_(OIIIIO)_Jeeper
New member
RE: Suburban Shocks
What are you saying Gadget?...Meatloaf for all residents of the Land of Gadget?
What are you saying Gadget?...Meatloaf for all residents of the Land of Gadget?
Stupid People!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter dropseys
- Start date
dropseys
New member
RE: HELP!!! Need opinions from all Jeepz folks...
I do have to say that i understand where everyone is coming from as to the seatbelt law bing a choice made by the drivers, but when you go to accident after accident where htere is no damage to the cars involved, but someone is taken to the hospital via ambulance for head, back, and neck injuries, then you understand why it is in place. Another point to think about........ if we didn't enforce seat belt laws, how long do you think it would be before someone was injured in an accident and sued the state for not enforcing seat belt laws. I think if someone in an accident was not wearing their seat belt, they should not be covered under their auto insurance for injuries.
I do have to say that i understand where everyone is coming from as to the seatbelt law bing a choice made by the drivers, but when you go to accident after accident where htere is no damage to the cars involved, but someone is taken to the hospital via ambulance for head, back, and neck injuries, then you understand why it is in place. Another point to think about........ if we didn't enforce seat belt laws, how long do you think it would be before someone was injured in an accident and sued the state for not enforcing seat belt laws. I think if someone in an accident was not wearing their seat belt, they should not be covered under their auto insurance for injuries.
Sparky-Watts
Banned
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: "Sandwhich" or "Sammich&a
I agree with you there, dropseys.....but then again, that would be more money that is taken from state welfare coffers (which means more money out of my pocket). I think if someone doesn't wear a seatbelt and is in an accident (with injuries, not just a fender bender), they should be put to death on the spot to save us good, wholesome taxpayers from having to pay for their stupid butts the rest of their meager lives.
I know what you mean about minor accidents and seatbelts. I've seen both ends of that spectrum. A "minor" fender-bender and somebody is dead, or a car torn up beyond any physical recognition, and the driver and occupants are standing around it looking at it when we pulled up in the ambulance....because they had their seatbelts on and only had minor cuts and bruises.
dropseys said:
I agree with you there, dropseys.....but then again, that would be more money that is taken from state welfare coffers (which means more money out of my pocket). I think if someone doesn't wear a seatbelt and is in an accident (with injuries, not just a fender bender), they should be put to death on the spot to save us good, wholesome taxpayers from having to pay for their stupid butts the rest of their meager lives.
I know what you mean about minor accidents and seatbelts. I've seen both ends of that spectrum. A "minor" fender-bender and somebody is dead, or a car torn up beyond any physical recognition, and the driver and occupants are standing around it looking at it when we pulled up in the ambulance....because they had their seatbelts on and only had minor cuts and bruises.
graewulf
New member
Spatula said:
(turning flame thrower on)
OK now you hit an area that I am extremely passionate about. I can say from personal experience that not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle or seatbelt in a car is extremely foolish. I would not be here today if I didn't wear a seatbelt or a helmet. Both devices protected me from harm in accidents. In both cases I walked away without a scratch - only because I was wearing them. If I had not, the seatbelt incident would not have had the chance to happen, I would probably be a quadraplegic as a result of a mororcycle accident where I bounced off my head several times. And in the case of the auto accident(s) the only thing that kept me inthe vehicle was my seatbelt. In both acidents I walked away with no more than whiplash.
The laws are in place to protect stupid people from themselves, and more to the point are the direct result of lawsuits. Seatbelt laws were enacted due to the high $$$ in lawsuits against the auto manufacturers because loved ones were killed, or worse severely injured in auto accidents. The general public wants cars to be safer, therefore we have seatbelts, airbags, anti-lock brakes (which are debatable as to being safer), better tires & suspension, safety glass, etc.
If you choose to disobey the laws and not do such, either stay off the road or come borrow this single shot pistol I have siting here and put yourself out of my misery.....
First offence no seatbelt or helmet should be a fine.. second... loss of license.
Sparky-Watts
Banned
RE: Re: Recovery Points
Oh, that's just such a blatant lie!!! Mind you, I'm not calling you a liar, if in fact you can produce the reports you speak of here. If there are such reports, they are blatantly lying and manipulating some obscure data to make their point. There is no report that I know of or have ever heard of that states anything of the sort. It's assinine to even think you're safer without a seatbelt!
