179 réponses à ce sujet

[sympathy4saren]

In Pennsylvania, it is requirement to wear seatbelts. Why? Furthermore, motorcyclists who have over two years cycle driving experience and over age 21 don't need to wear a helmet.

What's up with this whole ordeal?

[Rockworm503]

Here in Utah they'll give you a ticket for not wearing... if a motorcyclists wants to run the risk of losing their face on the smallest fall or if you want to smash your face into your windshield when you have to stop really fast thats one less idiot on the road to deal with.

[Kronner]

IMHO it should be required to use a seatbelt..everywhere and all the time.

If someone on a bicycle or motorcycle doesn't use a helmet..(s)he is stupid.

[Eurypterid]

Research has shown that wearing seatbelts significantly reduces injury and death in car accidents. I don't know what the medical system is like in Pennsylvania, but here in Canada with government health care, it's a matter of "Hey, we're not willing to let you be an idiot on our dime. Buckle up."

Personally, I'll never understand why people are so dead set against wearing a simple piece of safety gear.

[bmwcrazy]

sympathy4saren wrote...

In Pennsylvania, it is requirement to wear seatbelts. Why? Furthermore, motorcyclists who have over two years cycle driving experience and over age 21 don't need to wear a helmet.

What's up with this whole ordeal?

I wouldn't call wearing seatbelt an ordeal. It's a slight annoyance to those who are not used to it (if you're from another country) but it's not as painful as having your peepee cut off and gound up in a garbage disposer.

[KenKenpachi]

NC is pretty much like Canada when it comes to traffic violations, expensive as ****, and you can't step foot behind the wheel here without insurance. In fact reguardless of age of where your sitting you must where a seatbelt. A helmet is required to NC DMV Safety standards, reguardless of age on a motorcycle, even f your a passanger..

Anyways as to the law, meh I wouldn't mind if they got rid of it, if your willing to jump around or don't want even modest safety features, while behind a half a ton to two tons of metal, or if you don't want to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, while going at speeds no creature on this world can reach, fine by me. Your removal would do humanity a favor.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 13 juillet 2011 - 10:44 .

[Homebound]

Eurypterid wrote...

Research has shown that wearing seatbelts significantly reduces injury and death in car accidents. I don't know what the medical system is like in Pennsylvania, but here in Canada with government health care, it's a matter of "Hey, we're not willing to let you be an idiot on our dime. Buckle up."

Personally, I'll never understand why people are so dead set against wearing a simple piece of safety gear.

i know right?

[Elhanan]

Because it saves lives, and helps prevent higher costs for EMT's, hospitals, police having to inform the loved ones, etc?.

http://www.usatoday....est-death_n.htm

Modifié par Elhanan, 13 juillet 2011 - 11:00 .

[chunkyman]

sympathy4saren wrote...

In Pennsylvania, it is requirement to wear seatbelts. Why? Furthermore, motorcyclists who have over two years cycle driving experience and over age 21 don't need to wear a helmet.

What's up with this whole ordeal?

I don't understand seatbelt laws either. The decision to wear seatbelts is something that only affects me, so I don't see why we need to be fined if we decide not to.

[Rockworm503]

chunkyman wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

In Pennsylvania, it is requirement to wear seatbelts. Why? Furthermore, motorcyclists who have over two years cycle driving experience and over age 21 don't need to wear a helmet.

What's up with this whole ordeal?

I don't understand seatbelt laws either. The decision to wear seatbelts is something that only affects me, so I don't see why we need to be fined if we decide not to.

A doctor after being told you didn't wear your seatbelt and flew through your windshield "I don't see why I need to work on him I have other patience letting him die only affects him"

[KenKenpachi]

chunkyman wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

In Pennsylvania, it is requirement to wear seatbelts. Why? Furthermore, motorcyclists who have over two years cycle driving experience and over age 21 don't need to wear a helmet.

What's up with this whole ordeal?

I don't understand seatbelt laws either. The decision to wear seatbelts is something that only affects me, so I don't see why we need to be fined if we decide not to.

No not true, see if we played Chicken and I had my seat belt on and neither swerved, and you flew out of your windshield and hit me thus being propelled at terminal force and decapitating me in most likelyhood, I would feel very very cheated in our game of chicken.

Though that makes me thing of those two black kids who were thrown out of the back window of there car on 87 when it flipped, and plowed into another car killing the driver.

[chunkyman]

Rockworm503 wrote...

A doctor after being told you didn't wear your seatbelt and flew through your windshield "I don't see why I need to work on him I have other patience letting him die only affects him"

An acceptable trade-off. 

[Boiny Bunny]

chunkyman wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

In Pennsylvania, it is requirement to wear seatbelts. Why? Furthermore, motorcyclists who have over two years cycle driving experience and over age 21 don't need to wear a helmet.

What's up with this whole ordeal?

I don't understand seatbelt laws either. The decision to wear seatbelts is something that only affects me, so I don't see why we need to be fined if we decide not to.

I suppose that depends on the country that you live in.

As an Australian, if I'm in a car crash and sustain an injury, I'd be rushed to a hospital and fixed up on the government's money.  So, fewer hospitalisations should, in theory at least, reduce government costs.

Rather ironically, before seatbelt laws were introduced, a decent car crash would often result in death.  Nowadays that same car crash leads to moderate or major injury - which costs the government far more to deal with in the long term than somebody simply dying on the scene.

There is also of course, the idea of imposing laws upon you to protect you from yourself.  For example, laws about drink driving, usage of illegal drugs, etc.

[Chuvvy]

I don't know, I've never understood why in some states you have to wear a seatbelt but not a helmet, it's weird.

[Chuvvy]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

chunkyman wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

In Pennsylvania, it is requirement to wear seatbelts. Why? Furthermore, motorcyclists who have over two years cycle driving experience and over age 21 don't need to wear a helmet.

What's up with this whole ordeal?

I don't understand seatbelt laws either. The decision to wear seatbelts is something that only affects me, so I don't see why we need to be fined if we decide not to.

I suppose that depends on the country that you live in.

As an Australian, if I'm in a car crash and sustain an injury, I'd be rushed to a hospital and fixed up on the government's money.  So, fewer hospitalisations should, in theory at least, reduce government costs.

Rather ironically, before seatbelt laws were introduced, a decent car crash would often result in death.  Nowadays that same car crash leads to moderate or major injury - which costs the government far more to deal with in the long term than somebody simply dying on the scene.

There is also of course, the idea of imposing laws upon you to protect you from yourself.  For example, laws about drink driving, usage of illegal drugs, etc.

The benefit of modern medicine is that more people live longer, funny how that works.

[Boiny Bunny]

Slidell505 wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

chunkyman wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

In Pennsylvania, it is requirement to wear seatbelts. Why? Furthermore, motorcyclists who have over two years cycle driving experience and over age 21 don't need to wear a helmet.

What's up with this whole ordeal?

I don't understand seatbelt laws either. The decision to wear seatbelts is something that only affects me, so I don't see why we need to be fined if we decide not to.

I suppose that depends on the country that you live in.

As an Australian, if I'm in a car crash and sustain an injury, I'd be rushed to a hospital and fixed up on the government's money.  So, fewer hospitalisations should, in theory at least, reduce government costs.

Rather ironically, before seatbelt laws were introduced, a decent car crash would often result in death.  Nowadays that same car crash leads to moderate or major injury - which costs the government far more to deal with in the long term than somebody simply dying on the scene.

There is also of course, the idea of imposing laws upon you to protect you from yourself.  For example, laws about drink driving, usage of illegal drugs, etc.

The benefit of modern medicine is that more people live longer, funny how that works.

Yes - from a fiscal point of view, something that is quite undesirable.

[Swordfishtrombone]

chunkyman wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

In Pennsylvania, it is requirement to wear seatbelts. Why? Furthermore, motorcyclists who have over two years cycle driving experience and over age 21 don't need to wear a helmet.

What's up with this whole ordeal?

I don't understand seatbelt laws either. The decision to wear seatbelts is something that only affects me, so I don't see why we need to be fined if we decide not to.

Because it is NOT something that only affects you - it is potentially something that affects others involved in a car accident with the person who is not wearing a seat belt. In a bad collision, without a seatbelt, you've just become a missle. Tough luck for not only you, but anyone who happens to be in the way. You can fly through your windshield, into the car you just crashed into, killing or injuring the occupant in the other car.

Or, more commonly, if you are on the back seat while someone else is driving, and you're not wearing a seat belt, in a crash, you are thrown at the seat in front of you with tremendous force - enough force to severely injure or kill the person sitting on that seat.

So it's not just about you - it's about the safety of other commuters as well.

[Lord Sullivan]

Eurypterid wrote...

Research has shown that wearing seatbelts significantly reduces injury and death in car accidents. I don't know what the medical system is like in Pennsylvania, but here in Canada with government health care, it's a matter of "Hey, we're not willing to let you be an idiot on our dime. Buckle up."

Personally, I'll never understand why people are so dead set against wearing a simple piece of safety gear.

Well, there are disavantages from said gear like "Discomfort", jakets, shirts get badly wrikled and in the winter it's even worse. Oh what's that you said about "idiots" and "on our dime"? last time I check it's not the goverments money, it is our tax dollar and choosing the to take an extremly low risk of injury is in no way idiotic. I think the sheeple in our country are well trained to hype the hyperbol the Goverment sales us.

