Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Injured motorists could be liable under seatbelt bill
Riverton Ranger ^ | 2-5-05 | Robert W. Black

Posted on 02/04/2005 10:12:56 PM PST by rwh

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
"How about adult car seats"

That's funny. Hope this is shot down.

1 posted on 02/04/2005 10:12:56 PM PST by rwh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rwh

Its a fundraising, nanny-state bill


2 posted on 02/04/2005 10:16:00 PM PST by GeronL (2-7-72 is my birthday, in lieu of gifts, just send me cash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwh

Looks like the Free State Project made the right decision in choosing NH over Wyoming.


3 posted on 02/04/2005 10:20:37 PM PST by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwh

This guy is Republican?


4 posted on 02/04/2005 10:25:16 PM PST by Smartaleck (Tom Delay TX ..."Dems have no ideas, no agenda, no solutions.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwh

I personally don't believe the state goes far enough in protecting adults from their own foolish behavior, so I propose the following:

1) Re-instate prohibition, and extend it to tobacco, fatty foods, and Kool-Aid,

2) Require window guards in all apartments, regardless of whether any children live there,

3) Refusing to follow our doctor's orders should result in mandatory jail time.

Any other suggestions?


5 posted on 02/04/2005 10:28:57 PM PST by Tabi Katz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwh
I watched one of those Emergency Room shows. A guy arrived with a concussion and face lacerations. First question out of the doctor's mouths. "Was he wearing a seatbelt?" "No." They sadly shook their heads.

The next guy who came through the door was in a similar accident. This second guy WAS wearing his seatbelt. The doctors ended up having to do exploratory surgery because they did not know where or why he was bleeding internally.

Wearing a seatbelt only saves people in 50% of potentially fatal accidents. The other 50% still die while wearing a seatbelt.

6 posted on 02/04/2005 10:34:04 PM PST by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ikka
On the bright side of things they are considering a law making it legal for all non-felon Wyoming residents to carry concealed weapons.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1334833/posts
7 posted on 02/04/2005 10:43:41 PM PST by rwh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rwh

[The measure also would allow a driver to be pulled over solely for not using a seat belt and would increase the fine for drivers from $25 to $50 and for passengers from $10 to $25. “This is a bill that’s not going to stop accidents, but it will reduce fatalities,” said the sponsor, Rep. Jerry Iekel, R-Sheridan.]

It will also generate a lot of revenue for local governments, but I suspect that's only a coincidence.


8 posted on 02/04/2005 10:53:14 PM PST by spinestein (Do I really need the sarcasm tag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tabi Katz

[Any other suggestions?]

4) We should give all our money to the government so that they can redistribute it to where it's most needed.



WHAT? It's already been suggested?


9 posted on 02/04/2005 10:56:18 PM PST by spinestein (Do I really need the sarcasm tag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rwh

I don't care for seat belt laws, but think about what is being proposed here. It doesn't impose an obligation to wear a seat belt. It allows a defendant to raise the failure to wear a seat belt as a defense regarding the extent of liabilty for a plaintiff's injuries. Since the plaintiff is bringing a suit under the state's civil statutes, and enforcement of the judgment would be backed by state powers, the proposed legislation is actually a limitaton on state power.


10 posted on 02/04/2005 10:56:31 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwh

Is Brent Kunz, a lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Co., willing to allow those injured while wearing a seat belt to collect 10 times more ? Whats he willing to trade?


11 posted on 02/04/2005 11:03:28 PM PST by KingNo155
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
As a certified EMT, we are taught that seat belts prevent or lessen the severity of injuries caused by certain types of vehicle trauma, most notably head injuries and injuries resulting from impact with the street or being crushed under the car after being thrown from the vehicle.

Seat belts increase the likelihood, however, of injuries caused by different trauma, most notably internal injuries to the abdominal area and chest cavity.

When all this is added up, you have a much better CHANCE (remember this is just statistics, it doesn't say anything about what happens to any individual) of surviving and having less severe injuries WITH the seat belt.

Having said that, however, the nanny state nincompoops should SHUT THE HELL UP AND LET PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.
12 posted on 02/04/2005 11:09:31 PM PST by spinestein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

[Since the plaintiff is bringing a suit under the state's civil statutes, and enforcement of the judgment would be backed by state powers, the proposed legislation is actually a limitaton on state power.]

Read the article again. It says:
[The measure also would allow a driver to be pulled over solely for not using a seat belt and would increase the fine for drivers from $25 to $50 and for passengers from $10 to $25.]


13 posted on 02/04/2005 11:12:26 PM PST by spinestein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

You're right, that should be opposed. I was addressing the defense-to-liability proposal.


14 posted on 02/04/2005 11:16:36 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
Injured motorists could be liable under seatbelt bill

And, actually, the title is misleading. It should read "Injured motorists could be held contributorily negligent under seatbelt bill."

15 posted on 02/04/2005 11:18:03 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

Bogus statistic alert!


16 posted on 02/04/2005 11:37:42 PM PST by opinionator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
As a certified EMT, we are taught that seat belts prevent or lessen the severity of injuries caused by certain types of vehicle trauma, most notably head injuries and injuries resulting from impact with the street or being crushed under the car after being thrown from the vehicle. Seat belts increase the likelihood, however, of injuries caused by different trauma, most notably internal injuries to the abdominal area and chest cavity. When all this is added up, you have a much better CHANCE (remember this is just statistics, it doesn't say anything about what happens to any individual) of surviving and having less severe injuries WITH the seat belt. Having said that, however, the nanny state nincompoops should SHUT THE HELL UP AND LET PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.

Thank you for saying that.

As the operator/owner of John's Wrecker Service ( 1991-1999 ) here, I've seen every type of car wreck you can imagine.

Seat belts improve your chances of surviving most accidents- but they are not a universal cure-all.

In some types of wrecks, all they do is hold you in place while you are crushed, pierced, or burned to death. Or drowned.

I think you should be informed, first, of they types of accidents belts may help you survive, and then- second- given the choice of whether you should wear them.

Not coerced, by some "one size fits all" law.

17 posted on 02/04/2005 11:46:22 PM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

the nanny state nincompoops should SHUT THE HELL UP AND LET PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.

Exactly!!!


18 posted on 02/05/2005 1:34:50 AM PST by Just A Nobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rwh

"...by ALLOWING motorists to be..."

That's my favorite line.


19 posted on 02/05/2005 1:36:54 AM PST by Just A Nobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

[Any other suggestions?]

What a great game.
6. outlaw vehicles altogether - they are just to dangerous
7. outlaw bicycles - afterall I broke my arm once riding
that trecherous thing.
8. roller skates, skate boards, walking - must be banned
9. oh "heck" - OUTLAW BREATHING AND GET IT OVER WITH


20 posted on 02/05/2005 1:45:37 AM PST by Just A Nobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson