Do you know anybody who does not wear a seat belt

[gearwhine]

I am at the point where I put my seatbelt on moving my car 10 feet along my driveway...it's second nature to me now. And I will not move my car until all my passengers put they're seatbelts on. This video just makes me want 4 or 5 point harness's now..

 

[Matthew Currie]

Back in the late 5o's or early 60's, my father was doing graduate work in epidemiology, and one of his projects was a study of seat belt statistics which as I understand it was one of the first scientific studies done. We got belts in all our cars right then and there, long before they were standard equipment. Even for lap belts, the statistics were convincing (sorry I don't have it to cite, though). There will always be a few "man bites dog" anecdotes, but if you're planning for the unknown they're not a good bet.

I'm no fan of "nanny laws" either, but unfortunately too many people do not accept the consequences of their foolishness. Too often they end up demanding that the rest of society pay for their mistakes in medical support, lawsuits, etc. Too bad, but until people truly accept as much responsibility after the fact as they claim before, the "social cost" argument wins the day.

Anyway, laws or no, my car doesn't move until everyone is snapped in.

 

[RTicUL8]

My father rolled his 2000 Grand Cherokee two years ago when he fell asleep at the wheel. He was not wearing his seat-belt and ended up breaking bones all over – ribs/head/neck. Luckily, the Jeep slid to a stop 40ft. from the front door of the local fire station. They airlifted him out and he ended up with permanent titanium plates in his neck. (I tease him that he was always a pain in the neck).
Even though the front end of his Grand was pushed down, he would have been a lot better if he had stayed in his seat.

 

[Karlm]

I totaled an old S-10 Blazer several years ago (why I have an XJ now) when a bunch of loaded teenagers were out joyriding and blew a stop sign. I T-boned the pickup going about 45mph lifting it up in the air and depositing it on the hood of an unsuspecting honda. In mid flight a young man was ejected from the bed of the truck (It had a shell, but still against the law in CA) knocking the tailgate out of the truck and then go tumbling don the street for about 30-40 yards. He lived, but I imagine he would have been much better off had he been belted. Just watching a wreck like that is enough to make your stomach turn for weeks. I see no reason why people don't wear their belts. I don't like being told what to do either, but I would rather see a law that forces most of the idiots to do what they should have been doing anyway (at least for this example. In other areas I feel differently)

 

[Dawg Cherokee]

For the past 25 years years I have worked for an insurance company, most of that time handling auto injury claims. In those thousands of losses, I have not yet had one where someone was better off without a seatbelt. Yes, it could happen that the belt keeps you from "being thrown clear". More than likely, it puts you in the path of your own oncoming car. Your odds are much better buying lottery tickets.

Try watching any motorsports race, including offroaders. These guys expect to get in wrecks and probably have a lot more information to use in making a smart decision. If you can find one of them NOT wearing a belt, go ahead and do the same.

By the way, before you drive off without available safety equipment because its your right, I'm sure you won't mind directing your survivors to make sure that no public money or time is spent trying to keep you alive. And if by some stroke of bad luck, you are the driver that caused the wreck (not anyone around ), wouldn't you want everyone in the other car to have the best chance of coming out healthy?

Just my thoughts, sorry for rambling on.

 

[imma honky]

I was in a double (end of end) in a 00' Tundra. I wasn't wearing my seatbelt, yet I left without a single scratch. Both driver and front passenger had major scraps/cuts. Truck was totaled bad. Do I still wear my seatbelt? Not usually (depends on the driver). Do I make my passengers wear one? Most certainly. I DO NOT want to be responsible for someone getting hurt or killed while I am behind the wheel. Call me whatever you want, but IMHO I don't feel sorry for people who fall asleep/are on drugs/intoxicated and get in a wreck. I do however feel bad for those they hurt. I wish our local PD's would focus more on getting the drunks off the road, rather than the monthly seat belt checks. It should be completely up to the driver whether they or passengers wear seatbelts.

