Wear your seatbelt!

[KXRM]

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

There is a difference and I didn't say there wasnt. I said if we use the 'public safety' argument to advocate more laws, bans, etc then there can be alot more liberties we enjoy related to our cars that can be taken away using that logic. And you cannot say that will not happen. If I told people 20 years ago the Government would be outlawing certain foods and drinks under the guise of protecting us from ourselves I would have been called a crackpot back then, but I would have proven right.

I think this boils down to a difference in opinion on what you have the right to do in public areas where the government has built OUR roads. What foods have been outlawed that weren't proven to be harmful? Are you suggesting that we should not regulate the food industry?

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

LMAO at you putting in "extremely"! Yeah, the Founders gave us the right to pursue happiness only in things we extremely enjoy. And no, the Founders did not say we should give up our liberties if its balanced with facts.

I don't believe the founders statement meant they wanted a lawless society. Is a Stop sign necessary to negotiate traffic? No, people could potentially drive around and not need stop signs. However regulations were established to put up stop signs and fine people for ignoring them. Those regulations were established because it has been proven that stop signs improve safety and save lives.

[The Stig]

Stop Signs impede on my ability to enjoy my Camaro.

[CamaroSkooter]

"My tax dollars payed for this road, I should be able to enjoy it however I see fit!"

Yeah, good luck with that argument.

[PQ]

Why is gambling illegal? Who does it hurt other than the person who loses money?

[strych9]

Originally Posted by stieger

Stop Signs impede on my ability to enjoy my Camaro.

High-Five Ghost likes!

[Lou_Dorchen]

Originally Posted by KXRM

What foods have been outlawed that weren't proven to be harmful? Are you suggesting that we should not regulate the food industry?

Happy Meals have been banned in at least one city I can think of. And just this month NYC voted to outlaw large sizes of soft drinks. Foie gras has also been banned in places as well.

Originally Posted by KXRM

I don't believe the founders statement meant they wanted a lawless society. Is a Stop sign necessary to negotiate traffic? No, people could potentially drive around and not need stop signs. However regulations were established to put up stop signs and fine people for ignoring them. Those regulations were established because it has been proven that stop signs improve safety and save lives.

I'm not advocating lawlessness. And I thought we were supposed to stop using strawmen. No one, including me, has advocated removing all Stop signs. Don't be ridiculous. FYI, the 55MPH national speed limit was found to have improved safety and saved thousands of lives. Do you feel we should go back to a national 55MPH speed limit in the name of public safety?

And I'm still waiting for the statistics that prove that this is a public safety issue as opposed to an individual rights issue.

[christianmotox]

Originally Posted by stieger

Stop Signs impede on my ability to enjoy my Camaro.

I know uh....

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

Happy Meals have been banned in at least one city I can think of. And just this month NYC voted to outlaw large sizes of soft drinks. Foie gras has also been banned in places as well.

They have not been outlawed of banned. Just the SALE of them in that area.

Semantics I know but so be it. It is pretty freaking ridiculous.

And I am absolutely on your side on the principle. But Doug (Tag Ur It) as a police officer having seen what he explained made a good enough case for me.

[garcmol]

Your stats. Go to page #4, table #3. Shaded states are "secondary" violation states.

Those dollars saved are tax dollars. Lives saved, well, even one is worth the second it takes to buckle up.

[Godsplumber]

The case you make about seatbelts allowing me to have control of my vehicle in a collision is false. Maybe in an older model car without airbags. But, i drive a ZL1 with airbags all around, and when or if they ever deploy, i will not be able to see to control my car let alone control it with bags exploding all around me.

[strych9]

Originally Posted by Godsplumber

The case you make about seatbelts allowing me to have control of my vehicle in a collision is false. Maybe in an older model car without airbags. But, i drive a ZL1 with airbags all around, and when or if they ever deploy, i will not be able to see to control my car let alone control it with bags exploding all around me.

They inflate and deflate so fast that you don't even realize it until they are deflated. Your statement is dead wrong. I had to steer mine to the side after the accident. Save for a few air bag burns on my arms, I walked away without a scratch.

Keep reaching...

[CamaroSkooter]

The point of a seat belt is to keep your backside firmly planted in the seat. And as long as your backside is firmly planted in that seat, you have control over the brakes of the vehicle.

If you are not wearing your seat belt in a collision, you will likely no longer be firmly planted in your seat, and therefore not in a position to effectively apply the brakes.

You don't need to be able to see to put the brake pedal to the floor.

[garcmol]

Plus I could point out Newton's First Law which is; A body in motion will continue in motion unless acted upon by a outside source. The speed your moving at (and heaven forbid it's head on, your speed + oncoming vehicle speed = speed of motion at impact) is the motion and the outside source is your seatbelt. An airbag + the slowing affect of the seatbelt has been proven again and again to save lives. Air bags alone without the slowing affect of the seatbelt will do nothing to protect you.

And there are three hits in an accident. Hit the tree, you hit the seatbelt/airbag, your internals hit the inside of you. The seatbelt was designed to decrease this speed after you hit the tree and thus the shock on your body.

Watch around the :24 second mark. That's a pretty slow speed and a lot going on inside the car. Imagine without a seat belt.



I'm done after this post. This is like arguing with the stapler on my desk.

[KXRM]

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

Happy Meals have been banned in at least one city I can think of. And just this month NYC voted to outlaw large sizes of soft drinks. Foie gras has also been banned in places as well.

Well that isn't a ban that is a change in the way food is marketed, two totally different things. I do agree that NYC and San Fran are ridiculous to even consider such things but I digress.

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

I'm not advocating lawlessness. And I thought we were supposed to stop using strawmen. No one, including me, has advocated removing all Stop signs. Don't be ridiculous. FYI, the 55MPH national speed limit was found to have improved safety and saved thousands of lives. Do you feel we should go back to a national 55MPH speed limit in the name of public safety?

And I'm still waiting for the statistics that prove that this is a public safety issue as opposed to an individual rights issue.

Hey, you are the one that started the straw man arguments. Gun control, food control, all these things that you think we should just give in to because law enforcement doesn't want to have to scrap your dead body out of my windshield or off the road.

Also the 55mph national limit was enacted for fuel consumption control, not safety. Some laws are stupid, and poorly conceived, I won't deny that. But some are smart and more universally accepted. Seat belts along with stop signs are pretty universally accepted as safe things to have in and around our public roads.

Take heart though, I am sure there is a guy out there that wishes there were no windshield requirements so he could feel free. Wishes that we could do 200mph to feel free, or wishes he could do meth in his bathroom because that's the way the founding fathers would have wanted it right?

Out of all the things the government regulates, having a strap around you in a 1 ton machine going 70mph down a crowded roadway is the least of my concerns. I actually feel better having mine on. I feel strange in a vehicle without it. Vulnerable you could say.

With that said, I think I have said my peace, but at least now I know that the OPs video wasn't a total waste of money, there are still people out there that believe they are the exception and don't need safety belts.