Pages: 1 2

 

2007-04-09 18:48:47
Skorpy-chan
Member
+127|6775|Twyford, UK
Seat belts save lives. If you do not wear one, you will be catapulted out through the windscreen, catching something vital (like your intestines) on the screen itself, before cracking your skull on the ground.
Now, motorbikes don't have them because it's a liability on something with two wheels and no roof. Most of the time, you WANT to be thrown from the bike to roll or slide to a halt on your own, isntead of being tied to a gas tank on wheels, or crushed.

School buses don't have them because they don't go fast enough. Also, bus seats are designed to take impacts from behind of people hitting them. Note the first row has seatbelts.

You are a moron, and I hope you crash your belt-free ass into a wall and die.
Anti-belt assholes like you mean that, when I start driving, should I hit ANYTHING, I will lose my eyebrows and have my glasses smashed into my face, unless I cut the wires connecting it up.
2007-04-09 19:00:26
HeavyMetalDave
Metal Godz
+107|7088|California
LOL...

But seriously, in 1984 I was in high school, a senior classmate was killed right before graduation, he was drinking and driving, and no seat belt..

His head came off..

I dont drink...
I never drive over the speed limit...
I wear a seat belt..

I don't really care what you do...
If you dont like the law, try looking cool on a tricycle..

Good Luck
2007-04-09 19:06:13
Jet Blast
Banned
+15|6664

Skorpy-chan wrote:

School buses don't have them because they don't go fast enough. Also, bus seats are designed to take impacts from behind of people hitting them. Note the first row has seatbelts.
2007-04-09 19:13:39
mattrsch
Yeah, that thing I said
+18|7064|Ames, IA
https://www.public.iastate.edu/~matsch/184matt%207-01%20accident_sm.jpg

If it weren't for seat belts I wouldn't be alive right now.
2007-04-09 19:17:19
smtt686
this is the best we can do?
+95|7061|USA
I got pulled over by a motorcycle cop for not wearing a seat belt.  I asked him how he could write me a ticket when he himself was not wearing one.   

He failed to see the irony of the situation.
2007-04-09 19:43:07
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7081|USA

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

There should be no laws requiring you  to wear a seatbelt..........The laws requiring you to buckle up your kids however, is very correct, for obvious reasons.
There shouldn't be laws telling you how to protect yourself.  I agree.  You only injure yourself.  However, when insurance companies see their profit margins sinking, they tend to do what a corporation/industry does best - Lobby Lobby Lobby
simple answer:

Insurance company asks its customer if he/she wears seat belts. If the answer is no, then don't cover them, ( company prerogative  not law) if the answer is yes, and they get into an accident and hurt or killed and seat belt was not worn the policy does not pay.....This way you only punish the offenders and MY insurance does not have to go up.
2007-04-09 20:34:51
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6835|North Carolina
That could work, but it needs to be explicit in the company policy.  A customer should know beforehand what not wearing a seat belt entails in terms of coverage.
2007-04-10 00:19:27
SpaceApollyon
Scratch where it itches
+41|6950|Finland

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

There should be no laws requiring you  to wear a seat belt..........The laws requiring you to buckle up your kids however, is very correct, for obvious reasons.
There shouldn't be laws telling you how to protect yourself.  I agree.  You only injure yourself.  However, when insurance companies see their profit margins sinking, they tend to do what a corporation/industry does best - Lobby Lobby Lobby
I also believe that there shouldn't be many laws telling us how to protect ourselves, BUT a backseat passenger without a seat belt is a serious risk to those who sit in front of him. So seat belts and their use on the back of a car are a must, IMO.

Also, we have a law in Finland that requires seat belt usage on all vehicles that have them, including buses.

Last edited by SpaceApollyon (2007-04-10 00:20:24)

2007-04-10 01:34:38
PureFodder
Member
+225|6715
In 2001, the estimated economic cost of police-reported crashes involving drivers between 15 and 20 years old was $42.3 billion.

Safety belts saved more than 12,000 American lives in 2001. Yet, during that same year, nearly two-thirds (60 percent) of passenger vehicle occupants killed in traffic crashes were unrestrained.

Research has shown that lap/shoulder belts, when used properly, reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger car occupants by 45 percent and the risk of moderate to critical injury by 50 percent. For light truck occupants, safety belts reduce the risk of fatal injury by 60 percent and moderate-to-critical injury by 65 percent.

Safety belt usage saves society an estimated $50 billion annually in medical care, lost productivity, and other injury-related costs.

