do charge them, then you are a greedy tryant - at least according to the leftists in this country). This is really not an apples to apples comparison. In fact, it is laughable. You are MUCH more likely to get into a car accident then get lost when hiking or any of the other items you listed. Overall risk: Car accidents- 44,757 annual deaths 1 in 84 lifetime risk. (http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm) Each year snowmobile accidents produce approximately 200 deaths (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12671482) Most people will not snowmobile or hike in their lifetime. People are in a car several times a day, and some people spend HOURS a day in a car. There is no way to prevent a storm from coming when you are hiking. But you CAN prevent or at least actively decrease your likelihood of having your brain splattered on the pavement by wearing a seat belt. The average person's risk is probably much higher in dying in a car accident. But for every hour in a car vs. every hour on a snowmobile, you are way more likely to die snowmobiling. Fatalities are way lower than that also - 32,367 in 2011. Accidents have never reached 44,000/yr, at least not going back to 1994 when they started FARS. ETA - Had to look in a system outside of FARS, but that was the approximate number of fatalities in 1990. That is some old data.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 30, 2013 15:55:56 GMT -5
Was that the argument? Since vehicular travel is governed by the Commerce Clause, I don't think there needs to be any financial benefit to justify a law requiring seatbelt usage. What body governs vehicles has nothing to do with whether a law is justified. We're not discussing whether someone is allowed ot make a law, we're arguing about whether there's any good reason for it. But yes, that was the argument that I responded to. That deaths cost 1.2M, so it was in everyone's best interest to have that law since there woudl be so many deaths if people didn't wear seatbelts.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,488
|
Post by Tiny on May 30, 2013 15:58:58 GMT -5
There's another interesting thing at work with the whole seatbelt thing being a personal choice
What if the accident isn't the fault of the person NOT wearing a seat belt? What if they are injuried as part of abigger accident - what if they sustain horrific injuries (maybe they would have had a better outcome if they had worn a seatbelt). Is this another case of "too bad for you"? They didn't cause the accident.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 30, 2013 15:59:12 GMT -5
That is the figure my state uses for the cost of a fatality accident. We use it when calculating if a specific safety improvement is worth completing. Does the cost of the improvement outweigh the benefit of reduced accidents? My guess is that it includes all first responder's time on the accident, cost of potentially closing the road, cost to the public of the delay due to additional traffic and/or road closure, cost to file a fatality report - which is treated differently than most accident reports & has to be filed into the FARS system as well, additional costs of people like me who then write up safety reports due to fatalities, cost of the family trying to sue the City/County/State/other driver for wrongful death due to poor intersection design or whatnot, cost of govt potentially having to pay on that lawsuit, and so on. I wasn't involved in the calculation of this amount, so I only guessing. I've heard figures between 1 Million & 3 Million. We just happen to use 1.2 Million. So...overstated government numbers then? Okay. A lot of these costs would be there whether the person dies or not...regardless of whether a seatbelt was worn. Of course you're going to come up with a huge number when you're taking EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO into account...even when a majority of the time you won't need all of those scenarios in an accident event. I don't think they considered every possible scenario & just added up numbers. They looked over years of data and came up with averages. I will do research & figure it out if I have time.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 30, 2013 16:01:50 GMT -5
There's another interesting thing at work with the whole seatbelt thing being a personal choice What if the accident isn't the fault of the person NOT wearing a seat belt? What if they are injuried as part of abigger accident - what if they sustain horrific injuries (maybe they would have had a better outcome if they had worn a seatbelt). Is this another case of "too bad for you"? They didn't cause the accident. I think this depends on whether you're talking about currently, or in this magical world where there are no seatbelt laws. I think there's a point to argue that if your injuries are partially sustained due to the fact you were breaking the law, you can argue it. Probably difficult to prove somewhat. If seatbelt laws are repealed, then no, it's the fault of the person who caused the accident. The person not wearing a seatbelt has no contribution to the injury at that point.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 4:25:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2013 16:15:34 GMT -5
So...overstated government numbers then? Okay. A lot of these costs would be there whether the person dies or not...regardless of whether a seatbelt was worn. Of course you're going to come up with a huge number when you're taking EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO into account...even when a majority of the time you won't need all of those scenarios in an accident event. I don't think they considered every possible scenario & just added up numbers. They looked over years of data and came up with averages. I will do research & figure it out if I have time. I get that they probably did extensive research on the subject. I just have a problem with saying an accident with a death is ~$1.2million where one without a death is ~$55k. Again...the same police department, ambulance and fire department generally shows up at both and the streets are cleaned by the same people. Where's that massive cost difference coming from? Paperwork and filing? Give me a break. If that's the case then I'd say paper pushers are the problem. Not the seatbelt.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on May 30, 2013 16:21:47 GMT -5
