Seat belt police

[billvon 2,402]

>What about the one with the 20lb camera helment not secured to anything?

That's also a problem. At all the DZ's I jump at, the rule is either wear or secure your helmet.

[pirana 0]

Quote

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

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

Interesting to find you keeping track of my missing-the-point frequency.

Anyway, it's a form of inspection, all for the good and with no harm done. Not much different than being screened at the airport, or the USPS inspecting packages, or vehicle inspections where they are required, or checking your trunk at the drive-in or any other of the many situations that require you to give up a teeny little bit of privacy to ensure public safety and/or playing by the rules.

" . . . 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

[pirana 0]

Quote

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

To what degree? I'm guessing not to the point of complete anarchy, where everybody just does as they please. Complete lawlessness works for you?

It is what this discussion comes down to. Almost every single law impinges on individual freedom, so playing the freedom card becomes meaningless.

The freedom to not wear a seat belt and the freedom to kill people randomly are miles apart, but they are just points on a scale. And at what point each individual would personally draw the line is only relevant when all those collective lines are codified via a representative ruling body.

If said ruling body says it is legal to skydive, but not legal to drive without a belt, that's the way it is. Obey or suffer the consequences. If it really bugs somebody, work to change the law. (And I can't imagine why anybody would actually work to undo the seatbelt laws. Given the evidence of their benefit, it must just be a personal pride you-can't-tell-me-what-to-do thing).

" . . . 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

[pirana 0]

Quote

>What about the one with the 20lb camera helment not secured to anything?

That's also a problem. At all the DZ's I jump at, the rule is either wear or secure your helmet.

Uh huh. More inpingement on my personal freedoms.

I say we reject our govenment, declare all laws null and void, and start from scratch.

" . . . 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

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

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

What about when the group of people includes both adults and children? Is it OK for the children's lives to be endangered when the adults in the vehicle choose not to wear seatbelts? (A kid being hit by a 100+-lb adult in a bad accident probably wouldn't fare too well, even if the kid was belted in.)

[normiss 622]

yea...sorry for the inference...I was afraid it could be interpreted that way...I meant it as a general statement to on-line discussion, not you personally.

But this "form of inspection" you speak of is a bit of a wide statement. When it becomes illegal search and seizure, I won't play that game. "Inspecting" me because you suspect I am not in compliance is not simply allowed in the better interests of society as a whole. I refuse to give up any privacy without "probable cause". My rights still allow me that ... albeit to a reduced degree these days...THAT'S my issue with all of this.
I always wear a seatbelt, don't drink n drive, even wear a seat belt to 100ft on the ride up...so leave me be please!

[Casurf1978 0]

How about the other people on the road? I've seen some pretty bad accidents where occupants have been thrown out of the vehicle because they chose not to wear a seat belt. Now that person has become a danger to other drivers.

[normiss 622]

like this???

[downwardspiral 0]

As laws go...this is probably one of the most effective laws there is. I'm all for it.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[n23x 0]

W/r/t kids vs. adults, I have somewhat of a difference of opinion there. Kids (up to a point) do not have the background or comprehension to make an informed choice. Therefor, a law regarding kids belt/safety seat useage might be appropriate. When you can vote, by cigarettes, or sign up to go get shot at, you're probably old enough to decide whether or not you want to wear your seatbelt.

I would present the opinion that a majority of people not buckled in are probably ejected straight out of the vehicle. Children are typically seated beside/behind the adults. It seems reasonable to me that an adult could make the choice to not be buckled in, while buckling their child in, and not have a significant liklihood of hitting their kid in a terrible accident.

So to answer your question, I would say that the adult likely doesn't endanger the kid's life by not buckling in.

@ Casurf:

My question would be, "what percentage of a time does solely an ejected body block traffic, vs traffic blocked by general crash debris.

FWIW, I think the government should absolutely RECOMMEND seat belts and other passive/active safety devices. I simply believe it should be up to the end user to implement or not.

.jim

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

[AdamLanes 1]

Now I remember why I stopped logging in to this stupid forum for the last five months. If you go back and re-read my post, you will clearly see that my point is that the choice to wear seatbelts on an airplane or not should be left up the aircraft owner, pilot, dzo, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. If the aircraft owner, pilot, dzo, etc, decides not to have a rule mandating seatbelts, then individuals can decide for themselves to wear seatbelts, and then you can decide for yourself whether you want to jump with those dumbasses or GO SOMEWHERE ELSE where they do require seatbelts!!! There doesn't need to be a fucking law for it, you get to decide for yourself what your "safety level" is.