Conversely, safety belt nonuse results in significant economic costs to society. The needless deaths and injuries from safety belt nonuse account for an estimated $26 billion in economic costs to society annually. The cost goes beyond the lost lives of unbuckled drivers and passengers: We all pay - in higher taxes and higher health care and insurance costs.

From http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ … sbteens03/

My housemate spent a summer working in America, whenever he went in someones car he'd put the seatbelt on, people laughed at him. Sometimes you need to have laws to stop protect people from themselves.

I really don't get the logic of having a seatbelt and not using it. I just can't see any possible downside to it at all. Not wearing one is just stupidity itself.

Oh and as far as motorcycles and helmets go, I seem to remember if you have a trike it's legaly classed as a car no matter how much it looks like a bike, hence no helmet required.
2007-04-10 01:47:49
Rosse_modest
Member
+76|7206|Antwerp, Flanders

konfusion wrote:

On the buses I remember we had them - just not on public transport, but then, they're trained drivers, so they're supposed to know what they're doing.

-konfusion
Same here (but then again the seatbelt idea for buses probably came from Europe so) except for public transport. I would see no point to put seatbelts in those simply because they would be destroyed by vandals anyway.

And of course helmets are legally required to ride a motorcycle here.
2007-04-11 14:09:22
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7081|USA

SpaceApollyon wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

There should be no laws requiring you  to wear a seat belt..........The laws requiring you to buckle up your kids however, is very correct, for obvious reasons.
There shouldn't be laws telling you how to protect yourself.  I agree.  You only injure yourself.  However, when insurance companies see their profit margins sinking, they tend to do what a corporation/industry does best - Lobby Lobby Lobby
I also believe that there shouldn't be many laws telling us how to protect ourselves, BUT a backseat passenger without a seat belt is a serious risk to those who sit in front of him. So seat belts and their use on the back of a car are a must, IMO.

Also, we have a law in Finland that requires seat belt usage on all vehicles that have them, including buses.
Perhaps, but it shouldn't be a law. If some sitting in the back refuses to wear a seat belt, then the driver, if he is so concerned, can either refuse to drive, or make the dumb ass walk. No need for legislation.
2007-04-11 14:22:31
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7011|SE London

lowing wrote:

SpaceApollyon wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


There shouldn't be laws telling you how to protect yourself.  I agree.  You only injure yourself.  However, when insurance companies see their profit margins sinking, they tend to do what a corporation/industry does best - Lobby Lobby Lobby
I also believe that there shouldn't be many laws telling us how to protect ourselves, BUT a backseat passenger without a seat belt is a serious risk to those who sit in front of him. So seat belts and their use on the back of a car are a must, IMO.

Also, we have a law in Finland that requires seat belt usage on all vehicles that have them, including buses.
Perhaps, but it shouldn't be a law. If some sitting in the back refuses to wear a seat belt, then the driver, if he is so concerned, can either refuse to drive, or make the dumb ass walk. No need for legislation.
Why not?

Surely giving people tickets for not wearing seatbelts is just like a tax for the stupid. How can that be a bad thing.
2007-04-11 14:29:40
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7081|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

SpaceApollyon wrote:


I also believe that there shouldn't be many laws telling us how to protect ourselves, BUT a backseat passenger without a seat belt is a serious risk to those who sit in front of him. So seat belts and their use on the back of a car are a must, IMO.

Also, we have a law in Finland that requires seat belt usage on all vehicles that have them, including buses.
Perhaps, but it shouldn't be a law. If some sitting in the back refuses to wear a seat belt, then the driver, if he is so concerned, can either refuse to drive, or make the dumb ass walk. No need for legislation.
Why not?

Surely giving people tickets for not wearing seatbelts is just like a tax for the stupid. How can that be a bad thing.
Because I am all for non-govt. interference in my life......If some idiot wants to shoot himself through his front windshield, I am all for it. Same principle for drug legalization. Someone wants to shoot drugs in his arm, more power to him, I couldn't care less. Just don't come crying about how "the man" fucked up YOUR life.
2007-04-11 15:12:51
PureFodder
Member
+225|6715

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:


Perhaps, but it shouldn't be a law. If some sitting in the back refuses to wear a seat belt, then the driver, if he is so concerned, can either refuse to drive, or make the dumb ass walk. No need for legislation.
Why not?

