[muawiyah]

No doubt the fundamental problem with seat-belts is they are a gol-darned new-fangled gadget that no responsible driver ever needs.

It's time to roll time back to the happy days of the 1950s where we can once again experience the thrill of launching ourselves out through the windshield of a Studebaker!

Neat scar tissue helps a fellow get the neatest dates.

[dcwusmc]

Seat belts can help in an accident, true enough. HOWEVER, the point is that using them is a PERSONAL CHOICE and NOT one that should be made by legislators or enforced by police officers. ESPECIALLY when there are many, many better uses for scarce dollars, like removing red light runners from this world. But I notice that there is virtually NO nanny-state law you don't like. Why is that?

[Fzob]

I have the answer to seat belt law. This will make them completed useless as well as airbags and speed limits.

All cars should have 10 large spikes installed in the baseboard. People will drive very carefully with those staring you in the face.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Let's get rid of collapsible steering columns while we're at it. Bring back harpooning!

[dalereed]

I won't wear one and they can't ticket me either!

I drive a 65 Chev PU and they weren't even an option when we bought them and i'm exempt!

[Mr Ramsbotham]

It's time to roll time back to the happy days of the 1950s where we can once again experience the thrill of launching ourselves out through the windshield of a Studebaker!

I appreciate the irony here, which has a lot to do with my take on the smoking issue. In that, as in the seatbelt issue, two separate arguments are involved, namely, (1) whether the activity is good for you; and (2) whether the state ought to be involved in the regulation of said activity. It's not only possible, but logical, to take different sides of each question.

[AntiBurr]

"No doubt the fundamental problem with seat-belts is they are a gol-darned new-fangled gadget that no responsible driver ever needs.

It's time to roll time back to the happy days of the 1950s where we can once again experience the thrill of launching ourselves out through the windshield of a Studebaker! "

My parents owned a 1956 Ford which came equipped with seat belts. Lap belt only, but still was more than prior vehicles. These were available on the '55 for (I think) the first time; they were an extra cost option. Ford dropped the option for a few years because so few were willing to pay the extra dollars for the belts. I bought and installed them on my own '50 two door in '58.
So, I don't think that I have a lot of resistance to using them.

On the other hand, I definitely have a problem with the omnipotent government decreeing what I shall do for my own good. "It's for your own good" is what they told the Tom Cat just before his operation.

[calex59]

No doubt the fundamental problem with seat-belts is they are a gol-darned new-fangled gadget that no responsible driver ever needs. It's time to roll time back to the happy days of the 1950s where we can once again experience the thrill of launching ourselves out through the windshield of a Studebaker! Neat scar tissue helps a fellow get the neatest dates.

I don't think the guy is advocating that we do away with seat belts. If you want to wear one please do. If you don't, the law has no business telling you that you MUST wear a seat belt. Require all cars to have them but do not require motorists to wear them.

Tell me, what is the difference in a law requiring you to wear a seat belt and one that says you must take certain vitamins daily to ward off illnesses that may kill you? They are both equally offensive and go against the right to decide for ones self what is proper for you and what is not.

Nanny state laws have no place in the US.

[uglybiker]

It's time to roll time back to the happy days of the 1950s where we can once again experience the thrill of launching ourselves out through the windshield of a Studebaker!

You make it sound like that's a bad thing.

I rather enjoy it, myself.