Balding Eagle wrote:
It's tragic when someone that has already procreated dies from not wearing a seatbelt.
I agree because it costs society money.
Balding Eagle wrote:
It's tragic when someone that has already procreated dies from not wearing a seatbelt.
I agree because it costs society money.
it save lives wrote:
Balding Eagle wrote:
It's tragic when someone that has already procreated dies from not wearing a seatbelt.
I agree because it costs society money.
You agree but evidently you're still an idiot. Americans are among the most stupid people in the world.
Bad Wigins wrote:
NHwhitetrash wrote:
helmets are for sissies
Helmets inside cars would vastly improve their safety. Race car drivers are nearly indestructible, even when their cars disintegrate around them at 200mph and flip over 20 times.
I've never heard of a non-race-car crashing that fast with anyone surviving, let alone walking away.
Ya helmets are only a small part of what enables race car drivers to walk away from those crashes
DontFeedTheTroll wrote:
This is one of those cases where I side with the libertarians. Seat belt use should not be mandatory (if you are stupid enough to not wear them the gene pool probably doesn't want you around anyway).
This might increase rates for everyone, but you can probably get around that by changing insurance pay-offs after an accident if it is determined that someone was not wearing a seatbelt (unless you voluntarily disclosed to your insurance company that you don't wear a seatbelt and accepted the higher rates as a result).
Not really, you have to take your victim as you find them. Meaning if you crash into someone not wearing a seatbelt, and you are found at fault, you have to pay for their injuries and cannot use their lack of wearing a seatbelt as a mitigating factor on how much you owe them.
Similarly if you crash into someone with a bad back and because of their bad back you paralyze them, the fact that they only become paralyzed because of their bad back does not stop you from having to pay full damages.
Sand Dunes wrote:
uranasshat wrote:
The society is the victim. Those who don't wear seatbelts are more likely to be severely injured. That creates unnecessary health care and insurance costs that directly and indirectly affect others.
But you're too self-centered to think about that.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. " - Thomas Jefferson
freedom loving Jefferson was a slaveowner. One of his slaves was his wife's sister ....
You don't desrrve freedom to endanger others.
Youre basically all sheep and poindexters wrote:
Some putz a few posts up shared data that said "more than half of automobile related deaths weren't wearing a seat belt" and the percentage was 53...
Considering non-bucklers account for only 10% of the road-going population (per some other guy's wikipedia link), that's a good argument to use the seat belt.
Youre basically all sheep and poindexters wrote:
How you drive probably has a better influence on your saftey than seat belts ever will.
Or the fact that you (and everyone else) drives way too much, and so increases their risk of getting into an accident. For god's sake walk someone for once.
Agreed. Wearing a seat belt doesn't diminish your ability to drive safely though, so the smart play is clearly to do both.
Youre basically all sheep and poindexters wrote:
Police should give tickets to people who drive too much.
Agreed.
Seat belt usage laws are absolutely an infringement on personal liberty, but there's no upside to leaving your [legally mandated] seat belt unbuckled, so it's silly to complain about. If whacking my own little toe with a hammer was outlawed, I wouldn't get worked up about that either.
ex-runner wrote:
That is a LAME argument wrote:
Yet again;
That is a seriously lame argument.
By that logic, should the government regulate your body weight? How many hours you sleep each night? . . . ? Many, MANY things lead to medical bills which "may then be paid by Medicare or Medicaid which is funded by US."
Emergency care is untimely and puts strain on hospitals. Forget Medicare.
You are a waste of an ambulance. There isn't unlimited numbers of those. If a crash is fatal (more likely without a belt) there needs to be an investigation which is more likely to mean road closures.
Traffic incidents are a huge problem.
You might think it's 'lame' but that's a childish outlook
And again;
By that logic, should the government regulate your body weight? How many hours you sleep each night? . . . ? Many, MANY things lead to medical bills which "may then be paid by Medicare or Medicaid which is funded by US."
Care to try again?
Law GUy wrote:
The U.S. Constitution explicitly allows state governments to craft legislation for the safety, health, and general welfare of the population. This is also known as the police power.
If, however, you don't like the idea of your state government serving as a 'nanny state,' call your legislators (and you'll probably be thoroughly ignored because, let's get real, trying to repeal this kind of law will probably lose a legislator votes and therefore goes against a legislator's #1 job - to get re-elected). States aren't required to have this type of legislation. But, it's pretty clear that States are allowed to do this and can override individual free will in the name of collective safety, health, and general welfare.