Surely giving people tickets for not wearing seatbelts is just like a tax for the stupid. How can that be a bad thing.
Because I am all for non-govt. interference in my life......If some idiot wants to shoot himself through his front windshield, I am all for it. Same principle for drug legalization. Someone wants to shoot drugs in his arm, more power to him, I couldn't care less. Just don't come crying about how "the man" fucked up YOUR life.
But the more they injure themselves, the higher your medical insurance costs go.
2007-04-11 15:15:22
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|7139|Charlie One Alpha

liquidat0r wrote:

Well, it's impractical for a motorcyclist to wear a seat belt.

But I've no idea why they don't have them on buses and stuff.
Seatbelts on buses have recently become required in Holland.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2007-04-11 16:23:11
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7081|USA

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Why not?

Surely giving people tickets for not wearing seatbelts is just like a tax for the stupid. How can that be a bad thing.
Because I am all for non-govt. interference in my life......If some idiot wants to shoot himself through his front windshield, I am all for it. Same principle for drug legalization. Someone wants to shoot drugs in his arm, more power to him, I couldn't care less. Just don't come crying about how "the man" fucked up YOUR life.
But the more they injure themselves, the higher your medical insurance costs go.
Already, solved that problem, read up you will find it.
2007-04-12 03:56:28
PureFodder
Member
+225|6715

lowing wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:


Because I am all for non-govt. interference in my life......If some idiot wants to shoot himself through his front windshield, I am all for it. Same principle for drug legalization. Someone wants to shoot drugs in his arm, more power to him, I couldn't care less. Just don't come crying about how "the man" fucked up YOUR life.
But the more they injure themselves, the higher your medical insurance costs go.
Already, solved that problem, read up you will find it.
It's still harmful to the economy to have lots of people being injured or killed and therefore not working. It also wastes police/firemen/paramedic time that could be better spent saving less stupid people who didn't bring it on themselves.
2007-04-12 04:28:18
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6980|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth
In the UK everyone must wear a seatbelt except Taxi drivers from some bizare reason (and for medical reasons obviously). 

As for motorbikes, a helmet is compulsary except for Sikhs because their turben prevents them from wearing one (religion over safety, that poses a very theological question...).

All school busses and coaches must have seatbelts.
2007-04-12 05:20:52
psH
Banned
+217|6814|Sydney

liquidat0r wrote:

Well, it's impractical for a motorcyclist to wear a seat belt.

But I've no idea why they don't have them on buses and stuff.
If the bike was to tip, you would be stuck to it, dragging along the ground. It could do serious damage unless your wearing leathers.
2007-04-12 07:11:30
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7166|Salt Lake City

lowing wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:


Because I am all for non-govt. interference in my life......If some idiot wants to shoot himself through his front windshield, I am all for it. Same principle for drug legalization. Someone wants to shoot drugs in his arm, more power to him, I couldn't care less. Just don't come crying about how "the man" fucked up YOUR life.
But the more they injure themselves, the higher your medical insurance costs go.
Already, solved that problem, read up you will find it.
Driving is not a right, it is a privilege.  As noted by another poster further up, there are massive monetary costs to society beyond those suffered by the person(s) injured in the accident.
2007-04-12 07:20:23
Kurazoo
Pheasant Plucker
+440|7114|West Yorkshire, U.K
Ive been in a car that switches off the radio if you dont have your seatbelt on.
2007-04-12 07:27:39
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7202|PNW

Jet Blast wrote:

Why don't school buses have seat belts for the children?  There are rules and laws for kids in cars, yet when they get on a bus it is free game.  Same goes for public buses and subways.
I've always thought this interesting, as I rode the bus to school in the 80s and 90s staring at the iron bar on the seat directly in front of my forehead. At the speed some of those drivers go, I'd have gotten coloring books for Christmas if I were ever in an accident in one of those things. Never have I been required to buckle up on a bus, and most buses I've been on didn't even have seat belts. I guess you can assume that private transportation is targeted because they get into a higher number of accidents. It boils down to the government not caring so much about your safety, but about keeping the roads clear of debris and the paperwork involved in fatalities.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-04-12 07:28:23)

2007-04-12 10:00:17
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7192

Kurazoo wrote:

Ive been in a car that switches off the radio if you dont have your seatbelt on.
Are you kidding me?  What car was that?
2007-04-12 10:36:10
herrr_smity
Member
+156|7058|space command ur anus
i always wear a seat belt, but that's just because i don't feel like hitting the windshield withe my face if im in a crash

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard