Wear your seatbelt!

[PQ]

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.

Like the others said, it's the brakes that can be applied. After contact you want to apply the brakes asap.

[Lou_Dorchen]

I'm still waiting on statistics about how many accidents are caused by people in wrecks not wearing seatbelts...

Originally Posted by KXRM

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.

No, those are bans. And they were passed under the guise of public safety. Under the plan in NYC, all restaurants, fast-food joints, delis, movie theaters, sports stadiums and even food carts will be barred from selling sugar-sweetened drinks in cups larger than 16 ounces.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1880868.html

[Lou_Dorchen]

Originally Posted by KXRM

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.

I wasn't presenting them as strawmen, I was trying to illustrate to you how can lose more freedoms under the guise of public safety.

Look guys, I'm not trying to 'win' an argument. I don't want to hear people saying I'm right for my own personal aggrandizement. What my goal is to warn you that you might want to consider what other rights we could lose under the guise of public safety. ALOT of rights can be lost that way. I was pointing out some we have lost (like food choices), and was using YOUR arguments to show how something like guns could be banned under that same reasoning.

There are people in power who think the cars we love are a danger to society just by being on the road. We actually had a VP who said the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to the planet. I dont want to see the cars I love one day banned. And if they are banned it will be under the guise of public safety, mark my words. So I'm trying to get you to see you are asking for trouble when you allow 'minor' rights to be taken away that you dont care about. Once they can take away minor rights, what's stopping them from taking away bigger rights you actually care for if they use the same reasoning they used to get rid of the minor rights?

[Vaux96]

Originally Posted by stieger

If you wear your seatbelt, and make passengers in your car wear their seatbelts, then why does it matter if it's a law or not? You already wear it.

Because as I said in my previous post that someone deleted, it is not the government's job to protect me from myself.

And the argument that seatbelts protect other people from you is weak. I am sure you can find situations that it would happen here and there, but you can counter that with situations where seatbelts have also taken people's lives too. Tons of people live through accidents without seatbelts, and just because you are wearing one, does not mean you are going to have control over your vehicle after impact.

[Camaro_Corvette]

Originally Posted by stieger

Stop Signs impede on my ability to enjoy my Camaro.

Agreed

[Godsplumber]

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

I wasn't presenting them as strawmen, I was trying to illustrate to you how can lose more freedoms under the guise of public safety.

Look guys, I'm not trying to 'win' an argument. I don't want to hear people saying I'm right for my own personal aggrandizement. What my goal is to warn you that you might want to consider what other rights we could lose under the guise of public safety. ALOT of rights can be lost that way. I was pointing out some we have lost (like food choices), and was using YOUR arguments to show how something like guns could be banned under that same reasoning.

There are people in power who think the cars we love are a danger to society just by being on the road. We actually had a VP who said the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to the planet. I dont want to see the cars I love one day banned. And if they are banned it will be under the guise of public safety, mark my words. So I'm trying to get you to see you are asking for trouble when you allow 'minor' rights to be taken away that you dont care about. Once they can take away minor rights, what's stopping them from taking away bigger rights you actually care for if they use the same reasoning they used to get rid of the minor rights?

[TAG UR IT]

Originally Posted by Vaux96

--- ""By not wearing one, you increase the odds of losing control of your vehicle in a collision and infrigning upon the liberties of others in a secondary collision."

