- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Seatbelt Laws, $180 fines & Government Overreach
Posted on 5/28/19 at 3:09 pm to meansonny
Posted on 5/28/19 at 3:09 pm to meansonny
quote:
My previous response above corrects your comprehension of relativity (bikes are safer than cars). The proof is for profit insurance companies.
So what you are saying is that bikes are safer than cars because they cause less damage payable by insurance companies. If that’s how you define safer I understand why you would say that then.
However I think that most people would agree the term ‘safer’ implies safer for the people’s physical health (who are riding or driving) rather than the cost and payout of insurance. A large number of studies back this up, but for example the first google result states:
quote:
According to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2006, 13.10 cars out of 100,000 ended up in fatal crashes. The rate for motorcycles is 72.34 per 100,000 registered motorcycles. ... Per vehicle mile traveled, motorcyclists' risk of a fatal crash is 35 times greater than a passenger car.
I just find it hard to define bikes as safer than cars, even without seatbelts and in spite of the lower insurance costs, in light of information like this.
ETA sorry forgot to finish the post: so with this in mind, the point of my original post is that the seatbelt law was written with driver and passenger physical safety in mind. So if that’s the case, and if riding a motorcycle is in fact more dangerous physically than riding in a car without a seatbelt (which I think the data bears out pretty well), then it’s illogical to have a law against riding without seatbelts, and yet no law against motorcycles.
Also I think it’s a government overreach to do so, because doing so means that they can (and if they’re consistent in their laws they actually SHOULD) outlaw a number of other things that I (and hopefully many others) don’t agree with. And I was trying to illustrate why I felt that way.
This post was edited on 5/28/19 at 3:18 pm
2
Posted on 5/28/19 at 3:28 pm to Randman
quote:
My 19 y/o son (who is home visiting from active military duty) decides to prop his head out through the sunroof for an enhanced experience.
Marine?
Posted on 5/28/19 at 4:58 pm to Areddishfish
quote:
Marine?
Air Force....a very responsible Airman and young man all-around despite what some of these Nanny State lovers think. Oh the horror of propping up through a sunroof for a few minutes on a leisurely drive through the mountains.
Thank God many of our forebears weren’t afraid to take a little risk to better observe and explore this world of ours. We’d still be living under oppressive European monarchies as there would be no U.S.A. and the personal freedoms we’ve come to take for granted. But Hey...we would be SAFE and PROTECTED by our kings, right?
Posted on 5/28/19 at 5:15 pm to windshieldman
quote:
worked multiple wrecks where a driver of another vehicle was hurt or killed due to an ejected person flying into their vehicle. It can effect other people
I'd be willing to bet this has never been a situation you have experienced first hand
Posted on 5/28/19 at 5:17 pm to gorillacoco
You will find thousands of inconsistencies in the law if you look for them. The key here is the seatbelt laws have a lot of public policy behind them and are a very minor inconvenience to comply with while you are enjoying a privilege. Motorcycles don't have the economic and societal toll that cars do. They are simply a lower priority.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 5:18 pm to gorillacoco
quote:
However I think that most people would agree the term ‘safer’ implies safer for the people’s physical health (who are riding or driving) rather than the cost and payout of insurance.
You are missing 1/2 of the data from of those accidents.
Are the motorcyclist fatalities hit by a car?
Because it is the car that is unsafe in that equation. It is the car causing the physical damage.
I can tell now that you don't understand basic causal effects.
People get runover by cars at crosswalks and bus stops. Your analysis is that we shouldn't have pedestrians or bus dropoff/pickup because they are dangerous and cause fatalities (ignoring that there are cars causing the fatalities).
I hate to break it to you. But car driving in the US is bad for our health. It has a massive impact on the average life expectancy of Americans. Remove fatalities caused by cars and our fat butts are among the healthiest in the world in terms of life expectancy.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 6:46 pm to Randman
quote:
very responsible Airman and young man all-around despite what some of these Nanny State lovers think.
19 year old is in the nanny state. He didn’t go out and get a real job.
He is living off my taxes.
Think a bit.
This post was edited on 5/28/19 at 6:47 pm
Posted on 5/28/19 at 7:28 pm to Randman
It’s a non moving violation. Better to pay those shitbags cash then have you drugs confiscated imo
Posted on 5/28/19 at 7:29 pm to ManBearTiger
quote:
I'd be willing to bet this has never been a situation you have experienced first hand
I’ve been a paramedic almost 20 years, it most definitely has
Posted on 5/28/19 at 7:37 pm to FightnBobLafollette
quote:
19 year old is in the nanny state. He didn’t go out and get a real job. He is living off my taxes.
Lol He’s helping to keep your arse fat and free from foreign enemies. That’s the best tax money you spend.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 8:29 pm to Randman
quote:
Lol He’s helping to keep your arse fat and free from foreign enemies. That’s the best tax money you spend.
No he isn’t. And you know it.
He is a nanny state baby. You raised a kid unable to fend for himself so he had to be taken care of by me.
Least you could do is thank me. You are welcome.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:54 pm to Benne Wafer
quote:
About the time I graduated there was a kid in the neighboring town that had his head out of a limo sunroof and was decapitated. He and a group of friends were celebrating either prom or graduation and the limo drove under a wire across the road that some utility workers didn't secure after some work. Freak accident but made a big enough impression on me to not take the risk.
Thank you for this stupid, and somewhat likely made-up contribution.
Last I checked, there were only 17 annual decapitations out of sunroofs in national parks due to unsecure wires. So the kid's chances were pretty good to make it out ok.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:56 pm to Randman
quote:
My 19 y/o son (who is home visiting from active military duty)
So he is well versed in safety procedures but chose to ignore it ?
Posted on 5/28/19 at 10:10 pm to LSUEnvy
Idk of this has been mentioned already, but National Park Service rangers are known to have a stick up there arse almost all of the time 
They are widely known as the National Park Circus with DOI circles
They are widely known as the National Park Circus with DOI circles
This post was edited on 5/28/19 at 10:31 pm
Posted on 5/28/19 at 10:31 pm to SixthAndBarone
quote:
Are park rangers actual law enforcement or are they just enforcing “park rules”?
National Park Service Rangers are actually law enforcement with a Federal Commission.
In other words, they are Federal Law Enforcement Officers.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 10:40 pm to FightnBobLafollette
quote:
No he isn’t. And you know it. He is a nanny state baby. You raised a kid unable to fend for himself so he had to be taken care of by me. Least you could do is thank me. You are welcome.
Yeah man, thanks for your attempts to be a shite-stirring provocateur. We really appreciate your valuable contribution to our society via your keyboard.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 10:45 pm to Randman
We were up there and my kids wanted to collect some rocks from the stream. They gathered 5-5 and set them down by the trailhead when a ranger walks by after guiding a field trip. He asks if we took the rocks from the stream which we lied and said they were already there and we were just looking at them. He made my kids bring them back by the water then lectured us about it. Well after he leaves we get more and walk back to the car where he is waiting to see if we did just that. Luckily I had a stroller so he didn’t look in it but the guy was pissed. frick authority.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 10:54 pm to Clark W Griswold
You’re an azzhole.
Stop blaming others.
Stop blaming others.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 5:44 pm to meansonny
quote:
You are missing 1/2 of the data from of those accidents. Are the motorcyclist fatalities hit by a car? Because it is the car that is unsafe in that equation. It is the car causing the physical damage. I can tell now that you don't understand basic causal effects.
My definition of safe regards only the physical safety of a person involved in some activity. I don’t understand how a car or motorcycle can be deemed ‘safe’. Only the activity a person is engaged in, like riding or driving a vehicle. The data clearly states that driving a motorcycle has a higher risk of death and injury than riding in a car without a seatbelt. The seatbelt law was created with the physical safety of a person in mind. Not any causative factor, but the risk associated with that persons activity.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 6:02 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
You will find thousands of inconsistencies in the law if you look for them.
This is a legit point. I agree with you in general but I don’t agree that it is appropriate in this instance, because the data strongly suggests that lower speed limits affect driver and rider safety more than seatbelt laws and IMO are much less intrusive on personal choices.
quote:
The key here is the seatbelt laws ...are a very minor inconvenience to comply with
I do actually agree with this. The seatbelt laws make sense logically from an effort standpoint.
quote:
while you are enjoying a privilege.
I have problems with this because I don’t see how making decisions about your own safety is a concern for the govt while using public roads, but it’s not a subject of discussion right now so I’ll just say okay for now.
quote:
Motorcycles don't have the economic and societal toll that cars do. They are simply a lower priority.
I agree with this from a practical perspective as laws have to make sense from a cost-to-benefit standpoint and minor issues won’t necessarily get addressed. Me using motorcycles as a comparison was meant to be illustrative because it’s a much more in-your-face example of a personal freedom that, if applying the same logic as the seatbelt law, could very easily be taken away as well. My intent is to point out that people will gladly give away freedoms that seem minor, but that this allows logically for more restrictive laws to be put in place.
I really don’t think this is an exaggeration either, you only have to look to the blue states or god forbid England to see further and further freedoms being stripped in the interest of ‘safety’. I think the principles on which the states were founded is fundamentally that personal freedoms are worth the cost in terms of safety and security, and my point is that modern day citizens of the US are in general too willing to give these up one by one. Boiling the frog if you will. I think some warnings and discussion about this are warranted.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News