The average person's risk is probably much higher in dying in a car accident. But for every hour in a car vs. every hour on a snowmobile, you are way more likely to die snowmobiling. Fatalities are way lower than that also - 32,367 in 2011. Accidents have never reached 44,000/yr, at least not going back to 1994 when they started FARS. ETA - Had to look in a system outside of FARS, but that was the approximate number of fatalities in 1990. That is some old data. I'm not sure what website you are looking at. Here's the census data from the government: www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdfItem Unit 1990 1995 2000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ACCIDENTS Motor vehicle accidents 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . Million . . . 11.5 10.7 13.4 10.9 10.7 10.4 10.6 10.2 10.8 DEATHS Motor vehicle deaths within 1 yr. 2 . . . . . 1,000 . . . . 46.8 43.4 43.4 44.9 45.3 45.3 43.9 39.7 35.9 Over 45,000 deaths in 2005, 36000 in 2009. So we can just average and say 40,000, eh? What difference does an hourly risk make? We are talking a staggering difference in the amount of overall deaths. Period. It doesn't matter how many people are snowmobiling vs driving and for how long. It's 0.5%-0.6% of the risk snowmobiling. Period. You say 32000 deaths, I found 44000. Doesn't matter if you are talking about overall risk because it is orders of magnitude above the number of deaths from snowmobiling. On an individual basis, I'm much more likely to be killed in a car accident because I drive a car to work every day rather than a snowmobile. I imagine most people on YM and in the WORLD are the same. Maybe some eskimos care about snowmobile accidents. I know I don't. This doesn't even account for the fact that most car accidents involve OTHER cars and OTHER drivers. Snowmobilers drive off a cliff and don't hurt anybody else. It's not like they kill pedestrians walking across the street.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 30, 2013 16:37:43 GMT -5
The average person's risk is probably much higher in dying in a car accident. But for every hour in a car vs. every hour on a snowmobile, you are way more likely to die snowmobiling. Fatalities are way lower than that also - 32,367 in 2011. Accidents have never reached 44,000/yr, at least not going back to 1994 when they started FARS. ETA - Had to look in a system outside of FARS, but that was the approximate number of fatalities in 1990. That is some old data. I'm not sure what website you are looking at. Here's the census data from the government: www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdfItem Unit 1990 1995 2000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ACCIDENTS Motor vehicle accidents 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . Million . . . 11.5 10.7 13.4 10.9 10.7 10.4 10.6 10.2 10.8 DEATHS Motor vehicle deaths within 1 yr. 2 . . . . . 1,000 . . . . 46.8 43.4 43.4 44.9 45.3 45.3 43.9 39.7 35.9 Over 45,000 deaths in 2005, 36000 in 2009. So we can just average and say 40,000, eh? What difference does an hourly risk make? We are talking a staggering difference in the amount of overall deaths. Period. It doesn't matter how many people are snowmobiling vs driving and for how long. It's 0.5%-0.6% of the risk snowmobiling. Period. You say 32000 deaths, I found 44000. Doesn't matter if you are talking about overall risk because it is orders of magnitude above the number of deaths from snowmobiling. On an individual basis, I'm much more likely to be killed in a car accident because I drive a car to work every day rather than a snowmobile. I imagine most people on YM and in the WORLD are the same. Maybe some eskimos care about snowmobile accidents. I know I don't. This doesn't even account for the fact that most car accidents involve OTHER cars and OTHER drivers. Snowmobilers drive off a cliff and don't hurt anybody else. It's not like they kill pedestrians walking across the street. I am getting my data from FARS www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. It probably doesn't really matter, but 32,000 is only 72% of 44,000 & I am a numbers person & that bugs me. Deaths have gone done significantly due to laws & technology so over-reporting by that much & presenting it as current data, well you could say that hits a pet peeve of mine. Also, FARS isn't looking at deaths that occurred months after the accident either, which the data you are noting does. Not that that matters much. I guess it is just how you look at it. I will probably never go snowmobiling, so my odds of dying that way are 0. Significantly lower than my odds of death in a vehicle. That would be significantly different for someone that owns a snowmobile. They are probably more likely to die in a snowmobile accident than a car accident. You were pointing out comparing a snowmobile accident to a car accident is not apples to apples based on numbers. I think straight out numbers isn't really apples to apples since at any given time there are probably several hundred thousand times the number of cars on the road than snowmobiles being driven. To me that is like saying your odds of dying standing in front of a speeding train are 1 in 50 million. This completely ignores that your odds of dying when standing in front of a speeding train are about 100%, it is just most people choose not to do so. Your odds of dying when on a snowmobile are much higher than when driving a car. I find that important to note, apparently you don't or at least you don't feel it applies.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,487
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 30, 2013 16:52:37 GMT -5
I guess this is the "rip on phoenix" thread for not always 100% wearing a seatbelt. I actually usually do, the problem I have is I often forget to put it on when going to work in the morning. I'm just not all there and often forget. I always wear it when traveling on the highway or interstate, or any trip longer than 5 miles.
I just think that sending cops on seatbelt patrol is a waste of resources, and you aren't usually endangering anyone else. I can agree with texting laws, since you're endangering others. I'm not sure about cell phones. I think you can talk on your cell and still be attentive while driving under certain conditions. I've done it before, but I always evaluate the situation first. I never talk on my cell phone while driving in heavy traffic, bad weather, or at night. I drive a 2002 Ford Explorer. The seat belt 'dings' as a reminder to buckle up when I start the vehicle. If I decide not to buckle up and drive off, the vehicle detects I am now moving and "dings' again to remind me to buckle up. And it won't stop 'dinging' until I do buckle up. I have been driving for more than 45 years and buckling up is as natural an action as putting the key in the vehicle ignition.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on May 30, 2013 16:58:54 GMT -5
I think the rational for forcing people to wear seatbelts is that it is easier to control your car if you're still in your seat and unhurt and if you don't have passengers flying into you. A fender bender can easily turn into something much worse if you completely loose control of your car the moment it gets bumped. 1. If you're the kind of person who completely loses control the moment it gets bumped, a seatbelt isn't going to help you. 2. If the accident is forceful enough to make a seatbelt of great use, then your airbags deploy (assuming you have them), you are jolted, you almost certainly aren't in good control of your car. If this were really the rational, then people in the backseat would be required to wear seatbelts, it's going to be hard maintaining control as they crash into your seat, into you, etc. There's no hidden rational of "you can control your car better", it is what it is, the government trying to regulate people from doing things that don't harm anyone, but which they don't like. 1. No matter how good your are under pressure, if you've been knocked out of your seat, your arms are broken, you are knocked unconscious from a blow to the head, or you've been decapitated by an unrestrained backseat pasenger flying through the windsheid, you aren't going to keep control of your car. Most of us mere mortals think more clearly when we aren't injured. 2. Not all cars have airbags and not all airbags deploy when they should. And after the airbag deploys and deflates, point #1 still holds. Being able to get your car out of the way of traffic after an accident can keep the accident from turning into a pileup. I agree that backseat passengers should wear seatbelts. Some areas require this. I even seatbelt large packages when I drive, and it came in handy when I got into an accident in a fully loaded car.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on May 30, 2013 17:12:47 GMT -5
You bring up what I think is an important point - that your 'auto pilot' isn't set to "put on seatbelt" when in the car. I suspect that those of us who wear a seatbelt do it on 'autopilot' - it's our 'default' setting - get in car, put on seatbelt, start car (or if a passenger get settled for the ride). There's no forgetting or choice involved. It's an action you do when getting in a vehicle - like stepping on the brake before you put the car in gear. I know this is the case for me. It's just part of the getting in. Sit down, close door, buckle up. I don't give it much thought because it's an ingrained habit, so it's never an issue for me to 'decide' if my trip is going to warrant a seatbelt or not. It just is part of the deal.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on May 30, 2013 17:14:38 GMT -5
How could I expect my child to do the right thing, if I did not. So much this.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on May 30, 2013 17:21:05 GMT -5
Your odds of dying when on a snowmobile are much higher than when driving a car. I find that important to note, apparently you don't or at least you don't feel it applies. I don't think you showed data that supports your first statement, though you are probably correct. In the context here of whether or not to wear a seatbelt, nope, I don't see how it applies.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on May 30, 2013 17:46:04 GMT -5
I wonder if most of those "seatbelt" patrols aren't done to catch people doing more illegal things. Not having a seatbelt on is a obvious way for them to pull you over to check for outstanding warrants, smell of booze on your breath, drug items sitting in plain sight when they approach your vehicle and so forth.
TD got pulled over one morning early as we were coming back from picking me up from the airport. The cop said he was going over the speed limit, but at the time I was watching his speed and about to tell him to put the pedal to the metal and get this car moving because I wanted to get some sleep. He was going UNDER the speed limit at the time.
I'm guessing that the cop saw sports car with bigassed spoiler on it + 2 am and thought that this person MUST be driving drunk. When he saw me, my suitcase and the dog in the back seat, he let us go with a warning to keep his speed down.
