Posted on 11/30/2004 5:20:33 PM PST by quietolong
Uh, if you are hit from behind, the laws of physics would propel you backwards, at least until something hit you from the front.
I was going to question you on when was the last time you had gone through a windshield and wound up in a coma, but then I re-read your above quote. That sentence has all the earmarks of someone who has been rushed you to a hospital where you lie in a coma for a year and a half that my dollar.
You're argument is flying about as well as your grammer and spell-checking.
While I think that mandatory seat-belt laws are a true sign of government intrusion into matters they have no business being in, the simple fact of the matter is that Lauralee is correct...do something stupid like ride without a seatbelt or no helmet on a deathcycle, and either the government or the hospital is going to pick up the tab for the cost of your helathcare IF you do not have insurance to cover costs.
The problem is that AFTER the accident with severe financial implications, the idiot doing all the risk-taking is not held to task for his decisions financially.
I worked shock-trauma for years, and saw it all the time.
So, is the problem that the government requires seat-belt use...or is the problem that they do so only because for whatever insane reason they fund idiots poor decision making to begin with by covering medical costs if they get hurt?
As the government provides funding more of societies needs, they are necessarily going to become more intrusive to protect their financial interests.
While I think that mandatory seat-belt laws are a true sign of government intrusion into matters they have no business being in, the simple fact of the matter is that Lauralee is correct...do something stupid like ride without a seatbelt or no helmet on a deathcycle, and either the government or the hospital is going to pick up the tab for the cost of your helathcare IF you do not have insurance to cover costs.
The problem is that AFTER the accident with severe financial implications, the idiot doing all the risk-taking is not held to task for his decisions financially.
I worked shock-trauma for years, and saw it all the time.
So, is the problem that the government requires seat-belt use...or is the problem that they do so only because for whatever insane reason they fund idiots poor decision making to begin with by covering medical costs if they get hurt?
As the government provides funding more of societies needs, they are necessarily going to become more intrusive to protect their financial interests.
Been there, done that. I agree with you that the passenger or driver makes a move when the vehicle makes a turn. But, it's been my experience that the move is inconsequential if the driver is experienced enough to adjust. Sadly, many American's don't have the experience.
Just so you know where my arguments are coming from: 20 years ago I barrel rolled a Toronado over a small bluff with the vehicle coming to rest on it's roof. The passenger side was crushed down into the front seat, because that's where the impact occurred, but the driver side roof was intact. The passenger side occupants were unharmed due to the fact that they fell into the driver side of the vehicle when it flipped. Had they been wearing their seatbelts, they would have been killed on impact. The Michigan State Police told me so right after they investigated the accident.
No Travel & driveing are Rights!
Hey how about a driving without both hands on the wheel violation? Having both hands on the wheel prevents the wheel from slipping from your grasp. It makes you a better driver. And clean hands are even better. Perhaps the government would be well suited to mandate my sleeping hours. You know, tired eyes means fiery head-on collisions into oncoming traffic. Have you noticed how some cars really need to clean the windshield.
I'll be all for this after they take out the cup holders, stereos, and dvd movie players, ban cell phones, and develop a rearview mirror that prevent using it to apply makeup. Then I will go down to the market place and get that number tattooed on my forehead so I may barter...because I will know that all hope for mankind was lost. After that perhaps we can all agree to slow down 20 or 30 MPH on the highways so we can all be safer and enjoy the road together
All that proves is that the airforce and cars are unconstitutional.
No. I'm tired of arrogant liberal laws designed to "protect us from ourselves".
Result: 66% say no.
It will be passed; every day the state doesn't have such a law is another day without the fed funding that flows from its passing and implementation. It always comes down to money.
They have to pay Medicare and Medicaid too, do they have the right to tell you what you must eat or not eat?
Like flying blind in the rain, do you?
If you get hit from behind you go backward first, most car seats give way in a severe incident and don't translate the conserved momentum toward a forward, matching force.
If it had been me, I wouldn't have slammed on the brakes.
You are right technically. I live in an area in Florida (Central) and in one of our towns all the cops do is wait for teenage or younger drivers to pull them over for one thing or another....then they give the ticket for failure to wear seat belts.
They are NOT concerned with safety.
They ARE concerned with jacking up the number of citations issued to justify higher annual budgets
If you don't believe that, then ask yourself why a fire engine is sent along with each ambulance call--what? a heart attack? Well, he must be burning up, too.!!!!
It's just typical bureaucratic "gimme more money."
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.