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  
•       •       •

2997 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 May 2012 at 7:44 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-05-09 04:16:49 PM  
I'm fine with that.

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

FREEDOM!
 
2012-05-09 04:18:11 PM  
John Stossel- king of fake outrage. Really? Seat belts?
 
2012-05-09 04:19:56 PM  
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.
 
2012-05-09 04:20:12 PM  
As I document in my new book, "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails - but Individuals Succeed,"

static.ddmcdn.com

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.
 
2012-05-09 04:20:59 PM  

downstairs: John Stossel- king of fake outrage. Really? Seat belts?


...and controls on prescribing Oxy. WTF, dude.
 
2012-05-09 04:22:22 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!


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.
 
2012-05-09 04:24:44 PM  

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?
 
2012-05-09 04:26:48 PM  
Hah, what does he think this is, the 70's? Companies haven't been willingly doing things that increase consumer safety in decades. Bean-counter mentality all but killed that off as they ever-futilely race toward zero.
 
2012-05-09 04:27:23 PM  

Sgt Otter: downstairs: John Stossel- king of fake outrage. Really? Seat belts?

...and controls on prescribing Oxy. WTF, dude.


DADDY NEEDS HIS MEDICINE
i.imgur.com
 
2012-05-09 04:27:56 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.


Not to mention he's writing this outrage on the government-created Internet.
 
2012-05-09 04:29:25 PM  
www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com
 
2012-05-09 04:29:52 PM  
What about bootstraps? Are they still mandatory?
 
2012-05-09 04:29:58 PM  
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.
 
2012-05-09 04:31:48 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?


They make more money off living seatbelt wearers than dead non-seatbelt wearers.

Less money spent scraping body parts off the road.

Less money spent on repairing decapitations in the ER.
 
2012-05-09 04:31:58 PM  
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?

University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman argues that increased safety features on cars have the ironic effect of encouraging people to drive more recklessly. It's called the Peltzman Effect - a variation on what insurance experts call "moral hazard." Studies show that people drive faster when they are snugly enclosed in seat belts.

And many economists argue that this is flawed. It's only a hypothesis. That's why it's called an "effect" and not a "theory". To go further, this is all related to the reason why the Nobel Prize for Economics is worthless.

Through the Food and Drug Administration, the government claims to protect us. But some people suffer because of that protection: Some die waiting for drugs to be approved.

So approve Thalidomide.

This article is a fantasy. It's all "I think I think" over and over again masquerading as a theory. We know it doesn't work, John. We already did it your way.

Libertarianism: as unrealistic as communism, but at least the communist on your dorm floor had weed to share and not to mooch.
 
2012-05-09 04:34:28 PM  

gameshowhost: [www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com image 327x240]


Came for the slap. Thank you sir.
 
2012-05-09 04:34:41 PM  
Wear your seatbelt or don't, I don't really care. What I am tired of is car companies feeling the need to install alerts for when you aren't wearing your seatbelt. I know I'm not wearing my seatbelt, I don't need a constant beeping noise every 3 seconds reminding me of that fact. Even worse when you're on rural roads or on a lease/ranch where seatbelts are completely unnecesary.
 
2012-05-09 04:37:18 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?


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.
 
2012-05-09 04:38:14 PM  
I've only unbuckled one corpse and he was wrapped around the tree so tight it took over an hour to extricate him.
I've seen a lot more who would have walked away if they had been belted in.
 
2012-05-09 04:40:39 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?


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.
 
2012-05-09 04:47:15 PM  
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.
 
2012-05-09 04:49:37 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'm ok with them getting treated. As long as the insurance companies or government don't have to shell out for it. If they want to pay it out-of-pocket, hold a bake fruit basket sale, or otherwise rely on the charity of other people, more power to them.
 
2012-05-09 04:51:12 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.


Nice try commie. Like I'll support paying for someone else's tattoo! Let the market determine how many idiots get branded with the stupid.
 
2012-05-09 04:59:37 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: 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.

Nice try commie. Like I'll support paying for someone else's tattoo! Let the market determine how many idiots get branded with the stupid.


Next, they'll be requiring us to pay for those annoying roadside crosses with their teddy bears and plastic flowers!
 
2012-05-09 05:18:10 PM  
AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THOSE LIBTARDS' PROPERLY INFLATED TIRES!!1!
 
2012-05-09 05:19:30 PM  
I'm being oppressed by my anti-lock brakes.
 
2012-05-09 05:20:55 PM  
www.lpstuff.com
eet's a good book.
 
2012-05-09 05:21:49 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!


Can we also stop paying for medical treatment for health problems that could have been prevented by diet and exercise?
 
2012-05-09 05:22:52 PM  
Patrick Henry was an abrasive asshole who actively tried to prevent the creation and ratification of the Constitution.
 
2012-05-09 05:41:19 PM  

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.


Works for me.
 
2012-05-09 05:43:08 PM  
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.
 
2012-05-09 06:41:00 PM  

Diogenes: Patrick Henry was an abrasive asshole who actively tried to prevent the creation and ratification of the Constitution.


Pfft! Patrick Henry was always frontin' for The Man.

Thomas Paine was the real shizz.
 
2012-05-09 06:47:19 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: gameshowhost: [www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com image 327x240]

Came for the slap. Thank you sir.


*nods in acknowledgement; walks taller than dewey cox*
 
2012-05-09 06:52:15 PM  

TsarTom: [www.lpstuff.com image 282x450]
eet's a good book.


There's nothing consensual about forcing me to share your burden of the risk while you enjoy all of the benefits.

/free riding: how the fark does it work?
 
2012-05-09 06:59:09 PM  
If toddlers really don't want to be raped, they can simply fight back.
 
2012-05-09 07:14:20 PM  

Rapmaster2000: So approve Thalidomide.


HELL NO!

Do you realize how farking dangerous that drug is?
 
2012-05-09 07:20:59 PM  
Isn't John Stossel the "no one in America starved during the Great Depression" guy?
 
2012-05-09 07:25:30 PM  

Rapmaster2000: 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.


Wrong. An unbelted driver can be thrown from the driver's seat in even a minor collision, causing them to lose control of their car and potentially worsening the accident.
 
2012-05-09 07:46:54 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?


Yes, they would. Believe it or not, there are people in the government who don't want you to die because of stupidity. However for you, they might make an exception.
 
2012-05-09 07:46:56 PM  
Why won't the government deregulate murder already?
 
