PDA

View Full Version : Click it or Ticket


J.B.
05-17-2009, 09:23 PM
I keep seeing more of these annoying Click it or Ticket commercials latey, and I was just curious what everybody's thoughts and opinions on the subject are.

Personally I see it as nothing more than a tool that states use to generate revenue, but of course they say it's to save lives. If seatbelts are so important, why are motorcycles legal? Our politicians have no problem giving women a right to choose if they want to kill their unborn children, but heaven forbid human beings have the right to decide if they strap themselves into the seat of their car. :wacko:

MattHughesRocks
05-17-2009, 09:37 PM
I do believe that seatbelts save lives and I'm sure it SUCKS to go scrape someone off the pavement but with that being said...I feel that if your 18 or older you should be able to make that choice for yourself ( not for children) and if it's your job to scrape people off the pavement and you can't then find another job.That's what my tax dollars pay you fools for :laugh:

I personanlly always wear one because I don't want to be a scrapee.:unsure-1:

Black Mamba
05-17-2009, 09:50 PM
Yes the commercials are annoying, but I do think it's a good idea. I'll come back after I'm done with finals to fully respond to this since I have to study, but I'm going to leave you with these points to ponder:

A seatbelt saved my Mom's life. If she wasn't strapped in, she wouldn't be here now. She used to be the type that never really worn her seatbelt because it felt weird. Luckily, on that particular rainy day she was strapped in.

Do you know anyone who's survived a car crash that had been ejected from their car? Everyday my Mom and I drive past a turn where 3 young lives were lost because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. Yes, they were drunk and yes they were going to fast, but a seatbelt could have saved their life. Ironically enough, one person did survived that crash and it was the person wearing the seatbelt.

Would you rather pay the fines of a ticket or pay with your life? I rather be alive and take the ticket, then 6 feet under with worms eating my flesh. And then think about the cost of the ticket and traffic school verses the cost to put bury or cremate your loved one. Yes, I agree the ticket is another way for the state to make money off you, but I prefer giving the state $100 then paying up burial costs.

J.B.
05-17-2009, 09:55 PM
I do believe that seatbelts save lives and I'm sure it SUCKS to go scrape someone off the pavement but with that being said...I feel that if your 18 or older you should be able to make that choice for yourself ( not for children) and if it's your job to scrape people off the pavement and you can't then find another job.That's what my tax dollars pay you fools for :laugh:

I personanlly always wear one because I don't want to be a scrapee.:unsure-1:

I had a close friend who died in a car accident in 2002, after he hit an electrical poll. The truck went up the guide-wire that anchored the poll to the ground and the truck flipped back over front before hitting the poll. He was thrown from the truck about 100 feet and the power lines came down on top of him. The investigators told his parents later that if he had been wearing his seatbelt he would have been impaled inside the truck. Either way, whats done is done, but at least they were able to keep him alive long enough for us to say goodbye.

I don't bring that up as some sort of argument against seat-belts, because I am sure that they do save lives in many cases. I don't wear my seat-belt all the time, but sometimes I do. I just think it's a personal choice, and what really irks me is that government acts like the reason they do this IS to save lives, but we all know it's really about money. I will say that I agree with having kids buckle up, but if you are old enough to drive, you are old enough to make the choice also.

J.B.
05-17-2009, 10:32 PM
Would you rather pay the fines of a ticket or pay with your life? I rather be alive and take the ticket, then 6 feet under with worms eating my flesh. And then think about the cost of the ticket and traffic school verses the cost to put bury or cremate your loved one. Yes, I agree the ticket is another way for the state to make money off you, but I prefer giving the state $100 then paying up burial costs.

Well, if you are wearing the seat-belt you won't have to cough up the $100. :laugh:

Still, if you look at the statistics, it's not like the increased seat-belt use has really put a huge dent in the number auto deaths either. I am sure it has helped somewhat, but it's also worth noting that the people who release the statistics are also the same ones pushing the click it or ticket campaign.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811124.PDF
These stats show that the numbers have been hovering in the same area for 25 years, even with the increased number of people using seat-belts. If I had to take a guess at why their stats showing the fatality rate being so low in 2008, I would attribute it to less people driving due to high fuel costs.

Again, I am not anti-seat belt, just anti government bull-crap. If they wanna save lives, their are a lot of other ways to do it. Why do they need the money? Why not just suspend somebody's drivers license?

Tyburn
05-17-2009, 10:53 PM
In England, its against the law not to buckle up. would you ride a bike without a helmet??? no...well you shouldnt be in a car without a saftey belt :rolleyes: Its also against the law to be chatting away on your mobile whilst driving. Handsfree set...or dont take the call. You know I was crossing the road the other day and this woman was chatting away, so I stopped infront of her. She had the audacity to beep so I came to her side and told her I'd report her liscense plate. She didnt like that.

Women drivers....LOL

J.B.
05-17-2009, 11:02 PM
In England, its against the law not to buckle up. would you ride a bike without a helmet??? no...well you shouldnt be in a car without a saftey belt :rolleyes:

Do you mean a motorcycle? Because you can still be thrown off the motorcycle even while wearing a helmet. If you mean a bicycle, then YES I would most definitely ride a bike without a helmet.

The argument here is not about the validity of seat-belts. It is understood what purpose they serve. The issue is with government having the right to take that choice away from you, and then doing it for reasons that are not very honest.

matthughesfan21
05-17-2009, 11:13 PM
we've had fatal car accidents around here that the person has died because they WERE wearing there seatbelts and there passenger was thrown from the car, hurt severly, but still survived...this can go both ways, and I always wear my seatbelt, so it doesn't matter much to me....what i found ironic here in illinois is you must wear a seatbelt in the car, but if you decide to hop on a motorcycle, it is not required to wear a helmet...are you freaking kidding me? geesh....and what I found ironic is, police will drive by 3 meth houses just to pull someone over for a seatbelt, get your priorities straight, I know its easier to be a meter maid and make money without doing any real policework, but do your job for goodness sakes

Tyburn
05-18-2009, 12:20 AM
Do you mean a motorcycle? Because you can still be thrown off the motorcycle even while wearing a helmet. If you mean a bicycle, then YES I would most definitely ride a bike without a helmet.

The argument here is not about the validity of seat-belts. It is understood what purpose they serve. The issue is with government having the right to take that choice away from you, and then doing it for reasons that are not very honest.
you should be wearing a helmet one ANY BIKE...just like you should be wearing a safety belt in any car

Your free to do whatever you want on a train, or a bus mindue :laugh:

logrus
05-18-2009, 12:22 AM
JB I was just going to write about this same topic tomorrow after I was done with my last exam. I am with you 100%, its nothing more then a cheap ploy by our state to collect an easy revenue every few months. Its like you said, theres no seatbelts on motorcycles and they don't even wear helmets. The buses don't have them and neither do the trains.