Quote

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

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I would present the opinion that a majority of people not buckled in are probably ejected straight out of the vehicle. Children are typically seated beside/behind the adults. It seems reasonable to me that an adult could make the choice to not be buckled in, while buckling their child in, and not have a significant liklihood of hitting their kid in a terrible accident.

I don't know what happens to the majority of people not buckled in - if they get thrown from the car or not. In the one serious accident I was in, while not wearing a seatbelt, I was thrown from the driver's side to the passenger's side with enough force to break the passenger's side window out, along with busting the windshield and the stereo with my body. I feel fairly certain that if someone had been sitting (seatbelted) in the passenger's seat then I would have injured that person as well.

I don't know... It's not a law that I feel strongly about either way, but I probably lean toward thinking it's a good law.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Now I remember why I stopped logging in to this stupid forum for the last five months.

This forum is stupid because there are people here who disagree with you?


Actually you know what stupid is? Given the choice between safety and comfort, humans will always choose comfort. Now THAT'S fucking stupid.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Andy9o8 0]

Every other person in the thread seems to understand this simple thing but you:

If YOU aren't required to wear a seatbelt, and YOU choose not to, and YOU are propelled into ME in a crash, it's not YOUR safety level YOU are choosing, it's MINE.

There. Simple. Direct. No big words. We're not going to explain it to you again.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

If YOU aren't required to wear a seatbelt, and YOU choose not to, and YOU are propelled into ME in a crash, it's not YOUR safety level YOU are choosing, it's MINE.

Well, if you choose to jump at a dz that does not require seatbelt usage, then you have already chosen the safety level that you are comfortable with, since you should expect that there may be people on the plane not wearing seatbelts.

Yes, maybe the person choosing not to wear the seatbelt is making it more dangerous for you, but then why jump at a dz that you think has unsafe practices (like not requiring everyone to wear a seatbelt)?

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

If you go back and re-read my post, you will clearly see that my point is that the choice to wear seatbelts on an airplane or not should be left up the aircraft owner, pilot, dzo, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

No need to go back and re-read anything, I understood your weak argument the first time.

I'm glad we don't leave it up to DZOs or airlines, though ALL of them would likely create and enforce seatbelt rules. Can you see United splitting off from the pack with their new "seatbelts optional" policy? They'd lose a lot of business quick.

I realize there are plenty of idiots out there who wouldn't wear seatbelts if they didn't have to, and I'm damned glad the government attempts to protect me from them.

People who don't wear seatbelts are a danger to others and drive up insurance costs. Do you dispute that? It's an easy-to-do saftey measure that saves lives.

. . =(_8^(1)

[AggieDave 6]

I've already answered in longer posts, so I'll keep it short so you catch it.

I'm a strong advocate of personal freedoms. I'm also a strong advocate that seatbelts should be worn.

After you cut a few extremely mangled dead bodies out of cars, you'll understand as well. Or how about the one that was launched from his rolling truck, struck a light pole about 25ft in the air, spun, landed then his truck rolled over on top of him. It took a little while to figure out how to get the truck off of him without damaging the body any more.

Life experience is a cruel teacher. Obviously you haven't had those lessons "taught" yet, hopefully you never will.

As a side note, I'm a strong advocate of actual personal freedoms. Nothing annoys me more then someone who believes they understand their rights when their understanding came from bad and incorrect TV/movies. If people would educate themselves, actually read the laws of their state and understand how the US Constitution interacts with those laws, then the US would be a much better place.

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

[riddler 0]

Quote

I would present the opinion that a majority of people not buckled in are probably ejected straight out of the vehicle.

Your opinion does not correlate with the statistics. Of all the deaths in auto accidents, those without seatbelts are ejected only 29% of the time, while those that wear seatbelts are ejected less than 1% of the time. Of all the people that are ejected, 75% died. Source, NHSTA.

Also:

Fatalities and accidents involving those not wearing seat belts cost the U.S. approximately $20 billion per year. Of that cost, 74% of the tab is paid for by the public. Same source.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[wetbrick 0]

Quote

Quote

I had to donate $58 to the authorities because I wasn't wearing a seat belt.

It's only $10 in Kansas City.

you lucky buggers a seatbelt in bc canada will run you $138 and then they tally all your trafic violations every year for for the past three years and bill you again on your brithday

[n23x 0]

Quote

***I would present the opinion that a majority of people not buckled in are probably ejected straight out of the vehicle.

