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.

(Times Union)   Driving drunk and unlicensed, with a kid not even buckled let alone in a safety seat, en route to Family Day? You, sir, win today's round of Moron Yahtzee   (timesunion.com) divider line 64
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

4713 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jun 2012 at 7:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-04 04:45:27 AM
By the way, BronyMedic.... you're a moran.

SEATBELT LAWS SAVE LIVES! Is the point of all your "science" links up there.

The Peltzman effect is saying seatbelt laws save lives OF PEOPLE WHO NORMALLY WOULDN'T WEAR SEATBELTS! All this cool safety stuff makes 'em feel all, I dunno, safe, so they subconsciously add 5 or 10 the speed of the car and Joe Pedestrian is now at greater risk.

I reckon that's spot on. Prove to me otherwise using "science."

Don't give me another pile of links saying "seatbelts save lives if you are in a car crash" like you did just then. It's not what I was saying, and the point is moot anyway.
 
2012-06-04 05:08:25 AM
Big Ramifications: By the way, BronyMedic.... you're a moran.

Weird how the only arguments you can make are ridicule. It's like...you're arguing from a position of pseudoscience and having to use ad hominem and moving the goal post to continue to try to make a point.

Big Ramifications: The Peltzman effect is saying seatbelt laws save lives OF PEOPLE WHO NORMALLY WOULDN'T WEAR SEATBELTS! All this cool safety stuff makes 'em feel all, I dunno, safe, so they subconsciously add 5 or 10 the speed of the car and Joe Pedestrian is now at greater risk.

That goalpost, you just moved it! If you move it a little more.....

Big Ramifications: Don't give me another pile of links saying "seatbelts save lives if you are in a car crash" like you did just then. It's not what I was saying, and the point is moot anyway.

No. You're just creating a "What If", strawman situation, and trying to argue the fact that makes your situation true.

However....

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/21/can-safety-regulations-kill-you-h o w-safe-are-seabelts-and-seatbelt-laws/

Of course, this doesn't mean that such policies shouldn't be put into motion. What skepticism means here is that all such policies should be monitored to verify that the Peltzman effect doesn't defeat the policy's purpose. The implications of ideas like Peltzman's study aren't that things shouldn't be done, but rather that the ideas should be evaluated by the results they produce and that we shouldn't be blinded by ideology - even on so "trivial" a matter as a seatbelt or a bicycle helmet.

This is why we have laws covering multiple aspects of driving with due diligence, not just seat belt use.
 
2012-06-04 05:14:34 AM
Big Ramifications: Don't give me another pile of links saying "seatbelts save lives if you are in a car crash" like you did just then. It's not what I was saying, and the point is moot anyway.

Again. The whole point of wearing a seatbelt is to reduce the risk of injury or death to the occupant of the vehicle in the event of an accident. Something it does very well. Car seats too. The addition of the claim of the Peltzman effect invalidating this because of the risk to those outside the vehicle is a red herring argument which has no bearing on the current discussion.

Only an idiot would make the argument, when discussing this topic, "WELL THAT DOESN'T PROTECT THE PEDESTRIAN HE HITS!"
 
2012-06-04 06:17:54 AM

BronyMedic: CONCLUSIONS:

Child safety seats seem to be more effective rear seat restraints than lap-shoulder safety belts for children aged 2 to 3 years. Laws requiring that children younger than 4 years travel in child safety seats have a sound basis and should remain in force.


Link
 
2012-06-04 06:37:06 AM
Honest Bender: BronyMedic: CONCLUSIONS:

Child safety seats seem to be more effective rear seat restraints than lap-shoulder safety belts for children aged 2 to 3 years. Laws requiring that children younger than 4 years travel in child safety seats have a sound basis and should remain in force.

Link


On one hand we have a movie producer.

On the other hand we have high impact journals publishing scientific studies.

Yep! Hollywood wins out!
 
2012-06-04 06:41:14 AM
Honest Bender: BronyMedic: CONCLUSIONS:

Child safety seats seem to be more effective rear seat restraints than lap-shoulder safety belts for children aged 2 to 3 years. Laws requiring that children younger than 4 years travel in child safety seats have a sound basis and should remain in force.

Link


Oh. Wow.