Really it should be my right to if I want to wear one or not,

Hughes_GOAT
05-18-2009, 12:28 AM
aren't helmets the seatbelt version for motorcycles?

J.B.
05-18-2009, 12:43 AM
you should be wearing a helmet one ANY BIKE...just like you should be wearing a safety belt in any car

Your free to do whatever you want on a train, or a bus mindue :laugh:


Thats not the point Dave. The point is that the law is bogus. The fact that there are no seatbelts on buses and trains only further proves that point.

Wearing a helmet on a bike is different, because an accident on a bike can only result in one thing, and that is hitting the ground. Helmets don't really present any sort of an added danger (that I can think of) to the person wearing it. Seat-belts on the other hand have been known to make things worse sometimes.

It's a double-edged sword, and the bottom line is that when we are talking about a decision that only has an effect on the safety of the person making it, government should not be able to come in and make that decision for us. Especially when so many bigger atrocities are being committed.

Tyburn
05-18-2009, 12:48 AM
Thats not the point Dave. The point is that the law is bogus. The fact that there are no seatbelts on buses and trains only further proves that point.

Wearing a helmet on a bike is different, because an accident on a bike can only result in one thing, and that is hitting the ground. Helmets don't really present any sort of an added danger (that I can think of) to the person wearing it. Seat-belts on the other hand have been known to make things worse sometimes.

It's a double-edged sword, and the bottom line is that when we are talking about a decision that only has an effect on the safety of the person making it, government should not be able to come in and make that decision for us. Especially when so many bigger atrocities are being committed.
Pick your fights JB. Thats what i'd say. There are things your Government do that are far more worthy of your criticism and attention then doing a saftey belt.

Perhaps you would prefer they change the law to say that no medical attention should be given to any person within a car, not wearing one. Just wait til you get cut up and end up in an accident that wasnt your fault on that one. THAT would be a crime of law from your government.

The truth is...its just not worth complaining about. If you do so loudly enough and they listen to you...they'll only stick up more speed traps to gain the same income...either way...they'll get what they want....and IMHO...this shouldnt even be a bother to most people who would probably always buckle up anyway.

The simple fact is, Americans just dont like to be told what to do by any authority, and on some cases, they have a point...on others...such as a miniscule point like a safety belt...its just plain...sad...to be concerned by it. :unsure:

J.B.
05-18-2009, 01:04 AM
Pick your fights JB. Thats what i'd say. There are things your Government do that are far more worthy of your criticism and attention then doing a saftey belt.

Perhaps you would prefer they change the law to say that no medical attention should be given to any person within a car, not wearing one. Just wait til you get cut up and end up in an accident that wasnt your fault on that one. THAT would be a crime of law from your government.

The truth is...its just not worth complaining about. If you do so loudly enough and they listen to you...they'll only stick up more speed traps to gain the same income...either way...they'll get what they want....and IMHO...this shouldnt even be a bother to most people who would probably always buckle up anyway.

The simple fact is, Americans just dont like to be told what to do by any authority, and on some cases, they have a point...on others...such as a miniscule point like a safety belt...its just plain...sad...to be concerned by it. :unsure:

You are right Dave, Americans like to have freedoms. Americans who have their head screwed on straight don't like the government creating bull-crap laws that are designed to soak the people out of more money.

I said nothing about not giving medical attention to people, that is ridiculous. You are completely missing the bigger point. You say it's not worth complaining about, and that's your opinion, but it's a matter of principle. Is it the biggest issue in our nation? No, but I do think it is an issue.

Your argument is not really an argument at all, it's just pretty much, "oh, well they are gonna do it anyway". I don't buy into that mindset. Like I said, it's not like it's the most pressing issue, I just keep seeing the ads more and more, so I figured I would spark a conversation. I could have started ANOTHER thread about what Obama screwed up this week, but I figured this was a little outside the box.

What IS sad, is thinking that people don't even care if the government does step in and start making decisions for us.

Tyburn
05-18-2009, 01:33 AM
You are right Dave, Americans like to have freedoms. Americans who have their head screwed on straight don't like the government creating bull-crap laws that are designed to soak the people out of more money.

I said nothing about not giving medical attention to people, that is ridiculous. You are completely missing the bigger point. You say it's not worth complaining about, and that's your opinion, but it's matter of principle. Is it the biggest issue in our nation? No, but I do think it is an issue.

Your argument is not really an argument at all, it's just pretty much, "oh, well they are gonna do it anyway". I don't buy into that mindset. Like I said, it's not like it's the most pressing issue, I just keep seeing the ads more and more, so I figured I would spark a conversation. I could have started ANOTHER thread about what Obama screwed up this week, but I figured this was a little outside the box.

What IS sad, is thinking that people don't even care if the government does step in and start making decisions for us.

So...you dont think people should wear Saftey belts. I would be embarissed if my government had to force the wearing of saftey belts.

Do you feel the same way about all health and safety laws :huh: Do you believe you should go running into weahouses without Hi-Vis Vests?? Would you seriously fight a rule that forced you to do that???

J.B.
05-18-2009, 01:57 AM
So...you dont think people should wear Saftey belts. I would be embarissed if my government had to force the wearing of saftey belts.

Do you feel the same way about all health and safety laws :huh: Do you believe you should go running into weahouses without Hi-Vis Vests?? Would you seriously fight a rule that forced you to do that???

Dave, obviously you have not read the thread. I NEVER said people should NOT wear a safety belt. I just said it should be a personal choice. You are comparing apples and oranges for the sake of arguing, and on top it, completely missing the point. Oh, and didn't you say that it's against the law in England? So they are forcing you, I guess you're embarrassed, lol :tongue0011:

I don't agree with the government lying to us about WHY they have such a law. If the law is there to "save lives", then why do they hand out fines? Why not suspend people's drivers license? The answer is because they only want the MONEY.

This is not about other health and safety laws, so quit changing the subject. This is about seat-belts. What the heck do warehouses and high visibility vests have to with anything? If you work in a warehouse, and your employer requires you to wear that, then you will wear it or not have a job, that is plain and simple. When I am driving the vehicle that is MY PROPERTY that is completely different. Not wearing a seat-belt in your car should be left up to you to decide. Now, when it comes to children, that is a different story, I think that young/small children should be properly belted in at all times.

