the seat belt law

[goodshot911SNK]

I hate that law its the most stupidest and pointless law that has ever bin passed If I want to go through the windshield Its my choice not the govs THAY do not get to decide my safety for ME I do now my mother was in a car accident when she was in here 20's (long time ago) she would HAVE DIED if she had her seat belt fastened but in another wreck not to long ago she may have died without it so I say LET ME make the choice

what do you think i do where my seat belt but well just cuss i forgot doesn't mean I need to pay the gov 101$  

[Lord Bitememan]

The law is good for two purposes. First, since injuries from going through a windshield are usually much more severe than when strapped in, this reduces resources spent on medical treatment of accident victims. Secondly, since it is much more likely that you will need emergency response in the case of someone who goes through a windshield, this reduces traffic tie-ups due to accidents. Now, if they were to replace the law to say that the general public is allowed to scrape you off the road with a shovel if you go through a windshield, and then roll your car off the road to restore the flow of traffic, we can talk about removing it.  

[goodshot911SNK]

look people where their seat belts I do but its only when you know your pulling out of seven eleven at 2.AM and you really had to have a slurpee and who's behind you popos and I get in trouble because of me forgetting something rather minor I really couldn't understand why the ticket is that much and you know if you get in an accident there where forces are getting to where people are going out windu's there WILL be repercussions on traffic ether way besides this is an example of the gov controlling are lives every day for NO reason I am not hurting anybody but ME  

[Pumona]

I always wear my seatbelt, but what I can not understand is (the last time I checked) how come their is not a helmet law for motorcycles everywhere? There is a good chance that you will die without a helmet on.  

[Lord Bitememan]

goodshot911SNK

look people where their seat belts I do but its only when you know your pulling out of seven eleven at 2.AM and you really had to have a slurpee and who's behind you popos and I get in trouble because of me forgetting something rather minor I really couldn't understand why the ticket is that much and you know if you get in an accident there where forces are getting to where people are going out windu's there WILL be repercussions on traffic ether way besides this is an example of the gov controlling are lives every day for NO reason I am not hurting anybody but ME

I'm not going to suggest it doesn't suck to get clipped on a seatbelt violation. In Michigan you can get hit for not wearing the belt if you are in either the drivers or passengers seats. One night I got hammered in a bar and crashed out on a friend's passenger seat to sober up before driving home. She decides to go for a drive while I'm passed out. I wake up in a moving car and reach for the belt to put it on. Lights flared up, we got pulled over, she got a DWI and I got hit for not wearing the belt. Fines suck. That doesn't make the law a bad idea. As to the traffic tie-ups you suggest, it's a matter of delaying traffic for 20 minutes while you conduct a quick investigation and pull the cars off the road, vs. delaying traffic for up to an hour while you shut down the stretch of road, bring in EMS, carefully isolate and restrain the head from movement, load the victim into a truck, and than dash off to the hospital, and of course then haul the cars off the road. As I said, it REDUCES traffic tie ups. I never claimed it eliminated them. Shutting down a road for 20 minutes vs. shutting it down for an hour makes a BIG difference.

Pumona

I always wear my seatbelt, but what I can not understand is (the last time I checked) how come their is not a helmet law for motorcycles everywhere? There is a good chance that you will die without a helmet on.

Currently there are only 3 states that have no helmet law at all, Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire. Most states place the stipulation that younger riders must have them, but a fairly large number of states require all riders to wear helmets. And yes, they probably all should have to wear them. But this, much like seatbelt laws, is determined at the state level.  

[goodshot911SNK]

I think that is another law that is controlling the population unnecessarily helmets can be uncomfortable and decreased vision it should only be the choice of the person riding the bike  

[Lord Bitememan]

goodshot911SNK

I think that is another law that is controlling the population unnecessarily helmets can be uncomfortable and decreased vision it should only be the choice of the person riding the bike

And when he spills it should be the choice of the hospitals not to treat him, the taxpayers not to sustain a brain damaged individual on social security, and motorists to scoop him and his brain off the road with a shovel so that he doesn't impede the flow of traffic. You get freedom up to the point that your freedom becomes an imposition on everyone else. That's when you start violating their rights.  

[goodshot911SNK]

you know I understand your point but its just to stupid I if they want me to wear a helmet they should mail me one for free because it is required that I own one so I just thin its bull the likelihood of somebody dying in a high speed motorcycle accident is probably going to impede traffic no matter what and the cyclist is most likely to sustain lethal injury helmet of not  

[Lord Bitememan]

goodshot911SNK

you know I understand your point but its just to stupid I if they want me to wear a helmet they should mail me one for free because it is required that I own one so I just thin its bull the likelihood of somebody dying in a high speed motorcycle accident is probably going to impede traffic no matter what and the cyclist is most likely to sustain lethal injury helmet of not

No, they shouldn't mail you one. They have laws saying the vehicle has to have brakes too, and guess what, it's your legal and financial responsibility to maintain those too.

And again, there is a big difference between the tie-up for a non-fatal accident, which helmets are more likely to give you, or a fatal accident, which no helmets are more likely to give you. One involves an ambulance ride and a quick clean up. The other involves a homicide investigation and can tie up traffic for hours.

If you want to dispute the relative levels of protection of helmets vs. non-helmeted crash injuries, please bring something more authoritative to the discussion than the facts and figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's assessment:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles//DOT/NHTSA/Communication & Consumer Information/Articles/Associated Files/810887.pdf  

[goodshot911SNK]

look i don't care about the not so many people that do die every year in motorcycle accidents because simply if i don't want to wear a helmet I'm not going to its that simple now why should i be punished for my choice cusses some people might hive to it in traffic for a little bit

if you issue is fatality why not make it illegal to make it illegal NOT to wear full body padding while driving a car then all the traffic in the world would end  

[Lord Bitememan]

goodshot911SNK

look i don't care about the not so many people that do die every year in motorcycle accidents because simply if i don't want to wear a helmet I'm not going to its that simple now why should i be punished for my choice cusses some people might hive to it in traffic for a little bit

if you issue is fatality why not make it illegal to make it illegal NOT to wear full body padding while driving a car then all the traffic in the world would end

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:

Quote:

Unhelmeted riders have higher health care costs as a result of their crash injuries, and many lack health insurance. In November 2002, NHTSA reported that 25 studies of the costs of injuries from motorcycle crashes "consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, probability and severity of head injuries, cost of medical treatment, length of hospital stay, necessity for special medical treatments, and probability of long-term disability. A number of studies examined the question of who pays for medical costs. Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government."23

Among the specific findings of several of the studies:

* A 1996 NHTSA study showed average inpatient hospital charges for unhelmeted motorcyclists in crashes were 8 percent higher than for helmeted riders ($15,578 compared with $14,377).24
* After California introduced a helmet use law in 1992, studies showed a decline in health care costs associated with head-injured motorcyclists. The rate of motorcyclists hospitalized for head injuries decreased by 48 percent in 1993 compared with 1991, and total costs for patients with head injuries decreased by $20.5 million during this period.25
* A study of the effects of Nebraska's reinstated helmet use law on hospital costs found the total acute medical charges for injured motorcyclists declined 38 percent.14

A NHTSA evaluation of the weakening of Florida's universal helmet law in 2000 to exclude riders 21 and older who have at least $10,000 of medical insurance coverage found a huge increase in hospital admissions of cyclists with injuries to the head, brain, and skull. Such injuries went up 82 percent during the 30 months immediately following the law change. The average inflation-adjusted cost of treating these injuries went up from about $34,500 before the helmet law was weakened to nearly $40,000 after. Less than one-quarter of the injured motorcyclists would have been covered by the $10,000 medical insurance requirement for riders who chose not to use helmets.9

Studies conducted in Nebraska, Washington, California, and Massachusetts indicate how injured motorcyclists burden taxpayers. Forty-one percent of motorcyclists injured in Nebraska from January 1988 to January 1990 lacked health insurance or received Medicaid or Medicare.14 In Seattle, 63 percent of trauma care for injured motorcyclists in 1985 was paid by public funds.26 In Sacramento, public funds paid 82 percent of the costs to treat orthopedic injuries sustained by motorcyclists during 1980-83.27 Forty-six percent of motorcyclists treated at Massachusetts General Hospital during 1982-83 were uninsured.28

and

Quote:

