Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-26-2012, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Full Time: N.NJ Part Time: S.CA, ID
6,116 posts, read 12,601,805 times
Reputation: 8687

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnfrisco View Post
Thanks Big Brother! Sometimes seat belts kill people, but even if they save more people than they kill it's an individual's choice--not big Gov.
This was proven only a handful of times (with millions accidents worth of proof that lives were saved because of seat belt use).

In almost every single case, the at-fault belt was type 1 belt (lap belt), which are now obsolete. Type 2 (or above) belts (3 point). I am not aware of implication of a 3 point lab belt in a fatality. If you can find one, I'm all ears (.. or eyes?).

I won't engage in the 'big brother' argument (although I tend to agree with you), but lets make sure we're spreading factual information rather than continuing the ridiculous "seat belts kill" chatter.

The most famous case was Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, and seat belts are covered under FMVSS Std. 209, if you'd like to read up on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-26-2012, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Ohio
3,437 posts, read 6,075,469 times
Reputation: 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1200RT View Post
This was proven only a handful of times (with millions accidents worth of proof that lives were saved because of seat belt use).
That is the one in 6 trillion accident I spoke of ...
Any laws on the books are not a factor in my wearing mine, which I always do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2012, 07:20 PM
 
Location: PORT ANGELES, WA
806 posts, read 2,341,797 times
Reputation: 783
Quick rides to other homes or the store nearby, 1-2 mi away. Side roads.
Main roads and further, it's on!

My kids are excellent at putting theirs on!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2012, 07:24 PM
 
Location: East Side of ATL
4,586 posts, read 7,711,684 times
Reputation: 2158
Always and if you are a passenger in my car, you have to wear one or get the hell out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2012, 07:37 PM
 
10,135 posts, read 27,480,869 times
Reputation: 8400
Watch the news. Every other time someone is killed they were not wearing a seat belt. About 50% IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2012, 07:49 PM
 
Location: South Jersey
7,780 posts, read 21,882,417 times
Reputation: 2355
my in laws.. Never wear em. They just let the seatbelt reminder bell ring away too. No matter, they refuse to wear em.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2012, 07:57 PM
 
8,402 posts, read 24,231,738 times
Reputation: 6822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Yeah, I drive with people who don't. Once I got in and was the only in the car with a seat belt on... that's four adults in the early 20 to late 20 range.

I tend to agree, it's none of the governments business. With the stipulation that if you get in a car accident with no seat belt on, you should be the one paying any medical bills. It's gross negligence not to wear one, and society or your insurance shouldn't be on the hook for stupid.
By that mentality there is a long list of reasons why people shouldn't be covered due to their own actions. Every obese person or cigarette smoker who falls ill due to their habits shouldn't be covered, right? That's gotta be a quarter of the people in the US.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilson513 View Post
Watch the news. Every other time someone is killed they were not wearing a seat belt. About 50% IMO.
That means half the people killed were wearing their belts. Same as a coin toss probability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2012, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Full Time: N.NJ Part Time: S.CA, ID
6,116 posts, read 12,601,805 times
Reputation: 8687
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmaxnc View Post
That means half the people killed were wearing their belts. Same as a coin toss probability.
Neither argument makes sense (first of all because its anecdotal and based off of local news coverage) - seat belts are of many safety features in a car. They help present fatalities, but do not pretend to solve the problem.

We're leaving out several factors, which play a huge role, mainly severity of the accident, COD, etc.

It sounds like you're arguing that you're equally likely to survive an accident if you're not wearing a belt? I'm not sure I believe that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2012, 08:15 PM
 
2,756 posts, read 4,414,405 times
Reputation: 7524
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnfrisco View Post
Thanks Big Brother! Sometimes seat belts kill people, but even if they save more people than they kill it's an individual's choice--not big Gov.

With this view, I suspect that you also agree that people should not be forced to by health insurance, right?

Well, the 5 or so young people I met with spinal cord injuries due to not wearing seatbelts...... most of them are now in poverty, on medicaid, as they didn't have health insurance at the time of their accident. So just for those 5 people..... it will cost the country millions of dollars over their lifetimes that ALL OF US will pay for their medicaid/medicare, wheelchairs, SSI/disability, lost income......

And that was so they could have their choice to not wear seatbelts, and not buy health insurance.

Foolish, foolish kids..... And many foolish, foolish adults.

It could happen to your son. Are you ready to pay for his spinal cord injury? Honestly, I don't. I don't want to pay for it, and even better, I don't want it to happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2012, 08:33 PM
 
63 posts, read 51,451 times
Reputation: 50
I think john in frisco should have that right. If you dont want to wear a seatbelt in spite of the evidence, fine.

I also think that if john in frisco gets in a car accident and suffers injuries due to not wearing a seatbelt, state-subsidized hospitals (ie, all hospitals) should be allowed to reject him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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 > Automotive
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:08 AM.

© 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