Some people do NOT feel safe in seat-belts, and there are known dangers to them, that is a fact. You can argue that they are safer wearing one, but the bottom line is it is still a decision that effects NOBODY else's safety but THEIRS in the end. Having the cops just pull you over for not wearing a seat-belt is ridiculous, and if they were actually serious about it, they would impose REAL penalties, and not just monetary ones.

We have enough money problems in this country right now, we don't need to be handing more money back to the G for some ridiculous crap like not wearing a seat belt.

medic92
05-18-2009, 03:15 PM
I believe everyone should wear a seatbelt, but I don't believe it's the government's job to legislate it.

I've heard stories about people who died in accidents even though they had seatbelts on, and I've heard the stories about people who would have died if they had been wearing a seatbelt instead of being thrown clear. That being said, in all my years as a paramedic, I never once had to cut a seatbelt off to remove a body from a vehicle, but I've lost count of the number of times I've found dead bodies under cars, on their hoods, 100 feet from their cars, run over by passing traffic after they were thrown from their cars, etc...

I feel the same way about helmet laws. I think you would have to be crazy to get on a motorcycle without a helmet, but I don't think the government should legislate it.

I didn't always think helmets were necessary. Then I went over the handlebars of my motorcycle at 70 mph without a helmet. I basically walked away from the crash (thank you God!) but my injuries (fractured skull, fractured orbital bone, broken nose) would have been a lot more minor if I had been wearing a helmet.

Josh
05-19-2009, 05:53 PM
I believe it should be up to the individual to decide. I also agree that it is simply about revenue. On a side note this is one reason I object to socialized healthcare ( one of many reasons), because the government will identify habits or activities that they deem "unhealthy or dangerous" and legislate it out of existance so that the government does not have to pay for it. This is happening with smoking right now except it is done by taxation. The justifications I always here are "why should we have to pay to take care of someone when they are old because they chose to smoke?" I agree that smoking is nasty and unhealthy but why does the government get to decide how much it should cost a person?

Tyburn
05-19-2009, 07:04 PM
I agree that smoking is nasty and unhealthy but why does the government get to decide how much it should cost a person?
Because at the end of the day...isnt that their job? :unsure-1: :huh:

At the end of the day, they have to manage the country as a whole. They cant do that without intelligence (the gathering of which you believe invades your privacy) and without making rules (but you dont like being told what to do) so that they can rule (even though you claim its the citizens that rule, we all know that aside from voting, the citizenry is a fickle mass and nothing would ever get done if they all had a say in the runnings of everything that Government does) in order to allow you to be protected (again, you dont believe the Government should do this...and yet, you do expect them to help you in a natural disastor, and you do expect them to run emergency services, Armed forces, Law enforcement...and to stop great acts of terrorism)

A better question is...what do you think your government is there for? What is its purpose? to lead? To help? To enforce? to arbitrate? to do nothing? What do you expect from your government. Is it possible for them to do their job without in some way impinging on you?

Out Cultures are fundementally different...and if you ask a Brit those Questions and an American those questions, you get VERY different replies.

Crisco
05-19-2009, 07:09 PM
Because at the end of the day...isnt that their job? :unsure-1: :huh:

At the end of the day, they have to manage the country as a whole. They cant do that without intelligence (the gathering of which you believe invades your privacy) and without making rules (but you dont like being told what to do) so that they can rule (even though you claim its the citizens that rule, we all know that aside from voting, the citizenry is a fickle mass and nothing would ever get done if they all had a say in the runnings of everything that Government does) in order to allow you to be protected (again, you dont believe the Government should do this...and yet, you do expect them to help you in a natural disastor, and you do expect them to run emergency services, Armed forces, Law enforcement...and to stop great acts of terrorism)

A better question is...what do you think your government is there for? What is its purpose? to lead? To help? To enforce? to arbitrate? to do nothing? What do you expect from your government. Is it possible for them to do their job without in some way impinging on you?

Out Cultures are fundementally different...and if you ask a Brit those Questions and an American those questions, you get VERY different replies.

Government is just a neccesery evil to an American. We have it because we know it needs to exist but we will fight like hell to keep it out of everything we can.

Our cultures are very different that is why you get different asnwers.

As an American I bow to no one but God. We have no king or queen and we have no need of big brother cameras on every street corner.

Our government has very few jobs that they need to do and even those they screw up on the regular. So we like to keep them out of as many things as possible.

VCURamFan
05-19-2009, 07:12 PM
Because at the end of the day...isnt that their job?No, it's not. The government's job is to make sure that we don't get invaded & make sure that our basic liberties are protected. It's not their job to give people money, it's not their job to give everyone medicine, it's not their job to control the privatge sector.

Tyburn
05-19-2009, 07:22 PM
Government is just a neccesery evil to an American. We have it because we know it needs to exist but we will fight like hell to keep it out of everything we can.

Our cultures are very different that is why you get different asnwers.

As an American I bow to no one but God. We have no king or queen and we have no need of big brother cameras on every street corner.

Our government has very few jobs that they need to do and even those they screw up on the regular. So we like to keep them out of as many things as possible.
:ninja: see we dont think like that...half of the British wouldnt bow to ANYTHING...not even GOD...thats sad I suppose...I actually noticed in the speaker martin thread that I posted the statement read out by Oliver Cromwell after the Civil War...and when he accused and closed parliament...he spoke JUST like an American, in terms of his emphasis on Moral leadership being part of the Government. let me go copy and paste and I'll highlight in bold what I mean...and you'll see in 300 years how quickly GOD has dissapeared.:sad:

Tyburn
05-19-2009, 07:28 PM
"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in the place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of virtue, and defiled by your practise of every vice. Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government, ye are a pack of mercenary wretches and would, like Esau, seel your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas, betray you GOD for a few piece of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining amoungst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion then my horse, Gold is your God which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amoungst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes, have you not defiled this sacred place and turned the Lords Temple into a den of theives by your immoral principles and wicked practise? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation, you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed and are yourselves become the greatest grivance. Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House, and which, by GODs help, and the strength he hath given me, I am now come to do. I command ye therefore upon the peril of your lives to depart immediately, out of this place, go, get you out, make haste, ye venal slaves be gone, so, take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the Name of GOD...GO"

Saying that to the Parliament at the time was deeply hurtful. If you said that to Parliament now...it would have no effect...because it relies upon the Parliament claiming to be religious in the first place!! Even the Church/State thing is institutionalized, between the Queen and the Church...NOT the Government and the Church...like it was supposed to be.

