[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by Gemini562

Plus, think about it like this: if you’re a human cannonball who forgot to strap in, your flying self could hit another person, or you could create such a road mess that traffic’s backed up for miles. It’s not elitism; it’s just common sense. Seatbelts are kinda like paying taxes or keeping your pants on in public, nobody loves it, but it keeps things decent for everyone.

I'm a little more basic.

I told my friend who didn't want to wear a seatbelt to sprint as fast as possible and run head-first into a brick wall. Think about how much that would hurt.

Now, imagine quadrupling that speed or more, and hitting a brick wall...then think about the kind of head injury you would have at THAT speed.

Yikes!

[toosrimpeldoos]

Hi, I wear belts always in every car.
not only for my own safety, also being an example for my kids.

[KevinC]

Originally Posted by nerdogray

The amount of elitism displayed over seatbelts in this thread is absolutely laughable. I don't wear a seatbelt. I don't want to wear one.

"Elitism"

Oh the irony.

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by nerdogray

You certainly do make the claim to know intelligence by insulting it. You and so many other people on this thread speak so condescendingly and elevate themselves far above their reality. Your claims of the belief of personal freedom are immediately contradicted by your own statement. You have a blast, too. I'm done with you, the likes of you, and the rest of this thread.

So, nerdogray, I’ll unapologetically question your intelligence. All the reasoning you give for setting yourself up to become a burden on society, whether you have anyone depending on you or not, is straight up STUPID!!

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Windshieldfarmer

The costs of not wearing a seatbelt extends way beyond the people unnecessarily injured or killed. There is tremendous societal cost in terms of elevated medical expenditures, life insurance payouts, and disability costs. All of us pay more because of the stupid and often selfish decisions of others.

The same argument can be made for airbags depending on crash severity.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by nerdogray

The amount of elitism displayed over seatbelts in this thread is absolutely laughable. I don't wear a seatbelt. I don't want to wear one. I don't have family. There is no one depending on me. There is no "societal cost" in my case. No matter how many soapboxes are mounted, I'm not going to be shamed into wearing one. It is my choice to assume the risk versus the freedom and comfort of not wearing one. No, I'm not obese; I am currently sitting at 14% body fat. I'm not unintelligent, either. But by all means, everyone should keep trying to force their opinion on those that choose differently.

Edit: There we go again. Yet another post insulting intelligence. How novel.

My position is if you are an adult, you have a right to choose what to do with you body as you see fit. I think your observation of elitism on display in this thread is well founded. The argument against your posts are the "societal costs of others not wearing a seat belt".
Well, let's expand on that. Where does the line of societal protectionism end and individual rights begin?

How about those who smoke or vape?
How about those who overeat?
How about those who eat fast food?
Drink soda?
Drink alcohol?
Take illegal drugs?
Rock climb?
Hike and get lost?
Drive in inclement weather when they lack the skill to do so or don't use the proper equipment ( i.e. snow tires)?
Ride motorcycles?

All these limited list of activities, when they go bad and affect a person's health, have a societal and insurance rates impact. Where is the line drawn?

[Hydrostream]

We had a local mother orphan her young kids about a month ago because she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. Life’s a gamble but man…

[Slowphiveo]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

My position is if you are an adult, you have a right to choose what to do with you body as you see fit. I think your observation of elitism on display in this thread is well founded. The argument against your posts are the "societal costs of others not wearing a seat belt".
Well, let's expand on that. Where does the line of societal protectionism end and individual rights begin?

How about those who smoke or vape?
How about those who overeat?
How about those who eat fast food?
Drink soda?
Drink alcohol?
Take illegal drugs?
Rock climb?
Hike and get lost?
Drive in inclement weather when they lack the skill to do so or don't use the proper equipment ( i.e. snow tires)?
Ride motorcycles?

All these limited list of activities, when they go bad and affect a person's health, have a societal and insurance rates impact. Where is the line drawn?

I 100% agree that you should absolutely have the right to do all of those things if you choose to do so. I also believe that insurance companies should be able to deny you if you do intentionally stupid shit. If you eat 15 big Macs a day, your health insurance should deny you. If you take illegal drugs and die...no loss to me. If you drink 2 handles of JD every day and get liver disease...denied. Freedom gives you the absolute right to be a fuckwad. It does not give you the right to make me pay for it.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Slowphiveo

I 100% agree that you should absolutely have the right to do all of those things if you choose to do so. I also believe that insurance companies should be able to deny you if you do intentionally stupid shit. If you eat 15 big Macs a day, your health insurance should deny you. If you take illegal drugs and die...no loss to me. If you drink 2 handles of JD every day and get liver disease...denied. Freedom gives you the absolute right to be a fuckwad. It does not give you the right to make me pay for it.