Ummm . . . The question was "WHY is this even a law?"; not "Are such laws constitutional?"
Seriously, how stupid are you?
Ummm . . . having a hard time distinguishing between the idea of protecting people from other people and protecting people from themselves?
Seriously?
If you end up paralyzed from the neck down from not wearing a seat belt, I'm totally ok if the government comes and kills you. I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't want a handout from the government, right?
Free_the_thigh wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
(Helmets are good)
Ya helmets are only a small part of what enables race car drivers to walk away from those crashes
They are only a part, but not a small part, definitely the most important part. The indestructible inner cage part of the car may save the driver's body, but their brains would still be scrambled eggs without the helmets and head/neck restraints. Easier to walk with a broken leg than brain damage.
Football needs to adopt head/neck restraints to cut down on concussions from sudden rotation.
I don't like wearing seatbelts. They are an unnecessary burden. I drive very good. I drived from Oklahoma to Montana and back once. I like to think that if a girl got into my car she would think I'm a badass for not wearing one.
You know that there is such a thing as contributory negligence? “Take the victim as you find them” or the egg shell plaintiff rule refers to inherent conditions, not acts of negligence by the plaintiff... this was 1L torts!
Failure to wear a seatbelt is violation of a law and thus when an accident occurs, it would be negligence per se. In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, this would be a total bar to recovery on the non-seatbelt wearer. In a contributory negligence jurisdiction the damages would be reduced by an amount equal to how negligent you were in not wearing your seatbelt.
*edit: contributory negligence = total bar to recovery
Comparative = reduce by plaintiffs negligence
...???? wrote:
Cop wouldn't have even known if my windows weren't down. Why does the government have a say in my safety when it harms no one else but myself if I wreck? Motorcyclists don't wear seatbelts....
By the way, I do normally wear a seatbelt but I was 5 minutes away from where I was going and never went above 35mph.
It's a law because people bad at being rational all the time (or just plain stupid) but clever enough to realize that. So people make laws to trick themselves into being rational more often than without the laws. It's not that hard to understand, really.
Now what is generally a good idea and a good law might be annoying in a few cases; but not in yours because you were just being stupid (35 mph is easily enough to kill you in a crash without a seatbelt).
What kind of degenerate doesn't wear a seatbelt. "It's everyone else who is wrong" is your mindset too. What a messed up brain you have.
It has nothing to do with safety; it’s all outlawed based off the airbag and auto industries. They got sick of people not wearing their seatbelts and getting hurt which led to lawsuits.
The auto industry was tasked with making cars safer.
Then comes airbags.
Then comes the first idiot who ignored the safety warnings and crashed into a pole.
A defense attorney tells this idiot: it’s not your fault—they should have made bigger warning signs about the airbags being made for people sitting in the back of their seat.
Its all about the lawsuits.
...???? wrote:
Cop wouldn't have even known if my windows weren't down. Why does the government have a say in my safety when it harms no one else but myself if I wreck? Motorcyclists don't wear seatbelts....
By the way, I do normally wear a seatbelt but I was 5 minutes away from where I was going and never went above 35mph.
As far as your safety goes, even 35mph is fast enough to injure you if something goes wrong. Also, if some idiot is also driving 35mph and hits you head on then the effect is much greater than hat of you hitting a fixed object at 35mph.
Politically, I understand the libertarian argument. I buckle up to protect myself, not because the government can, should, or does tell me to. However, I do like knowing that if despite my best efforts, somehow some day I accidentally hit somebody they will have a better chance of surviving. As a human I don’t want to kill anybody and as a citizen I don’t want vehicular homicide in my record.
Heartland runner wrote:
...???? wrote:
Cop wouldn't have even known if my windows weren't down. Why does the government have a say in my safety when it harms no one else but myself if I wreck? Motorcyclists don't wear seatbelts....
By the way, I do normally wear a seatbelt but I was 5 minutes away from where I was going and never went above 35mph.
As far as your safety goes, even 35mph is fast enough to injure you if something goes wrong. Also, if some idiot is also driving 35mph and hits you head on then the effect is much greater than hat of you hitting a fixed object at 35mph.
My brain tells me that's like literally hitting at 70mph
So...
Your car is going 40mph and suddenly stops during a crash. You're inside, so you're going 40mph too. What do you think happens to you when the car suddenly stops because of the huge forces in the crash? YOU'RE STILL GOING 40MPH FOOL!!!
Des Linden: "The entire sport" has changed since she first started running Boston.
Ryan Eiler, 3rd American man at Boston, almost out of nowhere
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion