Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Seatbelts, Do you wear them, or not !

In Colorado it is a law that you must wear a seatbelt, but for motorcycles no helmet is necessary.

I don't like the seat belt or the helmet law, it shouldn't be the Governments job to save us from our own stupidity.

That said. I wear my seatbelt 95% of the time, the 5% is the 1/4 mile up the road to take care of my cow type critters. My kids automatically put theirs on all the time.

When I rode I had a helmet on about the same percentage.

It's dumb not to, but the government shouldn't be in charge of having us not do dumb things.

It should not require a law, it is Darwinism in action.

I do wear seat belts when on public roads and may on forest service roads. I also feel it should be my choice. In over 50 years of driving, the wearing, or not, of a seat belt has had absolutely no effect on my survival simply because I have not hit anything hard enough to need it. The same applies to child seats. We raised two children and travelled hundreds of thousands of miles with them in the car and the lack of a child seat had no effect on their lifestyle except to allow them to be comfortable while travelling. I should add that I knew hundreds of people back when we did not have child seats and these people had hundreds of children. I know of exactly zero children who would have been saved by a child seat. I think seat belts are important on heavy equipment and do know of several guys who were killed or badly injured by not wearing a belt on a skidder of Bobcat. I have retro-fitted a belt to my old D4 because it can buck pretty good.
I won't even ride down the driveway on a motorcycle without a helmet and the helmet has saved me from serious injury at least once.
We had one good friend who was killed in spite of the fact that she was wearing a seat belt and her van had airbags everywhere. She was killed by a young woman who was texting on her goddam phone and drove straight into our friend's van.
In the end, I think seat belts are a good thing and usually wear them. I do have friends who were undoubtedly saved from injury by the wearing of a seatbelt .
I think the wearing of a lifejacket when on the water can be a true lifesaver but common sense can go a long way here too. Several years ago there was a cop who was wearing no life jacket but was wearing his belt with gun, baton, flashlight, handcuffs etc. and topped it off with his bullet-proof vest. He leaned over the side of the patrol boat , fell in and plummeted to the bottom and drowned. It wasn't a month later that I saw a cop on our lake, dressed the same way, leaning over the side of the boat to pull in a rope. I was in a canoe and hollered over at him "Hey! Dumbsh--! You ever watch the news?" He only looked puzzled at first, then angry, then embarrassed when his partner said something to him.
I think helmets when riding a motorcycle are an even better idea and always wear one. Nonetheless, I don't need the intervention of the nanny state to keep me safe. I'll do that myself. GD

Is this thread about your lovelife?


mike r

I’m fine with requiring drivers to wear their seatbelt. There are instances, like swerving for a deer or other vehicle, hitting an object on the road, or getting tapped by another car, where a seatbelt keeps your azz in your seat, and in control of your car - so that YOU don’t hit ANOTHER vehicle.

As has been mentioned, I don't like the idea of it being mandatory, but I like the idea of accident insurance for medical services being negated is they aren't worn. Hopefully that could serve to lower the rates for everyone.

Every time I see a cop. Unless my window is up, which it usually isn't.


DMc

I have no choice if I want to keep my hearing. I drive a newer Silverado and the dang dinger will make you deaf if you don't put your belt on!

Oh gimme. A break. How could anyone be too stupid to not wear seat belts.

I sit in the car, reach over with my right hand, bring it back and click it. Viola. 3 seconds.

As for ,"well I don't want .gov to make me," .gov makes you drive on the right, .gov sets speed limits, .gov makes you stop at red lights, and on and on.

In a vacuum, I'd agree. It's not, because my insurance pays to keep the vegetables who didn't wear one breathing. As long as it costs me, and it does, then I have a voice in the decision. Stop putting them on life support, just let them die, and my view will change.

Tom

[
[/quote] No. I always feel it is much more important and safe to drive in such a manner as to not NEED a seat belt.. And I don't like gov't telling me I gotta wear one to ensure I'm safe.. EFF that.. That should be MY choice - not gov't..[/quote]

Just Curious , Do you have kids or grandkids and do you make them buckle up, and if you do, why?

If you take a hit hard enough to take you out of the seat its pretty unlikely you will maintain control with a seatbelt on, and if that happens to be the case I would bet statistically the percentage is too small to be included in any reporting.

I've heard that argument before and its a hail mary. Not wearing a seatbelt is esentially a victimless crime that is very useful to LE....

Violating all of those examples are shown to get INNOCENT people killed........that's the difference

I always do. Before I retired my company had a strict policy about wearing seatbelts. It was enforced by having drive cameras in our trucks and security cameras at the gates. It was a firing offense to get caught without. So, I got into the habit. I was also a pilot at one time so I was already used to the idea.

the accident reports here always say whether the driver and/or passengers had their belts on. The fatalities and more serious injuries usually don't have them.

Have to wear them properly too.

First fatality I responded to was because the shoulder belt was not used.

Been several since where the seat belt did not save the life of the driver.

Nothing was going to however.

After about 10 years as a firefighter I always wear it. And while I do not like govt intrusion in my life there is real personal benefit to this law that I don't think has been mentioned.

There are always a limited number of ambulances available. So, two cars wreck. They are both occupied times two. Unfortunately the guy with the two broken arms, and the gal with the ankle bent sideways will have to wait for an extra hour or two for transport. Reason for the extra wait? A couple of unrestrained occupants are hurt way worse so they get transported first! Ironic, ain't it?

Not saying I necessarily disagree but where to you draw the line? Are you in favor of Portland OR law that requires people to wear bicycle helmets? Many head injuries from bike accidents can make a person a vegetable.

I'm the one with that story. Thank God I was not wearing one.