Seat belt police

[n23x 0]

Quote

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.

Data which links secondary accidents to the driver losing control (after the primary incident) due to not being buckled in? Compared to incidents where the person buckled in still had a secondary accident (due to general loss of control)? If you're going to claim 'risk to other drivers' as a reason to wear seatbelts, you need to demonstrate more than a negligable increase in occurance of secondary accidents (which I do not believe you'll find).

W/r/t cleanup, I agree, it costs more when someone gets smeared across the highway. I agree that people should wear helmets and seatbelts to reduce chances of brain/bodily injury and death.

I simply do not believe it is the government's position to mandate the use of them.

.jim

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

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I simply do not believe it is the government's position to mandate the use of them.

What traffic laws do *you* think should be in place or are seatbelt usage your only problem? How about child safety seat use? What about headlight requirements on vehicles? How about laws governing traffic flow?

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

[normiss 622]

how about requiring safety inspections?
how about requiring red neck 4x4's to be a few feet lower?
how about making it illegal to change head and taillights?
how about making it illegal to ride in the back of a pickup truck? in Florida apparently it's ok for children and mexican's, but illegal for you to have your dog back there....

just a little common sense to these stupid laws might help a tad, ya think?

[n23x 0]

Quote

What traffic laws do *you* think should be in place or are seatbelt usage your only problem? How about child safety seat use? What about headlight requirements on vehicles? How about laws governing traffic flow?

An interesting and important question.

Generally, my only issue is with seatbelts, though I suppose I wouldn't go as far as child safety seats.

Rules regarding general vehicle interaction are certainly acceptable. To a major extent, devices which indicate presence or intent are also acceptable (read: headlights, taillights, signals).

My complaint is that every individual has there own acceptable level of risk. I believe that the seatbelt choice (majority of the time) only affects the person wearing or not wearing the seatbelt.

I believe that a similar argument might go:

When a skydiver dies from a low turn, that death tarnishes skydiving.

Skydivers choose to wear helmets that offer negligable impact protection (primarily for aesthetic reasons).

If skydivers worn a helmet with suitable impact protection (read: DOT/SNELL motorcycle helmet), I believe a lot less people would be dead (potentially paras/quads though, whatever that's worth to you).

Skydivers are being selfish to the sport by not wearing motorcycle helmets. Now lets move on to back protection...

Get my drift?

.jim

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

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

ust a little common sense to these stupid laws might help a tad, ya think?

That comes down to what the municipal prosecutor or the JP (in Texas) thinks should be enforced and how. Then there is case law to allow or disallow certain enforcement.

Quote

how about requiring safety inspections?

That's covered by yearly inspections in Texas.

Quote

how about requiring red neck 4x4's to be a few feet lower?

That's covered by headlight and tail light height in Texas and no it is not legal to relocate the factory lights to make the vehicle level.

Quote

how about making it illegal to change head and taillights

That is illegal in Texas unless the new units comply with the laws set forth that govern required equipment on a vehicle.

Quote

how about making it illegal to ride in the back of a pickup truck? in Florida apparently it's ok for children and mexican's, but illegal for you to have your dog back there....

Its illegal for children to ride in the back of a truck unless its the guardian of the children and that is the only vehicle that the guardian owns for transportation.

Due to the seemingly overall lack of common sense contained with in the general public, laws were made to cover certain items.

Have you read Florida's transportation code or are you relying on anecdotal information about all the traffic laws on the books in your state? I'm willing to bet you do not even know the laws that simply govern traffic movement in your state.

This will help you get going:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Index&Title_Request=XXIII

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

[AggieDave 6]

Ok, but skydiving does not compare to driving at all.

Quote

My complaint is that every individual has there own acceptable level of risk. I believe that the seatbelt choice (majority of the time) only affects the person wearing or not wearing the seatbelt.

The thing is though, seatbelt use does effect the general public. That effect is typically more moneys spent, not just in taxes, but also in insurance rates. It also costs persons money else where. There are losses in revenue due to slowed and rerouted traffic. A fatality accident will shut down that roadway for a minimum of 2 hours typically. A major accident (one that involves any sort of injury) can shut down a roadway for a minimum of 30 minutes.

Basically my point is that when it comes to transportation, there is no such thing as an individual risk. It effects the general public, the local economy and society as a whole.

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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Yea but we all pay when you eat the dashboard. Buckle up fucker.

Yep. The problem is socialism.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[n23x 0]

Quote

Ok, but skydiving does not compare to driving at all.

Sure it does. It's an activity that any of the general public can voluntarily participate it (JUST like driving). An activity where ones' actions can potentially affect other individuals, or the activity as a whole.

Quote

The thing is though, seatbelt use does effect the general public. That effect is typically more moneys spent, not just in taxes, but also in insurance rates. It also costs persons money else where. There are losses in revenue due to slowed and rerouted traffic. A fatality accident will shut down that roadway for a minimum of 2 hours typically. A major accident (one that involves any sort of injury) can shut down a roadway for a minimum of 30 minutes.

Basically my point is that when it comes to transportation, there is no such thing as an individual risk. It effects the general public, the local economy and society as a whole.

So the point is that the level of risk we allow ourselves to be involved in is relative. Do you support airbags? What about active systems that command control of a vehicle before the human operator can get into trouble? Do you think we should implement any and every device that would mitigate this 'group risk' you describe?

