If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WorldNetDaily)   Leftists' oppressive seatbelt laws must end now   (wnd.com) divider line 214
    More: Hero, Patrick Henry, second mortgages, seat belts, mandates, moral hazard, free country, Occupational Safety and Health, Association of American Physicians  
•       •       •

2996 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 May 2012 at 7:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-09 07:55:46 PM

Raoul Eaton: Jubeebee: FirstNationalBastard: Those laws aren't about safety... they're about revenue. If the government couldn't make money off ticketing you for not wearing a seatbelt, do you think they would give a fark if you wore a seatbelt?

This right here.

The police used to run a seatbelt checkpoint on the corner of my old place. They'd have officers standing at the intersection, shining flashlights into peoples cars at a 4 way stop. Both streets were 25mph limits, in a quiet suburban neighborhood.

That's not safety, that's a cash grab. If you want to give someone an extra ticket for not having a seatbelt on when you pull them over for speeding on the highway, fine. But peering into people's cars in a residential neighborhood has nothing to do with safety.

Ever hit your head against a hard object at 25 m.p.h.? Did it feel slow then?


im sure he would afterwards.
 
2012-05-09 07:56:49 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Those laws aren't about safety... they're about revenue. If the government couldn't make money off ticketing you for not wearing a seatbelt, do you think they would give a fark if you wore a seatbelt?


Who do you think makes money from that? You think cops or politicians get bonuses for people getting tickets for seat belts?

Most cops and politicians I have seen in the last many years either have had pay cuts, pay freezes or reduction in pensions.
 
2012-05-09 07:57:28 PM

Lost Thought 00: Why won't the government deregulate murder already?


Absolutely. The old method of famility vendettas going on for multiple generations really was best.
 
2012-05-09 07:58:14 PM
When did Stossel move to Wing Nut Daily?
 
2012-05-09 07:59:45 PM
More proof that John Stossel is the douchiest douche who ever douched.

/Why yes, I would either be in a wheelchair or dead, right now if not for wearing a seatbelt.
 
2012-05-09 07:59:56 PM
 
2012-05-09 08:01:42 PM
Cool. It's about time to thin the herd anyway.
 
2012-05-09 08:02:17 PM

Rapmaster2000: Jesus, John. This is such GD claptrap:

Here's my reasoning: The first government mandate created a standard for seat belts. That relieved auto companies of the need to compete on seat belt safety and comfort. Drivers and passengers haven't benefitted from improvements competitive carmakers might have made.

Yes, because auto safety and seat belt technology advanced so quickly before mandates. Why is your memory so soft here?


It's also completely wrong since auto companies have indeed tried to compete on seat belt safety and comfort. They tried pushing those terrible automatic seat belts as a feature in the 90s until they realized consumers didn't actually like them. Some cars today advertise features like adjustable height on the shoulder belt. It's as if he didn't make even the slightest attempt to validate his assumptions before writing the piece.

Setting minimum standards does not prevent innovation.
 
2012-05-09 08:03:23 PM
2011 was a record low in traffic deaths. I wonder if seatbelt laws had anything to do with that. Hmmmmmm.
 
2012-05-09 08:03:23 PM
I have absolutely no objection to this. Teabaggers not wearing seatbelts will speed up natural selection by a generation.

However, if you don't want the government interfering with how you drive, you also shouldn't expect those socialist government funded police and firefighters to come and scrape your dumb ass off the pavement.
 
2012-05-09 08:03:29 PM
I may be wrong, but if I recall correctly, most of the initial seatbelt laws were passed by states at the request of the (free market) insurance companies.
 
2012-05-09 08:04:30 PM

misanthropicsob: When did Stossel move to Wing Nut Daily?


...in what can only be described as a life- and career-validating promotion...
 
2012-05-09 08:05:26 PM

Raoul Eaton: Lost Thought 00: Why won't the government deregulate murder already?

Absolutely. The old method of famility vendettas going on for multiple generations really was best.


Hey Luddite, the world moves faster these days. With automatic weapons and nukes, we're talking a couple of weeks...tops.
 
2012-05-09 08:06:15 PM

Balrog: I may be wrong, but if I recall correctly, most of the initial seatbelt laws were passed by states at the request of the (free market) insurance companies.


True. They were sick of paying off death claims, and that was back when cars were made of materials that could sustain a crash.
 