AND to answer Ben...I've highlighted in RED what the job of the Government is supposed to be from the English perspective. I'd Ask Ben if that be the purpose of His Government, as he stated rather then as I stated...what is his Military there for? Isnt it the Militaries role to protect from invasion, and fight to ensure liberties...thats Military...not Governmental..surely?:huh:

rearnakedchoke
05-19-2009, 09:19 PM
the percentage of seatbelts being the reason for worse injuries are low compared to no seatbelt being worn ... i believe that it is the same thing as speed limits and helmets being worn ... they should all be mandatory and strictly enforced .. being in canada with universal health care, i think the goverment should also make it mandatory for people riding bicycles to wear helmets ... it is good practice .. and since the costs of dealing with these injuries comes out of the tax dollars set aside for it, then the gov't would be well in their rights to tell you you have to wear them ...

in the US it is a different story ...

rockdawg21
05-19-2009, 09:23 PM
No doubt that seatbelts save more lives than they end. However, if a state is going to allow motorcycles or even motorcyclists without helmets, then click or ticket is BS!

Neezar
05-19-2009, 09:42 PM
the percentage of seatbelts being the reason for worse injuries are low compared to no seatbelt being worn ... i believe that it is the same thing as speed limits and helmets being worn ... they should all be mandatory and strictly enforced .. being in canada with universal health care, i think the goverment should also make it mandatory for people riding bicycles to wear helmets ... it is good practice .. and since the costs of dealing with these injuries comes out of the tax dollars set aside for it, then the gov't would be well in their rights to tell you you have to wear them ...

in the US it is a different story ...

Is it legal to smoke cigarettes in Canada? Do you have ANY idea how much medical costs are related to smoking?

Oh wait, does the gov't make money off cigarette sales in Canada like they do in the US?

J.B.
05-19-2009, 10:00 PM
Is it legal to smoke cigarettes in Canada? Do you have ANY idea how much medical costs are related to smoking?

Oh wait, does the gov't make money off cigarette sales in Canada like they do in the US?

Or how about all that high-quality pot they are smoking in Canada and shipping down to America?

Do Canadian pot-heads lose their right to health-care when they get busted?

Crisco
05-19-2009, 10:09 PM
Or how about all that high-quality pot they are smoking in Canada and shipping down to America?

Do Canadian pot-heads lose their right to health-care when they get busted?

Nope they get a small fine.

rearnakedchoke
05-19-2009, 10:49 PM
Is it legal to smoke cigarettes in Canada? Do you have ANY idea how much medical costs are related to smoking?

Oh wait, does the gov't make money off cigarette sales in Canada like they do in the US?
well they make more money than anyone of smokes, ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ahlcohol than anyone, so it off-sets it .... LOL

Tyburn
05-19-2009, 10:52 PM
the percentage of seatbelts being the reason for worse injuries are low compared to no seatbelt being worn ... i believe that it is the same thing as speed limits and helmets being worn ... they should all be mandatory and strictly enforced .. being in canada with universal health care, i think the goverment should also make it mandatory for people riding bicycles to wear helmets ... it is good practice .. and since the costs of dealing with these injuries comes out of the tax dollars set aside for it, then the gov't would be well in their rights to tell you you have to wear them ...

in the US it is a different story ...
But you are Commonwealth. You dont belong to the American Culture anymore then I do. Infact...our Cultures should be the same. I hope you dont take offense at this, but my general view of Canadians is "British with an American Accent" where as my general view of Americans is "Something altogether different" :)

Tyburn
05-19-2009, 10:53 PM
No doubt that seatbelts save more lives than they end. However, if a state is going to allow motorcycles or even motorcyclists without helmets, then click or ticket is BS!
Indeed...they should do the Helmets aswell :)

J.B.
05-19-2009, 11:00 PM
well they make more money than anyone of smokes, ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ahlcohol than anyone, so it off-sets it .... LOL


That logic is just flawed, and I think you know it.

It's crazy to say that public health care is a reason why the government should be able to dictate if you wear a seatbelt in a car, especially when the government allows so many more dangerous things to go on untouched, like smoking and drinking.

It's notions like that which is exactly why so many Americans fear the government nationalizing our health-care. It becomes a gateway for them to take over every facet of our lives.

Hughes_GOAT
05-19-2009, 11:09 PM
Canada rules! been there a bunch!

rearnakedchoke
05-19-2009, 11:52 PM
That logic is just flawed, and I think you know it.

It's crazy to say that public health care is a reason why the government should be able to dictate if you wear a seatbelt in a car, especially when the government allows so many more dangerous things to go on untouched, like smoking and drinking.

It's notions like that which is exactly why so many Americans fear the government nationalizing our health-care. It becomes a gateway for them to take over every facet of our lives.

it may be flawed, but it is better than to just say, oh, let people do whatever they want ... so in canada, you can smoke, just not in any enclosed public place, you can drink but not drink and drive, you can't smoke in a car if there i a child in it ... they are banning cellphones while driving .... sure they may have a flawed system, but it is still better than nothing

Tyburn
05-19-2009, 11:55 PM
it may be flawed, but it is better than to just say, oh, let people do whatever they want ... so in canada, you can smoke, just not in any enclosed public place, you can drink but not drink and drive, you can't smoke in a car if there i a child in it ... they are banning cellphones while driving .... sure they may have a flawed system, but it is still better than nothing
they did that here recently. I thought it would be great...but now I hate it. Before, you could stuff all the smokers into smoke rooms...now they stand by the doors and smoke, because they have nowhere else to do so, they are MORE in your face then they were before.

But the Government werent to know that. :laugh:

rearnakedchoke
05-19-2009, 11:59 PM
they did that here recently. I thought it would be great...but now I hate it. Before, you could stuff all the smokers into smoke rooms...now they stand by the doors and smoke, because they have nowhere else to do so, they are MORE in your face then they were before.

But the Government werent to know that. :laugh:
well, it isn't so bad here .... it was done for worker safety reasons ... so now people can't smoke in casinos, clubs etc, they jacked up the prices on fags and they can't be advertised anywhere, they can't even be displayed behind the counter anymore, but covered up ... so the gov't is doing their best to stop people from smoking imo ... if they ban it, they would have to ban KFC ... LOL ... although they did ban the use of transfat in them ...

