Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on June 30, 2007, 09:20:49 AM
-
I mean, before we can even talk about something as insane as gun control we have to realize that...
Any people who would allow their government to make em wear seatbelts and helmets is a doomed people anyway.
lazs
-
whazza matter Lazs? Get ticketed by the uniformed nannies?
-
nope... I have put over 50,000 miles on the Lincoln without ever putting on the seatbelt.
I am just stating that if we can't even stand up for individual rights on something as simple and basic as this we have no chance... we allow our selves to be told what is for our own individual good... it is insane. It is like we are too ignorant to make up our own minds about risk. It puts no other person save the wearer (or non wearer) in danger.
lazs
-
Laz, you don't even have a right to drive. It's a priveledge, not a right. That's why it's licensed.
-
Lazs,
You know it but you won't admit it, but it's also not just for your personal protection. It's for the millions of $$$ spent every year out of taxpayer funds on medical care for people who get injured in car accidents and don't have enough medical insurance to cover the required care. It is a proven fact that helmet and seatbelt use significantly reduces injuries and the cost of post-accident medical care.
The real problem of course is that the bleeding hearts in this country feel that uninsured people who suffer injuries due to being stupid or stubborn still deserve to benefit from publicly funded health care. Until that attitude changes (hint - it won't), we'll see helmet and seatbelt laws that are aimed at reducing the drain on public funds caused by stupid or stubborn people who refuse to protect themselves and don't have enough money to pay for their own medical bills after an accident.
-
driving is a skill, not a privilege.
people say it's a privilege because that's what the govt has told them.
-
And for anyone who says "well, I'm insured so I should be able to do whatever I want", I call BS. Nobody but Bill Gates (and others with a similiar amount of money) has enough insurance to cover a lifetime of assisted living following brain injuries caused by not wearing a helmet or seatbelts. That means that after the insurance runs out, someone needing that kind of help is either on the street or suckling at the public fund teat.
I'm not allowed to refuse to pay for those people's medical care, so I do feel that the only alternative, attempting to limit those kinds of preventable drains on society, is pretty reasonable.
I know you will disagree, but these kinds of laws aren't my first choice either. But given the realistic options of having no laws and paying more and more out of my pocket for other people's stubborn "freedom" choices, or forcing people to use safety devices that are proven to reduce medical costs, I'll go selfish on this one and protect my pocketbook.
-
Originally posted by john9001
driving is a skill, not a privilege.
people say it's a privilege because that's what the govt has told them.
The act of driving is a display of an acquired set of skills or a display of stupidity depending on the circumstances and acts being committed.
As to the privilege of driving on a roadway, notice what happens when you try to exercise a privileged you are not authorised to do? Privileges are licensed, restricted and done only with permission of the licensing entity. Rights are not.
-
mav.. there may be some aspects of driving that could be considered a privilidge but... does that give the government the right to regulate every tiny little aspect of what you do while in the car? what does wearing a seatbelt have to do with driving? It does not protect anyone but the wearer who should obviously have the right to choose.
eagl I have my own insurance for medical. I don't use the car insurance medical. any injuries I sustain in the car will be payed by it.
But... are you saying that we have the right to limit freedom in this country based on money?
and... what did you do with the monstrous rebate the insurance company sent you when the seatbelt law went into effect? what are you doing with all the money that you are saving on monthly premiums made by forcing people to wear seatbelts?
The solution is simple... do not require people to wear seatbelts. Simply have the insurance company give discounts for those who do.
by your reasoning... we should be able to outlaw ciggs because they cost you money on life insurance or.. outlaw flying.. or... how bout fatty foods.. Bet fatty foods have killed or crippled more than not wearing seatbelts.. and drinking... what about drinking? surely you reasoning makes it perfectly acceptable to bring back prohibition... reasonable even... Hell.. I don't even drink...
Not many people really drink anymore.. it is too hard to... too many regulations workplace and otherwise... I bet prohibition would fly this time..
We aren't our grandfathers... we are you now. we feel we have the right to tell others how to live based on if it may cost us a few cents.
A new prohibition would cause a lot of crime but no one would squalk... you would of course defend it. It is after all.. for our own good and... it would save billions a year in taxpayers money. Not only that but.. drunks hurt other people.. people who don't wear seatbelts are only a danger to themselves.
lazs
-
bring back prohibition, the moonshiners need the income.
-
Again, I find it disturbing that people turn to the government to solve their problems, when they fail to realize that the power is in the wallet.
Repeal the seatbelt laws, then tell Insurance companies that they have the power to deal, or not deal with those that don't wear seatbelts in a manner they see fit.
-
Wearing a seatbelt is a minor discomfort. Giving the government your hard earned money to be wasted by those you voted against is a major pain.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Wearing a seatbelt is a minor discomfort. Giving the government your hard earned money to be wasted by those you voted against is a major pain.
I totaly agree on that point. Each year I try to get as little back as possible. Bites they take any in the first place, but I figure the less extra I give them the less they have to spend it on something crazy. Granted I could go as far as not giving them enough for that year, but I dont like having to pay either. I always get a chuckle at all these people talking about how much they are getting back. Arent they using the government as a bank and the government aint paying intrest?
As far as seat belts go, I wear them regardless. It just makes me feel safer. I was wearing them back before the law came into effect in my area. I agree with Laz though. Give the power to let the people decide for themselves and let the insurance companies discount those who do.
-
Origanally posted by eagl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real problem of course is that the bleeding hearts in this country feel that uninsured people who suffer injuries due to being stupid or stubborn still deserve to benefit from publicly funded health care. Until that attitude changes (hint - it won't), we'll see helmet and seatbelt laws that are aimed at reducing the drain on public funds caused by stupid or stubborn people who refuse to protect themselves and don't have enough money to pay for their own medical bills after an accident.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I've heard that some states are better about this than others, But Litigation lawyers (ambulance chasers) run rampant. Some people that live just down the street from me (Mexican Immigrants of questionable legality)
were driving some old clapped out buicks and chevy's for a long time. Well, one of the junkers dissapeared one day, They had a funeral for a teenage child the next, and about a month later, they drive up in a Brand new Dodge pickup. Seems the kid took the car on a spin, Got wiped out by a drunk driver, and went through the windshield.
The dad was over there, showing all of his friends what was under the hood, while they were all laughing and getting drunk. The kid's mother was showing her friends where they had gotten some new furniture and a TV.
About a week after that, they had a sticker on the truck that said Ramon batista Garza, 1986-2003.
And a license plate frame advertising for the attorney that sued for them.
Now, here's the clincher: Not only did they sue the Drunk Driver, but they sued the city, and won, because the intersection where the accident happened, had all blinking red lights at the time of the accident, due to some kind of maintenance.
Those people wouldn't have hit the city for a couple hundred grand or more, if the damn kid had worn a seatbelt. lasz, I see where you're coming from, but the problem isn't what kind of driver you are, it's the $-sign in their eyes' SOB's that are quick to grieve, and quick to sue. The money amount would have been a lot less if that kid had worn a seatbelt. They had a picture of the car from the accident. The damage was severe to the front end, but the cab was intact enough, that if the boy hadn't have gone out the window, he might have only had seatbelt bruises. And a ticket for driving without a license.
-
You know, I wear my seatbelt every time I get in my truck. Not because it's a law. Not because I'm afraid I'm going to cause an accident or run off the road. I wear it because of the other 10 million IDIOTS who are out there on the road with NO CLUE!!!!!!! I've been in 4 accidents and none of them were my fault. 2 were fairly serious accidents and if it wasn't for my seatbelt I probably would have ended up in the hospital. As it was I walked away with a sore shoulder and hip from both of them. That was it.
