Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Sir, you're not gonna give me a seatbelt ticket today are you, I just got one yesterday

I have ridden on a bus and I suspect you haven't ridden in any passenger vehicles made after about 1980 because there is a lot more space between bus seats than there is the back and front seat in a passenger car.

Can you point us to any passenger car wrecks where the seats got snapped off and anyone survived? Interesting that a harder bus seat back is better to hit than a passenger car seat back.

Didn't know there were any parachutes involved in school bus trips. So what you are saying is the increased odds of getting in a wreck due to increased stopping distance if preferable over shorter stopping distances and not getting in to the accident in the first place.

Not that big of a deal to pass a bus which is where the headlight comparison would seem to come in to play for most of us, but since that was your first idea how often do you follow someone driving in reverse so that you are looking directly in to their headlights mile after mile?

The point being that driving a car without seat belts is X amount unsafe, and is fined, but riding a motorcycle is X+ amount unsafe, but no fines. If safety were the factor determining fines, then riding a motorcycle should result in a higher fine than driving a car without a seat belt. It's logically inconsistent, illustrating the absurdity of the law.

I�m not sure why you insist on avoiding what I am saying. Either you have no grasp whatsoever of physics so you need to twist what I have said to avoid what I am saying, or you simply can�t understand what I�ve written - for whatever reason. (You can take an out there.)

Perhaps you just want to be combative?




By the same token, insurance should also be higher for automobiles than for larger vehicles, and smaller autos should pay more than larger and/or better built autos. I get the safer/less-safe part. I also don�t have a problem with whatever vehicle being operated in the �safest-for-it� condition possible. The real question from a �logical� standpoint is why some vehicles are even legal on the highways. As I alluded to earlier, it logically seems ludicrous to built skinny two-lane highways where vehicles approach and pass each other by a few dozen inches at closing speeds of over 100 miles per hour. I�m not suggesting that should be outlawed, just that it isn�t a very logically sensible concept.

By the same token, fines should also be higher for automobiles than for larger vehicles, and smaller autos should pay more than larger and/or better built autos. I get the safer/less-safe part. I also don�t have a problem with whatever vehicle being operated in the �safest-for-it� condition possible. The real question from a �logical� standpoint is why some vehicles are even legal on the highways. As I alluded to earlier, it logically seems ludicrous to built skinny two-lane highways where vehicles approach and pass each other by a few dozen inches at closing speeds of over 100 miles per hour. I�m not suggesting that should be outlawed, just that it isn�t a very logically sensible concept.

Better?

I am reading what you are saying. Trouble is, I cannot comprehend much.

You're going to drag your feet all the way on this one, aren't you?

Got it. I might also concede that you are simply being contrary and fickle so as to avoid what I have actually said.



I understand you would prefer to see everything equal. There ain�t no way a cycle and a car will ever be nor they should not be treated the same. I have already conceded that there are plenty of logical reasons why some vehicles should not be on the road together. That should not be construed to mean that I would support laws against it however.