bloody 'ell m8 wuz probly sum northerners in that car m8eskimo_sammyjoe wrote:
Really the only other people you endanger as a projectile are the other occupants of the car
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spf1cm7O32E
lol at pinball
Why is that? Are we going to get into the "what if" debate. Ok I will start. If a person does not wear a seat belt, and goes through a windshield and dies, there will be no health care to administer on acount of the fact, well, ya know, theri dead!!. If they wear their seatbelt and only get hurt, it is gunna cost me.Pug wrote:
Call me after nationalized healthcare starts.lowing wrote:
How can YOU not wearing a seatbelt harm someone else?SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.
We'll chat.
What else do you want, lowing? I said I abandoned the obviously crap reasoning for the law...since it doesn't really affect other people. I clarified my own personal opinion, and said that anyone in my car WILL wear one regardless of the law...but that's because it's my car and my insurance, so it will obviously affect me in some way.lowing wrote:
Oh see, I thought you were going to make an argument that was in the realms of reason and statistically probable.
What part of that does not have reason and the statistically probable in mind?
Hmmm....
looks like you just want to argue today.
I will put my pointy stick away.
Hope all is well in your neck of the woods, have a good day
looks like you just want to argue today.
I will put my pointy stick away.
Hope all is well in your neck of the woods, have a good day
You're going to be paying the same amount in taxes regardless of whether or not people get killed or severely injured by not wearing their belt, so that point is kind of moot.
I've been in 2 accidents. One at about 20MPH when I was driving, belt on. That one hurt my knees, the belt did nothing really as my braced arms on the steering wheel stopped me from going anywhere.
The second I was a passanger in the back seat, friend was driving us back home, on a motorway coming up to a roundabout. 5 in car so I'm sat on the middle seat in the back, no belt there but I'm not overly concerned. Mate is doing about 50 (slowing down from 70, it's a roundabout remember) and he's putting his breaks on to slow down as the traffic has stopped. Breaks on, que skidding and we plough into the back of another car at about 30 I guess. Saw what was happening, knew it was going to happen and put both arms on each front seat. That one didn't hurt at all, without a belt.
I've been in 2 accidents. One at about 20MPH when I was driving, belt on. That one hurt my knees, the belt did nothing really as my braced arms on the steering wheel stopped me from going anywhere.
The second I was a passanger in the back seat, friend was driving us back home, on a motorway coming up to a roundabout. 5 in car so I'm sat on the middle seat in the back, no belt there but I'm not overly concerned. Mate is doing about 50 (slowing down from 70, it's a roundabout remember) and he's putting his breaks on to slow down as the traffic has stopped. Breaks on, que skidding and we plough into the back of another car at about 30 I guess. Saw what was happening, knew it was going to happen and put both arms on each front seat. That one didn't hurt at all, without a belt.
Last edited by jord (2010-07-15 08:15:17)
"since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield." <--------I want you to defend this since you said it.SenorToenails wrote:
What else do you want, lowing? I said I abandoned the obviously crap reasoning for the law...since it doesn't really affect other people. I clarified my own personal opinion, and said that anyone in my car WILL wear one regardless of the law...but that's because it's my car and my insurance, so it will obviously affect me in some way.lowing wrote:
Oh see, I thought you were going to make an argument that was in the realms of reason and statistically probable.
What part of that does not have reason and the statistically probable in mind?
Umm I do not come in here looking for someone to agree with.Pug wrote:
Hmmm....
looks like you just want to argue today.
I will put my pointy stick away.
Hope all is well in your neck of the woods, have a good day
You wanted to drag national health care into it, so I did.
happens all the time. passengers in the rear seats smashing into the front cabin.SenorToenails wrote:
If YOU became a projectile, you can harm someone else. Though, John is right that this probably never happens....so nevermind that argument.lowing wrote:
How can YOU not wearing a seatbelt harm someone else?
My personal belief is that seatbelts are like motorcycle and bicycle helmets--you're safer when you wear them, but meh...I see the argument on both sides but I will force anyone in my car to wear a seatbelt (since I support their use). I wear a seatbelt, but not a bicycle helmet. If I had a motorcycle, I would wear a motorcycle helmet even though in a catastrophe, I'd still be braindead (in organ transplantation work, they call them 'donorcycles').
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
I was in a car crash once. The car I was in hydroplaned around 65MPH, and hit the left guardrail at probably 40MPH. The car was totaled but there wasn't a single scratch on the occupants.
I'm sure it would have been a much more tragic story had it not been for seatbelts. However, I was wearing my seatbelt not because it's the law but because it's a stupid fucking idea to not wear one.
I'm sure it would have been a much more tragic story had it not been for seatbelts. However, I was wearing my seatbelt not because it's the law but because it's a stupid fucking idea to not wear one.
