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 60
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-05-09 04:38:14 PM  
7 votes:
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 04:16:49 PM  
7 votes:
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 08:15:25 PM  
3 votes:
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 10:33:46 PM  
2 votes:
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 08:55:07 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:53:24 PM  
2 votes:
People who complain about seat belts sound fat.
2012-05-09 08:45:08 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:34:54 PM  
2 votes:
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 08:27:18 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:22:17 PM  
2 votes:
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 07:59:45 PM  
2 votes:
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 07:55:46 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:54:29 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:53:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:52:15 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:22:52 PM  
2 votes:
Patrick Henry was an abrasive asshole who actively tried to prevent the creation and ratification of the Constitution.
2012-05-09 04:29:58 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:24:44 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:22:22 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:20:12 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-05-10 06:14:08 AM  
1 votes:
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 05:41:03 AM  
1 votes:
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 02:38:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:21:15 AM  
1 votes:
Seatbelt law threads really bring out the nutters.

Some people are just really stubborn assholes.
2012-05-10 01:55:14 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-05-09 10:46:43 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:38:02 PM  
1 votes:
Wait - seatbelt laws are oppressive, but anti-gay marriage laws are not? How does that work, exactly?
2012-05-09 10:30:38 PM  
1 votes:
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 09:20:21 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:47:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:44:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:40:13 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:38:07 PM  
1 votes:
www.mghs.sa.edu.au

Anyone else think of this Onion article about Chrysler's neckbelts?
2012-05-09 08:37:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:31:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:31:26 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:30:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:25:36 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:23:14 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:20:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:13:44 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:10:56 PM  
1 votes:

misanthropicsob: When did Stossel move to Wing Nut Daily?


WND is now the refuge for the pedo-mustache brigade.
2012-05-09 08:08:11 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:03:23 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:02:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:58:14 PM  
1 votes:
When did Stossel move to Wing Nut Daily?
2012-05-09 07:50:12 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:46:56 PM  
1 votes:
Why won't the government deregulate murder already?
2012-05-09 07:25:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:59:09 PM  
1 votes:
If toddlers really don't want to be raped, they can simply fight back.
2012-05-09 05:43:08 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:21:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:19:30 PM  
1 votes:
I'm being oppressed by my anti-lock brakes.
2012-05-09 04:47:15 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:31:58 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:31:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:27:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:26:48 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:19:56 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:18:11 PM  
1 votes:
John Stossel- king of fake outrage. Really? Seat belts?
 
Displayed 60 of 60 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