 

[Dawg Cherokee]

I wish our local PD's would focus more on getting the drunks off the road, rather than the monthly seat belt checks. QUOTE]

In case you haven't figured it out, that seat belt check IS a way to get the drunks off the road. If the opportunity arises, ask a trooper how many DUIs they catch as a result of minor offenses (seatbelts, turn signals, lees then 10 over the limit, etc.).

 

[imma honky]

well last year we had a record number of fatalities do to drunk driving (locally, not statewide). Im sure they catch plenty, but most of the checks are during the day, not at night when most drinking accurs.

 

[Lincoln]

A few years ago I watched a guy roll his car in the median between Salt Lake and Bountiful, UT. On about the third roll, his wife (not belted) popped out the window like someone punted a football. She didn't survive. The driver was belted and stayed in the car. I was told later he didn't have any serious injuries. After that, I'm pretty religious about wearing mine and all the passengers better have one too.

In Idaho, seatbelt violations are a secondary offense so the cops can't pull you over unless you do something else wrong (If they follow you long enough, they can always find something); then they can tack on the no-seatbelt charge.

Yes, but we might as well be in Cali on this issue.

During November and December the police put extra offiturds on the streets to find reasons to bust people for seat belts. As spud boy put it, they will alway's find something.

Yet, they say they don't have enough of them to patrol school zones on a regular basis or stop the azzholes weaving though trafic and causing wrecks. For some reason I feel those are more dangerous offenses then not wearing a seatbelt, but our find law enforment does not. A few years ago there were three kids hit within a week at a school a few blocks from my house. I followed the reports and not one ended up in a citation and the neighborhood had to threaten to sue the department to get guarantee there would be a cop there every morning, because "they don't have the resources". My opinion of law enformance has gone down drastically of the last 10 years because of multiple issues like these. Go after the easy target.

I self police the neighborhood I live in now for this very reason. I let them no our government doesn't believe in cruel and unusual punishment, but I do. We're not in the city limits and the county doesn't claim us either, claiming resources. Though I have had two friends pulled over close to here and given mud flap tickets in their stock pickups so a $5 seat belt ticket could be given.

I come from a long line of insurance people and the insurance companies are the money behind seat belt laws. Another case of treating the symptoms instead of the problem.

It really depends on what I'm driving and what I'm doing if I wear mine or not. I just don't like the idea of corporate money telling me what I have to do.

Sorry, but laws like this really get me pissy.

Lincoln

 

[Moto]

Not to act like a big weenie here but dont the nanny laws such as seatbelts and helmets serve a purpose? I live in Mass and you can be stopped and ticketed for both now, whats it up to $75 per unbelted person now?. It is my understanding that these laws were created not to take away the rights of the motorists, but to prevent people, an the state and the tax payers to have to pay the medical bills and higher insurance rates that are associated with the accidents and injuries that may result from not wearing your helmet or seatbelt? as well as a reason to stop people that may be violating some other offence, Granted that most people have some type of insurance, but as more people get hurt, the higher my rate goes, its high enough as it is. And if my state can make some $ off of the unbelted and helmeted people and refrian from rasing my taxes, I am all for it, but It may be just me, I don't mind the minor inconvenience of wearing my seatbelt or wearing a helmet, infact I have had many types of street bikes ranging from Harleys, Gsxr's to my Barely street legal Husky, have been a huge supporter of the AMA, but would never even think about riding without a helmet, the idea of huge swamp bugs and moths smacking me in the face is just really unappealing. But that is just my take on things, and you all may disagree

 

[Matthew Currie]