I guess this is true to an extent, but really hard to measure.
Totally agree. I mean...are we going to put people in situations to get into an accident w/out a seat belt and then again in the exact same situation with a seat belt just so we can see? Obviously not.
You are going to sit here and definitively tell me what level of control a person would have over a vehicle after it has just been in a collision, seat belt or not?
Not what "level of control." That would obviously differ from accident to accident and person to person (their abilities). Agreed? But, the simple fact that one will have the ability to control the vehicle since the driver is still in the seat would increase chances of regaining control would greatly increase, would you agree?
Sounds impossible.
Maybe to some. Maybe some just don't care to think about it. Maybe some are more worried about personal liberties than others. It is common sense, though. If you aren't in your driver seat, you can't control your vehicle. There's no argument for that. Don't give me some "I can reach over bs" either or, "that's not going to happen." If you aren't in your seat, you can't control the car. if you stay put, your feet are AT the pedals. You arms and hands are out in front of you....and all 4 appendages (or one of each, should something get hurt...whatever) can reach out to control the car. ...all since you are planted firmly in your seat.
With all of the different variables, you could only assume that maybe a person would have had more control over a vehicle if they had a seat belt on.
I've worked HUNDREDS...probably close to a thousand accidents over my years of being in law enforcement. I wish I had actual numbers of how many. I'd be curious. But, yes I can. I see them. I see people walk away from horrendous crashes. They hurt from seat belt burn, maybe a scratch or two, but they are ALIVE. Some have been able to regain control over their vehicles and steer out of traffic, out onto a shoulder of the road, away from other cars...Yes. I have seen it and yes, people have told me what happened AFTER the INITIAL impact.
And that would only be on certain types of accidents.
Never said all. I absolutely agree it's only on certain types. But on those types, you have just agreed that it's possible.
And Tag Your It, that was a real touching story, but I still think 100% of the blame in that instance lies with the person that started the accident.
Of course it is. But, the point of the story is not to lay blame on any one person. I'm trying to point out that the potential to stop further accidents or loss of life (or injury) can be potentially avoided should one or both drivers had been wearing a belt.
There is no difference in using the logic that "if you had used your seat belt those kids would be alive" than "if the moron wouldn't have hit me those kids would still be alive". .
I would never say that (the non use of the belt) killed those kids when in truth, the fact that the initial event was the car hitting another car. I'm not using that logic. I'm saying that further destruction or loss of life could be avoided via use of a belt. Don't tell me it can't 100% every single time. If you agree that wearing a seat belt could, even once, help to avoid further destruction of property or potential injury to others, then my point is valid.
Well, I guess the difference is, if you had your seat belt on, MAYBE you would be able to keep control.
not in all cases, but yes.....some. With this, you can see ...even slightly....that what I say is true. I am truly happy to have read this line.
If the guy never hits you, then all of it never even happened in the first place.
Yes. I totally agree. Absolutely.
Maybe you should be preaching safe driving instead.
I do. I do every day. And when I stop people and give tickets (which isn't all that often...I focus my stopping attention on incidents where people cause near accidents or run red lights, fail to yield, stop signs, etc etc), then I tell people on the stop why they are being stopped and will sometimes add to how that course of action is a violation of law and how it could have effected someone. But, I don't get into it too much as quite frankly, we could we could "what if" all day long.
Of course, I am not saying you shouldn't wear a seat belt, you certainly should. My big issue is that it's a law, and it shouldn't be.

Well, in this particular case, I don't think putting this law into place is about a violation of civil liberties. I think it's about adding to the safety of the person. Check out norms statistics in that link below.

An estimated 1,652 additional lives would have been saved had this increase in seat belt use occurred, and nearly 40,000 more nonfatal injuries would have been prevented, resulting in additional cost savings of about $5.2 billion dollars.

While it's noted that 5.2 billion would have been saved, the more important part is knowing that your brother, sister, mother, father, son, daughter, best friend is coming home tonight.....all because of the use of a seat belt.

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

Despite this ridiculous assertion that wearing your seatbelt makes it safer for others I keep hearing here, I've never heard any legislator calling for seat belt laws using this argument. Can anyone point to any legislator saying this or statistics on how many accidents are caused by people not wearing seatbelts?
Why does it have to be a legislator? Why is this all about politics to you? Why can't it be the word(s) of EMS techs or police officers that see this and deal with it on a daily basis?
And if we are saying that anything that reduces the chance of losing control of a car be be mandated by law, then we need to ban any mods that make the cars faster. After all, the faster a car goes the easier it is to lose control over it and thus injure other people.
This is just plain backwards ass logic and you know it. By that reasoning, all cars should be banned since even a car going 10 mph can still roll over and crush a person just a easily as a car moving at 100 mph (which could kill a person in impact). Get real and stop using these ridiculous analogies.
Once again, if we use the public safety argument to justify new laws, regulations, and bans then alot more things we enjoy about cars will be banned using that reasoning. Those of you defending Government interference into our personal lives in the name of safety need to consider this.
Uh oh...I just heard they are going to ban stereos in cars since you have to look down to change the channel, turn it on, or mess with the volume. Look out!
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

I can't believe you'd use that quote. I bet you hate government and pretty much all laws in general.

Originally Posted by KXRM

Please stop using straw man arguments.
Exactly. Thank you.
There is a difference between seat belt laws and regulations and limits on fast vehicles.
Exactly.
I get it, you think that if we pass one law that it suddenly means we need to pass laws to keep us from ever even coming into contact with a hard surface or another person. That is not what will happen.

