Posted on 06/04/2005 7:45:39 AM PDT by new cruelty
I'm the passenger (I don't drive), and in my state, they fine the driver, not the passenger. The fine is I believe around a hundred dollars and the driver accumulates points for the violation as well. After I believe two violations, the license is suspended.
Believe me, if I didn't have to wear one in order to keep the driver out of trouble, I wouldn't. Recently, the state discontinued requirements for motorcyclists to wear helmets...why they won't make seatbelts optional is beyond me. To me, it's just another money grab for the state. I'm with you -- I don't like government telling me what I can and cannot do in situations that affect only me.
"I've seen people injured and bruised by airbags.
I don't trust them."
I have been a fireman for about 18 yrs. From waht I have seen, your chances of being injured by the airbag is about 1:3.
I have seen a bunch of people who would not have had a scratch had it not been for the airbag.
When that thing hits you at 200mph, it is going to hurt.
I think there are probably more Republicans than Democrats who do not wear their seat belts going be the threads I see here on the subject.
I used to visit a brain injury rehab hospital and I was told that a number of the patients had injuries from airbags.
Maybe that will work. Thanks for the tip. :)
My brother tried to have his adjusted...he drives a Malibu...didn't work for me.
My uncle has a Saturn...no problems with the harness for me. Comes low enough to not strangle me.
Much less costly and resource intensive, don't ya know.
Surely there is more safety to be gained by going after those who improperly change lanes, fail to signal, drive too slowly or drive to fast. But too many people would be irritated, too many people would be snared, and the safety facade would fall by the wayside.
People didn't strip off most of their cloths and spend all day laying in the sun. They covered their skin and looked for shade. And even with that, they got skin cancers, but most were dead from something else before they lived long enough for the cancer to kill them.
While the value of airbags seems dubious in the new study, the value of seat-belts is not. The analysis found that proper use of a seat-belt reduces the odds of death by 67 percent for any given speed category and airbag availability.[emphasis added]
Use of a seat-belt is a no-brainer, and anyone who refuses to use one, in view of seat-belt data collected for the last fifty years, has no brain.
If someone you know and care about refuses to use a seat-belt, tell them to go to an amusement park and refuse to use restraints on a fast and jerky ride (I know that's not possible, but just for the sake of discussion assume it is). Obviously, they may be thrown off the ride and suffer a head injury and be paralyzed or die. The very same effects apply to being thrown from a car or into a windshield, or even a padded dashboard, or the back of a seat. Why is it different in a car?
No seat belt = no brain (or, at the very least, a damaged brain).
As I said in post 24, brain injuries can be one result of an airbag. We keep statistics about death, but I doubt we have statistics about other injuries caused by an airbag. It is sobering to be around those who have these injuries.
It already has, I'll try to find the study I recall seeing about two years ago.
Ouch! Those look like they would break upon impact, allowing the sharp edge of the belt to slide forcefully to the right slicing off whatever is in it's path.
check out "www.matson.com.au/safefit.html" or just google "safefit"
deceptive headline and article. Most of it fails to mention that the harm comes from not wearing a seatbelt when you have an airbag. Well chalk that up to a big DUH.
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.