TSA vs seat belts

PS-did you know the number would be much greater if they were not.

 

FYI, I've not considered the ramifications of Federal v. State laws in this matter... simply the fact that it's a LAW. I'm one of the most conservative people I know and I don't have a problem with simple laws that will help. I suppose if I was more of a Constitutionalist I would want less laws, but I look at this one and it just makes sense to me on so many levels without infringing on anyone's rights (and I don't consider the right to be stupid a real right).

No, I don't believe that this should be REQUIRED, but I would not throw a fit if it was required. Especially if it was a class with a fee that ended up paying for itself. Driving is not a right, it's a priveledge.

Personally I think THIS is a good idea... I've known a good number of seniors that had absolutely no business on the road.

Odd... I would have thought it would be MORE because of the seatbelt law. This is one of those odd statistics that could show seatbelts caused more deaths by the simple fact that more folk were using them and the likelyhood of them wearing a seatbelt in a fatal crash increased. It's mis-leading because although deaths per million miles went DOWN due to increased seatbelt usage, the statistic you're pointing at could do nothing but go UP because of the increased use of seatbelts.

What's better?
1 death per million and 100% of fatalities in seatbelts.
10 deaths per million and 30% of fatalities in seatbelts.

You're not trying to run the shell game by us are you, Salty?

 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that between 55 and 60 percent of people who die in car accidents were not wearing their seat belts. A person wearing their seat belts is roughly half as likely to die in a car accident than a person not wearing a seat belt. Also, the wearing of seat belts does not contribute to deaths or accudents at all.

 

Stupid people doing stupid things . . . that's how God cleans the gene pool.

Does making it safer for people to do dangerous things raise or lower the economic cost to the general public? For example, some say that seat belts and air bags encourage people to drive faster.

Or consider the improvement in battlefield medical care. Probably two thirds of the GIs being injured in the current war would have died under WW2 conditions. I suppose that is a big part of the claim that it costs a million a year to keep a GI in Afghanistan.

 

That assumes that everyone who is in an accident is at fault for causing the accident. In most cases, it's usually the fault of one driver, and not the fault of another.

I myself was in an accident where a person ran an intersection and t-boned me. My car was a total loss. It was 100% the other person's fault (I didn't even know what happenned until about 30 seconds after I was hit. I was pretty beat up, but it was clear that the seat belts mitigated my injuries.

 

It's only at Calvary where God cleans the gene pool.

 

A seatbelt causing one more injury or death in an accident occurs far far less than more serious injuries or death from not wearing one. People who use this argument are very ignorant as to the true facts. Have you ever heard of cutting off your nose to spite your face? Me personally, I'll take my chances with my seatbelt on. As a past volunteer firefighter I've seen the results of not wearing seat belts too many times. Ejections almost never turn out well. Many fall out of a door that has come open, roll out onto the ground or pavement and do not sustain life threatening injuries only to have the vehicle roll over them or on top of them and almost always that results in death or permenant disability.

 

Good point. The fact is, wearing seat belts DOES NOT contribute to more accidents or injury. Not wearing seat belts, however, does.

Devensive driving is all well and good, of course, but does not absolve a carless driver from his/her actions.

I was travelling down a three lane highway with a 50mph speed limit, doing about 45. The other person ran a stop sign on a street with a 25mph limit. It's unreasonable for a person such as myself to slow down and look both ways prior to crossing the intersection. That's not defensive driving, because it puts me at risk of being hit from behind. The person was speeding, and ran the stop sign. The fact that I was hit on the side (and not the front) of my vehicle was evidence to me not being reasonably able to see, or expect to see, the other vehicle. Both the police report and the insurance claim adjuster concluded that there was no forseeable fault on my part.

Unless the other person hit me on purpose, it was an accident.

I don't recall anyone ever claiming they do.

To put it mildly, those people are idiots. The wearing of seat belts does not contribute to death or injury.

 

When that person is on their own road, then they can drive however they like. On a government-owned road, however, there's nothing unreasonable about the government legislating the use of seat belts.

On a side note, here in CA, the government made it illegal to use a cell phone while driving (unless you're using a handsfree device). I think it's a ridiculous and stupid law. But it's within Sacramento's right to legislate it, and I adhere to the law, even though I don't like it. I'm not going to pretend there's some "right" to use a cell phone while driving. There isn't. And there's no "right" to eschew seat belts while driving either.

 

>That's not defensive driving, because it puts me at risk of being hit from behind.

Only because the laws about following to close are not enforced.

>Unless the other person hit me on purpose, it was an accident.

This a logical error. If the person hit you while breaking the law, it was NOT accidental. Person shoots someone while robbing a bank. He didn't intend to shoot anyone. It is an accidental shooting?

 

Not at all. If a person in front of you is, on an open road, accellerating and decelerating significantly and frequently, that poses a danger to others on the road. In fact, that's one of the things you learn in the devensive driving portion of a vehicle license class.

That's apples and oranges. A bank robber intends to break the law, even if they don't intend to actually pull the trigger of the gun they're waving (even there, if you're waving a gun, there's an implied intent to use it). Unless the person who hit me intended to run the stop sign, it's a nonsequitor.

 

Many would beg to differ. Using a hands free device allows you to have both hands on the wheel. Otherwise, one hand is committed to holding the phone up to your ear. I have an iPhone with vioce-activated dialing and a speaker phone, btw, as well as bluetooth earbud. Incredibly convenient.

If I visit another country, I will adhere to the laws of that country, where reasonably possible and appropriate.