2012-05-09 08:08:11 PM
I wonder if these WND jack holes think the "best before" date on their milk is government trying to force oppressive regulation.

I suspect a lot of them choke down chunky spoiled milk on their cereal in the spirit of "freeeedom!".
 
2012-05-09 08:08:22 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Rapmaster2000: Aarontology: I'm fine with that.

Just deny medical treatment for anyone whose injuries would have been prevented by wearing a seat belt.

FREEDOM!

Oh, and I'm 100% fine with that.

I'm opposed to seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws. Just understand that when you become a vegetable, we're pulling the plug. Your personal freedom over your body doesn't extend to my wallet.

Those laws aren't about safety... they're about revenue. If the government couldn't make money off ticketing you for not wearing a seatbelt, do you think they would give a fark if you wore a seatbelt?


You are right they are about the revenue, but I'm thinking a healthy productive human is going to pay more taxes than an organ donor...
 
2012-05-09 08:10:37 PM
Damn right.

I'm pretty sure seat belt laws were pushed by insurance companies and we all know what a wacky bunch of leftists they are.
 
2012-05-09 08:10:56 PM

misanthropicsob: When did Stossel move to Wing Nut Daily?


WND is now the refuge for the pedo-mustache brigade.
 
2012-05-09 08:12:17 PM
The government set a standard for seat belts, therefore no new seatbelt technology was invented, which prevented better seat belts from coming to market, which cost lives that could have been save, which mean government is killing people.

Well, that argument falls apart when you point out that alternatives to the standard belts have been invented. The seat belts in NASCAR for instance.
 
2012-05-09 08:13:33 PM

Sock Ruh Tease: Yes please. Then tell idiots that read WND that Fartbongo is about to ban people from parking on highways with the driver door facing fast moving traffic

shooting themselves in the face with large-calibre handguns or zombie-strength shotguns.

/FTFY.
//Same result without slowing down traffic or wasting the emergency response teams' time.
 
2012-05-09 08:13:44 PM
Really? We're fighting about seat belts? Seat belts are a big liberal co-co-conspiracy?

A child leaving home alone for the first time takes a risk. So does the entrepreneur who opens a new business.

And that's the analogy you came up with?
 
2012-05-09 08:13:55 PM

Winning: I had a friend die after getting in a head-on collision and being thrown threw the windshield, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.


Proof that seat-belt laws work!
Wait. No. No they don't. People are still going to do stupid things, whether or not there is a law. And I think it's a great idea for insurance companies to have clauses in their coverage denying all payments (for the driver) in car accidents, when the driver didn't wear his seat belt. That would be a ton more effective in getting people to wear seat-belts than passing laws.

/also FTA the peltzman effect! Yay for unintended consequences.
 
2012-05-09 08:15:25 PM
Back when i was a stupid teen, i t-boned a car when it parked in on coming traffic. I was able to slow down to about 15 and my head made a nice hole in the windshield. That was the last time i didn't wear a seat belt. I am glad new cars ding until you put them on, because sometimes i can forget if i am distracted. These things are good things. And a minor fine is hardly the state killing your freedoms.
 
2012-05-09 08:18:03 PM
Here's my reasoning: The first government mandate created a standard for seat belts. That relieved auto companies of the need to compete on seat belt safety and comfort. Drivers and passengers haven't benefitted from improvements competitive carmakers might have made.

So requiring something means that noone will ever try to improve that something. That's his 'reasoning'? Uh, Stossel, you need to be biatch slapped by a professional wrestler a few more times.
 
2012-05-09 08:19:12 PM
How about this? If you don't wear a seatbelt, you have every right to. If someone hits you and you get injured or killed, the other driver gets no arrest or prosecution. Oh, and no insurance money to your family either.
 
2012-05-09 08:20:11 PM

Rapmaster2000: FirstNationalBastard: Those laws aren't about safety... they're about revenue. If the government couldn't make money off ticketing you for not wearing a seatbelt, do you think they would give a fark if you wore a seatbelt?

And when Billy Bob gets ejected in a rollover and he's stuck on life support for months, I have to pay for it out of my taxes once his insurance runs out which steals money from more responsible citizens for medicaid and from SS and food stamps to pay for his kids because the kinds of people who are too irresponsible to wear a seat belt to be their for their children aren't generally the kinds of people responsible enough to get life insurance.

I elected this government and I want the government to force irresponsible people to be responsible as long as I have to pay for irresponsibility.

Let's have an opt out policy. I'll let people sign away the regulations that require them to wear a seatbelt. They tattoo "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" on their chests. Everybody wins.


Won't work. You have to make it illegal to help them. Otherwise, do-gooders will try to save them.

And I'm going to need that liver.
 
2012-05-09 08:20:20 PM

stoli n coke: Balrog: I may be wrong, but if I recall correctly, most of the initial seatbelt laws were passed by states at the request of the (free market) insurance companies.

True. They were sick of paying off death claims, and that was back when cars were made of materials that could sustain a crash.


Having cars "made of materials that could sustain a crash" was a safety hazard. Having cars that crumple at predeterined points to absorb crash energy is better than having the occupants absorb that energy.
 
2012-05-09 08:20:47 PM

Rapmaster2000: As I document in my new book, "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails - but Individuals Succeed,"

[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x300]

Hmmm. I get the feeling that all of these platitudes about government failure are just providing excuses to nobodies so that their failure to reach their goal is because no one respects them as individuals. If only government would get out of the way then I would be highly successful. It sounds like repackaged Ayn Rand for frustrated middle-aged men.

It sells though. Pandering works.


The creation of Lake Mead by damming the Colorado River reduced significantly the oxygen levels in the water in the lake, severely reducing the biodiversity of the areas above the dam.
 
2012-05-09 08:22:01 PM

Balrog: I may be wrong, but if I recall correctly, most of the initial seatbelt laws were passed by states at the request of the (free market) insurance companies.


The rumor at my reserve unit was that the life insurance provided through the military absolutely would not pay out if you died in a vehicular incident while not wearing a seat belt - under any circumstances. If you were sitting in an car in your front lawn with cinderblock instead of tires and a dinosaur fell on it your family would not get the $250,000 if they could prove you didn't have a seat belt on. It was probably just a scare tactic from the staff, but I never saw anyone get into a car and not put a belt on once.
 
2012-05-09 08:22:17 PM
What is going on? What is with people? Seatbelts saves people's farking lives. People are saved by them all the damn time. This isn't an opinion. Why don't people wear them? I don't know. They're stupid? That's the only rational reason I can come up with. So we have a lot of idiots endangering themselves therefore we need laws to force them to use them. Then they say shiat like, "Oh it's okay if I'm a danger to myself. It's like I'm going to hurt anybody. If I die because I'm not wearing a seatbelt then the only person I'm harming is myself." Yo dog, we're living in a farking society here. What one person does has impacts beyond the physical. There are both psychological and economic damages being rendered when someone dies in a car accident as opposed to simply being injured or emerging unharmed thanks to wearing a seatbelt. And yeah, the police fine you money for it. Stop crying about it. That's how you encourage people to stop being farking morons because evidently being safe isn't a good enough incentive.
 
2012-05-09 08:22:36 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Rapmaster2000: Aarontology: I'm fine with that.

Just deny medical treatment for anyone whose injuries would have been prevented by wearing a seat belt.

FREEDOM!

Oh, and I'm 100% fine with that.

I'm opposed to seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws. Just understand that when you become a vegetable, we're pulling the plug. Your personal freedom over your body doesn't extend to my wallet.

Those laws aren't about safety... they're about revenue. If the government couldn't make money off ticketing you for not wearing a seatbelt, do you think they would give a fark if you wore a seatbelt?


Those laws also helped insurance companies. Unless you believe the nonsense that more people are injured/killed as a result of seatbelt laws.
 
2012-05-09 08:22:52 PM

Aarontology: I'm fine with that.

Just deny medical treatment for anyone whose injuries would have been prevented by wearing a seat belt.

FREEDOM!


I wouldn't have had a problem with mandatory seat belt laws if my insurance rates had gone down matching the insurance company risks.
 
2012-05-09 08:22:57 PM
Seat belts help you keep control over the car in minor accidents, enabling you to to not hit me as a result of your stupid driving.

fark you, wear your seat belt or get ticketed.
 
2012-05-09 08:23:14 PM
My fiance died when she fell asleep at the wheel, and was not wearing a seat belt. I was the passenger, I wore a seat belt, and lived. True story. The worst part was I had to live. Law or not, if you care about the people who care about you, just wear the damn seat belt.
 
2012-05-09 08:25:36 PM
It's true that some people harm themselves with Vicodin and OxyContin, but it's hard for doctors to separate "recreational" users from people really in pain. Some cancer patients need large amounts of painkillers.

cdn1.newsone.com

As does John Stossel's pet microwave ham.
 
2012-05-09 08:26:42 PM

El_Perro: If every auto company were trying to invent a better belt, today, instead of one seat belt, I bet there'd be six, and all would be better and more comfortable than today's standard.

That's sort of the point. There is value to standardization of safety devices. They're compatible with other devices (e.g., infant/child seats), there's no learning curve, emergency responders know what they're dealing with, etc. So, without a single standard, there may well be six different seat belts, but that would not necessarily be a good thing.


Not to mention, any car company that has an improvement can still work on it. This concept that setting a low bar for private industry somehow precludes anyone in that industry from ever again looking at the product in question with an eye on profit is farking stupid. If it isn't stupid, then all of free market theory should be thrown away because in that case companies are obviously too retarded to use profit to drive down costs anyways. (I don't believe that, of course).
 
2012-05-09 08:27:18 PM

Raoul Eaton: stoli n coke: Balrog: I may be wrong, but if I recall correctly, most of the initial seatbelt laws were passed by states at the request of the (free market) insurance companies.

True. They were sick of paying off death claims, and that was back when cars were made of materials that could sustain a crash.

Having cars "made of materials that could sustain a crash" was a safety hazard. Having cars that crumple at predeterined points to absorb crash energy is better than having the occupants absorb that energy.


Not to mention the fact that an unanchored human body decelerating from more than 20 mph or so to 0 mph is going to attempt to make a head-sized hole in the windshield without regard to whether the rest of the car is made from paper mache or a repurposed panzer tank.
 
2012-05-09 08:28:23 PM
Stossel has his head up his ass again regarding Seat belt Laws.

It was the insurance industry that lobbies hardest for these laws as they reduce claims costs.
 
2012-05-09 08:29:23 PM

El_Perro: If every auto company were trying to invent a better belt, today, instead of one seat belt, I bet there'd be six, and all would be better and more comfortable than today's standard.

That's sort of the point. There is value to standardization of safety devices. They're compatible with other devices (e.g., infant/child seats), there's no learning curve, emergency responders know what they're dealing with, etc. So, without a single standard, there may well be six different seat belts, but that would not necessarily be a good thing.


I agreed with the article but you make a very persuasive argument for standardization.
 
2012-05-09 08:29:44 PM
Honestly, I'd be fine with this. They do, however, need to ban airbags. They've killed a number of safety-conscious people that shouldn't have died and the only people they've saved have been people that deserved to die (an airbag doesn't help if you're already in a setbelt).
 
2012-05-09 08:30:41 PM

Raoul Eaton: stoli n coke: Balrog: I may be wrong, but if I recall correctly, most of the initial seatbelt laws were passed by states at the request of the (free market) insurance companies.

True. They were sick of paying off death claims, and that was back when cars were made of materials that could sustain a crash.

Having cars "made of materials that could sustain a crash" was a safety hazard. Having cars that crumple at predeterined points to absorb crash energy is better than having the occupants absorb that energy.


Seatbelt laws were enacted in 1962. Back then, the biggest problem was drivers getting into crashes and getting launched through the glass. which wasn't shatterproof. Structurally, it nearly took a collision with a train to put a dent in a lot of those cars.

The designs were changed because they were big, slow, and got shiatty mileage.
 
2012-05-09 08:30:42 PM

Bunnyhat: I like the comment that says making him wear seatbelts is the same thing has making him a slave.
Some people have no farking clue. They really do think they are being treated like slaves of old.


The problem with not making people wear seatbelts is multi-fold. First is medical concerns and ER treatments.

Second is insurance. If a bunch of 'rugged real Americans' stop wearing seat belts and get in accidents, my insurance will go up in order for the insurance company to pay the increased bills because of it. I have zero desire to pay higher bills because idiots who receive the chain email about how not wearing a seatbelt saved some drivers life.


I don't know how long you have been paying insurance, but I was before the seat belt laws were mandated. And after they were, my insurance did not go down. It was a huge windfall for the insurance companies. Less risk, same revenue. So if they raise our rates, we get double farked.
 
2012-05-09 08:31:21 PM

Foxxinnia: What is going on? What is with people? Seatbelts saves people's farking lives. People are saved by them all the damn time. This isn't an opinion. Why don't people wear them? I don't know. They're stupid? That's the only rational reason I can come up with. So we have a lot of idiots endangering themselves therefore we need laws to force them to use them. Then they say shiat like, "Oh it's okay if I'm a danger to myself. It's like I'm going to hurt anybody. If I die because I'm not wearing a seatbelt then the only person I'm harming is myself." Yo dog, we're living in a farking society here. What one person does has impacts beyond the physical. There are both psychological and economic damages being rendered when someone dies in a car accident as opposed to simply being injured or emerging unharmed thanks to wearing a seatbelt. And yeah, the police fine you money for it. Stop crying about it. That's how you encourage people to stop being farking morons because evidently being safe isn't a good enough incentive.


Explain that to the raw milk people. It saves the lives, disproportionately those of children to patsturieze milk. And the derp has at least as much liberal constituency as conservative. If the state shouldn't protect those who can't consent nor understand the risks, who should it protect?
 
2012-05-09 08:31:26 PM
Imagine a parallel world where we have single-payer healthcare. In this universe, John Stossel is outraged that he has to pay for others' stupidity.
 
2012-05-09 08:31:54 PM

Foxxinnia: Then they say shiat like, "Oh it's okay if I'm a danger to myself. It's like I'm going to hurt anybody. If I die because I'm not wearing a seatbelt then the only person I'm harming is myself."



The perfect response when idiots use this argument is to point out that the amount of time for police to clear a wreck off the highway and get traffic moving again is significantly increased when they also have to call out an ambulance crew armed with spatulas to scrape someone off the asphalt. It's a perfect response because the people making that argument are almost guaranteed to biatch the most about getting stuck behind the scene of an accident.
 
2012-05-09 08:34:54 PM
driving a car is not a fundamental right, follow the rules or take the bus.

/Help! I am being oppressed by big government who drew those lines on the road that tell me where I can and cannot drive, they are limiting my freedom !!!!!
 
2012-05-09 08:37:28 PM

Rapmaster2000: As I document in my new book, "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails - but Individuals Succeed,"

[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x300]

Hmmm. I get the feeling that all of these platitudes about government failure are just providing excuses to nobodies so that their failure to reach their goal is because no one respects them as individuals. If only government would get out of the way then I would be highly successful. It sounds like repackaged Ayn Rand for frustrated middle-aged men.

It sells though. Pandering works.


i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2012-05-09 08:38:07 PM
www.mghs.sa.edu.au

Anyone else think of this Onion article about Chrysler's neckbelts?
 
2012-05-09 08:38:22 PM
The silliest part of this is riding in a car is the single most dangerous thing a person can do. It is not a right in any sense of the word. If the government shouldn't regulate safety in the deadliest activity it's citizens do, what kind of safety regulation would be more justifiable. Yeah let's dump the FDA, OSHA, SEC, EPA and any other safety body out there. We can just return to an agrarian society, reverse the industrial society and live an idyllic personal responsibilty nirvana. Me personally, i like all the perks that come with the system we have.
 
2012-05-09 08:38:45 PM

Foxxinnia: What is going on? What is with people? Seatbelts saves people's farking lives. People are saved by them all the damn time. This isn't an opinion. Why don't people wear them? I don't know. They're stupid? That's the only rational reason I can come up with. So we have a lot of idiots endangering themselves therefore we need laws to force them to use them. Then they say shiat like, "Oh it's okay if I'm a danger to myself. It's like I'm going to hurt anybody. If I die because I'm not wearing a seatbelt then the only person I'm harming is myself." Yo dog, we're living in a farking society here. What one person does has impacts beyond the physical. There are both psychological and economic damages being rendered when someone dies in a car accident as opposed to simply being injured or emerging unharmed thanks to wearing a seatbelt. And yeah, the police fine you money for it. Stop crying about it. That's how you encourage people to stop being farking morons because evidently being safe isn't a good enough incentive.


QTF. It appears that America-brand Libertarianism has metastasized into an ideology not just opposed to the government in the marketplace, but opposed to anything remotely connected with a society of more than one person, regardless of merit.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report