No doubt it was a hunting expedition.....
|
|
steph08
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 13:06:01 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by steph08 on May 30, 2013 17:46:12 GMT -5
I don't understand people who don't wear seat belts. I get in, put on my seat belt, start the car, and away I go. I put it on if I am going one block down the street or four hours across the state.
as for the seatbelt cutting into your neck, get one of those padded protector things. My brother's car has a seatbelt that always cuts into my neck and can't be adjusted up and down. The protector makes it so much more comfortable.
My brother rolled my parents' Jeep when he was a teen - he had no problem unbuckling and getting out afterwards. I have no idea what would have happened if he hasn't been wearing it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 4:25:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2013 18:21:13 GMT -5
hoops902 said: We are seeing more and more communities charging for "stupid" outdoor rescues. I like AZ's stupid motorist's law wherein if you're so stupid to go around a barrier closing a flooded road (flash floods) you'll pay for that rescue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 4:25:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2013 18:28:54 GMT -5
Was that the argument? Since vehicular travel is governed by the Commerce Clause, I don't think there needs to be any financial benefit to justify a law requiring seatbelt usage.
What body governs vehicles has nothing to do with whether a law is justified. We're not discussing whether someone is allowed ot make a law, we're arguing about whether there's any good reason for it. But yes, that was the argument that I responded to. That deaths cost 1.2M, so it was in everyone's best interest to have that law since there woudl be so many deaths if people didn't wear seatbelts. I think it's more complicated than that. There's probably something along the lines of taking reasonable precautions to protect injury to yourself. I remember when I was in Suburban VA 20 years ago one of my bosses got into a fender bender with a pregnant woman who wasn't wearing her seatbelt. I can't remember if she was driving or the passenger. The seatbelt law was to go into effect about 3 months later. He was a wreck because he was worried that if anything happened, premature birth, any problems with the baby that he would be blamed. But he made sure that it was in the police officer's report. Even though he was at fault, I think he had every right to point out that she wasn't wearing a seatbelt.
|
|
Abby Normal
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 12:31:49 GMT -5
Posts: 3,501
|
Post by Abby Normal on May 30, 2013 18:37:25 GMT -5
Honey- That reminds me of a story. My friend was pregnant and was rear ended. It was slow moving traffic, so she was fine. But when the guy came to check on her, he freaked because she was pregnant and crying. She couldn't bring herself to tell him she was crying over a song on the radio.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,476
|
Post by chiver78 on May 30, 2013 18:44:29 GMT -5
I think if the adults choose not to wear a seatbelt, that's their choice. However, there should be a stiff penalty if children do not have their seatbelts on or are not properly secured in whatever car seat/restraint is appropriate for their age since they cannot make those decisions for themselves. catching up on this thread now, apologies if anyone else has addressed this. donning the flame suit now....this isn't necessarily my opinion, just raising the question. when I was a kid, my mom argued with my pediatrician pretty much every visit about seat belts. her basis was the rash of child fatalities in vehicular accidents in our area, many resulting in fires, where the restraints across and through car seats couldn't be released in time to save the child. given that the minimum age/size to be able to ride in a car has been raised almost to puberty in some states, I think this is a valid question to consider as there are so many more kids riding in car seats now than when we were kids. and seatbelts haven't really changed much over those years....being basic mechanical and all. that said, I do wear my seat belt across my waist. I pull the shoulder harness over my head and the driver's seat whenever possible. having survived a serious car accident where the majority of my injuries were as a result of the shoulder harness NOT engaging on impact, I'm happy to entertain an argument against my opinion and behavior.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,476
|
Post by chiver78 on May 30, 2013 18:47:00 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that my insurance policy does not cover the accident if I am not wearing a seat belt. In Alabama, they can only ticket you for not wearing a seat belt if they pull you over for another traffic violation. I did get stopped for a driver's license check (they do those frequently around here) and got verbally "warned" because my dog (in the back seat) was not restrained. There is no such law in Alabama, but the police officer said there should be. I don't take the dog out to go joyriding; I take her to the vet and back. She does not distract me; she sits quietly on the seat. how can you be warned for a law that doesn't exist?
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on May 30, 2013 18:57:44 GMT -5
Chiver makes a good point. I have 3 kids under 6. One is in a regular seatbelt with a booster seat, which he works himself. One is in a PIA 5 point safety harness. And one is in one of those infant carseats (pumpkin seat) and will shortly be moving to the PIA 5 point harness. Getting 2 kids out of those 5 point safety harnesses is not a quick process, and if there was a fire or we went into water, it is rather unlikely that we'd all get out in time. On the other hand, the vast majorty of accidents don't involve cars catching fire or falling into deep water.
|
|