Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire How many of you agree with the mandatory seat belt law?

.280... You should know this one. One of the biggest problems concerns medical ethics. Is it ethical to not act when you've taken an oath to act? It would be similar to you not doing your best on a case because you personally think the guy's guilty. As a medical professional, you have a duty to respond when on duty. If you're suddenly presented with a patient in extremis, you can't ask about the seatbelt/helmet question. What if the guy was wearing a helmet with a faulty chin strap that came off during the accident. What if the last act of consciousnesss of a driver was to unbuckle his seatbelt? (can't make assumptions, most belted drivers in a significant speed accident without airbags will still star the windshield with their heads...it's the nature of 3 point belts) This opens up a huge can of worms medico-legally and even bigger problems ethically.

It's the curse of that imperfect, but it works, system we live under.

I believe the fine in Texas is $135. for not wearing the seatbelt. I don't like do gooders telling others how to live. If you want not wear the belt it's not my business. Count the number of autos registered and the number of serious accidents and the % is quite low. How old are you? How many times has the seat belt saved you or your parents. How old is your house and how many times has it burnt down over the years? In most towns the houses are approaching 100 YO and still standing. Insurance lives on fear factor, what if, and they find every way to keep from paying. Figure up how much you pay out for all insurance over the last few years. Could pay your own accidents and damages except for the major ones. A friend was paying $700 a month for health insurance, WOW. -- Back to basic freedoms, tell me what is free anymore? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />-- no

I think you misread...I didn't say medical personnel shouldn't treat them...I suggested we might enact laws prohibiting insurance companies from paying for injuries sustained due to not wearing a seat belt.

Fine in Oregon is $170. I am in favor of the law.

BTW-If you live but can no longer work, should you get disability, worker's comp, SSD, etc. if you did not wear a blet?

No matter how you slice it, most of the folks who favored their "freedom" and lost, ended up limiting everyone else's.

Just my 2 cents,

BMT

I don't give a rip for mandatory seat belt laws for adults, except for the fine (twenty bucks in South Dakota). Particularly since it is for all practical purposes a federal law. South Dakota avoided the law as long as possible but couldn't afford the loss of highway funds. I don't see it as any of the state's business, much less the ginks in DC. It's another matter for kids who can't make an informed decision.

That said, I always wear a seat belt. On several occasions (ice) being anchored behind the wheel has allowed me to control the vehicle and continue on my merry way. An incident a couple years ago made the point on crashes. We were on our way out on opening day of duck season and had to detour around a crash scene. Two kids died from a low speed rollover when they missed a curve on a gravel road. The passenger compartment was completely intact and the damage was surprisingly minor. Had they not been ejected they would've walked away from it.

BTW, SD has no motorcycle helmet law but does require eye protection. Philosophy is that you can acess the risks for yourself, but don't risk other people should something land in your eye.

The womb to tomb protection our government is instituting is pure BS, if somebody wants to be responsible for themselves they have been criminalized. Think about it, how about we just outlaw motorized transport of all kinds, they kill & maim more people than firearms do.

Nibble, nibble, nibble at our freedoms and program our kids, sounds like something out of George Orwell!

I would agree with all these macho guys who say,"I'll decide whats best for me" ----If they can guarantee me that should they have a bad collision, they will die and not run up hundres of thousands of dollars in hospital and re-hab bills that they can't pay.

m

Actually, I'm pretty sure the fine in Texas is now $200.00. I fall in the camp of it should be my choice. I do believe in manditory car seats and children below a certain age being required, but seems like just another revenue generator to me...

.280,

I was taking it to it's logical conclusion. If someone's on life support or in need of life saving procedures, it's a medical problem regardless of who's paying (or not paying) the bill. If the insurance is pulled, then what does the hospital do with the victim? Throw him out in the street to die? Where does that leave medical personnel ethically?

On the other side of the coin, if insurance doesn't pay, then you know the State will, which will result in higher taxes.

And what about the guy mentioned before who took his seatbelt off after the accident. Give insurance companies half a chance and the checks stop.

I guess what I'm getting at is... If insurance companies stop paying, then what?

Here...an auto insurance claim will not be paid if you answer no to an inquiry of whether or not you were belted in. A loop hole that allows insurance companies to avoid payment.

Have worked wrecks on a substantial part of I-81 in Virginia for the better part of 7 years as a VF...during that time I saw my share of dead bodies and serious injuries. Some would have survived without the seat belt...some would have survived with one...

It's a crap shoot whether or not your survivability would increase or decrease. Depends on the conditions of the wreck and most certainly the speed at impact. Since most death and serious injury occurs at higher speed it is only common sense to wear a seatbelt and not temp fate.

Should it be mandatory IMO..? Well it's the same thing as gun control...the nut behind the trigger is who decides to commit a crime or not. Mandatory seat belt laws are just a ban-aid stuck on a problem by the goverment because fixing the real problem is just too hard. The real problem being creating a public more responsible for their actions...most wrecks are not accidents...they could have been prevented in the first place if someone was just paying attention to what they were doing. I was told by a Training Officer one time that there are no such things as accidents, everything considered as such is preventable.