Tyburn
05-20-2009, 12:25 AM
well, it isn't so bad here .... it was done for worker safety reasons ... so now people can't smoke in casinos, clubs etc, they jacked up the prices on fags and they can't be advertised anywhere, they can't even be displayed behind the counter anymore, but covered up ... so the gov't is doing their best to stop people from smoking imo ... if they ban it, they would have to ban KFC ... LOL ... although they did ban the use of transfat in them ...
they cant ban them, because they get far to much money through them. They can put up the price, less people will buy, but those who do pay more, thus equalling out at the same income for the Governments

I dont know about displaying...I have to admit I havent seen any in ages!! but...could our Governments really be THAT close in legislature :blink: I mean...you do have your own afterall :laugh: (We only share HM The Queen)

Neezar
05-20-2009, 12:30 AM
it may be flawed, but it is better than to just say, oh, let people do whatever they want ... so in canada, you can smoke, just not in any enclosed public place, you can drink but not drink and drive, you can't smoke in a car if there i a child in it ... they are banning cellphones while driving .... sure they may have a flawed system, but it is still better than nothing

:w00t:

I want that one here!

Hughes_GOAT
05-20-2009, 12:49 AM
the microchip implants will be mandatory soon.when you refuse, you will be cut off from society.

J.B.
05-20-2009, 02:03 AM
it may be flawed, but it is better than to just say, oh, let people do whatever they want ...


I forgot about all the mass hysteria and chaos caused by all the non-seatbelt wearers of the world. :rolleyes:

This is not about smoking in cars with children, or drinkinig and driving. Those things can obviously cause HARM TO OTHERS. This is about wearing a seatbelt, and the government issuing fines. Not wearing a seatbelt does not cause harm or danger to anybody except the person who chooses not to wear it.

Your logic is that because Canada has nationalized health care, the government has a good reason to institute such a law. My argument is that having such a system only leaves your country open to be controlled by your government in every single facet of your life.

So, NO, having a law that is designed and based on lies is not "better than having nothing at all". There is no need for the law, it's only there as a form of control and a way to generate revenue.

Bonnie
05-20-2009, 06:03 AM
I agree that NOW they are probably using it as as way to get revenue, just like speed traps. However, I do think their original intent was to save lives especially children who weren't buckled up and went through the windshield. It may only cause physical harm/death to the person not wearing the belt, but I imagine it's pretty tramatic for the emergency people who have to literally pick up the pieces.

I know of a couple of instances (family members of friends) where someone went through the windshield and they were decapitated. I saw this actor's face after he went through his windshield. You know how they make ice or glass look as it's cracking, branching out every which way, well, that's how that guy's face looked. I don't think there was much they could do for him (plastic surgery), the cuts had been too deep. It was really sad.

If an adult chooses not to wear their belt, so be it, but I definitely think children (all ages) should be properly secured. I can't imagine how I would handle coming upon an accident where a child went through the windshield because they weren't buckled in.

Btw, I noticed the big electronic signs on the side of the freeway today had the "Click It or Ticket - $200.00 fine" on them. :wink:

rearnakedchoke
05-20-2009, 03:58 PM
I forgot about all the mass hysteria and chaos caused by all the non-seatbelt wearers of the world. :rolleyes:

This is not about smoking in cars with children, or drinkinig and driving. Those things can obviously cause HARM TO OTHERS. This is about wearing a seatbelt, and the government issuing fines. Not wearing a seatbelt does not cause harm or danger to anybody except the person who chooses not to wear it.

Your logic is that because Canada has nationalized health care, the government has a good reason to institute such a law. My argument is that having such a system only leaves your country open to be controlled by your government in every single facet of your life.

So, NO, having a law that is designed and based on lies is not "better than having nothing at all". There is no need for the law, it's only there as a form of control and a way to generate revenue.
you have the right to your opinion .. but i don't agree ... there are already strains on healthcare systems .. go to any emergency room and just see how busy it is on any given nite, now increase that by saying you don't have to wear seatbelts and all the yahoos who will un click and end up getting injured and further straining the healthcare system ...

NateR
05-20-2009, 04:23 PM
I don't like the idea that they can stop you and give you a ticket just because you're not wearing a seatbelt. The way the law used to work back in New Mexico was that if you got stopped for speeding, running a red light or some other traffic violation, and the police officer noticed that you weren't wearing a seatbelt, then he could write you a ticket for it. However, you couldn't be stopped just for the seatbelt.

Personally, I do think it's just a stupid way to boost revenue. I grew up not wearing a seatbelt and when I was in Junior High, they passed the seatbelt laws. A few years after that, my dad got seriously injured by his seatbelt when he got rear ended by a truck. The belt ripped open an old surgery scar. So, I've always been a little skeptical of how much they actually help.

J.B.
05-20-2009, 08:20 PM
you have the right to your opinion .. but i don't agree ... there are already strains on healthcare systems .. go to any emergency room and just see how busy it is on any given nite, now increase that by saying you don't have to wear seatbelts and all the yahoos who will un click and end up getting injured and further straining the healthcare system ...

I guess the bigger point is just going over your head.

See, MOST people still wear their seat-belts regardless of the law. They don't need a LAW in place to tell them to do so. Sure, there are those people who would probably un-click just because they could, but what happens to them when they get in a car accident anyway, seatbelt or not? You are still paying for their health-care because of your socialized system in Canada.

So, I ask the question, what is it really about? Money, or people lives? If it's a strain on the health-care system that bothers you, would it not be better if they just died in the car crash? Then they wouldn't be clogging up your ER's, just your morgues. If it's about saving lives, then why not institute laws that actually force people to wear them?

rearnakedchoke
05-20-2009, 08:35 PM
I guess the bigger point is just going over your head.

See, MOST people still wear their seat-belts regardless of the law. They don't need a LAW in place to tell them to do so. Sure, there are those people who would probably un-click just because they could, but what happens to them when they get in a car accident anyway, seatbelt or not? You are still paying for their health-care because of your socialized system in Canada.

So, I ask the question, what is it really about? Money, or people lives? If it's a strain on the health-care system that bothers you, would it not be better if they just died in the car crash? Then they wouldn't be clogging up your ER's, just your morgues. If it's about saving lives, then why not institute laws that actually force people to wear them?
in the end, it is the gov't roads .. yeah yeah, say they are yours, but they are not ... so they can make the rules ... if people are dead set against wearing seatbelts because they think it is actually less harmful (not saying you are one of them), well then, i guess the world is better off without them around ... something like natural selection .. LOL

J.B.
05-20-2009, 08:39 PM
in the end, it is the gov't roads .. yeah yeah, say they are yours, but they are not ... so they can make the rules ... if people are dead set against wearing seatbelts because they think it is actually less harmful (not saying you are one of them), well then, i guess the world is better off without them around ... something like natural selection .. LOL

I will let that nonsense speak for itself. :wink:

rockdawg21
05-20-2009, 09:11 PM
JB, I'm with you. It's about money, not safety. If it were about safety, motorcyles would be outlawed, and at the very least, helmets would be mandated by law too, but it's not in many states.

rearnakedchoke
05-20-2009, 09:29 PM
JB, I'm with you. It's about money, not safety. If it were about safety, motorcyles would be outlawed, and at the very least, helmets would be mandated by law too, but it's not in many states.
Right, it may be a cash grab, but it is a cash saver also .. there has to be costs to everyone when there are traffic accidents and injuries .. it doesn't matter if in the US there is not universal health care. therefore, people who don't wear seatbelts are more likely to get injured, which these injuries end up costing money .. therefore the need for seatbelt laws .. i don't see what the big deal in understanding that is ...

