Posted on 07/19/2011 6:42:54 PM PDT by skeptoid
North Dakota's Senate majority leader, Bob Stenehjem, was not wearing a seat belt and was thrown from the sport utility vehicle he was driving when he was killed in an Alaskan highway crash, authorities said Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at grandforksherald.com ...
Article references North Dakota's seat belt laws.
In addition, if you'd read the article, the politician was not involved in a collision wiht other traffic. This was a single vehicle collision, his, which resulted in his death.
The moral of the story is, you can have NO traffic on the road and still die quickly.
My aunt was killed in city traffic in 1942. T-boned by a drunk driver running a stop sign. Knocked her out of the car and she hit her head on the pavement. A seat belt likely would have saved her.
OK.
I buried a man once who had been ejected from his vehicle in an ordinary rollover. No seat belt. It was the Great Unmentionable at the funeral. I could hardly imagine the feelings of the widow and the rest of the family. I would have been filled with rage.
My cousin lost an aunt on his dad’s side of the family after she refused to wear a seat belt and was thrown out of her car after hydroplaning and flipping. Now Will refuses to put his truck in gear unless everyone is buckled up. He has refused to give people lifts because they will not buckle up.
Any more, I think they are there to keep you in position so the airbags don't kill you.
I have known nine people who died with them on, in three separate accidents. Five were wearing their belts when the vehicles came to rest inverted, and could not get out of them, the others went underneath a semi trailer.
Of the five, four burned to death in the vehicle.
Please consider something, folks.
Your weight on that little bar in the latch means (depending on your size) that if inverted, you will have to release a latch with anywhere from 400 to 1000 psi on it (not much more and maybe less than 1/4 square inch of surface area there), and release it with a thumb or finger.
Carry something you will be able to locate, reach, and use to cut the belt.
Use them if you want, but I do not agree with the imposition of a law. It is a poster child for nanny statism, and was one of the camel's noses under the tent.
Do I have this right?
Would you mandate safety helmets and cervical bracing for the average driver on the highways? Roll cages? Flame retardant suits? Professional drivers use those, too.
Generally, staying with the vehicle is preferable, but to further the fiction that it is always safer to be belted in is nonsense, just as the fiction that it is always safer to wear a motorcycle helmet.
In my Fire/EMS days we spent a couple of hours finding and sorting the remains of four people who remained (well, mostly) belted into the vehicle they were in when it went beneath the bed of a semi at highway speeds.
I just talked yesterday with my Sheriff's Deputy neighbor who talked with me about a particularly grisly recovery they made from an accident in which the vicitm was torn in half by the belt (severe side impact). If that impact hadn't killed the unfortunate fellow, the fire would have.
Note, please, I am not against the use of either device (let the individual decide what is appropriate), but I am against the government sticking its legislative nose into my vehicle and mandating the use of one.
I use one, but at any time on my person I have at least three devices capable of cutting through the belt, distributed so I can reach at least two with either hand. (Good knives can be handy, anyway). YMMV
Do I have this right?
It depends on the situation. The professional drivers you refer to are driving at speeds far exceeding highway speeeds on a closed circuit, in a vehicle designed to do two things: go fast....
What are you talking about?
Ya think all professional drivers are all NASCAR race geeks?
What about truck drivers, cab drivers, test drivers, personal drivers, and millions of others, who as part of their profession, drive on the highways?
Generally, staying with the vehicle is preferable
Ya think? lol....
No offense meant, but your comments are laughable...
In my other life I drove professionally in 7 different country's, on the highways. I have been trained in evasive maneuver and other defensive techniques etc., and I would *never* ever drive without safety restraints.
Anyone suggesting otherwise is an absolute fool.
I did not say that, but many are, and no there are Formula car drivers, Sprint car drivers, Monster truck drivers, and even bulldozer operators.
What about truck drivers, cab drivers, test drivers, personal drivers, and millions of others, who as part of their profession, drive on the highways?
Might as well include commuters, who have to be at work, or are those just amatuers?
In my other life I drove professionally in 7 different country's, on the highways. I have been trained in evasive maneuver and other defensive techniques etc., and I would *never* ever drive without safety restraints. Anyone suggesting otherwise is an absolute fool.
I'm not suggeating YOU do otherwise.
If you are going to be doing E&E driving with a client in the back, you want to stay behind the wheel. Now do it with a full bladder. (Hint, if you hit something very hard, the bladder will likely burst). But you're a real pro, and would never scratch the paint.
No, I never unbuckled a dead guy. We always cut the belt. I guess my EMS and Fire Department service doesn't count as much as your expert driving ability, but there were times when those who exited the vehicle survived, and those who did not did not.
If you think ANYTHING in this life is covered by absolutes, your inability to deal with multivariate situations is your problem.
Have a nice day.
OOOOk smoken joe..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.