[chunkyman]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Because it is NOT something that only affects you - it is potentially something that affects others involved in a car accident with the person who is not wearing a seat belt. In a bad collision, without a seatbelt, you've just become a missle. Tough luck for not only you, but anyone who happens to be in the way. You can fly through your windshield, into the car you just crashed into, killing or injuring the occupant in the other car.

Or, more commonly, if you are on the back seat while someone else is driving, and you're not wearing a seat belt, in a crash, you are thrown at the seat in front of you with tremendous force - enough force to severely injure or kill the person sitting on that seat.

So it's not just about you - it's about the safety of other commuters as well.

Anything can potentially affect others, but by and large seatbelts are a personal decision. I personally always wear seatbelts, but if people want to endanger themselves they should be able to. It seems like a giant waste of a cops time to stop people from being self-endangering idiots, when there are more serious crimes they could be on the lookout for.

[ObserverStatus]

sympathy4saren wrote...

In Pennsylvania, it is requirement to wear seatbelts. Why? Furthermore, motorcyclists who have over two years cycle driving experience and over age 21 don't need to wear a helmet.

What's up with this whole ordeal?

You have to wear a seatbelt because if you die in a terrible accident because you weren't wearing it, you aren't the one who has to pay to have your remains scraped off the pavement.

[Rockworm503]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Eurypterid wrote...

Research has shown that wearing seatbelts significantly reduces injury and death in car accidents. I don't know what the medical system is like in Pennsylvania, but here in Canada with government health care, it's a matter of "Hey, we're not willing to let you be an idiot on our dime. Buckle up."

Personally, I'll never understand why people are so dead set against wearing a simple piece of safety gear.

Well, there are disavantages from said gear like "Discomfort", jakets, shirts get badly wrikled and in the winter it's even worse. Oh what's that you said about "idiots" and "on our dime"? last time I check it's not the goverments money, it is our tax dollar and choosing the to take an extremly low risk of injury is in no way idiotic. I think the sheeple in our country are well trained to hype the hyperbol the Goverment sales us.

Weakest excuse I've ever seen...  I guess don't run with scissors is just hyperbole too.

[Chromie]

Lord Sullivan wrote...I check it's not the goverments money, it is our tax dollar and choosing the to take an extremly low risk of injury is in no way idiotic. I

Well if I have to pay because someone gets hurt for not using their seatbelt I still don't think it makes it right. Either way someone is paying for someones stupidity.

It's a good thing this guy had his seatbelt on or he could have flown our the window <-- warning theres some cursing.

Modifié par Ringo12, 14 juillet 2011 - 07:41 .

[Lord Sullivan]

Ringo12 wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...I check it's not the goverments money, it is our tax dollar and choosing the to take an extremly low risk of injury is in no way idiotic. I

Well if I have to pay because someone gets hurt for not using their seatbelt I still don't think it makes it right. Either way someone is paying for someones stupidity.

Yeah, tell that to the idiot that was turned into fried chicken when he got stuck in his vehicle because of seat belt malfunction and his vehicle burst in to flames. May he rest in peace.

On the other hand it's totaly non-idiotic to pay taxes to your goverment for services that you'd rather people not use... oh and lets forget that on top of all this we pay Insurance that is also suppose to pay for the same service... uhmm, you're probably right,  totaly wise.

Modifié par Lord Sullivan, 14 juillet 2011 - 07:47 .

[Swordfishtrombone]

chunkyman wrote...

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Because it is NOT something that only affects you - it is potentially something that affects others involved in a car accident with the person who is not wearing a seat belt. In a bad collision, without a seatbelt, you've just become a missle. Tough luck for not only you, but anyone who happens to be in the way. You can fly through your windshield, into the car you just crashed into, killing or injuring the occupant in the other car.

Or, more commonly, if you are on the back seat while someone else is driving, and you're not wearing a seat belt, in a crash, you are thrown at the seat in front of you with tremendous force - enough force to severely injure or kill the person sitting on that seat.

So it's not just about you - it's about the safety of other commuters as well.

Anything can potentially affect others, but by and large seatbelts are a personal decision. I personally always wear seatbelts, but if people want to endanger themselves they should be able to. It seems like a giant waste of a cops time to stop people from being self-endangering idiots, when there are more serious crimes they could be on the lookout for.

Anything can potentially affect others, but not wearing seatbelts predictably, and often DOES. Thus, as I said, it is not only about protecting you, it is as much about protecting the other people that share the car and/or the road with you.

The person not wearing a seatbelt causing serious injury or death to someone else isn't some sort of a rare freak occurrance - it happens all too often.

When we have a simple action, such as putting on a seatbelt, without which being in trafic in general is more dangerous for everyone, it's completely understandable and appropriate that it is made a legal requirement.