Not to act like a big weenie here but dont the nanny laws such as seatbelts and helmets serve a purpose? I live in Mass and you can be stopped and ticketed for both now, whats it up to $75 per unbelted person now?. It is my understanding that these laws were created not to take away the rights of the motorists, but to prevent people, an the state and the tax payers to have to pay the medical bills and higher insurance rates that are associated with the accidents and injuries that may result from not wearing your helmet or seatbelt? as well as a reason to stop people that may be violating some other offence, Granted that most people have some type of insurance, but as more people get hurt, the higher my rate goes, its high enough as it is. And if my state can make some $ off of the unbelted and helmeted people and refrian from rasing my taxes, I am all for it, but It may be just me, I don't mind the minor inconvenience of wearing my seatbelt or wearing a helmet, infact I have had many types of street bikes ranging from Harleys, Gsxr's to my Barely street legal Husky, have been a huge supporter of the AMA, but would never even think about riding without a helmet, the idea of huge swamp bugs and moths smacking me in the face is just really unappealing. But that is just my take on things, and you all may disagree

Unfortunately, because the cost to the taxpayer/premium payer and the profit to the insurer are so closely linked, it's difficult to sort out the argument and decide whether the laws are motivated by social cost or corporate profit or both. The whole question of "acceptable risk" gets very complicated, especially where matters of choice are concerned. This is one of those questions that comes up often in other areas, such as bicycling. There has to be a balance between the freedom to do interesting and rewarding things that are also risky, and the freedom to do ordinary things in an unnecessarily risky way, but it's hard to get a consensus on where the dividing line is, even among people who agree on what is safe and prudent. Plenty of habitual helmet and seatbelt users would line up against being required to do what they do anyway, just out of principle.

Unfortunately, wherever there's a liberty, someone will abuse it, and wherever there's a regulation someone will abuse that too.

 

[5-90]

Besides, I think there's a prioritisation issue at work here. For some deranged reason, the seat belt ticket costs less than the minimum HOV lane violation ticket out here - and the HOV vio is not a "safety" offence. Fortunately, most judges think the HOV lanes are useless, and only give the minimum $271 fine (which is frankly ludicry, but I don't write the laws. Hell, I can't even keep up effectively...)

Of course, I regard HOV lanes as another item as useful as the vermiform appendix.

Meanwhile, I don't see a lot of riceboys getting nailed, but I see an awful lot of them pulling 100+mph on I280 and I680, usually not in a straight line. But, they're all over me when their RADAR shows me doing 80 - when I'm only doing 65. The pity of it is being "guilty until proven innocent" so I have to waste $200 and a Saturday in "traffic school" - which doesn't teach a damn thing. Sorry, but I've had my International driver's license and I've taken EVOC - what are YOU going to teach me in a classroom all day? I'm the one that told Sacramento that half of their "driver's Handbook" is all wrong, and I checked the Spanish version as well.

If you really want to go after the root of the problem on the roadways, you have to realise that the state Departments of Motor Vehicles has a penchant for issuing driver's licenses to functional incompetents - and most of these people are so daft they don't even know enough to realise it. If we were to "raise the bar" in an effective manner and start actually TESTING people for their driver's licenses, using an effective test (theoretical AND practical,) you'd see a dramatic decrease in accidents AND traffic (mostly due to a thinning out of the cars on the road - I figure a third of California driver's licenses could be pulled out of hand.) Add in an English Language requirement, and that should help as well. I had to toss in that last simply because if you are going to move to another country, you should learn the local language - here, it is English. Why do you think servicemen with overseas tours pick up so many languages? Exposure. I don't think it's asking too much to learn our language when moving to our country. Anybody here NOT speak English? Even our overseas posters do a great job of making themselves understood...

Oh - no more taxpayer-funded interpreters, either. There are enough ESL courses out there...

Gawd, but this is making me cranky. I'll shut up now...

5-90

 

[19XJ96]

Had to take down the video as it made it around the world. And was about to cost me big bucks for exceding my bandwidth. If you still want to see it PM me and I will email it to you just make sure your email account can accept a 3MB file.

 

[churky89]

Nada

Link no worky for me,that' ok.......I buckles up EVERY time.I've had friends that would not clickit,so I would just sit there....then I'd say you wanna move or just sit here all day...........
I my self have been "in the fire"both times neither vehicle had shoulder restraints one was a 66'Mustang the other was a 66'Fairlane.Both vehicles were totaled...I walked away from both...no ouchies or anything.
The Farirlane was upside down in@ 8ft of water.