Seat belts....should it be my choice?

[Kalith]

On Thursday 30th May i was driving with my wife and kids. I was doing 26-27 in a built up area when some idiot driving in the opposit direction swerved and hit me full on.

My car was written off. It took the fire brigade two hours to free me from the car. my wife has whiplash injuries. My oldest a broken arm and whiplash. My other daughter escaped with bruising and a few cuts. I have three fractures in my leg and a broken foot.

The police said it was incredible we got out alive and that in 9/10 cases there would have been at least one fatality.

The Ambulance guy comfoted it me by telling me that if we had NOT beeen wearing seat belts then I would have been killed because part of my body would have gone through the windowscreen and the rest would have been stopped by the dashboard and steering wheel. The kids in the back would have been thrown forward and hit me and my wife before continuing towards the dashboard and screen. My wife would have been killed by the force of impact against the dashboard - Without doubt he said we would have all been dead.

So DONT tell me that you shouldnt wear a seatbelt IN the proper manner at ALL times..........tell the parents, kids and family of those who didnt.

Anyone who doesent wear a belt hasnt got enough sense to be let behind the wheel of a car

+1

[Guest]

pussies

[Guest]

You're all getting off the subject. The question was "Should it be my choice?"
To that question I would say yes. It may be stupid but does the government have the right to make us do things when the only consequencies are to ourselves? How about banning motor cycling, pot holing, horse riding, boxing or climbing? All these can kill you.
I have always worn a seat belt when one's fitted and I'm old enough that I had to fit them in my first car as they weren't there from new. They've saved me on many occasions in motorsport crashes and I agree that folks who don't wear them are stupid. However, that's their decision, not mine.

[Usquanigo]

I love all the "I (or someone I know) could've been killed!" stories. What's your point? People get struck by lightning, hit by vehicles while walking, crushed in train derailments, crashed into the ground (or buildings) while flying (or even blown up), eaten by sharks, drowned in pools and bathtubs, etc, etc, etc.

Should we ban or mandate more bullshit regulations on pools, tubs, walking, and rain storms?

For that matter - even in places where motorcyclists still have to wear helmets, they have 2 wheels, inherent instability and lack of grip, and nothing around them. Conversely, I have 4 wheels, inherent stability in all directions, more grip, and a steel cage all around me. HE doesn't wear a seatbelt, so why should I be FORCED to?

Nevermind the clear and simple FACT that the gov't should be be trying to save ANYONE from themselves. If YOU want to eat razor blades or drink arsenic, YOU should have that freedom to do so. Anything else is either fascism or communism (depending on which way your country of choice leans).

Thankfully motorcycle riders, at least in my state, if not the whole country, have recently won the right to go helmetless if they choose. Now we just have to ditch this bullshit seatbelt law.

[Ady6970]

On balance I would prefer it wearing a seat belt were still optional on the grounds that I think people should be at liberty to exercise free choice where at all possible. However I would qualify that by saying that the law requiring compulsory use of seat belts in cars has undoubtedly gone a long way towards saving many lives. A seat belt might not be a perfect restraint but it is a restraint nevertheless. That said I draw the line at the introduction of seat belts in buses and coaches which weren't designed for such things and where the seats (unlike car seats) clearly aren't wide enough.

[Usquanigo]

However I would qualify that by saying that the law requiring compulsory use of seat belts in cars has undoubtedly gone a long way towards saving many lives.

This is NEVER a valid excuse to encroach on freedoms or liberty. They that would sacrifice libery for percieved security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

And if anything - there are too many people on this planet. We can not support 6.6 billion without GM crops as it is. And as that number grows (and an increasing rate), fuel, energy, and food will become more nad more scarce per-capita. Food triply so as more people = more mouths, but the food industry wants more and more crammed down each of those mouths every year, AND more people = less usable farm land, which = less food overall to split up.

Furthermore, quite aside from the fact that the gov't should never nanny you, by saving people who take risks, aren't too bright, or just plain unlucky, is only serving to dilute the gene pool and hurt humanity overall in the long term.

No matter how you slice it, this whole premise (of seatbelt laws, among other similar things) is WRONG

That said I draw the line at the introduction of seat belts in buses and coaches which weren't designed for such things and where the seats (unlike car seats) clearly aren't wide enough.

Ah... so safety is only valid in certain types of transportation, and not others. And transportation which is inherently more dangerous is ok, despite the claim of desiring more safety in justifying these jack-booted theft of liberty. I see.

[snappy120_2]

I've seen just as many bad accidents with people wearing seatbelts along with people who don't. Seatbelts may stop minor crashes and help support you, but they don't exactly do jack for a serious crash (40+mph). Many crashes that are severe, the belts become a hazard cause they get stuck and lock you in the car when you NEED to escape.

Exactly why I always carry a knife and lighter in my car. And they do help in serious crashes. I've been in a 60mph where our car flipped. My seatbelt saved me. And god forbid your in the back when there's a crash.
I've also been in a car which spoun out into two others. I wound up crushing my arm beneath me and bruising up the area nastily. The paramedic reckoned that without the seatbelt stopping me where it did, I would have broken several ribs

Fair enough kill yourself, but you'd be taking out others with you.

Fancy it being explained to your family and friends that you're dead because you found a seatbelt 'uncomfortable'

x x x

[Usquanigo]

Fancy it being explained to your family and friends that you're dead because you found a seatbelt 'uncomfortable'

So rights and freedoms are ok to be revoked because it doesn't FEEL good in the unlikely event something goes wrong?

