Do you wear your seat belt?

mudwrx

I have a question for those who do not wear one, or are against wearing them for whatever reason:

Do you/would you allow your young children, or young relatives (kids), not to wear them? I mean, do you honestly let kids get in your vehicle and not buckle up?

If yes, please explain. If no, please explain.

exalted512

bobman1235 wrote: »

On what planet? Seat belt laws are relatively new in most places, have insurance rates plummeted since then? Does NH have the most expensive liability insurance in the nation?

On Planet Reality. If you hit someone that's not wearing a seat belt, their chances of getting hurt more/worse is higher...so an insurance company would pay out more.
-Cody

hearingimpared

Without fail!

bobman1235

exalted512 wrote: »

On Planet Reality. If you hit someone that's not wearing a seat belt, their chances of getting hurt more/worse is higher...so an insurance company would pay out more.
-Cody

I'm not saying it's not a logical assumption, but it is not based in reality in any way. Show me numbers to prove that isnurance has gone down (YEAH RIGHT!) in states with new seat belt laws and I will kindly apologize.

Demiurge

That won't happen, because it hasn't, as you know.

MillerLiteScott

Always.

What always gets me is when I see people in the passenger seats with their feet or legs on the airbag/dashboard. If you are in an accident you will end up with a face full of knees or even worse spinal damage from being folded in half.

exalted512

bobman1235 wrote: »

I'm not saying it's not a logical assumption, but it is not based in reality in any way. Show me numbers to prove that insurance has gone down (YEAH RIGHT!) in states with new seat belt laws and I will kindly apologize.

Even when I worked at State Farm, there were about 2000 factors affecting rates that I didn't have access to, or how much they affected premium.

Either way, I would rather not give them ANOTHER excuse to charge me more. Same reason I think helmets should be mandatory for motorcycles.

And yes, I'll keep living in my dream world
-Cody

WilliamM2

I always wear a seatbelt, but don't really care if others do, unless they are in my car.

It's just like the helmet laws on motorcycles, there will always be some who try and fight it. I say let them go without, it cleans up the gene pool.

bobman1235

Yeah, I totally want my government to be making laws so that insurance premiums might go down for reckless 19-year olds.

I've said this a million times before, but why not just make insurance that doesn't cover you or requires a larger deductible if you're in an accident without a helmet / seat belt? Wouldn't that make more sense than a law that doesn't do anything but waste paper and police resources?

People should be allowed to make stupid decisions, and they should have to pay for the consequences. We should we all have to live under martial law under the assumption taht it might save you 13 dollars a month.

exalted512

bobman1235 wrote: »

I've said this a million times before, but why not just make insurance that doesn't cover you or requires a larger deductible if you're in an accident without a helmet / seat belt? Wouldn't that make more sense than a law that doesn't do anything but waste paper and police resources?

Because if someone hit me and I wasn't wearing a helmet, why should I have to pay for the consequences of someone else's actions?
-Cody

tonyb

I wear mine but only to avoid the ticket. I agree with Bobman, let people make their own choice and live with the results. Why let the government make stupid choices for you when you can do it on your own. Alot of these laws are passed under the guise of safety when in reality, it's just revenue generators. Just like traffic camera's. Most police forces spend the majority of their time generating revenue, instead of actually catching bad guys. It's a screwed up system with misplaced priorities. Take Chicago for example. You can go into the most crime filled areas and have to search for a cop. You go downtown, and you can't avoid one. You can write alot of tickets downtown, but to catch a criminal costs money.

bobman1235

exalted512 wrote: »

Because if someone hit me and I wasn't wearing a helmet, why should I have to pay for the consequences of someone else's actions?
-Cody

Wow.

vc69

exalted512 wrote: »

Because if someone hit me and I wasn't wearing a helmet, why should I have to pay for the consequences of someone else's actions?
-Cody

Amazing.

exalted512

bobman1235 wrote: »

Wow.

vc69 wrote: »

Amazing.

Okay, wtf am I missing here?

Bobman was saying that you shouldn't be covered for insurance if you're not wearing a helmet.

So if you're not wearing a helmet and you get hit by someone else, you shouldn't be covered? What f...d up person could possibly think thats right?
-Cody

bobman1235

You're so worried about insurance premiums, and are suggesting actual criminal LAWS in order to get them down.

I posit that rather than everyone being forced by law to try and help exalted's insurance bill, maybe those that choose to do the things that YOU WOULD LIEK TO BE MADE ILLEGAL be charged more heavily by the insurance company. Let the private sector decide.

And all of a sudden you're worried about the people who do the very thing that you want outlawed?




Let me put it a different way. Your argument for your helmet / seat belt / fire retardant suit laws are that people who get into accidents without seat belts / helmets cost you money, in a way.

If you plowed into some kid on a motorcycle, and he was wearing a helmet, it would cost your insurance some amount of money.

If you plowed into some kid on a motorcycle, and he was NOT wearing a helmet, it would cost your insurance MORE money. (presumably, I don't actually know that this is true)

In either situation it woudl cost the person who you plowed into zero, because you're at fault.

So how does your original logic not translate to this situation? Why should YOU, the idiot driver, have to pay more for the idiot innocent bystander just because he chose not to wear a helmet? Isn't HIS decision COSTING YOU MONEY? And isn't that ALL THAT MATTERS in Cody-land?

vc69

I'm sorry, but why would I want to pay a premium on a rider with a death wish? Almost ALL motorcycle accidents are the fault of someone else. Wearing a helmet affords some (slight) measure of protection. Insurance companies (which I really have no love for) ought to be able to require the insured to be wearing a helmet IMO.

Your previous statement defies all logic.

dorokusai

Always worn.

zingo

Always. I don't see how people can drive with the seat belt sign flashing/chiming your entire drive...

bobman1235

zingo wrote: »

Always. I don't see how people can drive with the seat belt sign flashing/chiming your entire drive...

They don't make it easy / intuitive, but you can almost ALWAYS turn that off.

sucks2beme

mudwrx wrote: »

I have a question for those who do not wear one, or are against wearing them for whatever reason:

Do you/would you allow your young children, or young relatives (kids), not to wear them? I mean, do you honestly let kids get in your vehicle and not buckle up?

If yes, please explain. If no, please explain.

They all buckle. I buckle up in the SUV. The truck is where I tend to skip it.
Old farm habit. I really don't know why.
But , while you are at it, why do I see 90% of motorcyclists
wearing nothing but a doo-rag?
Each to their own. Why do you care what everyone else is doing.
I see guys texting, yakking on the cell with great zeal too.
Who do you think is going to die first? I don't drink, but I really don't care
if you do or not. We all have habits that are not all that smart.
It really isn't a moral issue. And uncle sugar only cares enough to
pull people over and ticket them on holidays for no seat belt.
The $200 fines help pay for all those fine officers' OT.
Yet it appears the doo-rag is ample head protection. No fines there.

Read the bottom of this response to see my view of anything involving government.

cfrizz

bobman1235 wrote: »

Yeah, I totally want my government to be making laws so that insurance premiums might go down for reckless 19-year olds.

I've said this a million times before, but why not just make insurance that doesn't cover you or requires a larger deductible if you're in an accident without a helmet / seat belt? Wouldn't that make more sense than a law that doesn't do anything but waste paper and police resources?

People should be allowed to make stupid decisions, and they should have to pay for the consequences. We should we all have to live under martial law under the assumption taht it might save you 13 dollars a month.

I would agree with you, however, those morons who make the stupid decisions are not on the roads all by themselves.

This is not about the individual, this is about the greater good of society as a whole.

You don't live on this planet alone and if your bad behavior can have a massive negative impact on others, then nine times out of ten a rule/law is going to be made to greatly limit that impact.

Such as smoking in public places. Pollute your lungs if you like, but you don't have the right to pollute everyone elses.

Oh yeah, I hated buckling up in the beginning, now it's automatic for me to do so.

ben62670

Buses have seat belts now?

cnh

I must be getting clueless in my old age. Because I don't understand what some of you are saying above?

One, how often have insurance premiums 'ever' gone down for 'any' reason....are we assuming a direct relation between payments and 'risk' where profit plays no part?? That Insurance companies don't like to increase their profit margin each and every year? Because if so..I don't follow.

It's similar to assuming that Health Care costs will decrease...magically, under either a single payer plan or a completely Free Market plan? Neither case removes the question of profits and bad behavior, from what I've seen--aren't Economic Actors all self-interested?

Am I missing something? It's not that I agree or disagree. I just don't follow the reasoning especially concerning seat belts?

cnh

bobman1235

cnh wrote: »

I must be getting clueless in my old age. Because I don't understand what some of you are saying above?

One, how often have insurance premiums 'ever' gone down for 'any' reason....are we assuming a direct relation between payments and 'risk' where profit plays no part?? That Insurance companies don't like to increase their profit margin each and every year? Because if so..I don't follow.

It's similar to assuming that Health Care costs will decrease...magically, under either a single payer plan or a completely Free Market plan? Neither case removes the question of profits and bad behavior, from what I've seen--aren't Economic Actors all self-interested?

I also do not understand why, most times here, Gov't is always a bad thing and any laws it puts in motion are unquestionably Martial Law and an abrogation (dual meaning intended) of freedom.

Am I missing something? It's not that I agree or disagree. I just don't follow the reasoning especially concerning seat belts?

cnh

Dude, you live in CHINA. And pretty much only talk about China. Aren't your views on government a TAD warped?

bobman1235

cfrizz wrote: »

I would agree with you, however, those morons who make the stupid decisions are not on the roads all by themselves.

This is not about the individual, this is about the greater good of society as a whole.

If this was a safety issue, I would totally agree. You should be able to drive a car that is unsafe, because if a tire falls off, you're going to smash into someone else. I'm fine with safety inspections. Or speed limits. Or reckless driving laws. Even DISTRACTED driving laws (my only complaint about "texting while driving" laws is they're too focused on "texting" as opposed to "not paying attention"). All safety related, all fine by me and any rational person.

Wearing a seat belt or not doesn't affect anyone else on the road. Period. The money argument is stupid, because it could LITERALLY BE MADE ABOUT ANYTHING. Being overweight costs society WAAAAAAY more than your not wearing a seat belt, because it's FAR more likely you will have health issues from obesity than it is that you will get in a bad accident. COUPLE that with the fact that it is VERY difficult to enforce seat belt laws so as to make them POINTLESS.... I just dont' get why people are all for it.

cnh

I live in the state above you bobman. And I don't condone many many things that the Chinese state does.

Spent a year in China last year am back this year. I've seen lots of governments in action. Sure the U.S. has got some problems--and I don't support all Big Gov't. But I can't imagine a Government-less America dependent only on its free citizens.

Because you need informed and educated citizens, and moral citizens. And even the people we elect are often not fit to represent us--are not informed, well-educated or moral. In that sense...I think we may agree.

I guess we're screwed either way, now that I think about it.

cnh

bobman1235

Well, I thinkt he impression a lot of people, myself especially, give off is that we don't want any laws, but that's only because the only times we speak up is when laws seem silly or oppressive. When someone passes a "no duh" law that legitimately makes a safer world, or prevents someone from being hurt, there's no debate to be had.

When a law like seatbelts is just passed as another revenue stream because the state doesn't know how to balance its budget and would rather rape its citizens? Yeah I get annoyed.

Jaywalking in parts of California can carry a fine in the HUNDREDS of dollars. Justify that one as "for the good of society."

cfrizz

bobman1235 wrote: »

If this was a safety issue, I would totally agree. You should be able to drive a car that is unsafe, because if a tire falls off, you're going to smash into someone else.

I hope you meant shouldn't instead.:eek:

WilliamM2

bobman1235 wrote: »

They don't make it easy / intuitive, but you can almost ALWAYS turn that off.

Remember when the government tried to make automatic seatbelts a requirement? I had a Rabbit in the early 80's, you had to fasten the seat belt to start it! To warm up the car on a 10 degree day, you had to sit down, fasten the seat belt, start it, then you could take it off and go back in the house to let it warm up. Could have been worse I suppose, if it had shut back off when you unlatched it. Guess they figured that could be dangerous on the highway.

Then there was the Mitsubishi with the automatic belts. They would run up and down a track when you opened or closed the door. Passengers would forget, open the door and start to step out while the belt was moving. It would smack em in the head and wrap around their neck. Great safety feature!

bobman1235

cfrizz wrote: »

I hope you meant shouldn't instead.:eek:

Haha, dammit, I did mean "shouldn't."