I took a course from the Kansas Highway Patrol on accident reconstruction, as well as several courses in accident kinematics and related injuries. Let's talk numbers: In a rollover accident without a seatbelt, your chances of sustaining a serious neck or back injury increases something like 1200%. If you are ejected from that vehicle when it rolls because you are not wearing a seatbelt, your chances of sustaining a serious neck or back injury increases 3600%! I don't recall the stats on head injuries in those cases, but they are lower, but proportionately similar.
Please, if you want to save face on this board, post a link to any or all of the supposed "reports" you mention that will tell me how much safer I am without a seatbelt on.
Spatula said:
Oh, that's just such a blatant lie!!! Mind you, I'm not calling you a liar, if in fact you can produce the reports you speak of here. If there are such reports, they are blatantly lying and manipulating some obscure data to make their point. There is no report that I know of or have ever heard of that states anything of the sort. It's assinine to even think you're safer without a seatbelt!
I took a course from the Kansas Highway Patrol on accident reconstruction, as well as several courses in accident kinematics and related injuries. Let's talk numbers: In a rollover accident without a seatbelt, your chances of sustaining a serious neck or back injury increases something like 1200%. If you are ejected from that vehicle when it rolls because you are not wearing a seatbelt, your chances of sustaining a serious neck or back injury increases 3600%! I don't recall the stats on head injuries in those cases, but they are lower, but proportionately similar.
Please, if you want to save face on this board, post a link to any or all of the supposed "reports" you mention that will tell me how much safer I am without a seatbelt on.
Not wearing your seatbelt is dangerous. It costs the insurance companies more money when people don't wear their seatbelts, which costs me and you more money. Fine, I have no problems with those statements. I also would have no problem if my insurance company stipulated in my policy that I must wear a sefety belt or possibly be denied coverage. That is their right to ask, and my right to either agree or not have them provide coverage. Simple. There is no further need to discuss the issue. My problem is when the government steps in and makes a law that restricts my choices, just to help out the insurance companies and generate revenue for themselves.
As far as the silly references to how much it costs the taxpayers......give me a friggin break :roll:
First off, half of you are liberals. If you want to discuss useless, unneeded government spending.....I could point out about 9 trillion instances that YOU probably support. Secondly--okay, you as a taxpayer have decided that you shouldn't cover the costs of another taxpayers stupidity. Okay, fair enough, are we going to do that across the board with everyones stupidity, or just those that don't wear seatbelts? I can think of lots of government spending programs that are specifically designed to crutch the stupid masses.
No, the police aren't to blame when they enforce stupid laws. The police don't make the laws, but it's their job to enforce them.......stupid or not.
As far as the silly references to how much it costs the taxpayers......give me a friggin break :roll:
First off, half of you are liberals. If you want to discuss useless, unneeded government spending.....I could point out about 9 trillion instances that YOU probably support. Secondly--okay, you as a taxpayer have decided that you shouldn't cover the costs of another taxpayers stupidity. Okay, fair enough, are we going to do that across the board with everyones stupidity, or just those that don't wear seatbelts? I can think of lots of government spending programs that are specifically designed to crutch the stupid masses.
No, the police aren't to blame when they enforce stupid laws. The police don't make the laws, but it's their job to enforce them.......stupid or not.
LadyJeepFreak
New member
Did I mention the Patriot Act scares the shite out of me?
mud[/quote]
I hate this act.
Lady
mud[/quote]
I hate this act.
Lady
LadyJeepFreak
New member
jps4jeep said:
LOL Thank You Kind Sir, for your words of wisdom. I feel the VERY same way.
This board is getting easy, all I have to do is let enough people hash topics out and then just quote everyone else and I'm good to go! LOL
Lady
Sparky-Watts
Banned
Hell with it. Let's just do away with all laws that are designed for our own protection, and instead of paying auto insurance, let's just give that money to the government. Guess I'm a freakin' liberal and didn't know it. Let's let all the stupid people kill and maim themselves and not do a thing to help them out, no insurance money, no government money, no welfare money. Let'em fend for themselves.
But, if we do, I declare open season on stupid people. You see someone doing something stupid, shoot'em in the head before their stupidity harms you. Sounds not only fair, but sounds like a helluva lot of fun......now, where'd I put my bullets?
Reckon y'all best be puttin' on yer seatbelts, lest ya get a bullet between the eyes! :twisted:
But, if we do, I declare open season on stupid people. You see someone doing something stupid, shoot'em in the head before their stupidity harms you. Sounds not only fair, but sounds like a helluva lot of fun......now, where'd I put my bullets?
