Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should seatbelt laws exist?
Yes 190 62.91%
No 104 34.44%
Unsure 8 2.65%
Voters: 302. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-05-2012, 04:26 PM
 
Location: So Cal
10,019 posts, read 9,454,847 times
Reputation: 10437

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
A young girl(she was 5 years old) died here in Southern California several years ago in a car fire. She burned to death. The culprit that prevented her from being saved was a child seat that she could not be freed from.

Does that explain my opposition to seatbelt laws?
A rare occurence, now show us stats where not using a car seat or seat belt saves more lives than using them.

 
Old 12-05-2012, 09:08 PM
 
Location: USA
13,255 posts, read 12,083,105 times
Reputation: 4228
Quote:
Originally Posted by VLWH View Post
A rare occurence, now show us stats where not using a car seat or seat belt saves more lives than using them.
Regardless, its an issue of preference.

Show us a stat where smokers live longer than non-smokers.
 
Old 12-05-2012, 09:09 PM
 
Location: USA
13,255 posts, read 12,083,105 times
Reputation: 4228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
No, it's because I'd like to stay on topic. If someone wants to discuss smoking, let them start a thread.
Let's stay on topic. The topic is risk.
 
Old 12-05-2012, 09:13 PM
 
Location: USA
13,255 posts, read 12,083,105 times
Reputation: 4228
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
What a crazy fallacy.

wow.


1) you can look at the seat belt states vs. non-seat belt. Enforcement raises seat belt rates.

2) seat belt rates on a macro level lower death by accident. In 2009 seat belt primary law enforcement (i.e. the above) is thought to save as many as 12k lives.


3) You do not have a right to drive on state/government owned highways. It is a privilege. The state has authority, on behalf of its people, what you must do for a privileged. If you want you can drive on a non-state owned highway without these crazy rules. good luck with that.


4) there is no such thing as a victumless event. The cost to society in lost taxes, health care, etc. are not recouped. Insurance companies do not have the right to revoke your insurance if they find you don't have a seatbelt on. Perhaps if a hospital could turn you away without money/insurance companies could reject you for not wearing a seat belt we would have a fair deal. That doesn't exist today. If insurance companies and health care can not recoup the cost for your reckless they are forced to pass those costs to us.

5) seat belt laws are for idiots. I mean seriously, most people are smart enough to wear the damn thing. Yet society (per the above) should be protected from the idiots. They exist. they are stupid. they are illogical. More concerned about their rights then doing the right thing (even if the right is fiction). So don't let the law bother you. If your doing the right thing, and wearing a seatbelt on state owned (and non-state owned) roads, your fine. Seat belt laws are just there to protect our pocketbooks from idiots.


Seat Belt Statistics


Seat belts save lives

Seat Belt Safety, Seat Belt Laws
Irrelevant.

Not smoking saves lives.
 
Old 12-05-2012, 09:33 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,041,295 times
Reputation: 7875
Still support the seat belt law, I thought this thread was dead? Either way, it looks like it is on its way to hitting 100 pages.

Also it looks like 2 to 1 support the seat belt law.
 
Old 12-05-2012, 11:50 PM
 
Location: where time stood still nepa
5 posts, read 1,986 times
Reputation: 21
am new here, I haven't noticed discussion on types of h'wys, routes, lanes or city traffic vs urban.
If driving 25 mph to little store in rural area, the local constabulary has seatbelt checkpoints... fine is $110. Driving on major thoroughfare ie beltways other 12 laners is different.
So here we are, surrounded by 11 air bags being all safe and such; We should maybe wear helmets in vehicle too.
All in all, it's a revenue source getting ticketed for something we "might" do.
(driving accident free 43 years wearing belt when my judgement sez so)
 
Old 12-06-2012, 01:04 AM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,414 posts, read 10,459,648 times
Reputation: 4304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post
Because you are doing no harm to anybody else by not wearing a seatbelt.
I will say the harm is the added costs for insurance for the idiots who choose to not wear their seatbelst and suffer greater injury resulting in larger medical costs that we all end up sharing the cost of in the long run. Like people who run stop signs regulary have a greater chance of being in a collision. Added measures for ones safety lessens related costs in the end. That and I would rather survive an accident then suffer great injury or death as a result of not wearing a life saving device. I have always worn my seat belt and have never had an accident or ticket in the 36 years I have been driving.
 
Old 12-06-2012, 04:40 AM
 
Location: NH
4,188 posts, read 3,722,587 times
Reputation: 6714
Seeing how no one made any comments I will reiterate what I posted before.....

If this is a safety issue id like to know how many of you stating that by not wearing a seatbelt you are.... putting others at risk, worried about tax payers, victims families actually drive without using your turn signals when changing lanes, talk and text on your cell phone while driving, dont pay attention to the road, etc... You cant preach safety when you blatently put others at harm by not obiding by these safety guidelines that are set forth to protect everyone. Laws such as this dont necessarilly restrict ones decisions on their own safety but look to keep the roads safe. Not wearing a seatbelt does not make the road any less safe but its drivers such as the ones above that put everyone at risk. So, basically we need a law to protect us from drivers that dont obide by the other rules of the road. There should be more strict punishment for those that dont obide by those rules of the road and let everyone keep some sense of freedom to choose on wearing a seatbelt or not. The less poor drivers on the road means less accidents. INstead of making laws to blanket other ones why not nip it at the root of the problem. Id love to hear someone that preaches the importance of wearing a seatbelt that swerves in and out of traffic with out using blinkers...I see this everyday and I guess they feel it is important to wear them because we need to be potected from drivers such as them.

Regardless of seatbelt or not, if you are involved in an accident there will need to be a clean up crew, police officers, medics, etc.. on scene. You are going to rack up bills just as those who dont wear a seatbelt and are involved in an accident. Perhaps if death was to occur for not wearing a seatbelt your medical bills would be far less than those of the ones wearing seatbelts that were severely injured but will need lots of medical attention the rest of their life.

As far as trauma for the rubber neckers...any accident severe enough that it would be traumatizing for someone to witness would be equally traumatizing seeing a bloodied body trapped inside a mangled vehicle clawing to get out vs a perhaps body that flew into the woods, over a guardrail, etc... that wont be seen by anyone.

Would these scenarios happen everytime? absolutely not but it seems as though tis entire post is circumstantial so why not base my reply on the "maybe" factor. After all, getting in an accident is just a "maybe" anyway so why not answer the question with possible outcomes.

Yes, smoking is not the topic at hand yet it is a very similiar example. How can you agree with one but not the other? Your contradicting yourself if you do and it goes to show you its all about money. So discussing a similiar example though not related is staying on topic. SOmetimes you have to look outside the box.

Again, its about personal freedoms, not the outcomes. Everyone knows the associated risks, some choose to accept them, some choose not to. Why should I have to be forced to protect myself if I dont feel the need? ANd I do wear my seatbelt if you are wondering.
 
Old 12-06-2012, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,345,034 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustangman66 View Post

Yes, smoking is not the topic at hand yet it is a very similiar example. How can you agree with one but not the other? Your contradicting yourself if you do and it goes to show you its all about money. So discussing a similiar example though not related is staying on topic. SOmetimes you have to look outside the box.

Again, its about personal freedoms, not the outcomes. Everyone knows the associated risks, some choose to accept them, some choose not to. Why should I have to be forced to protect myself if I dont feel the need? ANd I do wear my seatbelt if you are wondering.
I did not express my opinion about smoking; I said it was not germaine to this discussion. I've been on a few smoking threads where people start hijacking the thread to talk about seat belts!

You should be forced to protect yourself if you don't see the need b/c it's not just yourself you're putting at risk with your behavior.
 
Old 12-06-2012, 08:54 AM
 
Location: NH
4,188 posts, read 3,722,587 times
Reputation: 6714
Katiana, sorry wasnt looking to change the subject or have the thread hijacked, I just find it very relevant to the discussion in hand. You cant say the govt is concerned with ones safety if they blatently allow another unsafe practice to happen that puts everyone else at risk too.

Again, I wear my seatbelt but could care less if anyone around me didnt. Its not my concern. If they happen to get into an accident and die because of it...oh well, that was there choice. I dont see anyone being at risk because one does not wear a seatbelt. I know its been mentioned in here before but why not outlaw motorcycles then? Riding a motorcycle is no different then driving a car without a seatbelt. Im not trying to change the subject, just dont understand how for one thing it is ok, but the other that is essentially the same thing is not ok.

This subject is about the freedom to make a personal decision. We all know its safer to have a seat belt and for those that want to wear one go ahead, if you dont, dont. Whats next? am I going to get a ticket because my belt doesnt match my shoes? or a female getting ticketed for wearing hoop earings because they could get hooked on something? Its sounds silly but its where we are headed. 50 years ago one would have said it was silly to have a law for wearing seatbelts.

Its frustrating to think many think we need big brother to look over us. Its a false sense of security.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top