But you probably do something that I think is fuckwadish. That's the point. With the law of averages, it all evens out.

And more to the point, how does your insurance company know you drink 2 handles of Jack Daniels a day, or eat 15 Big Macs a day, or take illegal drugs? Are you ready for the RFID monitor you have to wear that tracks your calorie intake, blood alcohol level, brain activity when you get smoked up? Your position of monitor and control is stupid.

[BlkGS]

People who refuse to wear a seatbelt are a great example of why all the idealistic goals in the world don't actually work.

There's no actual reason to not wear one other than "I don't like it". Huge amounts of reasons to wear it. But despite overwhelming evidence, they choose not to wear one. This kind of chaotic thinking is what ensures that all the idealistic ideas of the world won't work because some people will just buck the system for no reason other than to do it.

Heres a "fun" philosophical question. Two people are driving, one is just over the legal limit for booze, the other sober but doesn't have a seatbelt on. They get into an accident, the person without a seatbelt on is flung out of the car, is impaled on a sign and does while shitting themselves. Who's the victim?

[tracknut]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Heres a "fun" philosophical question. Two people are driving, one is just over the legal limit for booze, the other sober but doesn't have a seatbelt on. They get into an accident, the person without a seatbelt on is flung out of the car, is impaled on a sign and does while shitting themselves. Who's the victim?

I must not be reading this right, or missing the subtleties. Isn't the primary victim the sober guy that died on the sign? There are other more minor victims, like the guy's family, the drunk guy himself who has to live with this his whole life, the taxpayers who have to pay for a cleanup crew and a new sign, etc.

When I ran a track club, we ended up in a bit of a similar scenario. We decided, before it was common at track days, to require roll bars on most convertible cars. It caused a pretty big shakeup, with lots of complaints to us and many folks opting to drive with other clubs. One offer I received several times was "It's my own life, can't I just sign a release that would absolve you of any liability if I roll my car over and die?".

I did not bother to ask my lawyer about generating such a release, but it would be similar to the release one would write regarding legally not wearing seat belts, I think. I.e. pretty hard to write, and impossible to enforce.

[Slowphiveo]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

But you probably do something that I think is fuckwadish. That's the point. With the law of averages, it all evens out.

And more to the point, how does your insurance company know you drink 2 handles of Jack Daniels a day, or eat 15 Big Macs a day, or take illegal drugs? Are you ready for the RFID monitor you have to wear that tracks your calorie intake, blood alcohol level, brain activity when you get smoked up? Your position of monitor and control is stupid.

If you weigh 500lbs with a cholesterol number of 500, you don't have a genetic disorder, you have a stuffing food in your mouth hole problem. If you have scirosis of the liver then you drink like a fish. If your lungs are black from smoking tar, then you are a smoker. If you get in a car accident and become a meat souffle, you didn't have your sealtbelt on. You don't need RFID tracking or government intervention into your private life to figure any of that stuff out. That's what I'm saying...obvious, stupid, preventable shit. I'm not talking about regular everyday issues. Not wearing your seatbelt is the most obvious of those as your car records everything you do. That ship has already sailed. In a wreck, your car will sell you out.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Slowphiveo

If you weigh 500lbs with a cholesterol number of 500, you don't have a genetic disorder, you have a stuffing food in your mouth hole problem. If you have scirosis of the liver then you drink like a fish. If your lungs are black from smoking tar, then you are a smoker. If you get in a car accident and become a meat souffle, you didn't have your sealtbelt on. You don't need RFID tracking or government intervention into your private life to figure any of that stuff out. That's what I'm saying...obvious, stupid, preventable shit. I'm not talking about regular everyday issues. Not wearing your seatbelt is the most obvious of those as your car records everything you do. That ship has already sailed. In a wreck, your car will sell you out.

According to the Net, just 8% of drivers don't wear a seatbelt. Of those 8-percent, 47% become a fatality in a car accident. So, just 3.8% of drivers unbelted die in auto accidents. And you are insisting this is a significant problem of the insurance industry and make your rates increase.