.jim

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

[PLFXpert 0]

That was funny.

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

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

So the point is that the level of risk we allow ourselves to be involved in is relative. Do you support airbags? What about active systems that command control of a vehicle before the human operator can get into trouble?

Where do you think technology is heading? Look at the safety systems on new cars now days and where they came from. ABS has been around since 1929. Seat belts have been around even longer. Airbags since the 1950s.

Its a long process and we probably won't see "fire and forget" automobiles in our life time.

Its an interesting duality in regards to personal freedom and technological advances. It was a group of physicians that advocated seat belt use to the federal government initially.

If you're such a fan of not wearing a seatbelt, then buy a vehicle manufactured with out stock seat belt attachment points. Then you don't have to wear a safety belt, at least in Texas.

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

[AdamLanes 1]

Was that meant to be funny?

Quote

Yep. The problem is socialism.

[normiss 622]

I'm going by what's actually enforced.
It varies by county and agency....with a lot of discrimination thrown in for good measure.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Was that meant to be funny?

Yes & no.

I have a program for sale, if you're interested.

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

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Ok, but skydiving does not compare to driving at all.

Quote

My complaint is that every individual has there own acceptable level of risk. I believe that the seatbelt choice (majority of the time) only affects the person wearing or not wearing the seatbelt.

The thing is though, seatbelt use does effect the general public. That effect is typically more moneys spent, not just in taxes, but also in insurance rates. It also costs persons money else where. There are losses in revenue due to slowed and rerouted traffic. A fatality accident will shut down that roadway for a minimum of 2 hours typically. A major accident (one that involves any sort of injury) can shut down a roadway for a minimum of 30 minutes.

Basically my point is that when it comes to transportation, there is no such thing as an individual risk. It effects the general public, the local economy and society as a whole.

You condone gov't mandated safety? So when the FAA says skydiving/parachuting/swooping is too dangerous and should be controlled/outlawed you'll be OK with that? Certainly there's a cost every time somebody augers.

I'd just as soon not have the government telling me how I'm allowed live my life thank you very much.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kelpdiver 2]

So...is anyone here opposed to the seat belt requirement for takeoff?

[AggieDave 6]

Well, no matter what I say you will try to twist it in an attempt to promote your personal agenda.

Like I said previously, if you don't want to wear a seat belt you have two choices. 1) Purchase and drive a car that was built with out seat belt attachments or 2) run the risk of receiving a citation. There truly isn't an immediate viable option for your personal beliefs. You can always contact your state legislator and try to change the law.

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

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

So...is anyone here opposed to the seat belt requirement for takeoff?

I am. It's a personal freedom thing.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I believe that the seatbelt choice (majority of the time) only affects the person wearing or not wearing the seatbelt.

If you have anyone else in the car with you, then you are a danger to them by not wearing a seatbelt. Because if you have a wreck, you can become a projectile if you're not strapped down, and you could seriously injure another person if you hit them.

[n23x 0]

I recognize that. I still think it should be up to the group of people in that vehicle.

.jim

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

[jhrmustang 0]

The "helmet laws" link leads to a website that is simply incorrect.

The strong can always afford to be gentle, It is only the weak who need to "give as good as they get."

[AdamLanes 1]

I am against the law requiring seat belts for takeoffs and landings. People can decide for themselves whether they want to wear a seatbelt or fly in a plane with people who may not be wearing a seatbelt. We don't need the government making decisions for us! Obviously if there was no law mandating you to wear a seatbelt for takeoff and landing, then your DZ, pilot, skydiving club, will step in and have their own rule. That is their right to run their business, and to make their own rules. If they don't have a rule mandating seatbelts then you can go jump at another dz if you prefer everyone to wear seatbelts. Yes, I think it is a smart idea to wear seatbelts and I always do.

Quote

So...is anyone here opposed to the seat belt requirement for takeoff?

[airdvr 200]

Quote

So...is anyone here opposed to the seat belt requirement for takeoff?

I'm not. But we got along without it for years. And I'm not seeing a corresponding decrease in jump aircraft fatalities because of it. It's a good idea that hasn't had much of an effect.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Well, no matter what I say you will try to twist it in an attempt to promote your personal agenda.

Like I said previously, if you don't want to wear a seat belt you have two choices. 1) Purchase and drive a car that was built with out seat belt attachments or 2) run the risk of receiving a citation. There truly isn't an immediate viable option for your personal beliefs. You can always contact your state legislator and try to change the law.

Not twisting anything Dave. I asked you a straightforward question. I'll ask you again. When the FAA or some other governmental body decides that leaving an airplane in flight for any other reason than it being on fire is too risky you'll be OK with that?

You see, I've never questioned whether seat belts are a good idea...we all know they are. My problem is who makes that decision for me. And it's a bigger issue than seatbelt use. It's creeping in slowly every day. Small people in gov't making new rules every day to justify their existance.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

People can decide for themselves whether they want to wear a seatbelt or fly in a plane with people who may not be wearing a seatbelt.

Yea, good move. I really want the "freedom minded" person sitting behind me determining my saftey level on takeoff.

. . =(_8^(1)

[normiss 622]

Just the person not belted in?
What about the one with the 20lb camera helment not secured to anything?