I would NEVER ride a motorcycle without putting a helmet on either. Sorry but I belive my brain is worth protecting. Those that don't want to wear a helmet, well I guess they don't consider their brains worth protecting.
I personaly think anyone who doesn't USE a SAFETY device that is built into a vehicle or is offered as an option is plain stupid. Seeing as how driving isn't a right, your arugment about the government infringing on your rights by making and enforcing seatbelt laws is just as stupid as not wearing one in the first place.
BUT if your that fired up about it how about this as an alternative. If you choose to not wear a seatbelt or helmet, you MUST first sign a Do Not Resucitate order and have it on file. That way when you do smear yourself all over the road, the rest of us don't have to worry about picking up the medical fees because you were do damn stupid to use a safety device that was put there to save your life. That way you can feel FREE to be an idiot and the rest of use can go on about our lifes not having to worry about you.
-
This is just Lazs' way of letting his mother know he hated eating those greens as a kid. Mom told him to eat them and he's never forgotten that fact.
DOWN WITH MOM'S FORCE FEEDING GREENS TO KIDS!!!!
The gov't may dictate you wear your seatbelt but, as you have shown, you don't have to wear one. Just accept the consequence(s) of that decision be it financially or physically.
I see it more as a common sense move than a 'you must do as I say' move. I could never think of operating a vehicle without the proper safety equipment being utilised. Even IF the gov't didn't say we had to I'd still do it.
-
I miss natural selection. It solves all of our problems.
-
This isn't aboot safety, what he's concerned aboot is the fact that govment is becoming more and more controlling over the people. You can't smoke here, you can't drink there, where a seatbelt or pay a fine, etc. The govment is just using thw safety arguement to get more money from fines to those who don't wear them. And yes, driving is a skill, not a privelege. I can drive better than most people who have licenses, and I don't have one. Licenses are only aboot getting more money from you, as are license plates and tags. I don't have a license, but I drive just fine.
-
I'm gonna ask it, because it's one of the first questions that pops into anyone's head:
McFarland why don't you have a license?
-
I don't need one.
-
By Law, to operate a Motor Vehicle on a public Road in any state of the United States, yes, you do. Have you been pulled over? If so, what have you told the policeman who did?
I know that anyone can learn to drive a car on the road, without the necessity of haveing a physical license...Just the same as someone could ride a horse, or a bicycle.
-
I don't need a license, as there are no cops where I drive. And I can ride a horse to work if I have to. I would prefer to do that, but the locals in town don't exactly like farm animals.
-
Frode,
Remember this is the intardnet where a person can claim just about anything. There's no proof of a claim and very few folks here travel enough to make verifying anything extremely unlikely.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Laz, you don't even have a right to drive. It's a priveledge, not a right. That's why it's licensed.
PRIVILEDGE
who says its a privilege?
the same who say you must where a seat belt, or a helmet
the same people who say weed is as bad as heroin.
but yet it is okay to drink alcohol witch killz 100,000 people a year.
please a priviledge...
i own those damm roads so do you.
and i will also say this for you who do believe that driving is a priviledge,
you are a damm robot, open your damm eyes...
driving is NOT a privilege its a nessesity in this screwed up world we live in
where we as a people have taken what is good and turned it into bad and whats bad turned it into whats good...
-
Really,
Here's a test. Try and take possession of that road you claim to own. Go ahead and just squat on it claiming you own it. Watch what happens.
-
Technically, we do own the roads, as it was our tax money that payed for their construction.
-
Some thoughts on Governmental control of what people can and can't do............
"Whenever we take away the liberties of those whom we hate we
are opening the way to loss of liberty for those we love."
Wendell L. Willkie (1892-1944)
Ameican lawyer, businessman, politician
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
enemy from oppression."
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
Anglo-American writer
"He was one of those men who think that the world can be saved
by writing a pamphlet."
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)
English prime minister
"Nobuddy kin talk as interestin' as th' feller that's not
hampered by facts or information."
Kin (F. McKinney) Hubbard (1868-1930)
American humorist, journalist
"The great mass of people . . . will more easily fall victim
to a big lie than to a small one."
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)
German dictator
"Many politicians lay it down as a self-evident proposition
that no people ought to be free until they are fit to use
their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old
story who resolved not to go into the water until he had
learned to swim.", from Lord Macaulay an English historian.
"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free
to do then in what we are free not to do." Eric Hoffer
American philosopher.
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking
others to live as one wishes to live." Oscar Wilde Anglo-
Irish author.
These are pretty good IMHO...........
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H.L.Mencken
"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." -- Plato, Greek philosopher (427-_347 BC
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." —Daniel Webster
"Dangerous laws created by well intentioned people today can be used by dangerous people with evil intentions tomorrow." - Alan Eppers
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” —Albert Camus
These make a very great deal of sense to me ...........
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.” —Giordano Bruno
“There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are ‘just’ because the law makes them so.” —Frederic Bastiat
And for those that think MAKING others do something for the cost benefit I offer these.............
We lost many of our rights when we asked government to control
our neighbors for our benefit -- or simply looked the other way when others did so.
What government can do to our neighbor, it can -- and will -- do to us. Freedom is something that we must give to others if we wish it for ourselves.
HMMMM................... :D
I THINK this is what Laz is really tryin to say.
-
The ONLY rights you have are spelled out in the Bill of Rights. I've read them and no where in it was driving listed.
Now way back when, when cars first started coming onto the scene in large numbers, the local, state, and finally the federal governments started to regulate the proper use and safety of motor vehicles. Why did this happen way back then?? Because people were dying and the rest of the populace told their elected officials to do something about it. Laws were written and passed and here we are today.
I suppose you guys think the government regulating air travel is a bad idea too huh? How about food, or drugs? Naw we don't need the government to mandate that companies meet federal standards for safety on their products and enact laws for the proper use of those safety features on public roads or in the air, or your local resturant or drug store. The people that own those companies would NEVER risk YOUR life for a profit would they??
There is a BIG differance between regulating your rights and regulating safety for the public good. No differance than having to take a Hunters Safety course to get a hunting liscense. It's required for me to hunt, but in NO WAY infringes upon my RIGHT to own a firearm.
But here's the real question. What are you going to tell the judge when you go into court to fight your ticket for not wearing a seat belt? That the law infringes upon your rights? Man let me know when your court date is because I want to be there for that one. The reaction from the judge should be priceless....right before he finds you guilty and fines your stupid butts.
Actually that was only one question I had concerning this thread. Here's anouther one. Why in the world would you not want to wear a seat belt or motorcycle helmet? Just because the law says you have too? WHAAAAAAA...they say I have to wear this stuff. When my head is smashed in and I'm on life support and being fed through a tube, I'll show them!!!!
Idiots!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
But here's the real question. What are you going to tell the judge when you go into court to fight your ticket for not wearing a seat belt? That the law infringes upon your rights? Man let me know when your court date is because I want to be there for that one. The reaction from the judge should be priceless....right before he finds you guilty and fines your stupid butts.
Many times people have gone to court over the seat belt laws, AND THEY WON. The govment can't force you to protect yourself. And thus, the cases never hold up in court, and the people win, the govment loses.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Actually that was only one question I had concerning this thread. Here's anouther one. Why in the world would you not want to wear a seat belt or motorcycle helmet? Just because the law says you have too? WHAAAAAAA...they say I have to wear this stuff. When my head is smashed in and I'm on life support and being fed through a tube, I'll show them!!!!
It isn't that we don't want to wear them, it's that we don't want the govment to MAKE us wear them. If we let them tell us to wear them, then next they'll make us get rid of our guns, next they'll make us not cuss, next they'll make us only talk good aboot them. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
It isn't that we don't want to wear them, it's that we don't want the govment to MAKE us wear them. If we let them tell us to wear them, then next they'll make us get rid of our guns, next they'll make us not cuss, next they'll make us only talk good aboot them. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.
Thank you for proving my point.
Even though you KNOW the law is there to protect you, because the government made the law, you don't want to follow it. And like I said in my other post there is a big differance between regulating something like public safety where it concerns driving a vehicle which you do NOT have the right to do vs owning a firearm which you DO have the right to do.
There is NO test to own a firearm because it is a RIGHT granted under the Constitution
There is a test for driving a car on public roads and laws that govern the use and safe operation of that car. If you break those laws then you get fined.
As for all those people that have won cases about not wearing seat belts, I'd like to see some proof of that. I have 3 good friends of mine that have been ticketed for that very reason over the last six months or so, and all of them thought they could get it tossed out. All three of them ended up having to pay the fine.
Oh as far as you saying the government can't force you to protect yourself. Your right but the government can make you pay for not doing it. I've written my share of tickets to people because I'd go onboard their boat and they wouldn't have enough life jackets for everyone onboard. That's a violation of safe boating practice and I have fined people for it. Guess that makes me one of the bad guys huh? Well I'll be a bad guy then, because I'd rather write a ticket and have that person learn an easy leason and fix the problem than have to fish a dead body out of the water. I've done that too many times.
The fact is people are 9 times out of 10 to damn stupid for their own good. I know, I've seen it. The entire point of this thread proves it.
-
if the law says driving a privilege, maybe it's time to change the law.
Florida and Pennsylvania have both overturned the motorcycle helmet laws, but the nannys are trying to reinstate them.
-
what about teh debbul government telling us where we can and can't throw our trash? if i want to throw my coffee cup on the side of the road or any other public place that i pay taxes to support, who are they to stop me!
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
The ONLY rights you have are spelled out in the Bill of Rights. I've read them and no where in it was driving listed.
Now way back when, when cars first started coming onto the scene in large numbers, the local, state, and finally the federal governments started to regulate the proper use and safety of motor vehicles. Why did this happen way back then?? Because people were dying and the rest of the populace told their elected officials to do something about it. Laws were written and passed and here we are today.
I suppose you guys think the government regulating air travel is a bad idea too huh? How about food, or drugs? Naw we don't need the government to mandate that companies meet federal standards for safety on their products and enact laws for the proper use of those safety features on public roads or in the air, or your local resturant or drug store. The people that own those companies would NEVER risk YOUR life for a profit would they??
There is a BIG differance between regulating your rights and regulating safety for the public good. No differance than having to take a Hunters Safety course to get a hunting liscense. It's required for me to hunt, but in NO WAY infringes upon my RIGHT to own a firearm.
But here's the real question. What are you going to tell the judge when you go into court to fight your ticket for not wearing a seat belt? That the law infringes upon your rights? Man let me know when your court date is because I want to be there for that one. The reaction from the judge should be priceless....right before he finds you guilty and fines your stupid butts.
Actually that was only one question I had concerning this thread. Here's anouther one. Why in the world would you not want to wear a seat belt or motorcycle helmet? Just because the law says you have too? WHAAAAAAA...they say I have to wear this stuff. When my head is smashed in and I'm on life support and being fed through a tube, I'll show them!!!!
Idiots!!!!!!!!!!!
From your reply I get the impression that you are missing the POINT?
The matter isn't about saftey or anything of that nature.
The question is where do the REGULATORS of our saftey for our own good STOP?
BTW I wear seat belts because I've been in one or two accidents. I also prefer to wear a helmet for the same reason when I ride.
WHAT I DO NOT WANT is a regulation telling me I must do either.
WHY? try reading or rereading my earlier post and think upon what is contained there.
Or do you want to wait until the government decides YOU must be protected from yourself regarding something you consider a RIGHT?
-
So lets just get rid of ALL laws then. According to you guys the government has no buiesness telling anyone how to conduct themselves in society.
You tell me, what laws do we need and what laws can we do without? How about exposing yourself in public? It should be my right to go out naked in public if I want to. I'm not hurting anyone else by doing it, so why is it agaist the law? How about jaywalking? I have the right to walk anywhere I please. If I want to be stupid and walk out in the middle of traffic I should be allowed to, and if you hit me with your car it's your fault because you hit me.
I don't agree with everything the government does. However I do believe that seatbelt and helmet laws are pretty straight forward and are common sense laws. Seatbelts are installed in all new cars because the government says they will be. The government also says that since those safety devices are installed in all new cars that if you want to drive on public streets, roads, and highways, you will use them. OK fine by me, makes sense. They save lives.
-
hornet.. are you saying that if I don't wear a seatbelt then I would need to give up my medical insurance?
I have as good a insurance as you have... maybe if you eat fat foods or drink booze you need to sign a "do not recesitate" waver? why should I pay for your bad habits?
I wear a seatbelt about 50% or more of the time... in my hot rods.. I am a grown man and I evaluate my own risk and pay my own way.
What is your test? that anything.. any activity is a privlidge and can be taken away if it causes someone some expense? skydiving? swimming? drinking? hiking? camping? motorcycles?
I think that you wearing a helmet and a seatbelt is probly a good idea and... so far as I am concerened... it it strictly your business. You are welcome to do so. n or not.
people who say that driving is a privilige even tho we build the roads and payed for them are correct of course.
It matters not what is right... if you try to take back the roads or even avoid paying for them you will have the government take away your freedom and property...if you resist you will be killed by the government... with the cheering and "serves em right" of your fellows who believe that they have the right to make you do things for "your own good".
might makes right. the government has the might.. it gives them the right to dictate what is a right and what is a privilege. It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong but who has the power.
I am just saying... if we are wussy enough to let em make us buckle up... we are wussy enough to let em decide how much fat we are allowed to have in our diet or whatever... we are going backwards instead of forwards.
I am dissapointed in my fellow Americans who seem capable of accepting any amount of government intervention in their personal lives "for their own good"
it is disgusting and disheartening.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
If I want to be stupid and walk out in the middle of traffic I should be allowed to, and if you hit me with your car it's your fault because you hit me.
why would it be my fault? You put yourself in a dangerous position.
before you talk of laws, you must talk of crime and what is a crime. To me there are only two crimes, the crime of violence and the crime of theft, everything else is feel good nanny laws.
If you do not cause harm to anyone or take what is not yours, you should not be burdened by tens of thousands of stupid laws.
-
Originally posted by eagl
And for anyone who says "well, I'm insured so I should be able to do whatever I want", I call BS. Nobody but Bill Gates (and others with a similiar amount of money) has enough insurance to cover a lifetime of assisted living following brain injuries caused by not wearing a helmet or seatbelts. That means that after the insurance runs out, someone needing that kind of help is either on the street or suckling at the public fund teat.
On the other hand, there are many, many more situations that have the same result. as you said.. "Nobody but Bill Gates" has the ability after a certain point.
That includes all people with crippling and long term illness, which is much more frequent than anything to do with seatbelts or helmets.
Watersports aquires high numbers of accidents that are very serious each year. Should we ban them or take away the choice?
On the job construction accidents are very frequent. A lot of these are to people with NO insurance. A good percentage of these are to people who are not even legal citizens. Want to Ban or overly govern construction?
The list could go on and on............and it will as long as the U.S. public allows our rights to be chiseled at one chip at a time. Check the similarities out to what is happening here in our country to those that have ended up at the hands and whims of their government. That`s how it is done...one chip at a time.