Reckon y'all best be puttin' on yer seatbelts, lest ya get a bullet between the eyes! :twisted:
dropseys
New member
RE: Re: attn: Robrt-Stephens
ok MY FELLOW jEEPERS, I DIDN'T MEAN TO START AN ARGUMENT OVER LIBERALS VS CONSERVATIVES ETC, MY PEEVE WAS THAT THE LAWS ARE IN PLACE, LIKE IT OR NOT, AND POLICE HAVE TO ENFORCE THEM. IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO OBEY THE LAW AND GET CAUGHT, DON'T TAKE OUT AN AD IN THE NEWS PAPER WHINING ABOUT IT, BE AN ADULT AND SUCK IT UP. AS SOMEONE MENTIONED EARLIER, DON'T SHOOT THE MESSANGER. AS FOR POLICE GETTING REVENUE FROM TICKETS, IN MD, WE DO NOT GET ANYTHING THE STATE GETS THAT MONEY, AND DISTRIBUTES 5% OF IT TOWARDS US FOR OTHER PROGRAMS SUCH AS DUI PATROL ETC NOT SALARIES. KEEP IN MIND THAT YESTERDAY I WAS ALMOST RUN OVER BY A WOMAN WHO WAS PICKING HER TEETH WHILE DRIVING, 45 MPH IN 25 MPH SCHOOL ZONE AND SHE DIDN'T SEE ME TRYING TO FALG HER DOWN. wHEN I WROTE HER A NEGLIGENT DRIVING TICKET, $275 AND 2 POINTS, SHE WENT TO THE MAYORS OFFICE TO COMPLAIN, THEN TO THE POLICE DEPT TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME SAYING I SEEMED ANGRY. WELL I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT WHEN YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A ROAD WITH YOUR HAND UP IN THE STOP GESTURE AND THE CAR APPROACHING YOU IS HAULING BUTT AND SLAMS ON THE BRAKES APPROX 50' FROM YOU AND SLIDES TO A STOP WHERE YOU WERE AT ONE TIME STANDING, I GUESS THAT WOULD CAUSE SOMEONE TO SOUND A LITTLE ANGRY HUH. KEEP IN MIND THAT SHE WAS LOOKING IN HER REAR VIEW MIRROR PICKING HER TEETH WHILE DRIVING IN AN AREA WHERE K - 6TH GRADERS ARE CROSSING THE ROAD WITH A CROSSING GUARD. SORRY BUT PEOPLE WHINING ABOUT TRAFFIC TICKETS WHEN THEY GET CAUGHT JUST PISSES ME OFF. DON'T LIKE THE LAW, WRITE TO YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND SEE ABOUT HAVING THEM CHANGED.
ok MY FELLOW jEEPERS, I DIDN'T MEAN TO START AN ARGUMENT OVER LIBERALS VS CONSERVATIVES ETC, MY PEEVE WAS THAT THE LAWS ARE IN PLACE, LIKE IT OR NOT, AND POLICE HAVE TO ENFORCE THEM. IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO OBEY THE LAW AND GET CAUGHT, DON'T TAKE OUT AN AD IN THE NEWS PAPER WHINING ABOUT IT, BE AN ADULT AND SUCK IT UP. AS SOMEONE MENTIONED EARLIER, DON'T SHOOT THE MESSANGER. AS FOR POLICE GETTING REVENUE FROM TICKETS, IN MD, WE DO NOT GET ANYTHING THE STATE GETS THAT MONEY, AND DISTRIBUTES 5% OF IT TOWARDS US FOR OTHER PROGRAMS SUCH AS DUI PATROL ETC NOT SALARIES. KEEP IN MIND THAT YESTERDAY I WAS ALMOST RUN OVER BY A WOMAN WHO WAS PICKING HER TEETH WHILE DRIVING, 45 MPH IN 25 MPH SCHOOL ZONE AND SHE DIDN'T SEE ME TRYING TO FALG HER DOWN. wHEN I WROTE HER A NEGLIGENT DRIVING TICKET, $275 AND 2 POINTS, SHE WENT TO THE MAYORS OFFICE TO COMPLAIN, THEN TO THE POLICE DEPT TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME SAYING I SEEMED ANGRY. WELL I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT WHEN YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A ROAD WITH YOUR HAND UP IN THE STOP GESTURE AND THE CAR APPROACHING YOU IS HAULING BUTT AND SLAMS ON THE BRAKES APPROX 50' FROM YOU AND SLIDES TO A STOP WHERE YOU WERE AT ONE TIME STANDING, I GUESS THAT WOULD CAUSE SOMEONE TO SOUND A LITTLE ANGRY HUH. KEEP IN MIND THAT SHE WAS LOOKING IN HER REAR VIEW MIRROR PICKING HER TEETH WHILE DRIVING IN AN AREA WHERE K - 6TH GRADERS ARE CROSSING THE ROAD WITH A CROSSING GUARD. SORRY BUT PEOPLE WHINING ABOUT TRAFFIC TICKETS WHEN THEY GET CAUGHT JUST PISSES ME OFF. DON'T LIKE THE LAW, WRITE TO YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND SEE ABOUT HAVING THEM CHANGED.