Courts have repeatedly upheld motorcycle helmet use laws under the US Constitution. In 1972, a federal court in Massachusetts told a motorcyclist who objected to the law: "The public has an interest in minimizing the resources directly involved. From the moment of injury, society picks the person up off the highway; delivers him to a municipal hospital and municipal doctors; provides him with unemployment compensation if, after recovery, he cannot replace his lost job; and, if the injury causes permanent disability, may assume responsibility for his and his family's subsistence. We do not understand a state of mind that permits plaintiff to think that only he himself is concerned." This decision was affirmed by the US Supreme Court.

Your choice has financial consequences for me, as well as the time it takes to treat you. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Similarly, your right to engage in self destructive behavior ends at the point that you cost me time and money. That's where I get a say in the limits on your rights, where they interfere with mine. So, if you don't want to wear a helmet and won't where one, good for you. The cops will fine you, and yes, since you and people like you impose more expenses and delays on the rest of us through your unsafe behavior, you deserve to be punished for it. Let me get out my shovel and scoop you off to the side of the road to free up traffic, let the hospitals refuse to treat you if you weren't wearing your helmet, and I'd say okay, you can go ahead and not wear it. But you expect us to sit around while they haul you off, and you expect hospitals to try and save your life if they can, and as long as you expect these benefits from society you get to accept the responsibilities that come with these benefits. You don't like it, tough.  

[Pumona]

Let's not forget the ever famous comment people make (or just think) "It won't happen to me"  

[Lysander the silent]

Well, seat belts are important. They restrain you from flying through the window. In common sense, yeah, they should be able to enforce the law in protection of the lives of the people. If you don't wear a seatbelt and you get into a severe accident, there's an 85% chance that you won't survive. The 15% chance that you will survive is sheer luck.  

[goodshot911SNK]

well see here's two things about seat belts number one thay may not be too comfortable for alot of people and they can also kill you and mostly they will save you but it should be only UP to you whether you wear one or not its really effecting me not you and you know people who scrape other people's heads off the road get paid for there service and same for the doctors that treat you and the for the health care system well we all know it needs some fixing  

[Pandern]

Lord Bitememan

goodshot911SNK

look people where their seat belts I do but its only when you know your pulling out of seven eleven at 2.AM and you really had to have a slurpee and who's behind you popos and I get in trouble because of me forgetting something rather minor I really couldn't understand why the ticket is that much and you know if you get in an accident there where forces are getting to where people are going out windu's there WILL be repercussions on traffic ether way besides this is an example of the gov controlling are lives every day for NO reason I am not hurting anybody but ME

I'm not going to suggest it doesn't suck to get clipped on a seatbelt violation. In Michigan you can get hit for not wearing the belt if you are in either the drivers or passengers seats. One night I got hammered in a bar and crashed out on a friend's passenger seat to sober up before driving home. She decides to go for a drive while I'm passed out. I wake up in a moving car and reach for the belt to put it on. Lights flared up, we got pulled over, she got a DWI and I got hit for not wearing the belt. Fines suck. That doesn't make the law a bad idea. As to the traffic tie-ups you suggest, it's a matter of delaying traffic for 20 minutes while you conduct a quick investigation and pull the cars off the road, vs. delaying traffic for up to an hour while you shut down the stretch of road, bring in EMS, carefully isolate and restrain the head from movement, load the victim into a truck, and than dash off to the hospital, and of course then haul the cars off the road. As I said, it REDUCES traffic tie ups. I never claimed it eliminated them. Shutting down a road for 20 minutes vs. shutting it down for an hour makes a BIG difference.

Pumona

I always wear my seatbelt, but what I can not understand is (the last time I checked) how come their is not a helmet law for motorcycles everywhere? There is a good chance that you will die without a helmet on.

Currently there are only 3 states that have no helmet law at all, Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire. Most states place the stipulation that younger riders must have them, but a fairly large number of states require all riders to wear helmets. And yes, they probably all should have to wear them. But this, much like seatbelt laws, is determined at the state level.

You forgot kentucky...you dont have to wear one in kentucky