What is going to happen when they take away or overly govern something that is of great interest to each individual?
Freedom and freedom of choice does not get taken away all in one big swoop. It is slow.......but very, very deliberate. You have to open your eyes to see it though. If you don`t, and it continues, you just might wake up after it is too late.......................if it is not as of now.
-
of course.. politicians are immune from seatbelt laws. you do not have to wear a seatbelt in taxi or a limmo.
I wear seatbelts in my Healey.. I do not have to. the law says that if the car did not come equipped with them then I don't need to wear em.
My el camino has lap belts.. I wear em.. they don't bother me and the car is scary fast like the healey.. I drive it hard.
the lincoln has those horrible 3 point belts that, for me, completely destroy the driving experiance... anyone who has taken a trip with the 3 point belts and then without em realizes how uncomfortable they are and how much they destroy an otherwise enjoyable experiance... but then.. most new cars destroy the enjoyment of a trip. I don't wear em in the lincoln...
I don't wear em in my girlfriends s10. I wear em when I ride with other people in their cars which means... I ride in other peoples cars maybe once a year when it absolutely can't be avoided. I don't like other peoples cars much anyway.... I don't like other people driving me either. no way would I let a woman drive me if I had any other choice.
Airports are the same... so what if we have a little "inconvieniece" to be "safer"? I don't feel safer and... it has ruined air travel for me.
Air travel used to be fun and maybe even an adventure.. now it is like watching some black and white WWII movie with the nazis at a french train station. the "security" has taken all the joy out of air travel.
so where do you "for your own good" sheeple draw the line? is there even such a thing as a line you won't cross when it comes to security over freedom?
Our founders dumped a bunch of tea.. over something pretty silly.. I am glad they did. They had the guts to draw the line and say... "no further".
we don't. we buckle up.. we even police ourselves... we do the governments work for em.
lazs
-
Hornet:
"The fact is people are 9 times out of 10 to damn stupid for their own good. I know, I've seen it. The entire point of this thread proves it."
Say that to Lazs again :D
(9 times)
-
Originally posted by john9001
bring back prohibition, the moonshiners need the income.
We have prohibition. It's called the drug war.
-
We had a thread or 2 like this about motorcycle helmets some time ago---the "you're an idiot and the law is for your own good" segment ganged us no-helmet types like frat boys on a drunk chick:)
-
Originally posted by bj229r
We had a thread or 2 like this about motorcycle helmets some time ago---the "you're an idiot and the law is for your own good" segment ganged us no-helmet types like frat boys on a drunk chick:)
I think we've had more than 2 or 3 threads like this over the years. When I rode a lot, 60's and 70's, helmets were the law in Texas, not Kalifornia. If I'm correct, the roles are now reversed and to lazs I offer, nanny nanny boo boo. :p
-
Not wearing seatbelts or helmets is stupid, high risk behavior. Passing laws requiring people not to be stupid is even stupider and isn't exactly in the spirit of true freedom.
Both points have been made already but I wanted to chime in my support for common sense.
-
There, a way of very simply wording what I've been trying to say all along.
-
maybe not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt is stupid... swimming is stupid... drinking is stupid.. skydiving is stupid.
To me.. a helmet ruins the experiance of riding a motorcycle. I like to hear and see what is going on around me and have the wind in my hair. I will take the infintesimal risk that I will hurt my head.
For me... wearing the seatbelts that come with new cars ruins the experiance of a trip on the road. they are extremely annoying to me. for the thousands of hours of discomfort they cause I will take the minute little chance that I will get into any kind of a wreck where I might get more injured without em.
who enjoys air travel these days? If there were an airline and airports that operated like one 10 years ago I would still be willing to fly.
You let your wives and girlfriends drive you around... you (I say you in the broad sense... you know who you are) have never really learned how to handle a car in extreme situations... you think you can get away with smoking a little weed or drinking and driving... You are riding a motorcycle that is 100 times more capable than you are and therefore extremely dangerous in your hands.
And you say that I am stupid? I am taking much less risk than you are.
But hornet... at least you have allies... they socialists who think their government can do no wrong.. the angus's.... they think you are right.. the more government control the better. That must make you feel all warm inside I betcha.
lazs
-
and vor... put simply... it may not be the safest thing to do... not wearing seatbelts or helmets but it is far from "stupid high risk behavior". the chances of either of those things paying off for the thousands of hours of discomfort are minimal.
Helmets are worn by race car drivers and you have to crawl in the car over the full cage rollbar. but... it is very safe.
By your logic... not wearing a helmet in a car and a firesuit and a full cage rollbar is very stupid risky behavior.
Now they have roll control on cars so you can't corner too fast.. the idea being that people are too stupid so you need to mandate how they corner.
lazs
-
Originally posted by bj229r
We had a thread or 2 like this about motorcycle helmets some time ago---the "you're an idiot and the law is for your own good" segment ganged us no-helmet types like frat boys on a drunk chick:)
Come to Texas boys.
We fight the idiotic helmet laws like they are the plague here.
We`ve been up and down and back and forth, but at the presence we have it our way.
We are , however, thinking of introducing a "No running with sharp objects" proposal for the naive and nanny dependent to occupy their mind.
-
yep... most of the people who are telling us that it is a small inconvienece and worth it and all that have never rode without a helmet for any length of time to compare.
They are so used to the uncomfortable 3 point seatbelt that they don't know any better. or.. they just like to tell people what to do.
It is like the people of socialist countries who have never even handled a handgun telling me that they are no good for anything but killing someone at 10'.. that you can't hit anything with one past about 10'.
They are amazed when they ever do get to shoot handguns at how accurate, fun to shoot, and well made they are... at the feeling of security they give.
I think that most of the people who like seatbelt and helmet laws are people who can't drive worth a damn... they need to wear seatbelts and helmets and...
they know it... they don't want people making fun of em for looking like a dork with a helmet on in 100+ degree weather soooo... they vote to make everyone do it.
lazs
-
I'm not trying to tell you what to do or even what to think. Live however the hell you'd like and extend the same courtesy to me. Isn't that how it should be?
-
yes vor.. that really is the way it is supposed to be.
lazs
-
but... for eagl and all the others who simply bought the insurance companies bs and soundbites...
http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/goldstein/goldstein2.html
This is a very complete study on the effects of wearing a helmet and fatalities and serious injury.
In short.. it states that Helmet use increases neck injuries.
speed and intoxication have the most to do with fatalities no link can be found between helmet use and prevention of fatalities (survivability) despite the myths and the "it saved my life" hearsay... there is no stat that says you are more likely to survive a serious crash if you are wearing a helmet. at fatal speed an intoxication...
you are going to die... helmet or no helmet. and...
If you survive.. you are far more likely to suffer a neck injury if you were wearing a helmet than not.
at best it is a tradeoff at non fatal speeds.. you get some minor reduction in head injury with a helmet but trade off for increased neck injury.
" Past a critical impact velocity to the helmet, measured by the normal component of velocity, helmet use has a statistically significant effect which exacerbates the severity of neck injuries.
Using the point estimates in equations 5-8 and the average weight of the helmet (2.70), estimates of this critical impact speed are around 13 mph. Beyond this realistically attained critical speed the energy absorbing ability of the helmet which is capable of reducing the extension- flexsion response of the neck to head impacts are surpassed. Under these circumstances, the inertial and post-impact response of the neck are intensified due to the added mass of the helmet and neck injuries result. An impact to the head whose normal component of velocity is 20 mph will increase the severity of neck injuries by around 10. Equations 7 and 8 also reveal that marginal increases in helmet weight do not have a statistically significant effect on the severity of neck injuries. This finding along with the acceptance of the zero constraints in equations 5 and 6 imply that it is the added mass of a helmet and not its specific weight that is responsible for exacerbating neck injuries. "
but.. regardless of the controversy... the choice of any trade off in personal safety should be just that..
personal....
Read the entire study and you will see that while a helmet may be a great thing for sports like football or riding a slow bicycle.. there is no clear cut advantage on a motorcyle and any of the speeds normally operated at.
lazs
-
fatal speed my A** LOL
tell your Story Robert Kubica who survived the last
High Speed Formula 1 Crash in Canada, tell him to not wear
a Helmet because it doesent matter :rofl
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
fatal speed my A** LOL
tell your Story Robert Kubica who survived the last
High Speed Formula 1 Crash in Canada, tell him to not wear
a Helmet because it doesent matter :rofl
Was he on a motorcycle?
Do they use the head/helmet straps in formula one like they use em in nascar?
-
wrag does it really matters, motorcycle or car?
crashes at this speed can end fatal with our without a helmet,
but a helmet can help to protect your only one brain.
Why else this GP guys:
(http://www.motomag.com/spip/IMG/jpg/Rossi-Gibernau_course.jpg)
wear one, because it just looks cool? lol
wear one or not, its your brain. I doubt the gouverment can help either here.
-
that's called a "hans device", it was mandated after Earnhardt and other drivers had their necks broken by the heavy full face helmets.
do they have a hans device for motorcycles? One motorcycle mfg is testing air bags for motorcycles, whats next, seat belts and roll cages?
-
That, and the helmet gives you more area to put your advertisements.
But, I know seatbelts don't save lives as much as people think, me cousin was killed by one. He believed they should be worn, (although, he also believed it was your choice), he always wore one. But, he was killed by his. In a driver's side impact, it will hold your head to the blow, instead of allowing it move away from it. If me cousin hadn't been wearing a seatbelt, he would have lived.
-
Seatbelts do save lives, there is irrefutable evidence. They don't save everyone but they try.
-
But they have been known to kill people as well. So it's 50/50 there, whether wearing one is safe or not. Depends on the crash.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
But they have been known to kill people as well. So it's 50/50 there, whether wearing one is safe or not. Depends on the crash.
Source?
-
Originally posted by McFarland
But they have been known to kill people as well. So it's 50/50 there, whether wearing one is safe or not. Depends on the crash.
No, they have a much better record than 50/50. Please don't make me dig into government databases.
-
The record is better than 50/50. But the probability is 50/50.
-
That's illogical.
-
Originally posted by VOR
That's illogical.
Ditto.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yep... most of the people who are telling us that it is a small inconvienece and worth it and all that have never rode without a helmet for any length of time to compare.
I think that most of the people who like seatbelt and helmet laws are people who can't drive worth a damn... they need to wear seatbelts and helmets and...
lazs
For the record... it is exactly that reason (above) That i ride with a helmet on my american made steel, wear a life preserver while I'm running 25 miles offshore, and wear a seatbelt on I95 at 75 miles per hour. It's not me I'm worried about...it's the jackoff in the next vehicle who is reading the paper, getting a bj and sipping a cup of coffee on the way to work.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
The record is better than 50/50. But the probability is 50/50.
What is your source.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
..it's the jackoff in the next vehicle who is reading the paper, getting a bj and sipping a cup of coffee on the way to work.
Wow, I'd like to BE that guy!!!:D :D
-
Me own thoughts are me source. There's a 50/50 chance of getting hit in the front/rear and getting hit in the side. In a side impact, the seatbelt will hold you to the blow, thus giving you less chance of surviving. However, in a front/rear impact, it will hold you away from the blow, thus helping you. But for side impacts, seatbelts are no good.
-
Well, that can be your little secret. ;)
-
That confirmed what I figured. Absolute empirical subjectivity with preconceived notion.
:rolleyes:
-
Well, if you could think for yourself instead of what the govment and insurance companies spoon fed you, you would find that what I said is true. Me cousin was killed by his seatbelt, I know what I'm talking aboot.
-
McFarland,
I investigated collisions for a living, In other words I was a professional in the area.
-
Professional or not, I can see with me own eyes that a seltbelt will hold you to a side impact, thus increasing your chance of injury. Tell me cousin that it won't. I know what he would say. Some professional if you can't see that what I'm saying is true.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Me own thoughts are me source. There's a 50/50 chance of getting hit in the front/rear and getting hit in the side. In a side impact, the seatbelt will hold you to the blow, thus giving you less chance of surviving. However, in a front/rear impact, it will hold you away from the blow, thus helping you. But for side impacts, seatbelts are no good.
Complete bull****. Ask me how I know.
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/txflood77598/IM000486.jpg)
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/txflood77598/IM000483.jpg)
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/txflood77598/IM000481.jpg)
The seatbelt saved my life, no doubt whatsoever. Side impact, my door was hit ajar from the impact and my seatbelt kept me in the car rather than becoming a human flesh streak on the highway. And if you think wearing seatbelts is ONLY for saving lives you shouldn't be posting here. There's a reason beyond safety that racecar drivers wear their restraints as tight as possible: feel for the vehicle. I can't stand loose seatbelts, I want to feel what the car is doing as it's doing it.
-
I know what I saw. Me cousin was killed by his seatbelt holding him to the impact of that tree. I'll explain to you how it happened:
It was supposed to be a race, but it may have turned into a fight. Whether it did, we will never know. But we know he was murdered. He neared the finish line, and crossed it before the other guy. The other guy, he doesn't like this. So he pushes the back end of me cousin's car, twice. My cousin spun around on the road more than 180 degrees, his back wheels go into the ditch. The front wheels get traction again, spinning the car around. It goes off the other side of the road sideways, and jumps a ditch four feet deep. The wheels catch the rim of the ditch, though, and proceed to start his car into a flip, but first he hits a tree in his driver's side door, his seatbelt catches, holding him to the blow. He wipes out the tree, and proceeds to flip, end over end now, five times, ending up with his front facing the the road, his car turned 180 degrees since it hit the ditch, and on it's wheels. If me cousin had not been wearing a seatbelt, he would have survived. You can't say seatbelts are completely safe.
-
And if you can't tell what the car is doing by the sound of the engine, the feel of the wheel, and the way the road in front you looks, you aint much of a driver.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
I know what I saw. Me cousin was killed by his seatbelt holding him to the impact of that tree. I'll explain to you how it happened:
It was supposed to be a race, but it may have turned into a fight. Whether it did, we will never know. But we know he was murdered. He neared the finish line, and crossed it before the other guy. The other guy, he doesn't like this. So he pushes the back end of me cousin's car, twice. My cousin spun around on the road more than 180 degrees, his back wheels go into the ditch. The front wheels get traction again, spinning the car around. It goes off the other side of the road sideways, and jumps a ditch four feet deep. The wheels catch the rim of the ditch, though, and proceed to start his car into a flip, but first he hits a tree in his driver's side door, his seatbelt catches, holding him to the blow. He wipes out the tree, and proceeds to flip, end over end now, five times, ending up with his front facing the the road, his car turned 180 degrees since it hit the ditch, and on it's wheels. If me cousin had not been wearing a seatbelt, he would have survived. You can't say seatbelts are completely safe.
Ahhh, the proverbial "one in a million" accident. I am sorry to hear about your cousin, it's unfortunate that this kind of thing happens, but it does. I can counter with my next door neighbor, 17 at the time. He decided to make a very tragic decision and wound up getting in a head-on collision rather than riding the shoulder. He died instantly, seatbelt would have done nothing. His mother, riding in the back, without a seatbelt, was thrown foreward into the dash at 50 mph. Died later at the hospital when it was determined she was brain dead. The only survivor, of both cars, was his girlfriend in the passenger seat, the only one among the 2 cars and 5 passengers, and was the only one wearing a seatbelt.
Now we can go round and round about accidents but seatbelts save lives, there's no arguing that. There were always be a "one in a million" accident, of which my accident was one as it was a head on collision that I forced into a glancing side impact. As for "And if you can't tell what the car is doing by the sound of the engine, the feel of the wheel, and the way the road in front you looks, you aint much of a driver.", no argument here. But you did leave out the feel that seatbelts give you from all 4 wheels, something a steering wheel will not do. And if you don't believe that you ain't much of a driver.
-
Don't wear seatbelts, helmets, condoms, or whatever safety device that is available.
Just make sure you pay for you own health insurance as Darwin's theory takes hold.
-
I pay for my own insurance.
I have never cost anyone any increase on their insurance or medical expenses.
I have ridden bikes since I was a kid.
I don`t wear skid lids.
So..........how are you going to spend your big bonus check you got from your insurance company?
You did get one ...didn`t you?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nope... I have put over 50,000 miles on the Lincoln without ever putting on the seatbelt.
Smart...
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Me own thoughts are me source.
I dont know whether to laugh or cry.
-
LOL, I bet McFarland is actually Beetle making fun of the rest.
Or?
(Okay, seetbelts are stuuupid, so are drug laws and gun laws and concern for the environment)
-
well.. the people in socialist countries all agree that we should be good little citizens and let the government decide what we can and can't do... surprised at how many "americans" are buying it tho.
Did any of you read the study?
the reason race car drivers (and me when I am racing) wear helmets is because.... you are just as likely to die of a head injury in a car as on a motorcyle. If you were so worried about head injuries you would be wearing a helmet in your car... otherwise... you are just participating in "stupid dangerous behavior"
It is laughable... diablo... what makes you think the seatbelt saved your life? I have been in a worse wreck... much worse and had no seatbelt. I don't claim not having one saved my life but... I am about sick of the people who all claim to have been saved by a seatbelt that were in fender benders... are we that fragile?
On a race bike you won't hit anything solid most likely.. you will skid and slide and maybe bump your head on the ground due to the weight and size of the helmet... dirt tracks are worse and.. the chance of hitting another bike or your own a glancing blow is high along with scraping up your body and head. without a helmet you would abrade your head.
So why don't you guys wear helmets and have full cage rollbars in your cars?
In two of my cars I wear helmets when I race along with the seatbelts... I take the helmet off when I get on the street....
Does anyone see a disconnect there? both my hot rods are very fast and very likely to get me into trouble. I wear belts in em. the lincoln? sheesh... comeone.. if that pig gets smashed enough to kill me I will die seatbelt or no.
moray makes my point for me... he wears swim floataion devices only when he thinks it is dangerous... he admits the possiblility of drowning in water but prefers to be stupid and dangerous most of the time... a candidate for the darwin award... he will drown in a pool most likely. because he has spent thousands of hours in water that he felt he didn't need a flotation device in...
just like me in the lincoln huh?
hypocracy is rampant on this board.. people here, like everywhere love to tell their fellows what they must do "for their own good" but... their behavior is different... they are special. they are not "stupid" and they are "adults"
able to decide for themselves.
I bet moray has a frigging cow when the women pass laws to make everyone wear flotation devices at all times in all waters. No exceptions.
lazs
-
and... speaking of exceptions... you "darwin" types ride in taxis and buses driven by gawd knows who and are not wearing seatbelts or helmets.
I bet some of you even let your wives drive... hell... I bet with some of you guys skill level... you are probly better off letting women drive. Talk about darwin awards.... driving a car with your skill level and think a seatbelt will save you is the funniest thing about this thread. if it weren't so pitiful.
lazs
-
What's the next clever theory Lazs?
Skydiving without a chute?
-
skydiving is stupid risky behavior... it cost us all money. It has no purpose.
lazs
-
so...run for office and change the law, sheesh what a whining nelly you are.
-
no chance I could run or.. if I could.. would win..
Still.. I may have changed a few minds here.. if so, it is worth it. dispelled a few myths the women have fostered over the years.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well.. the people in socialist countries all agree that we should be good little citizens and let the government decide what we can and can't do... surprised at how many "americans" are buying it tho.
This has got nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with common sense. Riding a car without a seatbelt is plain stupid. Sure you can come up with an example of an accident where the guy would have survived had he not worn a seatbelt. Those are one in a million though.
You can also come up with examples of guys jumping out of airplanes with failing chutes and surviving falls of several thousand feet. But that doesnt really say anything about how smart it is to wilfully jump out of airplanes without parachutes...does it?
When it comes to seatbelts and other traffic laws, we need to have laws and regulations. Simply because otherwise there would be some brainiac out there who thinks he can drive perfectly safe while drunk, or at 155mph, or whatever.
-
Thanks to the grace of God, I walked away from this one with nothing more than a broken elbow and a couple of fractures to the face and ribs. Had I not been wearing a seatbelt, I would have died that night.
Icy patch, evening, me doing 140 km/h.
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Hortlund/DSC00124.jpg)
-
Originally posted by McFarland
I know what I saw. Me cousin was killed by his seatbelt holding him to the impact of that tree. I'll explain to you how it happened:
It was supposed to be a race, but it may have turned into a fight. Whether it did, we will never know. But we know he was murdered. He neared the finish line, and crossed it before the other guy. The other guy, he doesn't like this. So he pushes the back end of me cousin's car, twice. My cousin spun around on the road more than 180 degrees, his back wheels go into the ditch. The front wheels get traction again, spinning the car around. It goes off the other side of the road sideways, and jumps a ditch four feet deep. The wheels catch the rim of the ditch, though, and proceed to start his car into a flip, but first he hits a tree in his driver's side door, his seatbelt catches, holding him to the blow. He wipes out the tree, and proceeds to flip, end over end now, five times, ending up with his front facing the the road, his car turned 180 degrees since it hit the ditch, and on it's wheels. If me cousin had not been wearing a seatbelt, he would have survived. You can't say seatbelts are completely safe.
Sorry your cousin died. You describe a situation based on that collision. I've been to many many collisions doing investigations of what and how it happened.
The scenario you described would likely be fatal in any event, seat belt or not. You claim the belt held him to the impact. The scenario you describe would have had him striking an object at high speed. The car door comes to a very sudden and violent deceleration. His body is not going to magically slow down or not also impact the door at the same speed the car was traveling, belt or not. The impact likely would have killed him anyhow since there was NOTHING to slow the rate of deceleration from the impact. No matter what he was going to hit the side of the door there at high speed since the body does not slow before impact with something. The belt didn't "hold him to the blow" his own inertia forced him into contact with a fixed object, the tree, via the door the same as if he had just hit the tree with his body at the same speed.
Your succeeding description was of a car flipping 5 times. You honestly expect a non belted body to remain in a car through that??? Do you not think that even somehow he had remained in the vehicle that he wouldn't have been thrown around inside the car as it violently flipped end over 5 times???
Sorry it wasn't the belt that killed him. It was the high speed impact with the tree and the flipping of the vehicle end over end. The only reason his body was still in the car instead of being flung out, possibly being struck be the car or simply smashed into the ground by the high speed impact with the ground was because he had a belt. If the impact was severe enough to wipe out a tree and flip the car like that not to mention a very rapid 180 turn there is no way you can expect a human body to withstand that kind of force unprotected or to remain in the far stronger car without a belt.
You want to dismiss the use of a safety item because it wasn't 100% proof against everything. Sorry but life is not like that. The only single absolute 100% guarantee you have in life is death. You simply want to dismiss the other 95% protection the belt would give you simply because it's not proof against every possible situation. That's simply foolish petulance based on an incorrect assumption.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Thanks to the grace of God, I walked away from this one with nothing more than a broken elbow and a couple of fractures to the face and ribs. Had I not been wearing a seatbelt, I would have died that night.
Icy patch, evening, me doing 140 km/h.
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Hortlund/DSC00124.jpg)
because of drivers like you, we have to wear seat belts.
Icy patch, me doing 140 km/h. :O
-
Meh, it was on the highway. Two lanes going in each direction with 10-15 meters of terrain and fence between the roads. We salt the highways here in Sweden, so they are usually snow/ice-free. This particular night it had been thawing during the day, and when the sun went down some patches of ice were created.
Im still not sure exactly what happened though, Ive got a memory-loss from ~30 seconds before the accident. Its either an ice-patch or ball-bearing-faliure on the front right wheel. All I know is that the car behind me said that I suddenly and for no apparent reason went into a 90 degree turn to the right, hit the snow-wall, flipped over and landed on front side in the ditch.
-
It is laughable... diablo... what makes you think the seatbelt saved your life?
Physics dictated it. Oh, and common sense as I was actually there. Equal and opposite reaction. But that may be too deep for you Lazs so I'll let you ponder how an off-angle hit just aft of the driver's door caused my head to hit the driver's side t-top and left a big 4-inch bruise on my skull, i.e. the Camaro went one way, my body wanted to go the other. The seatbelt kept me in the car. Forget us Darwin types, you "one in a million" types are far more laughable.
-
These are the pics right after the accident. You can see in the first pic to the left how the driver's do was hyper-extended almost to the front quarter panel. It was that way the whole time I was spinning and I still remember being restrained by the seatbelt instead of being ejected. The pole that is going through the driver's door actually split the fiberglass skin away from the metal door frame as the car came to a rest.
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/txflood77598/wreckcollage.jpg)
Look, it's not like I am supporting a government mandate, I wear my seatbelt regardless of what the government thinks. To me it's the same as if the government dictated by law that you have to sleep by closing your eyes. Emminent Domain is a far more worrisome government practice to me.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no chance I could run or.. if I could.. would win..
Still.. I may have changed a few minds here.. if so, it is worth it. dispelled a few myths the women have fostered over the years.
lazs
it's that bad eh...at least give it a shot, or you'll never know.
-
diablo.. if the injury was to your head then... you needed a helmet more than you needed a seatbelt. you mean to say you hit your head and didn't die? I bet if you would have been wearing a helmet and it had a scar from the wreck you would be telling us the helmet saved your life.
that wreck just doesn't look that bad to me.
The dirty secret is that you are just as likely to die of a head injury in a fatal car crash as a fatal motorcycle one...
why aren't you guys going on about how "stupid" and "darwin" when people don't wear helmets in cars? why do race car drivers wear helmets in cars.
look.. I agree that you are probly better off if you get into a wreck if you have a seatbelt on... probly not near as much as the blown out hype over em but...some.
My point is... it is your life... far as I am concerned.. it is your decision.
If you had told people in the fifties.. when cars were even less capable.. that they would have the government force em to wear seatbelts they would have revolted.. no one would have complied...
In a couple of years you will be wearing helmets in cars because some woman passed a law "for your own good" and everyone will be talking about how "stupid" anyone who doesn't wear one is.
diablo and others will show pics of some fender bender where the new helmet law in cars saved his life.
point is.. it is your life. thousands of hours wearing an uncomfortable seatbelt may not be a good tradeoff for the miniscule chance that it may some day save your life... not for everyone anyway.
right now none of you safe freaks and namecallers are wearing helmets or firesuits even tho people die mostly from head injuries in car wrecks.
you are hypocrites... you call other people stupid while doing equally stupid things. You don't wear a helmet not because it isn't safer (look at race car drivers) but because it is uncomfortable. by your logic you should be wearing a helmet.
lazs
-
Of course the wreck doesn't look that bad to you, you didn't have to experience it. On the same token a lot of wrecks don't look that bad and some are down right devastating but that doesn't dictate who lives and who dies. In my 24+ years of driving it is the only wreck I've been involved with.
Your pessimism about seatbelts won't change the fact that I believe my seatbelt did indeed save my life. Had I had a hardtop Camaro rather than a t-top version I am sure my head would have been more severly injured than it was. My injuries were minor and I can thank the seatbelt for that; left shoulder deeply contused, sternum bruised from seatbelt restraint, right hand suffered deep soft tissue trauma from the airbags going off and hiting the Hurst t-handle shifter. Chances are, if I HAD beeen wearing a helmet no injury to my head what so ever would have happened. Maybe I'll use one from now on, who knows.
You can split hairs all you want to about 'what ifs' when if comes to safety. The common sense aspect of operating motor vehicles is 1)drive defensively 2) wear your seatbelt. I in no way find my 3-point seatbelt uncomfortable in the least and, if I could, would gladly use a 5-point system if I could get it to work with my stock seats. Until then, my 3-point system is just fine.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
. Chances are, if I HAD beeen wearing a helmet no injury to my head what so ever would have happened. Maybe I'll use one from now on, who knows.
:rofl :aok
I in no way find my 3-point seatbelt uncomfortable in the least and, if I could, would gladly use a 5-point system if I could get it to work with my stock seats. Until then, my 3-point system is just fine.
:D
Don`t go into the dark. There`s booger bears in there.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skydiving is stupid risky behavior... it cost us all money. It has no purpose.
lazs
Okay. How about safety chutes like in WW2 or ejector seats too?
Maybe you're also against condoms :D ??
-
"there are 20,000 home fatalities each year and 20 million medical visits due to unintentional home injuries. Falls are the most common injury."
that is why i wear my helmet in the shower, sure it's hard to wash your hair but i want to be safe. Dirty hair is a small inconvenience to be safe.
-
diablo... I can't post pics but would be glad to show you a pic of a car wreck I was in where a corvair hit a tree at 45 mph.. a 3' thick oak tree.
3 people in the car.. none wearing seatbelts. none died.. the front wheel and suspension is in the front seat..it shattered the guy leg who was sitting there.
I can send you the pic and you can post it. if we had been wearing seatbelts I KNOW we would have been written up as people who were saved by seatbelts.
I have seen maybe a half a hundred motorcycle wrecks back when no one wore helmets... I never seen any that would have lived if they had worn a helmet...
When helmet became mandatory... all of a sudden... every scratch on a helmet became "proof" that helmets saved the guys life.
you say that the seatbelts are not in the least bit uncomfortable or inconvienient.. I would have to say that you have little time behind the wheel... on long trips I move around.. try reaching across the seat to roll down the window (or up) wearing a seat belt. try reaching for a cold drink in an ice chest on the floor... try stretching or changing position..
I have not seen one 3 point that didn't rub me across the shoulder or neck in an uncomfortable way. I don't mind lap belts but even then.. it should be my choice not yours.
We all do risky things... we all take our chances. anyone who doesn't isn't living. we add up the risk factor and do it anyway.
Because commercials have told the sheeple here that one form of risky behavior is more stupid than another... the sheeple parrot it and regurgitate it back at me.
That is where I am coming from. I don't need to hear insurance company and government slogans puked back up at me by sheeple who have no real experiance.
I don't need to be told what safety equipment I need to have to ride a motorcyle or drive a car by people who are so unsafe just being in or on one that god won't be able to save em much less a few safety items.
lazs
-
Ive been a Policeman in a big city for 24 years, one that has very strict gun control. I think anyone that thinks gun control works is out of their head. Its just a convenient "out" for the Politicians to spin the blame for crime on. Its far safer to blame guns then to blame parents for making throw away babies that grow up into gangsters and run the streets red with blood. A good Sat. night for us is one where the gangs "dont" take total control of a housing project with their AKs, Tech's, HP rifles, and assorted chrome. I mean it. There have been many times we cant even go near one due to the volume of fire.
Real nice! Gun control. Gee what a brilliant idea.
-
Remember seatbelt/ignition interlocks? The people DID revolt then; I wonder if they would now.
-
retro... because of my deep concern for the environment I have manual windows.. they are 30-50 years old and have never needed to have new plastic and electrical parts made and discarded and they don't put a drag on the alternator thus robbing fuel mileage..
but... I have the seatbelt all the way down it is still one uncomforatable torture device.
to prove my point... take any example where people have a choice and no one will wear the uncomfortable things... most states make taxi cabs exempt and buses... taxis have seatbelts in them... no one uses em cause they don't have to.
In states without helmet laws... most ride without helmets. Why even have a seatbelt of helmet law if it is only the really stupid who would not use em?
Maybe we could pass a law that when you reached 50 or so you could decide for yourself... after all... the more you live past that the more it "costs" everyone else..
lazs
-
ah.... so waste is ok so long as it is within your idea of the right amount?
I would imagine that there are hundreds of way you could cut waste but that might cost you a little and make your life a little harder... I think that until you live a life that is making less carbon than me for instance... you have no right to tell me how to "save the planet".
You are the one that said I was oppossed to alcohol fuel... I told you that I was fine with it but that is just won't work... you need to re-read charon.
If you make me use e85 all you will do is make me spend a weekend tuning up my car to take advantage of your gift and pick up 100 or so cheap HP...
I said thanks and now you are mad. Unless you can punish or be superior you don't want to play.
I think you are either beetle of a clone. If so... your lifestyle is far more polluting and wasteful than mine.
That being the case...you...like algore.. have no right to tell others to live less grandly than you.
lazs
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
OMG i just had to post. For those of us who love to laugh at idiots this thread is pure gold. lazs2 you are a real peice of work and I hope I'm never on the same road as you. You do realize that if you go through a windsheild you become a very heavy projectile moving at a fast speed which endangers anyone whom you may hit, so it is NOT just your safety that your risking by not wearing a seatbelt. Oh and by the way I happen to know a few WOMEN racers who will outdrive you anyday. I just hope you realize the error in your thinking before your flying through the air at 80mph 2 inches above the ground.
-
I got the point, you actually have to read what he wrote to get it not just browse and cherry pick words and form an opinion. All I can add is one wreck out of ten we think if he had worn his seat belt he wouldn't have been ejected from the car, the other nine a seat belt wouldn't have mattered.. Maybe its not
the majority....Its that one person out of 10 it might save....
Does that make sense?!
I dont know
-
It should be a matter of choice, not a matter of law. It's just something to make more money with fines. If it stopped making money, they wouldn't have a problem with it being taken out of law.
-
If you say a normal seatbelt is a torture device, it hints something about your anatomy :D
-
Yes, he's either tall or short, seatbelts are designed for medium people. Nothing bad about that. Excpet for the seatbelt.
-
Could be a belly thing also. Pregnancy belt could solve that :t
-
gryphon... sorry but you are full of it.... people don't go "flying out the windshield at 80 mph"
I dare you to find one example of a case where someone was thrown from the car and then the car became a danger because it no longer had a driver... the cases where drivers were ejected the car came to a sudden stop or was rolling.. staying with the car would not help anyone.
as for you "knowing" women race drivers that drive better than me... I kinda doubt that you do. I actually do know a few women who drive race cars and they are pretty good but... they aren't the ones that you let drive you around are they? they aren't your wife or girfriend and they are not the ones you and I are sharing the road with are they?
But thank you for bringing up the old myth about drivers being thrown through the windshield and driverless cars killing millions again... haven't heard that on since the women were trying to get the seat belt law passed
as for my anatomy... little over 6' tall and about 185 lbs... about normal... the seatbelt just digs into my neck on a trip... I like to move around... The lap belts in my hot rods don't hamper me enough to matter but the stupid crossing guard/hall monitor shaped three point does. If you say that it doesn't bother you then it is because you are a liar or you have just never driven on a long trip with and without one to compare.
Like I said... if they weren't uncomfortable then people would have no reason to not wear em...they would use em in cabs... they would put em in old cars...
Hell... if they weren't a pain to wear... you wouldn't even need a law would ya?
If zillions of people were ejected through windshields you wouldn't need a law would ya? People would believe your myth and wear em.
I can't believe how willing you girls are to let big brother tell you what to do and worse... how willing you are to not only give up your freedom but to take others freedom away.... you should be ashamed...
lazs
-
Remember.......only you can prevent HUMAN PROJECTILES.
What a load of happy horses.................well you get the idea.
-
oh yeah... jackal... it is how myths get started.. it sounds really cool.. and almost like it would work but... unless the car stops real sudden or it spins real fast.. you can't get thrown out... in either of those cases.... you would not be able to control the car after or during such an event... you would be stopped or upside down or dead... seatbelt of no.
The PC.. "women drive just as well as men" crap is just frosting on the cake. I won't even let most men drive me around much less the women these alarmists feel perfectly safe letting drive them around.
and that is the point.. they don't do enough to learn how to drive and are too lazy or PW to not let the women drive em around and so they don't want to be the only wuss on the road in a three point sooooo... they want everyone to be..
At best... they are simply drones who are conned by the myths the alarmists throw at em.
If you are against personal freedom then you are either evil or petty or stupid or selfish or lazy or some combination of all of those things.
lazs
-
Yep. I tell you what is really scary. It`s all the gum injuries in this country from toothbrush bristles. Why hasn`t the government, in their infinite wisdom, came up with a bill requiring air bags on molar rollers?
-
It's also okay to smoke, - and while it kills more than the drinking, it kills a part of those who have nothing to do with it. I remember you defending the right to smoke anywhere Lazs. Personally I would than have the right to punch any annoying smoke belcher in the face without getting fined :D
It is always debateable where to draw the line. But debating if there is any "nannying" authority to be at all is another issue.
-
i got hit by a van while cycling. damn was i glad i had a helmet . He hit me at 70mph from behind . got away with whiplash and cuts . i had paint under my nails for 2 mounths after . my bikes forks (marzocchi) were totaled , my Downhill spec crank arms (practicaly unbreakable ) were broken . my body totaled the left side panels of the van .
but Laz says helmets don't work.
-
I think those that do not want seatbelts or helmets should be able to do as such. Their insurance should be seperate from those who choose to wear belts and helmets. Nothing wrong with freedom as long as that person is able to bear the cost of such freedom.
I believe this will help thin out the population a bit too. I still think it should be mandatory to have insurance because that is where one person can affect another person's livelyhood.
I'm also all for freedom to the extent of the government not supporting folks. I mean anyone not wanting big brother in their business should mean in any circumstance.
-
My sister in law, who is a professional horse-trainer just got dumped off a rogue horse the other day. She was wearing a helmet but she got hit hard enough to break the helmet, as well as some ribs etc. It is estimated that without helmet she would have been as good as dead.
(Me bad, never wore a helmet untill recently. First in a certain action where various stuff would rain over you, then as a fisherman at sea, where as working on deck requires a helmet, - mandatory for safety reasons, and proof for it's good is ample)