Actually, reading the comments, they do a better job of refuting the TED talk than I could ever hope to.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/4/788.abstract?sid= 7 b2ed727-0fc5-4930-baef-e82677510265

Child passenger safety has dramatically evolved over the past decade; however, motor vehicle crashes continue to be the leading cause of death of children 4 years and older. This policy statement provides 4 evidence-based recommendations for best practices in the choice of a child restraint system to optimize safety in passenger vehicles for children from birth through adolescence: (1) rear-facing car safety seats for most infants up to 2 years of age; (2) forward-facing car safety seats for most children through 4 years of age; (3) belt-positioning booster seats for most children through 8 years of age; and (4) lap-and-shoulder seat belts for all who have outgrown booster seats. In addition, a fifth evidence-based recommendation is for all children younger than 13 years to ride in the rear seats of vehicles. It is important to note that every transition is associated with some decrease in protection; therefore, parents should be encouraged to delay these transitions for as long as possible. These recommendations are presented in the form of an algorithm that is intended to facilitate implementation of the recommendations by pediatricians to their patients and families and should cover most situations that pediatricians will encounter in practice. The American Academy of Pediatrics urges all pediatricians to know and promote these recommendations as part of child passenger safety anticipatory guidance at every health-supervision visit.
 
2012-06-04 07:44:19 AM

BronyMedic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19059860


I don't have a dog in this fight (I was drunk and half passed out when I wrote that) but the source you provide seems to show (if I'm reading that graph right; not too sure what a "risk ratio" is) that by age 3, the child safety seat is more dangerous than a seat belt....
 
2012-06-04 07:47:58 AM
Sasquach: I don't have a dog in this fight (I was drunk and half passed out when I wrote that) but the source you provide seems to show (if I'm reading that graph right; not too sure what a "risk ratio" is) that by age 3, the child safety seat is more dangerous than a seat belt....

Interesting! Thanks for pointing that out to me.

I'll do a little more digging. I'm curious about that now, since that seems to be the age they recommend beginning to transition a child into a booster seat.
 
2012-06-04 08:49:04 AM
 
2012-06-04 09:00:17 AM
i50.tinypic.com
 
2012-06-04 09:21:39 AM
Big Ramifications: [i50.tinypic.com image 465x330]

It's like you're screaming "ignore me."

Okie!
 
2012-06-04 09:27:14 AM

StonyMedic: >Don't give me another pile of links saying "seatbelts save lives if you are in a car crash" like you did just then. It's not what I was saying, and the point is moot anyway.

Only an idiot would make the argument, when discussing this topic, "WELL THAT DOESN'T PROTECT THE PEDESTRIAN HE HITS!"

~
~
Boo hoo. Sorry for my ad hominem. Here's a tip: stop saying stupid things.

For the 3rd and final time, and I'll type slowly for you...... The Peltzman effect says such laws INCREASES THE ODDS of a pedestrian getting hit. Hardly something to ignore if you are so into road safety. Moan moan ad hominem moan moan I'm using science.

How did you miss it? The Wiki page EVEN USES CAR SEAT BELT LAWS as its fricken main example. Then I copy'n'pasted the text for you, just to be sure.

Here's some more reading for you. With big pictures.

www.politicsforum.org
Stone Deaf is one of the few truly invincible Warriors because nothing can shatter his impenetrable armour of non recognition. His primitive battle strategy is maddening effective; he simply refuses to acknowledge any arguments he doesn't like.

Kung-Fu Master can hammer away with devastating blows, Cyber Sisters can screech in full throat and Profundus Maximus can expound until he drops, but Stone Deaf remains utterly oblivious as he advances his dogged and often repetitious attacks. In the early stages of battle a wide array of Warriors will fling themselves at Stone Deaf, but inevitably they fall back exhausted or lose interest when they see that their best weapons have no effect. His only real enemy is Admin, who has the power to eject him from the discussion forum.
http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/
 
2012-06-04 09:29:31 AM

BronyMedicRunningAway: It's like you're screaming "ignore me."

Okie!


What a horrible lttle C U Next Tuesday of a human being. Some TFer wanna pass that on for me, cheers.
 
2012-06-04 09:30:32 AM

BronyMedicRunningAway: It's like you're screaming "ignore me."

Okie!

~
~
What a horrible lttle C U Next Tuesday of a human being. Some TFer wanna pass that on for me, cheers.
 
Displayed 14 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report