Safety vs. Freedom

Don't forget the capitalists!

Seat belt laws are, ostensibly, for people's benefit. Really, though, they exist for the sake of insurance companies. It's about money.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So the ultimate conclusion of all this is that there should be no freedom at all and no danger at all. Won't that be nice? I feel safer already.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

um tiassa, thats just not true. Im sorry but im sure i have actually atended more acidents than you have and seeing the damage done by someone flying through the front window of a car is horific.

The level of damage done to the car by the person flying through the window is insignificant in terms of costs compared to the expences to the health system, the goverment in terms of disability pentions and retraining when the person is unable to work again and in terms of the emotional and finatial costs to the family of that person. This is assuming the person suvives the crash through the window and the head first landing into the ashfelt. Im not even going to TRY to put a finantial cost to the deaths which result both to sociaty itself, buiness, or there families but it is quite large

the biggest surporters of seatbelt and helmet laws are actually the ambulance services, the police and the emergency room staff who see the costs of acidents on a daily basis. 1 person is seriously injured on our roads (in SA ALONE) EVERY HOUR, 24 people EACH DAY ect This dwalfs the road toll and most are compleatly preventable

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

who's fault is that? the gun owner, not the gun.

if we apply the first part of this quote with the second then we should punish everyone that has ever sipped alcohol as a preventive measure.
in america i suppose this would be called a sin tax no?

 

but had they been wearing seatbelts they would have been dead. simple physics will tell you that travelling 50m(flying through a windscreen) before hitting something will result in less force on impact than something that stops you about 5cm from where you started add to that the fact that the belt goes just below your neck, meaning your head(and therefore your spine) continue at full speed until jerking to a sudden stop.

seatbelts dont save lives, they save money. if you crash at a low speed it will prevent you getting a bump on your head, but if you crash on the open road it will snap your neck and kill you instantly, avoiding all those costly rehabilitations you spoke about.

 

mate, go back and redo the year 10 physic componant on road saftey again.

Seat belts are designed to INCREASE the impulse not shorten it, they strech in a very specific way and for a very specific length of time. The WORST seatbelt injury i have ever seen (and yes i have seen alot both on the road and in class) was brused ribs, a tare in the skin across the chest, and some abdominal brusing. That pt would have walked out of the crash except that the stering collom didnt colaps properly and fractured his leg. Needless to say the guy had no long term injuries (at 100km into a wall crash i might add)

Compared to the injuries sustained by an unrestrained passager. When you hit something the car has a tendency to go down which means the passanger goes UP. This puts the head and neck in the most vulnerable possition in that they hit the roof and window with the head tilted FORWARD (so the contact point is the crown of the head). This puts ENORMOUS force on the neck which has a tendancy to snap it around C3. C3, 4, 5 keep you alive.

 

http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/seat_belts.html
http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=45962
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/seatbelts.shtml
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/seatbelt.htm
http://www.clp.org.au/pdf/policies/seatbelts_oct06.pdf
http://www.saferoads.com/vehicles/seatbelts.html
http://rac.com.au/Motoring/About-my-car/Seat-belts.aspx
http://www.tacsafety.com.au/upload/Safe_Driving_Policy.pdf
http://www.officeofroadsafety.wa.gov.au/index.cfm?event=news

 

I would like to point out that the seatbelt debate is a subtopic, and should be in it's own thread.

 

Why do you care? And if it bothers you so much, why look at it?

And, yes, I am being serious. If it was a close relative or something, I could understand it, but why should you care if someone 10,000 miles away from you dies "horrifically" in a car wreck?

And more importantly, I suppose, is why you think you should be allowed to tell others how to life and whether to wear seatbelts or not?

Baron Max

 

It was intentional murder with the terrorists, with the drunk drivers, it was accidental. Big difference, Fraggle ....even if you try to make some insane argument that the drunk did it intentionally ...which I assume you'll try.

But it's two different crimes, Fraggle. Comparing those in a crime-fighting way is like cutting off one's foot to get rid of an ingrown toenail. The two issues of drunk driving and fighting terrorism are totally, completely, absolutely not connected in any way.

Brits and Germans don't drive nearly as far as Americans! We Americans like to travel great distances from home to get drunk.

And yet we haven't been attacked once since 9/11. And you call it "irrational"? If we could do the same for murder in the cities, I suppose you'd call that "irrational", too, huh?

Baron Max

 

I actually think laws like that protect everyone. For instance, if you're not wearing a seat belt, I hit, and you die, I then have to live with that. If you had been wearing your seat belt, then I only have to live with the fact that I hit you. Big difference.

It's like states that don't have motorcycle helmet laws. They act like it's oppression, but the truth is I'd rather not kill you when you jump in front of me.

 

Bricoleur

i have noticed that you often leave off the [ bracket closing the end of your

 

So no one disputes that we should eliminate all freedom and have true safety? Wow...

 

Who said that? I certainly didn't. But I think there are some common sense laws that are in place that should stay, and maybe a few that need to be added.

 

Sorry Asgard,
Not doing it on purpose, just when I select some of the quote it turns out that way. Protocol here, should I just leave the whole quote intact and address it in toto?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Mr Hamtastic, you argue in a strange way. I'm sure there's a Latin term for it, but hyperbole comes to mind!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Everything or nothing.... if there's not total personal freedom, the only other option is complete dictatorship.

 

no, just watch how much you delete. I know what your talking about, it only occures if you drag with the mouse. If you use shift + the arrow key you wont have that problem (or you can just selete the text, hold shift and then press the left arrow once to get rid of that selection) or you could just add it back in

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Its the button next to the "p" key on the qwerty key board

 

He's taking after SAM in many ways, too, which is a terrible trend. Ham's a really smart person, who is totally wasting his brain by taking after that idiot's tendencies.

 

JDawg-no I said it earlier...

Bricoleur-Firstly, that's a pain to type, I'll be calling you Bri from now on. Secondly, no I'm just taking the argument to it's ultimate logical and pragmatic conclusion. I prefer to start there and work back towards a compromise, myself.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!