I think rational people will use belts, I don't think it's proper for governments to involve themselves in the matter. Insurance is a better leverage, and those companies have a legitimate interest. It's easy enought to determine if somebody is wearing a belt at the time of impact.

about 99 % of the auto related deaths in this area is people that are thrown from their auto during a wreck. I was raised up when there were no seat belts. but I use mine ALWAYS. If an accident is so violent that the seat belt caused a death by holding the person down. I doubt they would of survived anyway. try driving a SUV over rough terrain and try to control it while bouncing around inside .it gives you better control of the vehicle and could prevent an accident. JMO

Governed by insurance companies? I don't know if that's an improvement on being governed by a government.

My personal belief is that I don't think I should be required by law to wear a seatbelt.

But I'm very glad the law requires it of my wife and kid.

- TJM

I like seatbelts; like them much better than airbags.

Screw mandatory seatbelt laws--and mandatory airbag laws and mandatory helmet laws and pretty much mandatory everything laws. It's a mark of a bad law that it compels you to do something, rather than prohibiting you from doing something. (There are plenty of bad prohibitory laws, too...but I can't think of a single good one that goes the other way.)

There's a business opportunity for insurance companies to offer special Belt-Wearer's policies: get a cheaper rate by promising to wear your seat belt, but insurance doesn't pay a dime unless you do. I'd buy insurance like that. If it's not being offered, then there has to be a coercive government reason it's not being offered...which coercive government reason is, ipso facto, a stupid idea.

Not a complicated issue; a simple question of liberty.

In the three accidents I have been in during my limited lifespan Only ONCE was I not wearing a seatbelt, and only ONCE did I get F*$&%D up.

One - Fender bender in an intersection. No biggie , moved the car around and chattered some teeth.

Two - Accident involving a lady that decided not to look both ways before crossing an intersection into a McDonalds. Hit her at 35mph with seatbelts. Totaled the car, blew out the washer fluid bottle. Shifter the FRAME about a foot to the right, and blew the radiator to pieces. I was signing a check on the dash at the time and without the seatbelt would have probably ended up with a writing utencil in my brain somewhere.

Three - Riding in a 1978 Chevrolet pickup. Driver took a turn from asphalt to gravel at 40mph blowing the stop sign. Fishtailed twice and hit a cherry tree about 3'-4' in diameter. I slammed my head, broke my jar, and nose, bruised my chest, and bit my tounge nearly in half. lost 3+ quarts of blood at the scene, and had to stay in el-hospital for 3 days.

Yeah. I like the law, and I follow it 100% now. I was lucky that much head trauma didn't mess up my eyes anymore than they already are, as well as my brain, however little information it contains <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Andrew

Barak:

I don't have a quarrel with anyone who doesn't trust government. But some people are just kidding themselves if they think insurance companies are more trustworthy and more interested in the welfare of the community.

I'm sure it wouldn't take much to start a LONG thread of personal horror stories about people being ripped off by their insurance companies.

And here's how it would work in your scenario: You have an accident. Your insurance rep says "The police report says your seatbelt wasn't cut by the paramedics. You must not have been wearing it." You reply: "That's ridiculous. The paramedic was able to reach the catch and he undid it." The rep says: "Send us additional information." Six months later, you call. The rep says: "I never got your additional information." You send it again. Six months later... Six months later...

- TJM

The seat belt laws, and motorcycle helmet laws, are the purest BS. You, as an American citizen, should have every right to get into an auto or motorcycle accident, have your guts strewn all over the highway, or brain damage which will leave you a vegetable for the rest of your life, on your own decision.

You should have the right to let your family visit you as a paraplegic, wheel you around like a 1 year old child, and feed you through a straw.

You should have the right to raise everyone's insurance premiums, because of the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to fix you up or rehabilitate you.

You should have the right to support our starving attorney population, by providing the raw material for major liability lawsuits. In fact, by doing so, you are probably supporting our economy.

Yes, by all means, you quivering mass of protoplasm. get out there on the highways without seat belts or helmets, and be an American!!!!!!!!!

see, whats missing here, is the fact that even those macho guys buckle up. God knows I do. I just don't feel the need for the darn GOVERNMENT to tell me to do it. I do it because its the prudent thing to do.

Not directed at GunGeek - just quoting a common theme.

Yeah, maintaining personal freedoms costs something. Always has. Tax-wise, spread over all of us, it's not much. We could save MUCH more in health costs with some sort of punitive Twinkie tax or government imposed weight standards but who's for that? I always wear a seat belt so I suppose I shouldn't complain that Uncle Sam is saving me a few cents by forcing others to do so too. But what's next once the nanny state precident is set? Twinkies? Guns?

As far as regulation by insurance company, at least that's a private contract - at least where the government doesn't set the terms of the contract. (One reason for high health insurance premiums.) Government regulation isn't all bad, but it has come to subsume personal choice.

I'm in the 'I use it, but not because you made me do it' camp.

As usual, I agree with Walter Williams on this issue.


Give me liberty, and don't use Socialism as the reason I should give it up.