Your scenarios are ridiculous, no one is monitored for their bad habits, but would be if you want to start tailoring individual's insurance premiums based on their bad habits. Everyone has bad habits.

[Slowphiveo]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

According to the Net, just 8% of drivers don't wear a seatbelt. Of those 8-percent, 47% become a fatality in a car accident. So, just 3.8% of drivers unbelted die in auto accidents. And you are insisting this is a significant problem of the insurance industry and make your rates increase.

Your scenarios are ridiculous, no one is monitored for their bad habits, but would be if you want to start tailoring individual's insurance premiums based on their bad habits. Everyone has bad habits.

Well in the US there are 239 million licensed drivers in the US...so 3.8% is not an insignificant number. I think your stats are way off. That would come out to like 9 million fatalities a year in the US. At last check it was near 43k people a year died in car wrecks.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Slowphiveo

Well in the US there are 239 million licensed drivers in the US...so 3.8% is not an insignificant number. I think your stats are way off. That would come out to like 9 million fatalities a year in the US. At last check it was near 43k people a year died in car wrecks.

Right, they die even when belted in.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

People who refuse to wear a seatbelt are a great example of why all the idealistic goals in the world don't actually work.

There's no actual reason to not wear one other than "I don't like it". Huge amounts of reasons to wear it. But despite overwhelming evidence, they choose not to wear one. This kind of chaotic thinking is what ensures that all the idealistic ideas of the world won't work because some people will just buck the system for no reason other than to do it.

Heres a "fun" philosophical question. Two people are driving, one is just over the legal limit for booze, the other sober but doesn't have a seatbelt on. They get into an accident, the person without a seatbelt on is flung out of the car, is impaled on a sign and does while shitting themselves. Who's the victim?

Well, you didn't say who was at fault for the accident. I'll assume the drunk driver was at fault. That would make the unbelted driver the victim.

[j0wpa]

Always wear my seatbelt and don’t even start moving the car until everyone is buckled.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by tracknut

I must not be reading this right, or missing the subtleties. Isn't the primary victim the sober guy that died on the sign? There are other more minor victims, like the guy's family, the drunk guy himself who has to live with this his whole life, the taxpayers who have to pay for a cleanup crew and a new sign, etc.

When I ran a track club, we ended up in a bit of a similar scenario. We decided, before it was common at track days, to require roll bars on most convertible cars. It caused a pretty big shakeup, with lots of complaints to us and many folks opting to drive with other clubs. One offer I received several times was "It's my own life, can't I just sign a release that would absolve you of any liability if I roll my car over and die?".

I did not bother to ask my lawyer about generating such a release, but it would be similar to the release one would write regarding legally not wearing seat belts, I think. I.e. pretty hard to write, and impossible to enforce.

You are missing the subtlety. The question is, the guy who purposely allowed himself to be killed, is he a victim? What if he's the one who caused the accident? Had that person work their seatbelt per the responsibility of the privilege of driving a car, they would survive. It's the equivalent of going into a cage full of hungry lions wearing a meat suit.
Y track clubs all subscribed to the broomstick rule. Your head had to be under a broomstick place between the windshield header and whatever "factory roll structure" the car had. Very few convertibles had anything that would pass.

[tracknut]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Y track clubs all subscribed to the broomstick rule. Your head had to be under a broomstick place between the windshield header and whatever "factory roll structure" the car had. Very few convertibles had anything that would pass.

In the early 2000's, that was not the normal case for clubs in CA

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

You are missing the subtlety. The question is, the guy who purposely allowed himself to be killed, is he a victim? What if he's the one who caused the accident? Had that person work their seatbelt per the responsibility of the privilege of driving a car, they would survive. It's the equivalent of going into a cage full of hungry lions wearing a meat suit.
Y track clubs all subscribed to the broomstick rule. Your head had to be under a broomstick place between the windshield header and whatever "factory roll structure" the car had. Very few convertibles had anything that would pass.

Was the impaled driver driving a 1956 Chevy Nomad?

[Vindicator3]

I always wear mine and since I started driving (which was a long time ago) no one is allowed to ride in a car I'm driving unless they are wearing theirs.

[tekphobius]

6 years as a firefighter. Those that don't wear seatbelts are f'n stupid.