Shouldn't they only be prosecuted if they injure or kill someone? Not everyone who drives drunk ends up hurting someone else.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nah, seatbelt laws are nanny state bs. How many times has someone been killed by a body flying through a windshield? I'd put the number as miniscule.SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.Turquoise wrote:
Nonsense, surely the market and the courts could handle the repercussions. Just ask John.
If people want to fuck up their own lives, have at it. If they put other people in danger by driving under the influence it's a whole other ballgame.
I am gunna veture to say you were not doing 30 mph, if so. your noodles would not have done shit to brace you. and if you are using kph, some people can run that damn fast, no wonder you didn't get hurt.jord wrote:
You're going to be paying the same amount in taxes regardless of whether or not people get killed or severely injured by not wearing their belt, so that point is kind of moot.
I've been in 2 accidents. One at about 20MPH when I was driving, belt on. That one hurt my knees, the belt did nothing really as my braced arms on the steering wheel stopped me from going anywhere.
The second I was a passanger in the back seat, friend was driving us back home, on a motorway coming up to a roundabout. 5 in car so I'm sat on the middle seat in the back, no belt there but I'm not overly concerned. Mate is doing about 50 (slowing down from 70, it's a roundabout remember) and he's putting his breaks on to slow down as the traffic has stopped. Breaks on, que skidding and we plough into the back of another car at about 30 I guess. Saw what was happening, knew it was going to happen and put both arms on each front seat. That one didn't hurt at all, without a belt.
See, now that's using your head (although not against a windshield). Traffic laws are also nanny statish. You should only be fined or imprisoned if you collide with someone else.JohnG@lt wrote:
They did. It's called an airbag.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but you should design a stronger windshield if that's your worry -- self-determination and all.SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.
I don't use kph.lowing wrote:
I am gunna veture to say you were not doing 30 mph, if so. your noodles would not have done shit to brace you. and if you are using kph, some people can run that damn fast, no wonder you didn't get hurt.jord wrote:
You're going to be paying the same amount in taxes regardless of whether or not people get killed or severely injured by not wearing their belt, so that point is kind of moot.
I've been in 2 accidents. One at about 20MPH when I was driving, belt on. That one hurt my knees, the belt did nothing really as my braced arms on the steering wheel stopped me from going anywhere.
The second I was a passanger in the back seat, friend was driving us back home, on a motorway coming up to a roundabout. 5 in car so I'm sat on the middle seat in the back, no belt there but I'm not overly concerned. Mate is doing about 50 (slowing down from 70, it's a roundabout remember) and he's putting his breaks on to slow down as the traffic has stopped. Breaks on, que skidding and we plough into the back of another car at about 30 I guess. Saw what was happening, knew it was going to happen and put both arms on each front seat. That one didn't hurt at all, without a belt.
Well perhaps it was a bit slower, nobody knows because when you're about to crash and are rapidly decellarating you don't check what speed you're doing. It wasn't for off because the breaks locked and it wasnt slowing down too fast for my liking...
i'm really glad you don't run thingsTurquoise wrote:
See, now that's using your head (although not against a windshield). Traffic laws are also nanny statish. You should only be fined or imprisoned if you collide with someone else.JohnG@lt wrote:
They did. It's called an airbag.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but you should design a stronger windshield if that's your worry -- self-determination and all.
Nope. They're statistically much more likely to injure other people than someone who is sober. Same goes for people on cell phones or texting while driving.Turquoise wrote:
Shouldn't they only be prosecuted if they injure or kill someone? Not everyone who drives drunk ends up hurting someone else.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nah, seatbelt laws are nanny state bs. How many times has someone been killed by a body flying through a windshield? I'd put the number as miniscule.SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.
If people want to fuck up their own lives, have at it. If they put other people in danger by driving under the influence it's a whole other ballgame.
Granted, it's a gray area, but statistics back up the increased risk.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Isn't waiting until they kill a family of 5 in a mini van a little late to figure out they shouldn't have driven drunk? Use your head for something other than a hat rack.Turquoise wrote:
Shouldn't they only be prosecuted if they injure or kill someone? Not everyone who drives drunk ends up hurting someone else.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nah, seatbelt laws are nanny state bs. How many times has someone been killed by a body flying through a windshield? I'd put the number as miniscule.SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.
If people want to fuck up their own lives, have at it. If they put other people in danger by driving under the influence it's a whole other ballgame.
Of course I don't. Things run themselves, or at least, ideally we all would run things as individuals.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
i'm really glad you don't run thingsTurquoise wrote:
See, now that's using your head (although not against a windshield). Traffic laws are also nanny statish. You should only be fined or imprisoned if you collide with someone else.JohnG@lt wrote:
They did. It's called an airbag.
Can please we get back on topic before lowing picks arguments with half the posts in this thread and trashes it once more?
Trying to argue with someone about how fast they were going in an accident is really not the point and should be considered trolling.
Thanks.
To the OP: I see where you're coming from but it kinda takes away the free will people have. Ideas like that, whilst on the surface seem good end up opening a Pandora's Box where it allows the possibility of other prohibitive measures to be taken that take away people's liberty. That sounds a little grandiose but if this idea was the case with every boat, what next? All cars with seat belts? What about in a bar and you have to have a breath reading to make sure you're not too drunk before you order your next drink? Where would it stop?
At the end of the day it imposes upon free will. Whether this allows for people to make good decisions or stupid ones is up to them, but people should not necessarily be allowed to make them, but rather should not be totally prevented from making them in the first place. Because who's call is that to make, where would the line in the sand be drawn? That's what laws are for.
Trying to argue with someone about how fast they were going in an accident is really not the point and should be considered trolling.
Thanks.
To the OP: I see where you're coming from but it kinda takes away the free will people have. Ideas like that, whilst on the surface seem good end up opening a Pandora's Box where it allows the possibility of other prohibitive measures to be taken that take away people's liberty. That sounds a little grandiose but if this idea was the case with every boat, what next? All cars with seat belts? What about in a bar and you have to have a breath reading to make sure you're not too drunk before you order your next drink? Where would it stop?
At the end of the day it imposes upon free will. Whether this allows for people to make good decisions or stupid ones is up to them, but people should not necessarily be allowed to make them, but rather should not be totally prevented from making them in the first place. Because who's call is that to make, where would the line in the sand be drawn? That's what laws are for.
He's just trying to trap melowing wrote:
Isn't waiting until they kill a family of 5 in a mini van a little late to figure out they shouldn't have driven drunk? Use your head for something other than a hat rack.Turquoise wrote:
Shouldn't they only be prosecuted if they injure or kill someone? Not everyone who drives drunk ends up hurting someone else.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nah, seatbelt laws are nanny state bs. How many times has someone been killed by a body flying through a windshield? I'd put the number as miniscule.
If people want to fuck up their own lives, have at it. If they put other people in danger by driving under the influence it's a whole other ballgame.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Statist.lowing wrote:
Isn't waiting until they kill a family of 5 in a mini van a little late to figure out they shouldn't have driven drunk? Use your head for something other than a hat rack.Turquoise wrote:
Shouldn't they only be prosecuted if they injure or kill someone? Not everyone who drives drunk ends up hurting someone else.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nah, seatbelt laws are nanny state bs. How many times has someone been killed by a body flying through a windshield? I'd put the number as miniscule.
If people want to fuck up their own lives, have at it. If they put other people in danger by driving under the influence it's a whole other ballgame.
Someone's gotta clean up the mess though. If that were my job I'd sure as shit be pushing for tough seatbelt laws.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nah, seatbelt laws are nanny state bs. How many times has someone been killed by a body flying through a windshield? I'd put the number as miniscule.SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.Turquoise wrote:
Nonsense, surely the market and the courts could handle the repercussions. Just ask John.
If people want to fuck up their own lives, have at it. If they put other people in danger by driving under the influence it's a whole other ballgame.
Willing to bet your families life on that?Turquoise wrote:
Statist.lowing wrote:
Isn't waiting until they kill a family of 5 in a mini van a little late to figure out they shouldn't have driven drunk? Use your head for something other than a hat rack.Turquoise wrote:
Shouldn't they only be prosecuted if they injure or kill someone? Not everyone who drives drunk ends up hurting someone else.
Wouldn't you rather make more money off of cleaning up the messes? You could increase your profits by a lot if you ran emergency services in the area.Jaekus wrote:
Someone's gotta clean up the mess though. If that were my job I'd sure as shit be pushing for tough seatbelt laws.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nah, seatbelt laws are nanny state bs. How many times has someone been killed by a body flying through a windshield? I'd put the number as miniscule.SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.
If people want to fuck up their own lives, have at it. If they put other people in danger by driving under the influence it's a whole other ballgame.
So? They get paid to do the cleanup work.Jaekus wrote:
Someone's gotta clean up the mess though. If that were my job I'd sure as shit be pushing for tough seatbelt laws.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nah, seatbelt laws are nanny state bs. How many times has someone been killed by a body flying through a windshield? I'd put the number as miniscule.SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.
If people want to fuck up their own lives, have at it. If they put other people in danger by driving under the influence it's a whole other ballgame.
I wear my seatbelt because it could potentially save my life. I wear my motorcycle helmet, even in states where it's not required, because it HAS saved my life in the past. My point is not that they shouldn't be used, but that their use shouldn't be a requirement. If people are dumb, they shouldn't have their hand held through life. That's not my job, your job or the governments job.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Surely you'd be campaigning for something that would put you out of a job then, no?Jaekus wrote:
Someone's gotta clean up the mess though. If that were my job I'd sure as shit be pushing for tough seatbelt laws.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nah, seatbelt laws are nanny state bs. How many times has someone been killed by a body flying through a windshield? I'd put the number as miniscule.SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.
If people want to fuck up their own lives, have at it. If they put other people in danger by driving under the influence it's a whole other ballgame.