2012-05-09 07:47:45 PM  
If conservatives want to lift their trucks, then drive really really fast around turns without their seatbelts on, then I am all for it. Just please do it before November.
 
2012-05-09 07:49:14 PM  

spiderpaz: If conservatives want to lift their trucks, then drive really really fast around turns without their seatbelts on, then I am all for it. Just please do it before November.


preferably on an icy morning, far far away from the nearest hospital
 
2012-05-09 07:49:36 PM  
All that said, though, you could make a legit argument that airbag mandates are unnecessary, though at this point the free market pretty much makes it's own mandates, as evidenced by the new cars that have the entire passenger cabin explode with bags in a fender bender.
 
2012-05-09 07:49:52 PM  
please, please, PLEASE, conservatives - take off your oppressive liberal seatbelts!
 
2012-05-09 07:50:12 PM  
University of Nebraska at Lincoln student pens anti-seatbelt editorial, dies in horrible crash without his seatbelt on a couple months later.

Snopes

One of my favorite true Snopes.
 
2012-05-09 07:50:13 PM  

gameshowhost: [www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com image 327x240]


I do believe it drove him insane.
 
2012-05-09 07:53:57 PM  
Is it the 80's again?
 
2012-05-09 07:53:59 PM  

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.


Sounds like you lived in a neighborhood full of idiots.
 
2012-05-09 07:54:29 PM  

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?
 
2012-05-09 07:55:17 PM  

Rapmaster2000: 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.


OK lets change the 2nd part of that first then before we are only concerned about the first part. Deal?
 
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.
 
2012-05-09 08:39:02 PM  
Looks like 90% of posters didn't even read the article. He's arguing th....oh nevermind.
 
2012-05-09 08:39:36 PM  

Eccentric Fixation: 2011 was a record low in traffic deaths. I wonder if seatbelt laws had anything to do with that. Hmmmmmm.


Nope. It was conceal carry laws.

Jesus lived in a world without the FDA and other government nannnyisms, and he turned out okay.
 
2012-05-09 08:40:13 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Dear John, read this, it explains all about free market American auto safety innovation the government curbed.

/Did any of these Randian anarchists make it through 10th grade?
 
2012-05-09 08:41:31 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?

University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman argues that increased safety features on cars have the ironic effect of encouraging people to drive more recklessly. It's called the Peltzman Effect - a variation on what insurance experts call "moral hazard." Studies show that people drive faster when they are snugly enclosed in seat belts.

And many economists argue that this is flawed. It's only a hypothesis. That's why it's called an "effect" and not a "theory". To go further, this is all related to the reason why the Nobel Prize for Economics is worthless.

Through the Food and Drug Administration, the government claims to protect us. But some people suffer because of that protection: Some die waiting for drugs to be approved.

So approve Thalidomide.

This article is a fantasy. It's all "I think I think" over and over again masquerading as a theory. We know it doesn't work, John. We already did it your way.

Libertarianism: as unrealistic as communism, but at least the communist on your dorm floor had weed to share and not to mooch.


I agree with you and all, but...psst, Thalidomide is used to treat breast cancer.
 
2012-05-09 08:41:45 PM  

AlgaeRancher: driving a car is not a fundamental right, follow the rules or take the bus.


static6.businessinsider.com

Stossel on Public Transportation:
Why These Lumbering Behemoths of Antiquity
Belong in a Scrapyard
Instead of crowding our Proud Highways
 
2012-05-09 08:44:04 PM  

Euell Gibbons: Looks like 90% of posters didn't even read the article. He's arguing th....oh nevermind.


Don't get stage fright now, for heaven's sake. Out with it.
 
2012-05-09 08:44:29 PM  

lockers: 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.


Most dangerous thing a person could do...challenge accepted.

/I think a "spike mounted on the steering wheel - pointed right at the driver's chest " would be more dangerous...and perfect for prom night
 
2012-05-09 08:45:08 PM  

kbronsito: Aarontology: I'm fine with that.

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

FREEDOM!

Can we also stop paying for medical treatment for health problems that could have been prevented by diet and exercise?


Why stop there? If two people get together that are genetically predisposed to cancer and have a kid with cancer, let the little bastard die.
 
2012-05-09 08:47:10 PM  

Janusdog: 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?

University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman argues that increased safety features on cars have the ironic effect of encouraging people to drive more recklessly. It's called the Peltzman Effect - a variation on what insurance experts call "moral hazard." Studies show that people drive faster when they are snugly enclosed in seat belts.

And many economists argue that this is flawed. It's only a hypothesis. That's why it's called an "effect" and not a "theory". To go further, this is all related to the reason why the Nobel Prize for Economics is worthless.

Through the Food and Drug Administration, the government claims to protect us. But some people suffer because of that protection: Some die waiting for drugs to be approved.

So approve Thalidomide.

This article is a fantasy. It's all "I think I think" over and over again masquerading as a theory. We know it doesn't work, John. We already did it your way.

Libertarianism: as unrealistic as communism, but at least the communist on your dorm floor had weed to share and not to mooch.

I agree with you and all, but...psst, Thalidomide is used to treat breast cancer.


Which dovetails neatly into why abortion should maintain its place between a women and her doctor. The choice should never be i live and have a deformed child or both of us die because i have a treatable life threatening illness. How can you possibly be for deformed or dead children.
 
2012-05-09 08:50:56 PM  

New Farkin User Name: lockers: 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.

Most dangerous thing a person could do...challenge accepted.

/I think a "spike mounted on the steering wheel - pointed right at the driver's chest " would be more dangerous...and perfect for prom night


Fair enough, stupidity is the single most dangerous activity people do. But you can't stop people for doing stupid things, you can just encourage them not to.
 
2012-05-09 08:51:30 PM  
Thanks A Lot Beltbama
 
2012-05-09 08:52:47 PM  

cmunic8r99: 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'm ok with them getting treated. As long as the insurance companies or government don't have to shell out for it. If they want to pay it out-of-pocket, hold a bake fruit basket sale, or otherwise rely on the charity of other people, more power to them.


Fark that, their treatment will be socialized via the "go to ER, don't pay bill" method, not to mention the extra medical care wasted on them will drive up the price for the rest of us via supply&demand.
 
2012-05-09 08:53:24 PM  
People who complain about seat belts sound fat.
 
2012-05-09 08:54:01 PM  

Yakk: [upload.wikimedia.org image 139x221]

Dear John, read this, it explains all about free market American auto safety innovation the government curbed.

/Did any of these Randian anarchists make it through 10th grade?


10th grade? In some socialist indoctrination center run by the evil autocratic state?
 