WTF? Are you people serious? What a Stalinist nightmare you crave. It's sad and scary at the same time. There's no way in hell I'll go peacfully into that bad night.

http://www.proudflag.com/yank/flag_culpepper.jpg
http://www.usconstitution.com/hinton.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc-vl6RQ9as

[snappy120_2]

Not only do yu run the risk of killing yourself, you could well kill others.

[Usquanigo]

Not only do yu run the risk of killing yourself, you could well kill others.

If I, or you, or ANYONE chooses to put themselves at risk, THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT. You touchy-feely liberal types can all just piss off. Do wear your hammer and sickle pin every day? Just curious.

As for other people? lol Now you've REALLY gone off the deep end. Ignoring for a moment that there are too damn many of them on this rock - just how in the hell is anyone else "at risk" when I don't wear my seatbelt? I have no control over other people in other vehicles, and if they hit me, then I'm the one at risk in your ill-informed opinion.

Truth is, I'm not at risk. I have a million airbags to lock me in place. And unless you drive a 1970 Lada, so do you.

[Ady6970]

However I would qualify that by saying that the law requiring compulsory use of seat belts in cars has undoubtedly gone a long way towards saving many lives.

This is NEVER a valid excuse to encroach on freedoms or liberty. They that would sacrifice libery for percieved security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

And if anything - there are too many people on this planet. We can not support 6.6 billion without GM crops as it is. And as that number grows (and an increasing rate), fuel, energy, and food will become more nad more scarce per-capita. Food triply so as more people = more mouths, but the food industry wants more and more crammed down each of those mouths every year, AND more people = less usable farm land, which = less food overall to split up.

Furthermore, quite aside from the fact that the gov't should never nanny you, by saving people who take risks, aren't too bright, or just plain unlucky, is only serving to dilute the gene pool and hurt humanity overall in the long term.

No matter how you slice it, this whole premise (of seatbelt laws, among other similar things) is WRONG


[quote]That said I draw the line at the introduction of seat belts in buses and coaches which weren't designed for such things and where the seats (unlike car seats) clearly aren't wide enough.

Ah... so safety is only valid in certain types of transportation, and not others. And transportation which is inherently more dangerous is ok, despite the claim of desiring more safety in justifying these jack-booted theft of liberty. I see.

[snappy120_2]

Not only do yu run the risk of killing yourself, you could well kill others.

If I, or you, or ANYONE chooses to put themselves at risk, THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT. You touchy-feely liberal types can all just piss off. Do wear your hammer and sickle pin every day? Just curious.

As for other people? lol Now you've REALLY gone off the deep end. Ignoring for a moment that there are too damn many of them on this rock - just how in the hell is anyone else "at risk" when I don't wear my seatbelt? I have no control over other people in other vehicles, and if they hit me, then I'm the one at risk in your ill-informed opinion.

Truth is, I'm not at risk. I have a million airbags to lock me in place. And unless you drive a 1970 Lada, so do you.

You sit in the back... you can kill the person in front.
Side on collision and you can kill your passenger. Rolld the car and who the feck knows where you'll end up

Some people really don't have a brain or a sense of humanity. Low in the pack and blocked hun

x x x

[Usquanigo]

Some people really don't have a brain or a sense of humanity.

Yes, freedom hating control freaks, aka communists (and their diet counterparts - socialists), sorta like you.

Ok, read this slowly and several times, maybe that will help it sink in - we are not driving around in 65 Buicks, in a modern car, you are not going anywhere, your million airbags will squeeze you in place, and there is no room to leave your area anyway. Furthermore, even IF you WERE to do so, you'd apply less pressure to another passenger than you would on those "Scrambler" rides at amusement parks.

F***, you really are desperate and reaching on this one. It's typical for your ilk to reach for ANYthing, no matter how impossible or ridiculous and cling to it as proof that people need to be micromanaged by "health and safety".

Which reminds me, obviously your point is valid, I mean, it's so dangerous to ride without a seatbelt that we didn't survive the hundred years of driving without them..... um, wait a minute... lol Nevermind motorcycles. Why aren't you trying to ban *them*?

Honestly, do you seriously have NOTHING better to do with your time and energy than trying to control people? Rhetorical question as the answer is obvious.

[Ady6970]

I can't think that's anything other than a very selfish outlook on life, an outlook which thinks only of #1 and doesn't take other people into account. Whether we love seatbelts or hate them the law insists on them being worn for a reason - to save lives.

[Usquanigo]

I can't think that's anything other than a very selfish outlook on life, an outlook which thinks only of #1 and doesn't take other people into account. Whether we love seatbelts or hate them the law insists on them being worn for a reason - to save lives.

No, of course you can't, because you want people mircomanaged and "protected from themselves", because you don't give a S*** about freedom or rights.

Call it whatever you want to call it. The fact of the matter is, it's on YOU to save YOUR life. Read that 10 times a day and maybe someday it'll sink in. It's NOT up to the gov't to do it. If you want to be safe, protect your self and piss the F*** off when someone else doesn't want to do it. It's not your call. No matter how much you feel entitled to controlling someone's entire existance.

In your own car, you can make that call - wear it or get out, just like I do with smokers - don't smoke in the car, or don't ride. But in their on car, you have no right to get involved. Life your own damn life and worry about your own issues.

The real irony is that the REAL selfishness is from YOU, wanting to have YOUR views and desires foisted on everyone else and being miserable unless they are. You're so full of yourself, so damn high and mighty, that you feel your views are the only valid ones and that everyone else must be protected from themselves because YOU feel they should be. God, talk about ego.