Mac
05-20-2009, 09:45 PM
I will NOT wear my seatbelt . I hook it over my arm to keep from getting hassled but i wont run it across in front of me or hook it up .

If i roll my truck over and the thing catches fire , the last damn place i want to be is strapped inside of it .

Just states trying to collect money . Ill go to jail before i sign a seatbelt ticket. The govt wont tell me i HAVE to listen to the radio , or run the heater , and they wont tell me i have to wear my seatbelt either .

If God says its my time then its my time , no 2 inch wide piece of nylon will stop his decision.

Blmfighter
05-20-2009, 10:02 PM
I don't think it should be a law. Each person should be able to make up their mind if they want to wear it or not. You can pick either side and have proof on why your side is right.

I wear mine sometimes but not all the time. I would be more worried about the seat belt coming up and hitting my neck before I would worry about it getting stuck.

If they are so worried for my safety then why don't the a 5 point harness like race cars have in my car.

It gets me how everyone talks about how safe our cars are however you can die in a 40 mile an hour crash. We have race cars that are going 300 miles an hour and crash and the people will get up and walk away.

Tyburn
05-20-2009, 10:10 PM
If i roll my truck over and the thing catches fire , the last damn place i want to be is strapped inside of it .

:laugh: your on fire tonight Mac :laugh:

rearnakedchoke
05-20-2009, 10:20 PM
I don't think it should be a law. Each person should be able to make up their mind if they want to wear it or not. You can pick either side and have proof on why your side is right.

I wear mine sometimes but not all the time. I would be more worried about the seat belt coming up and hitting my neck before I would worry about it getting stuck.

If they are so worried for my safety then why don't the a 5 point harness like race cars have in my car.

It gets me how everyone talks about how safe our cars are however you can die in a 40 mile an hour crash. We have race cars that are going 300 miles an hour and crash and the people will get up and walk away.
if the injuries and accidents cost money, then making it law is necessary to aim to reduce this injuries hence lowering costs ...

J.B.
05-20-2009, 11:32 PM
Right, it may be a cash grab, but it is a cash saver also .. there has to be costs to everyone when there are traffic accidents and injuries .. it doesn't matter if in the US there is not universal health care. therefore, people who don't wear seatbelts are more likely to get injured, which these injuries end up costing money .. therefore the need for seatbelt laws .. i don't see what the big deal in understanding that is ...

Please show your research that backs up the claim that people not wearing seatbelts and getting in accidents costs the US or Canadian health care system significantly more money than it would if we did not have the laws... I would love to see it, because it don't exist.

I don't see what is the big deal in understanding that letting the government run every aspect of your life is NOT acceptable.

You have already admitted that the law is a "cash grab". So please explain how handing out tiny little fines is actually making people buckle-up.... Can you? I doubt it, because people who don't want to buckle up are not going to do it out of fear of a small fine. Making up false facts to give reasoning to a law, after the fact, is beyond dishonest. Don't tell us it is to save money on health care, or to save lives. Because it's neither. It's about MAKING MONEY.

MattHughesRocks
05-20-2009, 11:36 PM
Well that's a crappy attitude and statistically speaking, you have more of a chance dying in a non roll over then you have of even rolling over.Stop being so stuborn and think about your little boys who need a dad instead of worrying about being Mr Anti-Government .



I will NOT wear my seatbelt . I hook it over my arm to keep from getting hassled but i wont run it across in front of me or hook it up .

If i roll my truck over and the thing catches fire , the last damn place i want to be is strapped inside of it .

Just states trying to collect money . Ill go to jail before i sign a seatbelt ticket. The govt wont tell me i HAVE to listen to the radio , or run the heater , and they wont tell me i have to wear my seatbelt either .

If God says its my time then its my time , no 2 inch wide piece of nylon will stop his decision.

Maldonado136
05-20-2009, 11:45 PM
click it or ticket is for making money and that is all. if it was really about safety then it would be all year instead of just a certain time of the year.

Tyburn
05-20-2009, 11:50 PM
click it or ticket is for making money and that is all. if it was really about safety then it would be all year instead of just a certain time of the year.
:blink: WTF?? They are making a law you have to wear your safety belts...but what?? only in...April or something :mellow:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Tyburn
05-20-2009, 11:53 PM
:applause: :applause: :applause: Well that's a crappy attitude and statistically speaking, you have more of a chance dying in a non roll over then you have of even rolling over.Stop being so stuborn and think about your little boys who need a dad instead of worrying about being Mr Anti-Government .

J.B.
05-20-2009, 11:58 PM
:blink: WTF?? They are making a law you have to wear your safety belts...but what?? only in...April or something :mellow:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

No no no no no....

They just get stiffer with enforcement during holiday seasons when more people are out on the road.

And they are not making the law, it's already there. It's state by state, and it's largely been in place for 25 years.

J.B.
05-20-2009, 11:59 PM
If God says its my time then its my time , no 2 inch wide piece of nylon will stop his decision.

Truest words in this thread.

Tyburn
05-21-2009, 12:09 AM
No no no no no....

They just get stiffer with enforcement during holiday seasons when more people are out on the road.

And they are not making the law, it's already there. It's state by state, and it's largely been in place for 25 years.
:blink: so...why are we so furious about it twenty five years later...I thought it was a new law... :unsure-1:

rearnakedchoke
05-21-2009, 12:18 AM
Please show your research that backs up the claim that people not wearing seatbelts and getting in accidents costs the US or Canadian health care system significantly more money than it would if we did not have the laws... I would love to see it, because it don't exist.

I don't see what is the big deal in understanding that letting the government run every aspect of your life is NOT acceptable.

You have already admitted that the law is a "cash grab". So please explain how handing out tiny little fines is actually making people buckle-up.... Can you? I doubt it, because people who don't want to buckle up are not going to do it out of fear of a small fine. Making up false facts to give reasoning to a law, after the fact, is beyond dishonest. Don't tell us it is to save money on health care, or to save lives. Because it's neither. It's about MAKING MONEY.
there are many articles out there that say seat belt laws reduce health care costs, but when i post them, you will say they are biased, flawed or doctored ...

rearnakedchoke
05-21-2009, 12:19 AM
I will NOT wear my seatbelt . I hook it over my arm to keep from getting hassled but i wont run it across in front of me or hook it up .

If i roll my truck over and the thing catches fire , the last damn place i want to be is strapped inside of it .

Just states trying to collect money . Ill go to jail before i sign a seatbelt ticket. The govt wont tell me i HAVE to listen to the radio , or run the heater , and they wont tell me i have to wear my seatbelt either .

If God says its my time then its my time , no 2 inch wide piece of nylon will stop his decision.
well, by your logic, if you roll over in your car and you are wearing your seat belt, if it isn't your time, the seat belt will come unlocked or snap ...

so wear your seatbelt and save yourself some potential cash ...

J.B.
05-21-2009, 12:21 AM
:blink: so...why are we so furious about it twenty five years later...I thought it was a new law... :unsure-1:

Read the thread.

J.B.
05-21-2009, 12:30 AM
there are many articles out there that say seat belt laws reduce health care costs, but when i post them, you will say they are biased, flawed or doctored ...

What, I might actually have an argument against them? If they are solid, then I am not gonna argue it. That's just silly. If you have something that is relative to the discussion, I would read it and give an honest opinion on it.

If you can show some real evidence that seat-belt laws are saving us a significant amount of money in health care costs, then I would say OK RNC, you are correct. However, it's gotta be some REAL evidence based on factual statistics. Not some knee-jerk opinion from a random blogger.

It would not matter, anyway. The only way your argument about health-care costs really holds water is under a nationalized system, like Canada. Here in America, we are each responsible for our own health care. So those costs are only being incurred by the people who chose not to wear a seat-belt. Even if, you are getting into a SMALL amount in relation to the overall amount of costs due to car accidents.

The bottom line that you have no real answer for is that it is NOT something our governments should be worrying about. It is only about money, period.

rearnakedchoke
05-21-2009, 12:55 AM
What, I might actually have an argument against them? If they are solid, then I am not gonna argue it. That's just silly. If you have something that is relative to the discussion, I would read it and give an honest opinion on it.

If you can show some real evidence that seat-belt laws are saving us a significant amount of money in health care costs, then I would say OK RNC, you are correct. However, it's gotta be some REAL evidence based on factual statistics. Not some knee-jerk opinion from a random blogger.

It would not matter, anyway. The only way your argument about health-care costs really holds water is under a nationalized system, like Canada. Here in America, we are each responsible for our own health care. So those costs are only being incurred by the people who chose not to wear a seat-belt. Even if, you are getting into a SMALL amount in relation to the overall amount of costs due to car accidents.

The bottom line that you have no real answer for is that it is NOT something our governments should be worrying about. It is only about money, period.
so what happens when people are injured, treated and can't pay the bills? you think they disappear? do you think that every single dollar is paid for?

rearnakedchoke
05-21-2009, 12:57 AM
here is the first

http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/seatbelts.shtml

but i am sure it is not a suitable source ....

J.B.
05-21-2009, 01:03 AM
so what happens when people are injured, treated and can't pay the bills? you think they disappear? do you think that every single dollar is paid for?

So what? That happens in ALL aspects of life ALL THE TIME. It still does not justify the actual intention of the law.

If you bothered to actually read what I am saying about the law, you would see that I am not arguing what the law does, but rather it's real intentions. It is ultimately a choice.

J.B.
05-21-2009, 01:09 AM
here is the first

http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/seatbelts.shtml

but i am sure it is not a suitable source ....

The source is fine, but its still only providing an ESTIMATE. Not actual statistics.

If you bothered to read the thread, you would see that I already debunked the theory that we are actually cutting down the death toll from the seatbelt law. The fatality stats have been hovering in the same general area for almost 20 YEARS
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811124.PDF

We can go back and forth, but it's pointless. My point has been made, and it still stands firm. The law is designed and in place to generate revenue. Nothing more, nothing less.

MattHughesRocks
05-21-2009, 01:16 AM
I remember many many years ago it being the law in California but then they took that law off the books ( I don't know why)then brought it back.
Just before they brought it back for some reason I started wearing mine again but just sometimes.Then one day, I had just stopped at a red light and the minivan behind me hit me at about 50.I got hurt pretty bad but at least I stayed in my seat.Otherwise I'd have gone out the windshield for sure :scared0011:


No no no no no....

They just get stiffer with enforcement during holiday seasons when more people are out on the road.

And they are not making the law, it's already there. It's state by state, and it's largely been in place for 25 years.

J.B.
05-21-2009, 01:19 AM
I remember many many years ago it being the law in California but then they took that law off the books ( I don't know why)then brought it back.
Just before they brought it back for some reason I started wearing mine again but just sometimes.Then one day, I had just stopped at a red light and the minivan behind me hit me at about 50.I got hurt pretty bad but at least I stayed in my seat.Otherwise I'd have gone out the windshield for sure :scared0011:

:scared0011:

Yikes, rear-end accidents are no-fun. I got rear-ended by a semi while sitting a red-light once. He wast going that fast but I kept seeing him get closer in the mirror and right before he hit us I knew it was gonna happen. That sucked, but we were fine. We were in a big ol' Cadillac. :laugh:

MattHughesRocks
05-21-2009, 03:23 AM
I saw the minivan coming to! :scared0011: :scared0011: :scared0011: :scared0011:


I think that's why I got so hurt. I tensed up like crazy ( as one would when you see a freakin' minivan coming up behind you at 50:scared0011: ) and I just hurt all over, the seat had no head rest so my head whipped back and broke out the back window...the hair clip I was wearing ended up in the street behind the truck I was driving..I still get a second of panic if i look in the rear view mirror at a stop light:laugh: Stitches and phsyical therepy was what I got :sad:


It was many years ago and I can still see that bitch coming :laugh:


:scared0011:

Yikes, rear-end accidents are no-fun. I got rear-ended by a semi while sitting a red-light once. He wast going that fast but I kept seeing him get closer in the mirror and right before he hit us I knew it was gonna happen. That sucked, but we were fine. We were in a big ol' Cadillac. :laugh:

Neezar
05-21-2009, 03:43 AM
The source is fine, but its still only providing an ESTIMATE. Not actual statistics.