2012-05-09 08:54:32 PM  

Janusdog: 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?

University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman argues that increased safety features on cars have the ironic effect of encouraging people to drive more recklessly. It's called the Peltzman Effect - a variation on what insurance experts call "moral hazard." Studies show that people drive faster when they are snugly enclosed in seat belts.

And many economists argue that this is flawed. It's only a hypothesis. That's why it's called an "effect" and not a "theory". To go further, this is all related to the reason why the Nobel Prize for Economics is worthless.

Through the Food and Drug Administration, the government claims to protect us. But some people suffer because of that protection: Some die waiting for drugs to be approved.

So approve Thalidomide.

This article is a fantasy. It's all "I think I think" over and over again masquerading as a theory. We know it doesn't work, John. We already did it your way.

Libertarianism: as unrealistic as communism, but at least the communist on your dorm floor had weed to share and not to mooch.

I agree with you and all, but...psst, Thalidomide is used to treat breast cancer.


I know it has valid applications now, but there was considerable controversy at the time revolving around what was seen as the FDA's intransigence in the face of a drug that clearly helped women with morning sickness. The argument was that Germans were reaping the benefits of this miracle drug while American bureaucrats are dragging their heels.

Bureaucracies aren't created for efficiency and speed, they're created for accuracy. They may not always succeed at that goal, but drug safety is not necessarily something that would be approved by speed to market. This is a case where we've shown through past example that accuracy is more important.
 
2012-05-09 08:55:07 PM  

indylaw: 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?


I'm still curious how seatbelt laws are liberal.
 
2012-05-09 08:57:50 PM  

TheBigJerk: indylaw: 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?

I'm still curious how seatbelt laws are liberal.


Because england is the nanny state, england is socialist, liberals are socialists therefore safety laws are liberal. TADA!
 
2012-05-09 08:58:47 PM  

New Farkin User Name: lockers: 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.

Most dangerous thing a person could do...challenge accepted.

/I think a "spike mounted on the steering wheel - pointed right at the driver's chest " would be more dangerous...and perfect for prom night


Before the advent of the collapsible steering column, that's about what we had. Thank you Robert McNamara.
 
2012-05-09 08:59:03 PM  

downstairs: John Stossel- king of fake outrage. Really? Seat belts?


It would have been much more funny if he wrote the article about space travel.

"Sure we landed on the moon, but if the government hadn't intervened the private sector might have landed on six competing planets by now!"

Speaking of which, when the Hell is the first private-sector moon landing going to happen? It's one thing being beaten to the punch by the big bad incompetent government, but it's been over 40 years already and they're barely off the ground. Not even an unmanned drone, nothing? How fast is this bootstrappiness thing supposed to work?
 
2012-05-09 08:59:54 PM  
Same thing as no-fault insurance. CORPORATIONS wanted seat-belt laws (less medical costs) and no-fault insurance (avoids litigation, less cost) so they could save/make money. The politicians wanted them so you rabble would shut your yaps about raising auto insurance costs. And they could say they did something about the costs and also for your physical benefit.

/of course all that eventually leads back to the same cost to the consumer, once you massage the intangible variables
 
2012-05-09 09:00:45 PM  
It really really annoys me when semi-sensible people use sensible arguments to make irrational arguments.

The Peltzman Effect is demonstrably true, at least over the short-term: Increased safety features do tend to have the effect of causing people to behave more recklessly, at least at first. You drive faster in a new car and run faster in new shoes, and are more careless in brightly-lit areas. Then, after you settle down, you become more careful. The reverse is true too: You are more careless in your own neighborhood than in a strange one.

But that's NOT an excuse to repeal seatbelt laws! Just because you're going to drive faster wearing a seatbelt is hardly a rationale to not wear a seatbelt and hope people will slow down. Hitting a pole at 55 without a seatbelt is not safer than hitting it with one at 65.

Same way with his lame drug example. Yes, doctors are wary about prescribing painkillers, and it's unconscionable. But the REASONS for it are not because of overregulation in testing or delays in approval (as he implies with his reference to Vioxx). The reasons are related to the War On Drugs and the fallout from that. Not because people might overdose on their pills, but because doctors are afraid of being arrested as dealers.

The only thing worse than a stupid person making a stupid argument is a smart person making the same argument. Because they almost sound reasonable.
 
2012-05-09 09:00:49 PM  
*facepalm*

I guess they don't call it World Nut Daily for nothing.
 
2012-05-09 09:02:07 PM  
This was precious. FTFC:

"I don't think I have ever been as angry about anything as I was about the seat belt crap. I still become angered every time I hear some moron state that seat belts saved x lives this year. This is yet another bare-faced lie since no one can possibly know how many are supposed to die within x time frame. The jacka^^es in Congress cannot prepare a budget. They cannot secure the borders. They can, however, jack around with steroids in baseball, worry about cupcakes, fret about football players, stick their snouts into the business of states such as Arizona and Florida, allow TSA perverts to molest the public, build internment camps for our veterans, and squander our tax dollars on Sandra Flake and other dead beats. Feed our enemies and sell our nation down the drain to the NWO. I wish to hell that they would stay out of my business, and everyone elses. Folks, we need to get rid of these goons."


You can almost see the spittle on her monitor as she typed this.
 
2012-05-09 09:04:04 PM  

cc_rider: This was precious. FTFC:

"I don't think I have ever been as angry about anything as I was about the seat belt crap. I still become angered every time I hear some moron state that seat belts saved x lives this year. This is yet another bare-faced lie since no one can possibly know how many are supposed to die within x time frame. The jacka^^es in Congress cannot prepare a budget. They cannot secure the borders. They can, however, jack around with steroids in baseball, worry about cupcakes, fret about football players, stick their snouts into the business of states such as Arizona and Florida, allow TSA perverts to molest the public, build internment camps for our veterans, and squander our tax dollars on Sandra Flake and other dead beats. Feed our enemies and sell our nation down the drain to the NWO. I wish to hell that they would stay out of my business, and everyone elses. Folks, we need to get rid of these goons."


You can almost see the spittle on her monitor as she typed this.


To think that otherwise ordinary people might have this sort of internal dialogue churning through their brainpan. It's just---yeah.
 
2012-05-09 09:06:05 PM  

cc_rider: This was precious. FTFC:

"I don't think I have ever been as angry about anything as I was about the seat belt crap. I still become angered every time I hear some moron state that seat belts saved x lives this year. This is yet another bare-faced lie since no one can possibly know how many are supposed to die within x time frame. The jacka^^es in Congress cannot prepare a budget. They cannot secure the borders. They can, however, jack around with steroids in baseball, worry about cupcakes, fret about football players, stick their snouts into the business of states such as Arizona and Florida, allow TSA perverts to molest the public, build internment camps for our veterans, and squander our tax dollars on Sandra Flake and other dead beats. Feed our enemies and sell our nation down the drain to the NWO. I wish to hell that they would stay out of my business, and everyone elses. Folks, we need to get rid of these goons."


You can almost see the spittle on her monitor as she typed this.


If you assume the bolded parts are true, why do the seatbelts make you the angriest?
 
2012-05-09 09:08:41 PM  
"We don't know what good things we might have if the heavy foot of government didn't step in to limit our options"

...but I'll just make shiat up and tell you "this is what would happen" anyway.

Anyway, I agree from a social Darwinian standpoint: stupid people will remove themselves from the gene pool more rapidly.
 
2012-05-09 09:08:54 PM  

Gyrfalcon: run faster in new shoes


Not if you know anything about breaking in new shoes. ymmv, but running even equally fast in new shoes is a mistake I'll never make again :)
 
2012-05-09 09:10:47 PM  

cc_rider: This was precious. FTFC:

"I don't think I have ever been as angry about anything as I was about the seat belt crap. I still become angered every time I hear some moron state that seat belts saved x lives this year. This is yet another bare-faced lie since no one can possibly know how many are supposed to die within x time frame. The jacka^^es in Congress cannot prepare a budget. They cannot secure the borders. They can, however, jack around with steroids in baseball, worry about cupcakes, fret about football players, stick their snouts into the business of states such as Arizona and Florida, allow TSA perverts to molest the public, build internment camps for our veterans, and squander our tax dollars on Sandra Flake and other dead beats. Feed our enemies and sell our nation down the drain to the NWO. I wish to hell that they would stay out of my business, and everyone elses. Folks, we need to get rid of these goons."


You can almost see the spittle on her monitor as she typed this.


Farking statistcs, how do they work?!?
 
2012-05-09 09:20:21 PM  
I was a passenger in a car that went off the road going probably 50 or 60 at the time and the fact that the driver and I were both wearing seat belts definitely kept both of us in the car and her in the driver's seat long enough to bring the car to a halt. Had she not been wearing a seat belt the car would have rolled over and she probably would have been killed and had neither of us been wearing one we both probably would have been killed. A tow and a minor repair job later we were back in business instead of both being dead.

If you don't want to wear a seat belt that is fine but I'll keep wearing mine because I dig this whole being alive thing.
 
2012-05-09 09:23:04 PM  
Oddly enough the top link on the Sports tab right now is about someone dying in a car accident. No mention of whether or not he was wearing a seat belt but the timing is definitely a little odd.
 
2012-05-09 09:26:33 PM  
Fine, don't wear your seatbelt.

Get ejected (lovely thought) and smash your head on the ground killing you instantly (ouch) so that the coroner (tax payer money) has to come out and cordon off the road (lost revenue due to lost man hours of people being delayed going to work) do a $2000+ autopsy, labs to make sure you weren't high or drunk (more wasted tax payer dollars) and make sure the fire department (more tax revenue) shows up to assist in moving your car out of the open road.
 
2012-05-09 09:27:27 PM  

orangehat: I was a passenger in a car that went off the road going probably 50 or 60 at the time and the fact that the driver and I were both wearing seat belts definitely kept both of us in the car and her in the driver's seat long enough to bring the car to a halt. Had she not been wearing a seat belt the car would have rolled over and she probably would have been killed and had neither of us been wearing one we both probably would have been killed. A tow and a minor repair job later we were back in business instead of both being dead.

If you don't want to wear a seat belt that is fine but I'll keep wearing mine because I dig this whole being alive thing.


Like vaccines, seat belts are useful when BOTH drivers in an accident are wearing them. It's that whole "shared responsibility" thing. I wear my seat belt because it's the law, and it is just plain good sense. I'm going to be right pissed if I die anyway because the bootstrappy derper who crashes into my vehicle because she just hates that whole liberal speed limit law isn;t wearing hers. OK well maybe it won't matter because I'll be dead, but still, my ghost will kick her ass.
 
2012-05-09 09:33:31 PM  
wiki.urbandead.com
Don't hate the playa, hate the game. Biotches!

//GIS "john stossel douchebag"
 
2012-05-09 09:44:04 PM  
So, can we end these oppressive helmet laws too? And the controls on meat and meat by products? And those child labor laws too. Really, any regulation that keeps people from extinguishing themselves and their kin folks in record numbers. The excess population must be curbed and this oppressive government keeps them out of debtors prison and workhouses for cheap labor that is killing us with the Chinese market...
 
2012-05-09 09:46:12 PM  

lockers: New Farkin User Name: lockers: 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.

Most dangerous thing a person could do...challenge accepted.

/I think a "spike mounted on the steering wheel - pointed right at the driver's chest " would be more dangerous...and perfect for prom night

Fair enough, stupidity is the single most dangerous activity people do. But you can't stop people for doing stupid things, you can just encourage them not to.


I did like the idea of a spike mounted on the steering wheel.

Here's my compromise: Make it like a reverse air bag. If you HAVE a seatbelt on, the spike doesn't deploy, but if you're NOT wearing one, the spike springs out of the steering column as you hurtle towards it at 85 mph, thus ending your government-defying, freedom-loving stupidity forever. Also, the paramedics are automatically free of any liability for having to save you if they find you anywhere near still alive if you're impaled on the spike.

Then we'll see how many people refuse to wear their seatbelt.
 
2012-05-09 09:47:25 PM  

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



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.


...who was Rand originally for?
 
2012-05-09 09:47:58 PM  

kbronsito: Aarontology: I'm fine with that.

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

FREEDOM!

Can we also stop paying for medical treatment for health problems that could have been prevented by diet and exercise?


...it's time to end the insurance scam altogether. If Paygo is good enough for Congress, it's good enough for all patients! You don't pay, you don't get treatment! If you can't pay, don't get sick or injured! It's just that simple!
 
M-G
2012-05-09 09:48:09 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Less money spent scraping body parts off the road.


And a crash with no fatalities or body parts all over the place is a lot quicker to clean up, thus avoiding a lot of additional traffic problems.
 
2012-05-09 09:54:12 PM  
As someone old enough to have driven and crashed big ol' cars: Ya'll are dumbasses if you think those things were somehow "safe" in a crash.
 
2012-05-09 09:54:13 PM  
I was actually completely against seatbelt mandates until someone finally made an argument that convinced me.

By wearing a seatbelt, if you are getting into some sort of accident you will have a better chance of maintaining control of the vehicle if you aren't thrown through the windshield, which could lead to saving someone ELSE's life, not just your own.

So yes, I have seen the light!

Now, helmet laws... still not for those.
 
2012-05-09 09:55:20 PM  
I learned the importance of wearing a seat belt when the car I was riding in almost got hit. My face smashing against a headrest is not a pleasant experience and one that would have been prevented had I been wearing a seat belt.
 
2012-05-09 09:57:29 PM  

ghare: As someone old enough to have driven and crashed big ol' cars: Ya'll are dumbasses if you think those things were somehow "safe" in a crash.


It's a shame they had to waste this perfectly good '59 Bel Air, but it's impressive how a 2009 Malibu slices through it like butter.

Bonus: the seatbelt on the Bel Air snaps.

Link
 
2012-05-09 10:00:35 PM  
"Seatbelts save 15,000 lives a year. So Screw em!
 
2012-05-09 10:00:44 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.


The current three-point seat belt was designed and patented by Volvo. Who licensed the patent to the world for free. Because they felt that people's safety was that important.
 
2012-05-09 10:07:57 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.


Sure, the car lived through the accident just fine. Too bad you got killed bouncing around that rigid and pointy interior because your car had no crumple zones to reduce the strength of the impact.
 
2012-05-09 10:11:36 PM  

Primum: University of Nebraska at Lincoln student pens anti-seatbelt editorial, dies in horrible crash without his seatbelt on a couple months later.

Snopes

One of my favorite true Snopes.


Added irony. UofN was responsible for creating the SAFER barrier along with IMS. Vehicular safety was kinda their thing.
 
2012-05-09 10:14:58 PM  
Can we get David Schultz to give it another go?
 
2012-05-09 10:21:58 PM  
I'm okay with this, and I'm a lib. Think it's pretty damn silly to have self protection laws.
 
2012-05-09 10:26:30 PM  

Primum: University of Nebraska at Lincoln student pens anti-seatbelt editorial, dies in horrible crash without his seatbelt on a couple months later.

Snopes

One of my favorite true Snopes.


L. O. L.

I'm going to H. E. L. L.
 
2012-05-09 10:30:38 PM  
FTFA: Let's start treating people as though their bodies belong to them, not to a controlling and "protective" government.

... Except women, of course. *wink*
 
2012-05-09 10:33:46 PM  
You know I just noticed this, but is there a male writer for WND who doesn't have a gay porn 'stache?
 
2012-05-09 10:34:10 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.


Also, a car made of of some magic solid steel that can never be crushed is not the issue. Physics is the issue. An object in motion bla bla bla

If the car stops suddenly all loose objects inside the car will continue their forward (or sideways) velocity until they encounter enough friction or mass to stop them. If you are wearing a seat belt you may of course die, or you may only encounter some really, really bad bruises as the seat belt keeps you from going through the windshield and over the hood and onto the pavement. Well, unless you just became a big, broken bag of goo by splattering across the unbreakable magic solid steel car.

Also, I was an English major so not only is my explanation of physics wrong but my poor writing, bad spelling, and incorrect grammar should be lulzy.
 
2012-05-09 10:38:02 PM  
Wait - seatbelt laws are oppressive, but anti-gay marriage laws are not? How does that work, exactly?
 
2012-05-09 10:42:22 PM  
Seat belt laws aren't so save you.

They're to save the first responders.

Flung bodies and crushed heads are extreme sights, cops and paramedics shouldn't have to see them every day. In addition there's a pile of paperwork with a fatal crash.

An increase in these factors would grind away at the people.
 
2012-05-09 10:46:43 PM  
So...John Stossel is pro-choice?

"In what sense are we free if we can't decide such things for ourselves?"

"Don't we own our own bodies? Why, in a supposedly free country, do Americans, even when dying, meekly stand aside and let the state limit our choices?"

Good to know...
 
2012-05-09 11:13:14 PM  
There are auto insurers that will differentiate their limits for medical payments (payments made to your passengers essentially) based on whether they were wearing a seatbelt or not. This might only be applicable in comparative negligence states, though.

/Comparative vs. contributory negligence is another example why an overarching federal insurance body is nigh on impossible to set up
 
2012-05-09 11:41:52 PM  
It's not just leftists - authoritarians of all political groups want to keep you "safe" from things they don't like.

Well, not really.

They want to gain and maintain *power*, so they find some "issue" to grab hold of, get statistical data to confirm their biases, then set about enacting laws and regulations that keep them in their petty bureaucratic jobs rather than be forced by reality to work in legitimate professions requiring marketable skills.
 
2012-05-09 11:57:44 PM  

Sumding Wong: I wouldn't have had a problem with mandatory seat belt laws if my insurance rates had gone down matching the insurance company risks.


FREE MARKET
 
2012-05-10 12:29:50 AM  
I farking hate WND.

That said. I hate seat-belt laws. If you are stupid enough to not wear one, you should be removed from the gene pool. And taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for your idiotic ass either.

Now, if more WND's would not wear their seat belts. Life would be better... So long as I don't have to pay for them.
 
2012-05-10 12:32:04 AM  
Ed Finnerty
AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THOSE LIBTARDS' PROPERLY INFLATED TIRES!!1!

I wonder how many people went out and let air out of their tires in order to 'show' Obama that they didn't have to do what he suggested...

Spite- how does it work?

/ it doesn't, actually...
 
2012-05-10 12:40:23 AM  

TsukasaK: I'm okay with this, and I'm a lib. Think it's pretty damn silly to have self protection laws.


In other words you prefer the honor system no matter how many people get killed in accidents. Darwin awards, right? Who cares about 'em?

More of a rose-colored libertarian tint than liberal.
 
2012-05-10 12:41:24 AM  

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.


Totally agree here.

Also, this begs the question - do any neighborhoods we know of have the school bus force kids into seat belts? As far as I know all kids on a school bus never wear any seat belts and many of them don't even have functional ones in all the seats. There seems to be a rather large double standard there, unless this has changed around the country recently. Mandatory seat belts "save lives", but screw the children?
 
2012-05-10 12:48:48 AM  

Deftoons: Mandatory seat belts "save lives", but screw the children?


LOL how long did it take you to bring up the school bus non-comparison?
 
2012-05-10 12:56:18 AM  
Yeah. Those dang seat belt laws are why cars don't have airbags, don't accordian crumple to absorb impact, have anti-lock breaks or windshields made of safety glass that doesn't cut flesh.

Oh wait. They do have those things. And car makers tout the safety features of cars.

I used to be lackadaisical about wearing my seat belt. Then I spent an evening with a group of head-injury patients (helping out my roommate who worked at the rehab facility). Most of them had been injured in car accidents and were not wearing seat belts. One was paralyzed because she was thrown from the car. I saw the reality of what can happen in an accident and it's farking terrifying.

Now I don't drive around the corner without my seat belt.

A few years ago there was an accident near my apartment. Two minivans collided, each going about 35 mph, both of them had 5 or 6 passengers. The people in one minivan walked away, the worst injury was a broken arm. The people in the other minivan were all either dead or in comas. Guess what the difference was.
 
2012-05-10 12:57:32 AM  
1) Fine by me. You don't want to wear a seatbelt, go for it. That's a self-correcting thing.
2) This is what you're frothing at the mouth over today? Really? This?
 
2012-05-10 01:02:42 AM  

Phins: Guess what the difference was.


I'm still pretty sure people aren't going to wear them unless compelled by law. I know that makes a lot of folks mad here.
 
2012-05-10 01:02:42 AM  

Phins: Guess what the difference was.


I'm still pretty sure people aren't going to wear seat belts unless compelled by law. I know that makes a lot of folks mad here.

I mean, maybe some disgruntled seat belt wearer will come up with the technology for vehicle inertial dampeners, who know?
 
2012-05-10 01:02:42 AM  

Phins: Guess what the difference was.


I'm still pretty sure people aren't going to wear seat belts unless compelled by law. I know that makes a lot of folks mad here.

But hey, maybe some disgruntled seat belt wearer will come up with the technology for vehicle inertial dampeners, who knows?
 
2012-05-10 01:07:17 AM  
Whoa double post freakout. With edits.
 
2012-05-10 01:07:58 AM  
*backs away slowly*
 
2012-05-10 01:44:49 AM  

Dadoo: Wait - seatbelt laws are oppressive, but anti-gay marriage laws are not? How does that work, exactly?


Because Jesus.

/NGTRTFA
 
2012-05-10 01:45:08 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: 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?

They make more money off living seatbelt wearers than dead non-seatbelt wearers.

Less money spent scraping body parts off the road.

Less money spent on repairing decapitations in the ER.


They can repair decapitations now?
 
2012-05-10 01:55:14 AM  
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.

Really, even Nascar retards that are the republican base know what 6 point harnesses are. You know why they aren't in every car, because companies aren't forced to put them in.
 
2012-05-10 02:18:44 AM  
At risk of sounding sympathetic to a WorldNutDaily article, I agree that seat belt laws should be abolished. Helmet laws too.

I think it is stupid to not wear these things, and will continue to do them myself no matter the law. But I think it comes down to the proper role of government. Government should -
1. Protect me from the harmful actions of other people.
2. Protect other people from MY harmful actions.

It should NOT protect me from my own choices. Government has many important and useful functions. Being a nanny is not one of them. I am an ADULT and I can make my own damn choices(for better or worse), thank you very much.

Someone who does not understand that, simply does not understand the base concept of freedom.
 
2012-05-10 02:21:15 AM  
Seatbelt law threads really bring out the nutters.

Some people are just really stubborn assholes.
 
2012-05-10 02:26:07 AM  

bk3k: the proper role of government. Government should


Says who?
 
2012-05-10 02:38:19 AM  

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?


The reason we have seat belts is because people demanded that cars be made safe. The power of the people is expressed via state laws.

Car makers were originally AGAINST seat belts because they cost more. Sure, now car makers realize safety can increase the bottom line, but before that it took the PEOPLE demanding safety.

I'm pretty sure it is why Ralph Nader is Ralph Nader.
 
2012-05-10 03:33:21 AM  
Michigan pays for all medical bills after the first $250k caused by an traffic accident. For life. If they want to stop wearing their seatbelt and waive their catastrophic injury insurance payouts when they get into an accident and get hurt, be my guest. I just don't want to hear about their financial and health problems after their decision cost them their livelihoods, insurability, and a forced them to bankruptcy.
 
2012-05-10 05:41:03 AM  
I'm sick of government oppression regarding drunk driving. I drive better after a few drinks. And don't get me started on speed limits in school zones. America is a lie. We are never truly free.
 
2012-05-10 05:45:06 AM  

Rapmaster2000: It sells though. Pandering works.


Other examples of government failures:
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
Space program
www.history.navy.mil
US Military
img3.imageshack.us
Highway System

www.healthsentinel.com


Disease control

Hey Stossel:
www.tabloidprodigy.com
 
2012-05-10 06:14:08 AM  
I will never understand why wearing a seatbelt or using a more efficient light bulb is tyranical government oppresion yet legislating who people can marry or use a person's tax dollars to support a religious institution they are not part of is freedom to some people. It makes no sense.
 
2012-05-10 06:17:32 AM  

that bosnian sniper: You know I just noticed this, but is there a male writer for WND who doesn't have a gay porn 'stache?


I'm thinking it might be one of the only two prerequisites for a job there.

First, be an batshiat insane, pants-on-head rtard.

Second, have an excellent porn 'stache.

I see he's plugging his new book "Government never does anything good, so vote Republican".

That's nice.

Why the fark would anyone ever vote for a party who thinks government is always a problem and never a solution?

Bit of a death wish mentality if you ask me.
 
2012-05-10 07:13:26 AM  

Heraclitus: "Seatbelts save 15,000 lives a year. So Screw em!


To be fair, some of those are libs that probably deserve to die.
 
2012-05-10 07:26:37 AM  

quatchi: that bosnian sniper: You know I just noticed this, but is there a male writer for WND who doesn't have a gay porn 'stache?

I'm thinking it might be one of the only two prerequisites for a job there.

First, be an batshiat insane, pants-on-head rtard.

Second, have an excellent porn 'stache.

I see he's plugging his new book "Government never does anything good, so vote Republican".

That's nice.

Why the fark would anyone ever vote for a party who thinks government is always a problem and never a solution?

Bit of a death wish mentality if you ask me.


I agree. Why put in power to fix the problems of our nation those who feel that the government is incapable of fixing those problems?
 
2012-05-10 07:31:40 AM  
FINE

Let all the "rightists" who want to not wear their seatbelt pay extra on their insurance and let them fall where they may in an accident.
 
2012-05-10 07:33:38 AM  

Bill_Wick's_Friend: 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!".


Hey - I get their point - and as soon as the righties stop trying to make laws that restrict access to abortion and birth control, I'll be willing to discuss the "intrusive" and "oppressive" nature of seat belt laws.
Until then, STFU and GBTW.
 
2012-05-10 07:35:09 AM  

Crunch61: Heraclitus: "Seatbelts save 15,000 lives a year. So Screw em!

To be fair, some of those are libs that probably deserve to die.


Well, everybody "deserves" to die, when you think about it.
 
2012-05-10 07:40:02 AM  
Although libertarianism is quite idealistic and unrealistic, and humans are doubtlessly far too emotional, unintelligent and un-evolved NOT to be HIGHLY regulated by the government, he did make one good point about the absurdity with government enforcement of drug laws. Incarcerating recreational drug users is insane, and frightening doctors for prescribing drugs and trying to relieve patients' pain is villainous.
 
2012-05-10 07:58:08 AM  
was in a major accident. am in severe permanent disabling pain. use a wheelchair or mobility scooter.
but thanks to a seatbelt, i am alive to read my beloved snarky fark.

but hey, just make sure you libertarian anti government free the people from the terrible regime of seat belt types remember to have your organ donor card signed up, ok? should reduce the waiting lists in NOOOOO time:)
 
2012-05-10 07:58:45 AM  

heavymetal: quatchi: that bosnian sniper: You know I just noticed this, but is there a male writer for WND who doesn't have a gay porn 'stache?

I'm thinking it might be one of the only two prerequisites for a job there.

First, be an batshiat insane, pants-on-head rtard.

Second, have an excellent porn 'stache.

I see he's plugging his new book "Government never does anything good, so vote Republican".

That's nice.

Why the fark would anyone ever vote for a party who thinks government is always a problem and never a solution?

Bit of a death wish mentality if you ask me.


I agree. Why put in power to fix the problems of our nation those who feel that the government is incapable of fixing those problems?


Yup. Seems a bit counter-intuitive, doesn't it?

I kinda expect my government to do their jobs and to achieve desirable (or at least defensible) outcomes.

I sorta get pissed at them when they don't.

The GOP have lowered expectations for government to a ridiculous degree IMHO.
 
2012-05-10 08:47:41 AM  

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.


Next up, Government madated Condom Laws!
 
2012-05-10 09:50:07 AM  
My brother got t-boned several years ago by a drunk driver in a Suburban, hit him on the drivers' side door doing an estimated 60. The seatbelt saved his life, though it was a contributing factor to him having a flailed chest (to me, it was a worthy tradeoff, broke 11 ribs and his center chest bone instead of being killed instantly).

I also wear a seatbelt without a second thought.

The only problem I have is the revenue thing. Maybe revenues collected should go directly to the state instead of the municipality writing the fines, so it mostly takes the monetary incentive away from these "safety checks" in neighborhoods, etc.

Here in TX, they passed a law several years back that only a small (~30% iirc) percentage of a towns' budget could come from traffic fines. A number of smaller towns (Patton Village, Premont, Kendleton, Manvel) had to disincorporate as a result. The LOL thing about it was that one of these speed traps had caught a state senator and this was why the law got introduced.

No one can tell me that there is a motivation to write tickets for revenue, if you think differently, you are deluding yourself.

In my own town where I live, they recently fired the police chief because he accidentialy let their ticket quote become a documented fact.

/also wears full gear when I ride the motorcycle, because I like my skin on my body instead of on IH-45
 
2012-05-10 10:20:21 AM  
There is no Federal law requiring you to wear a seat belt (only requiring that all cars have then and regulating their design). Laws requiring set belt usage are left to the states.

The only state that does not currently mandate seat belt use is New Hampshire (surprise, surprise). Do the math (carry the one...) and that means all those Southern Red States have laws on the books requiring seat belt use.

So why don't you idiots start close to home? With all the derp in Republican-controlled legislatures these days, I'm sure you could get MS and GA, at least, to ban the use of seat belts.
 
2012-05-10 11:15:44 AM  
seatbelts!?
 
2012-05-10 12:36:03 PM  

whidbey: Deftoons: Mandatory seat belts "save lives", but screw the children?

LOL how long did it take you to bring up the school bus non-comparison?


It's a non-comparison? Yeah, would love to hear you explain that one.
 
2012-05-10 02:09:06 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Unavailable for comment.

Link
 
2012-05-10 04:52:09 PM  

whidbey: In other words you prefer the honor system no matter how many people get killed in accidents. Darwin awards, right? Who cares about 'em?


Pretty much. It's not the government's job to protect people from themselves.

In other words, if I don't want to wear a seatbelt, fark you, I paid for everything involved, I'm not gonna wear the damn seatbelt.
 
2012-05-10 05:45:58 PM  
Hey, let's do away with OSHA while we're at it.
 
2012-05-10 06:06:32 PM  

ultraholland: Hey, let's do away with OSHA while we're at it.


Because requiring employers to provide a safe work environment for people they employ is exactly the same farking thing as something which affects me and only me. Yup. Completely identical.
 
2012-05-10 07:14:19 PM  

TsukasaK: ultraholland: Hey, let's do away with OSHA while we're at it.

Because requiring employers to provide a safe work environment for people they employ is exactly the same farking thing as something which affects me and only me. Yup. Completely identical.


Okay, fine, if you're ever in an accident and you're thrown from your car, just promise that you'll land safely somewhere on the side of the road, because if you land on the road, and there's oncoming traffic, your blood-streaked corpse might cause another accident. But hey, as long as you're absolutely sure it won't affect anyone else, it's all good.

/The EMTs could use some extra practice when they try to rescucitate you; that kinda thing keeps them sharp, so they can help other people with a higher chance of surviving, so in way, you're doing society a favor.

//And yeah, the OSHA comparison is a touch over-the-top.
 
2012-05-10 08:05:10 PM  

TsukasaK: whidbey: In other words you prefer the honor system no matter how many people get killed in accidents. Darwin awards, right? Who cares about 'em?

Pretty much. It's not the government's job to protect people from themselves.

In other words, if I don't want to wear a seatbelt, fark you, I paid for everything involved, I'm not gonna wear the damn seatbelt.


Um, the fark you aren't. You wear it, I wear it, EVERYBODY wears it.

You mad?
 
2012-05-10 10:12:50 PM  

HighOnCraic: Okay, fine, if you're ever in an accident and you're thrown from your car, just promise that you'll land safely somewhere on the side of the road, because if you land on the road, and there's oncoming traffic, your blood-streaked corpse might cause another accident. But hey, as long as you're absolutely sure it won't affect anyone else, it's all good.


Citation needed on the instance of deaths and/or property damage to third parties caused by bodies ejected from vehicles. Hell you could have even played the card that if you're in the car with someone else, your body bouncing around could cause a lot of damage in the event of a wreck (There was a particularly gruesome British PSA that did this angle), but no you had to go the completely absurd angle.

In the great majority of cases, if I refuse to wear a seatbelt and get injured, the harm is to nobody but myself. Cases of self harm should be out of government purview (that includes drugs, whatever). That is my stance.

whidbey: Um, the fark you aren't.


Um, the fark I am.
 
2012-05-10 11:41:07 PM  

TsukasaK: HighOnCraic: Okay, fine, if you're ever in an accident and you're thrown from your car, just promise that you'll land safely somewhere on the side of the road, because if you land on the road, and there's oncoming traffic, your blood-streaked corpse might cause another accident. But hey, as long as you're absolutely sure it won't affect anyone else, it's all good.

Citation needed on the instance of deaths and/or property damage to third parties caused by bodies ejected from vehicles. Hell you could have even played the card that if you're in the car with someone else, your body bouncing around could cause a lot of damage in the event of a wreck (There was a particularly gruesome British PSA that did this angle), but no you had to go the completely absurd angle.

In the great majority of cases, if I refuse to wear a seatbelt and get injured, the harm is to nobody but myself. Cases of self harm should be out of government purview (that includes drugs, whatever). That is my stance.

whidbey: Um, the fark you aren't.

Um, the fark I am.


LOL SEAT BELT OUTLAW
 
2012-05-11 12:26:31 AM  
TsukasaK, dude, just put on the farking seat belt.
 
2012-05-11 10:09:01 AM  

ultraholland: TsukasaK, dude, just put on the farking seat belt.


Usually do. If I don't want to, it shouldn't be a legal matter.
 
2012-05-11 02:58:56 PM  

TsukasaK: ultraholland: TsukasaK, dude, just put on the farking seat belt.

Usually do. If I don't want to, it shouldn't be a legal matter.


Welcome to society. And before you say citation needed, like you did above.

TsukasaK: In the great majority of cases, if I refuse to wear a seatbelt and get injured, the harm is to nobody but myself


Citation needed yourself.
 
2012-05-11 03:05:39 PM  

Smackledorfer: Welcome to society.


Argument to popularity is a logical fallacy.

Smackledorfer: Citation needed yourself.


Right back at you. If I crash and get ejected from my car, that harm is on me and nobody else. That's kind of, you know.. self evident. Damage to invisible people and spectres doesn't count.
 
2012-05-11 03:44:00 PM  

TsukasaK: Smackledorfer: Welcome to society.

Argument to popularity is a logical fallacy.

Smackledorfer: Citation needed yourself.

Right back at you. If I crash and get ejected from my car, that harm is on me and nobody else. That's kind of, you know.. self evident. Damage to invisible people and spectres doesn't count.


Point is, you can't ask for citations without giving them. That's the only reason why I told you that you should provide one too.

You are asserting that the vast majority of seat belt cases will ONLY injure the driver, never anyone in another car and never contribute to the worsening of an accident when a driver loses control due to poorly being held in place while driving. Others are saying the opposite.


You are discussing this with an assumption that because you are right, only they must provide citation. That's what I take umbrage with here.

As for society: you are driving on a road shared by everyone, paid for by everyone, with emergency responders paid for by everyone, and laws crafted with everyone in mind, not just you. You do not, by some default of freedom-style personal responsibility awesomeness, get to demand that everyone else agree to risk just to satisfy you.
 
2012-05-11 03:55:52 PM  

TsukasaK: Smackledorfer: Welcome to society.

Argument to popularity is a logical fallacy.

Smackledorfer: Citation needed yourself.

Right back at you. If I crash and get ejected from my car, that harm is on me and nobody else. That's kind of, you know.. self evident. Damage to invisible people and spectres doesn't count.


Really? Six feet of 200 pounds of meat and bone lying in the road couldn't possibly be a traffic hazard?
 
2012-05-11 05:42:04 PM  

Sgt Otter: TsukasaK: Smackledorfer: Welcome to society.

Argument to popularity is a logical fallacy.

Smackledorfer: Citation needed yourself.

Right back at you. If I crash and get ejected from my car, that harm is on me and nobody else. That's kind of, you know.. self evident. Damage to invisible people and spectres doesn't count.

Really? Six feet of 200 pounds of meat and bone lying in the road couldn't possibly be a traffic hazard?


And it's not remotely just about ejection.

I've done emergency driving training. without a belt if you have to push the vehicle to even 80% of it's max then you have to rely on the wheel to steady you.

That's not good. It takes a lot of control away from the driver.
 
2012-05-11 06:06:01 PM  

Smackledorfer: I've done emergency driving training.


So you only unbuckle your seat belt during emergencies, or you keep it unbuckled in case of an emergency?
 
2012-05-12 12:57:10 AM  

thamike: Smackledorfer: I've done emergency driving training.

So you only unbuckle your seat belt during emergencies, or you keep it unbuckled in case of an emergency?



You keep your seatbelt on and secure so that your body is secured when you turn at high speeds or brake quickly. This gives you better control over your feet and your hands, so you aren't inadvertently slamming a pedal or jerking the wheel.
 
2012-05-12 09:44:44 AM  

Smackledorfer: thamike: Smackledorfer: I've done emergency driving training.

So you only unbuckle your seat belt during emergencies, or you keep it unbuckled in case of an emergency?


You keep your seatbelt on and secure so that your body is secured when you turn at high speeds or brake quickly. This gives you better control over your feet and your hands, so you aren't inadvertently slamming a pedal or jerking the wheel.


Oh, okay. Sorry. I thought you were saying keep it off.
 
2012-05-12 10:24:26 AM  

Primum: University of Nebraska at Lincoln student pens anti-seatbelt editorial, dies in horrible crash without his seatbelt on a couple months later.

Snopes

One of my favorite true Snopes.


So the law obviously saved him. Wait, no, the law saved the other people in the truck. Wait, no. That's not it. Well this is a mystery, but it's almost as if their own personal decisions led to their fates. It's as if each person were responsible for themselves, but I guess we'll never know.
 
Displayed 214 of 214 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report