This is why I called your side crackpot earlier.
I have other terms but am doing my best to hold back...
You think that this is some sort of a sign of an erosion of your rights. The reality is, a seatbelt law is a just law because it protects you and I and everyone else on a public road. Is it 100% fool proof? No, but it is safer than the alternative.

Personally, I think it should be illegal to text and drive but I know plenty of people here who do it and think that it would be an infringement on their personal liberties.
Texting and driving is illegal here within the corporate city limits of SA. Yep. We know the statistics are there, know that texting and driving kills, and the city decided it would be best to force people to stop.

http://www.kens5.com/news/SAPD-warns...170431226.html
Anything that is regulated is an infringement on personal liberties, but it has to be balanced with facts. If a seat belt saves more lives and doesn't extremely hamper your ability to enjoy a vehicle then it should be a law. It could be worse, they could require a 5 point harness on everyone in a vehicle, that would be safer right? But the balance is comfort and freedom of movement. So they don't require it.

Generally a good regulation is one that most follow, so given that most follow seat belt laws as a matter of practice shows that it is a good law.

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

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

I believe Garcmol took care of that for you since you didn't want to do a search yourself.

Originally Posted by PQ

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.

Thank you kindly, sir.

Originally Posted by 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.

Bravo. And with that, all the other points are moot.

Originally Posted by Godsplumber

The case you make about seatbelts allowing me to have control of my vehicle in a collision is false.
For real?
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.

Use your brain! Not all accidents have an end result with air bags being deployed! Jesus!!!

Even then, air bags deploy on the side of the vehicle that is struck! WHEN....it's struck hard enough!

If you are struck on the right, the right curtain airbag will deploy. What's that? You can still control your car! WOW!

In front? The airbag was INTENTIONALLY designed to rapidly deflate all for the purpose of you being able to grab that wheel and try to regain control.

On the left? Oh yeah...it deflated by the time you realized you go hit....that's right. Oh...and that's on the side. NOT in front of you on the wheel. But that's okay. You go on with your "FALSE" thinking.

[Lou_Dorchen]

Time will tell the story. If years pass and no more vehicle rights are taken away in the name of public safety, then I was a crackpot. But if more are taken away, the indifference like some of you have shown here will be to blame. If more rights are taken away I wont gloat that I was right, or that I won an Internet argument. I'll be just as sad over losing those rights as I am about the 'minor' ones I've already lost. I just hope it doesn't take us losing the right to vehicle choice to get some of you to value your rights.

And I'm sorry you dont like my Patrick Henry quote. I just think we would be alot better off if we listened to poeple like him rather than finding ways to justify giving up our rights. And sorry if I offended anyone. I'm really just trying to show that by allowing some rights to be taken in the name of public safety, you may well lose more rights in the name of public safety in the future. I actually hope I am wrong on this, even if that means I'll be called a crackpot.

[CamaroSkooter]

I think the reason a seat belt law was passed was because every person can generally agree that it reduces loss of life way more often than it increases it.

I imagine if a law is presented where the "liberties" that you so valiantly fight for (whetever they may be) just doesn't make sense, then you'll have enough people crying foul that the law is ridiculous.

For instance, if the state government introduces a law requiring all motorists wear a mouth-guard while driving, it will more than likely not pass because of its absurdity.

Take any one of your absurd examples. If you really think that any of those would be passed in the state Congress without extreme outrage by the citizens, then you have a much more dismal outlook on your fellow voter than I do.

Granted, I think the average voter is pretty easily swayed. But to speculate that those absurd examples wouldn't worry even the most uneducated laymen speaks volumes of how little intelligence you think the average American has. And that's just not useful.

[SleepWarz]

Can we get a law that makes people look both ways before they cross the street?

[CamaroSkooter]

There is a jay-walking law. I imagine the majority of the time that someone's darting into traffic it's probably not at a crosswalk

[Vaux96]

I could think of many vehicle laws you could pass that would "reduce loss of life". Should they all be laws as well?

If not, why should seatbelts be a law, then? What makes that different, since your primary goal is to reduce loss of life?

[KXRM]

Originally Posted by Vaux96

I could think of many vehicle laws you could pass that would "reduce loss of life". Should they all be laws as well?

If not, why should seatbelts be a law, then? What makes that different, since your primary goal is to reduce loss of life?

Again "reduce loss of life" simplifies the context of this discussion. Please, just stop the bubble wrap analogy.

[Candy_Camaro]

Wow. Thank you for posting this!