If you bothered to read the thread, you would see that I already debunked the theory that we are actually cutting down the death toll from the seatbelt law. The fatality stats have been hovering in the same general area for almost 20 YEARS
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811124.PDF

We can go back and forth, but it's pointless. My point has been made, and it still stands firm. The law is designed and in place to generate revenue. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can't go by that info. You have no way to factor in other information like how much driver population increased in relation to fatalities. And you don't know how many were wearing a seat belt.

This is from the SAME people

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811036.PDF

medic92
05-21-2009, 03:48 AM
If i roll my truck over and the thing catches fire , the last damn place i want to be is strapped inside of it .


If God says its my time then its my time , no 2 inch wide piece of nylon will stop his decision.

That's an interesting contradiction Mac. If you roll your truck over and it catches fire, won't you just sit there and say "if it's my time then it's my time" and wait to see if it's your time? After all, if it's your time no crawling to get out of the truck is going to stop His decision either.

J.B.
05-21-2009, 04:52 AM
You can't go by that info. You have no way to factor in other information like how much driver population increased in relation to fatalities. And you don't know how many were wearing a seat belt.

This is from the SAME people

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811036.PDF

My point was the OVERALL fatality rates have hovered in the same area, for a LONG time and that is what my first link shows. People are still getting in car crashes and dying with seat-belts on or not. The people providing the statistics are also the same people pushing Click it or Ticket, that was another part of my point.

They don't factor in a LOT of things, which in my opinion makes it too hard to gauge. They tout that 2008 has the lowest rate in years, but they don't mention that many people were not driving as much when gas was $4 a gallon. I am not denying that seat-belts can save a life or serious injury, not at all. The point is that the law is in place to generate revenue and not to save lives. They merely say that they are trying to save lives, but if that were the case they could go about enforcing the law in different ways rather than petty tickets that people pay by mail and go on with their lives.

Like Mac said, he only puts his on when cops are around. If they really felt that the belts were absolutely needed, wouldn't they crack down hard, all the time, maybe suspend people's license? In the, end I think it's a personal choice, but I am glad that the topic has sparked such a good discussion. We can go back to critiquing Obama now, :laugh:

J.B.
05-21-2009, 04:53 AM
It was many years ago and I can still see that bitch coming :laugh:


I hear ya there, sometimes I feel the same way. I even let off the break and roll forward sometimes. :laugh:

Neezar
05-21-2009, 03:00 PM
My point was the OVERALL fatality rates have hovered in the same area, for a LONG time and that is what my first link shows. People are still getting in car crashes and dying with seat-belts on or not. The people providing the statistics are also the same people pushing Click it or Ticket, that was another part of my point.

The point is that the law is in place to generate revenue and not to save lives. They merely say that they are trying to save lives, but if that were the case they could go about enforcing the law in different ways rather than petty tickets that people pay by mail and go on with their lives.



I understood your point. And I agree that if safety was the first concern then their efforts could be better used elsewhere.

But as far as saving lives, they say that in the areas where they are enforcing the seat belt laws that more people are wearing their belts thus they are saving more lives. They say it's working. But as you pointed out, it is the same people who are pushing Click it or Ticket. I would like to see the actual data of fatalities and see the percent wearing/not wearing their seat belt. I think only about half (52%) of the fatalities weren't wearing a seat belt. And I saw were something said that a seat belt would have saved 65% of those people. I have a hard time buying that because how could you really know? Unless, of course the victim was thrown from the car. In the case of being thrown, I see no argument. Clearly a seat belt would benefit in that case. However, I was surprised to see that only 52% of fatalities didn't have a seat belt on! I was really expecting a higher number. (note: I got the 52% from an article and not from statistics - couldn't find them.) I think the seat belt prevents more injuries than it does saving lives. I think if you crash bad enough you will die regardless of a belt.


I will go on record and say that anyone in my vehicle will wear the belt or find another ride. :laugh: Sorry, I feel that strongly about it. However, I can't see me or the government telling you (adults only here) not to wear your seat belt in your own car.

Random stuff sorta-related here:

When we work a MVA trauma we only ask if the person was wearing a seat belt to look for 'seat belt caused' trauma (i.e. look for trauma where the selt belt was at shoulder, abdomen, hip etc.).

Seat belt in pregnant women are very important. It can be very dangerous. If you can't keep that belt across the hips and not sliding up then it could be a bad day.

Also, in a trauma if the person was ejected from the vehicle then that automatically upgrades it to a LEVEL 1. You expect the worst. And just Not wearing a seat belt isn't considered in the priority.

J.B.
05-21-2009, 10:43 PM
I will go on record and say that anyone in my vehicle will wear the belt or find another ride. :laugh: Sorry, I feel that strongly about it.

That just made me think of another interesting point.

I have a 2005 extended cab GMC Canyon pickup truck, and it has two seats that fold up right behind the driver and passenger seats, but those seats did NOT come equipped with seatbelts. I wonder why that is? :unsure:

I thought it was a law that all seats in all cars had to have a seatbelt unless the car was built before seatbelts were standard?

Spiritwalker
05-22-2009, 03:53 AM
While I believe it's a good thing to wear a seat belt... I did it before it became a law...

In America, you should follow the law back to being a bill. See who was backing the bill and who the major forces are that were behind it. You know the people that push/bribe and convince the senate and local government...

Lobbyists.... Slugs.. roaches... something like that...

Mac
05-23-2009, 05:01 AM
That's an interesting contradiction Mac. If you roll your truck over and it catches fire, won't you just sit there and say "if it's my time then it's my time" and wait to see if it's your time? After all, if it's your time no crawling to get out of the truck is going to stop His decision either.


No , your missing the point , and its not a contradiction. I might die of a heart attack right here sitting in this chair . Does that mean i should have a set of paddles plugged in to try and thump myself back ? no dont think so .



I once had a lady in about a 78 ford ltd cut me off one day and slam on her brakes . I was in a ****box 94 ford ranger runnin about 40 , no seat belt and i rear ended her. I bent the steering wheel backwards when my chest hit it , the steering wheel itself was about 3 inches BEHIND the horn button in the center lol . blew the windshield out when my head smacked it . And i walked out of it without so much as a scratch. Not even a bruise.


My mom had an old caddy once , she had taken my sister and one of her friends to town to go shopping once , when they got to the mall they could not get my sisters friends seat belt undone . Finally had to drive to the dealership and they cut it for her . Piss on that , no thanks , big brother can keep his meddling little hands out of my life.