Your opinion does not correlate with the statistics. Of all the deaths in auto accidents, those without seatbelts are ejected only 29% of the time, while those that wear seatbelts are ejected less than 1% of the time. Of all the people that are ejected, 75% died. Source, NHSTA.

I should have corrected my original statement to say, "... are probably ejected straight out of the vehicle, instead of into passengers/drivers of the car involved in the accident, or a 3rd party car".

Outside of someone getting cleaned off the road with a sponge, (which i recognize represents a significant public cost) I am still skeptical about the portrayed 'risk' to other drivers/passengers.

I recognize the skydiving seatbelt analogy, and recognize that unrestrained bodies become meat missles. I dispute the fact that not wearing seatbelts represents a significant risk to people outside of the vehicle.

Like I said in a previous post, I'd limit the choice of seatbelts or not to the people within the vehicle.

.jim

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

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

I'm glad we don't leave it up to DZOs or airlines, though ALL of them would likely create and enforce seatbelt rules.

And that would be their right to make the rules for their own businesses.

Quote

Can you see United splitting off from the pack with their new "seatbelts optional" policy? They'd lose a lot of business quick.

Maybe there is a market for people that want to fly without seatbelts. Just because you don't want to fly on an airplane where someone is allowed to not wear a seatbelt, doesn't give you the right to mandate that no one can make their own decisions on whether they want to fly on a plane where people are not required to wear seatbelts. Maybe the airlines would all mandate seatbelts, that would be their right.

Here is a simple analogy for you. I am sure there is a market for smokers who want to smoke while they fly. We do not need laws against smoking on the airplanes! I don't smoke, and I don't want to be stuck breathing second-hand smoke on a 10 hour international flight. Thats why I would book a flight on a non-smoking flight. Áirlines could cater to the smoker crowd by offerring specific flights that allow smoking.

Quote

People who don't wear seatbelts are a danger to others and drive up insurance costs. Do you dispute that?

Yes I will dispute that. Insurance companies can decide who, what, where, when, and how they cover insured parties. They can very simply choose not to offer insurance to somebody that chooses to not wear a seatbelt,. Alternatively they can charge higher premiums to people that they consider to be higher risk. Its all about what is written in the contract. If you think you are paying higher premiums to compensate for others, maybe you should start looking for a new insurance company. Of course you would have more choices for insurance if the government didn't have so many regulations prohibiting potential insurers from entering the market.

[LongWayToFall 0]

This clip is gay, but proves a point....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT5e44lty88&feature=related
(although I doubt the dude would be cool....)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42e_0pzcLkw&feature=related

After the first impact, maybe he could have kept better control of the vehicle?

[AdamLanes 1]

What if you caused the accident? Maybe you should reinforce the windshield and windows on your car if you are worried about things like this. Its kind of sad really. Using your same logic and reasoning I can argue why skydiving should be outlawed: If I own a home and people are jumping out of airplanes above me, there is a possibility that someone (or piece of gear) could come crashing through my roof endangering me, just so somebody else can get their "kicks". Or I may be working or driving in the area so no dz is safe.

Quote

Every other person in the thread seems to understand this simple thing but you:

If YOU aren't required to wear a seatbelt, and YOU choose not to, and YOU are propelled into ME in a crash, it's not YOUR safety level YOU are choosing, it's MINE.

[normiss 622]

But overall you're ok with a government interferring in our freedoms....
This is the same government that has made gay marriage illegal...in the better interest of society. We wouldn't want our morals to slide now would we.
The same government that has made oral and/or anal sex illegal...again for the society as a whole...morals and disease control you know.
The same government that has made it illegal to have sex in any other position than missionary.
The same government that makes it illegal for me to carry cash - if it's over some arbitrary amount established by them...
The same people that makes it legal to prescribe and sell drugs that kill or damage out bodies, but won't let a kid smoke a joint....but for some reason alcohol and cigarettes are just fine.

I'm more for the leave me alone approach...just make me resopnsible for the consequences of my decisions and results of those. With the increase in violent crime in my area...I think we would be better served if they could solve a few more cases instead of worrying about "safety issues". Not wearing a seat belt is a bad idea...I'm just not of the mind that cops need to be worry about my safety to that degree. Maybe they should come over and make sure my bathroom won't kill me either. Am I cutting my steak in small enough pieces so as to not choke to death? Quick! Call a cop!

and don't tell anyone....I still own a set of Jarts and some Clackers.

[kallend 1,632]

Quote

and don't tell anyone....I still own a set of Jarts and some Clackers.

Clackers - now there's a blast from the past.

...

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