TwistedCU
New member
Re: RE: Re: attn: Robrt-Stephens
x3
*********
Okay here goes...
I wear my seatbelt. always.
My kids are in carseats beyond the legally required ages. always.
I wear a helmet on a motorcycle. always.
I wear my safety glasses every time I have a tool in my hand.
I wear steel toes, a hard hat, gloves, and long sleeves when working not because they are mandatory, but because I am extremely safety concious, and value my eyes, fingers, toes, etc. I feel it is my duty to my family to return home in the same condition that I left.
I hate laws that protect me from me. I hate the government telling me how to prepare for my own safety. What's next? 6' deep crash mats for bungee jumping? Knee pads for cyclists? These laws suck and are extreme voiations of our freedom.
As for the police, a law is a law and their job is their job. Can't blame them for doing their job.
[edit]
I think it would be a good idea if insurance companies had language in their policies that voided personal injury claims for not wearing belts. There is a big difference between that and fining someone who may have simply forgotten his/her belt.
You scare me.graewulf said:
mud4feet said:
LadyJeepFreak said:
x3
*********
Okay here goes...
I wear my seatbelt. always.
My kids are in carseats beyond the legally required ages. always.
I wear a helmet on a motorcycle. always.
I wear my safety glasses every time I have a tool in my hand.
I wear steel toes, a hard hat, gloves, and long sleeves when working not because they are mandatory, but because I am extremely safety concious, and value my eyes, fingers, toes, etc. I feel it is my duty to my family to return home in the same condition that I left.
I hate laws that protect me from me. I hate the government telling me how to prepare for my own safety. What's next? 6' deep crash mats for bungee jumping? Knee pads for cyclists? These laws suck and are extreme voiations of our freedom.
As for the police, a law is a law and their job is their job. Can't blame them for doing their job.
[edit]
I think it would be a good idea if insurance companies had language in their policies that voided personal injury claims for not wearing belts. There is a big difference between that and fining someone who may have simply forgotten his/her belt.
Sparky-Watts
Banned
Re: RE: Re: attn: Robrt-Stephens
I'm just tired of people whining about the government taking away their rights. Lemme tell ya somethin' else: driving (or owning) a motor vehicle is not a right, it's a privelege. Does everyone here understand the difference between a right and a privelege, or should I go into my 10 minute speech I used to give to the kids in the defensive driving classes I taught? Making you wear a seatbelt by law is not a violation of your rights. It is a stipulation of your priveleges.
Now, before this whole thing gets ugly(er), I'm still waiting for Spatula to show me those reports that say wearing a seatbelt causes more injuries than not........well, Spat, whaddaya say?
I'm just tired of people whining about the government taking away their rights. Lemme tell ya somethin' else: driving (or owning) a motor vehicle is not a right, it's a privelege. Does everyone here understand the difference between a right and a privelege, or should I go into my 10 minute speech I used to give to the kids in the defensive driving classes I taught? Making you wear a seatbelt by law is not a violation of your rights. It is a stipulation of your priveleges.
Now, before this whole thing gets ugly(er), I'm still waiting for Spatula to show me those reports that say wearing a seatbelt causes more injuries than not........well, Spat, whaddaya say?
Sparky-Watts
Banned
It's Alive!!!
Apparently, you don't understand it as clearly as you think. It is not a right in this country, either. It is a privelege, granted by the government. If driving was a right, you would not have to apply for a license. You would not have your privelege withdrawn for DUI and other offenses. Look up the meaning of "rights" and "priveleges" again.
TwistedCopper said:
Apparently, you don't understand it as clearly as you think. It is not a right in this country, either. It is a privelege, granted by the government. If driving was a right, you would not have to apply for a license. You would not have your privelege withdrawn for DUI and other offenses. Look up the meaning of "rights" and "priveleges" again.
88Wrangles
New member
Well who's got the pop-corn?? This is getting good!!
