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 11
    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»



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


Archived thread
2012-06-03 08:30:09 PM
2 votes:
publikenemy: All they saw though was that the kid wasn't in a child-seat....bunch of narcs..I stand by my comment

Since a large part of the trauma cases I transport are because some dumbfark didn't put their kid in a car seat, and since the best way to treat these patients is prevention, huzzah if that's the case.

I've gotten people pulled over on the interstate for letting their kids run around while the car is moving. And I won't lose a wink of sleep for doing so.
2012-06-04 03:54:24 AM
1 votes:
Big Ramifications: You're young, dumb, and full of cum. But you don't realise it yet. It's only when you get older you'll sit back and cringe and think jeez I was young, dumb, and full of cum. I bet you thought you knew it all at 15. You sound the type.

Nope. There's actually quite a lot I don't know. That's why I use research and statistics to back up what I say. As we'll see below.

Big Ramifications: If yer gonna be offering suggested further reading tips, then I'll join in too and say you must understand this before handing out safety tips or cheering the introduction of new laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltzman_effect

Oh, this is going to be painful.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21720604

Abstract
We studied National Trauma Data Bank data to determine the effectiveness of car safety devices in reducing mortality and injury severity in 184,992 patients between 1988 and 2004. Safety device variables were seat belt used plus air bag deployed; only seat belt used; only air bag deployed; and, as explicitly coded, no device used. Overall mortality was 4.17%. Compared with the no-device group, the seat-belt-plus-air-bag group had a 67% reduction in mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.33; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.39), the seatbelt- only group had a 51% mortality reduction (AOR, 0.49; 99% CI, 0.45-0.52), and the air-bag-only group had a 32% mortality reduction (AOR, 0.68, 99% CI, 0.57-0.80). Injury Severity Scores showed a similar pattern.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19111410

Abstract

We often refer to road fatalities without knowing exactly what injuries are responsible for them. Based on the Rhône Road Trauma Registry this paper sets out to describe the topography, nature and frequency of the fatal injuries sustained by car drivers. Mean annual mortality at the wheel of a car, computed by dividing the total number of drivers killed (n=383) by the population of the Rhône Département (1.6 million) during the period 1996-2004 was 5.41 males per 100,000 and 1.41 females per 100,000, with 78% of the casualties residing in the Département. A reduction has been observed since 2003. Three-quarters of the casualties died at the scene of the crash. The results confirm the effectiveness of seat belts. The observed lethality was 0.43% for unbelted drivers and 2.7% for belted drivers (RR=0.16 [0.12; 0.21]). The injuries were analyzed for the 287 killed drivers whose deaths could be explained by the described injuries (at least one AIS 4+ injury). Of these, 41% had an ISS of 75 (at least one AIS 6 injury), 21% had an ISS of between 40 and 74, 33% an ISS of between 25 and 40, and 6% an ISS of between 16 and 24. In the case of all the AIS 4+ injuries, the three most frequent locations for injuries were the thorax only (30% of casualties), the head only (23%) and a combination of the two (18%). Abdominal injuries occurred in only 10% of casualties and spinal injuries in 9% of casualties. In the thorax, the most common injury was flail chest with haemothorax or pneumothorax. In the case of the head, the most frequent injuries were to the brain (haemorrhage, haematoma and axonal injuries). Complex fractures of the base of the skull were the second most common craniocephalic injuries. In spite of the use of restraint devices, the thorax and head are still the priority vital areas for protection in the case of car drivers. For one in four of the fatalities, death cannot be explained by any of the injuries we know about. As road traffic accidents are considered to be a cause of death in their own right, autopsies are rarely performed in France on such fatalities. This means we do not know about any injuries that cannot be detected by an external examination of the cadaver.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18570150

RESULTS:

Among its findings are 3% and 0.29% lower probabilities of sustaining evident and disabling injuries respectively when vehicle occupants wear three-point seat belts and corresponding 1.71% and 0.16% lower probabilities when they wear only shoulder belts. Also, the probabilities of sustaining evident and disabling injuries reduce by 0.87% and 0.08% when vehicles with airbags are involved in crashes. But, when front airbags deploy the probabilities of sustaining disabling, evident, and possible injuries increase by 1.3%, 11.93%, and 26.80%, respectively. Similarly, both side airbags deploying increases disabling and evident injuries by 1.8% and 15.53%, respectively. In addition, we find that the probability of sustaining severe injuries increases in head-on crashes.

CONCLUSION:

These results emphasize the effectiveness of seat belt use, especially three-point seat belts, the inclusion of airbags in all vehicles, increased awareness of possible injuries from airbags deploying, signalized intersection designs that include pedestrian crossing signals, and additional research to identify the predominant types of injuries associated with airbags deploying.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17199069


RESULTS:

The adjusted odds of injury were 81.8% lower (95% confidence interval, 58.3%-92.1% lower) for toddlers in child seats than belted toddlers.

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.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8870775

Abstract
This paper considers the Illinois child restraint use law which took effect in July 1983. This law requires parents to use safety seats for children under age 4, and seat belts or safety seats for those aged 4 or 5. ARIMA time series models and a monthly data set of fatalities and injuries from 1980 through 1986 were utilized. The law reduced the total number of children under 5 killed or injured in traffic crashes by 10% along with a 17% decline in the number of child injuries per crash. No spillover effect was found for older children.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094411

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of forward facing child restraint systems (FFCRS) in preventing serious injury and hospitalization to children 12-47 months of age as compared with similar age children in seat belts. Data were obtained from a cross-sectional study of children aged 12-47 months in crashes of insured vehicles in 15 states, with data collected via insurance claims records and a telephone survey. Effectiveness estimates were limited to those children between 12 and 47 months of age seated in the back row(s) of vehicles, restrained in FFCRS, regardless of misuse, or seat belts of all types and usage. Completed survey information was obtained on 1207 children, representing 12632 children in 11619 crashes between 1 December 1998 and 31 May 2002. Serious injuries occurred to 0.47% of all 12-47-month olds studied, including 1.72% of those in seat belts and 0.39% of those in child restraint systems. The risk of serious injury was 78% lower for children in FFCRS than in seat belts (odds ratio (OR) = 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.11-0.45, P = 0.001). The risk of hospitalization was 79% lower for children in FFCRS than in seat belts (OR = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.09-050, P = 0.001). There was no difference between the restraint types in preventing minor injuries. As compared with seat belts, CRS are very highly effective in preventing serious injuries and hospitalization, respectively. This effectiveness estimate is substantially higher than older estimates, demonstrating the benefits of current CRS designs. These results provide those educating parents and caregivers population-based data on the importance of child restraint use.


Man, isn't Science Grand, Big Ramifications? I don't have to know everything. I can just check out what people far smarter than I have discovered!
2012-06-03 08:41:20 PM
1 votes:
imprimere: What makes you think she's a donor?

I figure she isn't. She seems rather selfish making comments like that.

AbbeySomeone: You have such a bias geared towards your training

IMAGINE THAT. SOMEONE TRAINED TO TREAT AND PREVENT TRAUMATIC INJURY WOULD HAVE A BIAS TOWARDS WHAT FACTS SHOW!

AbbeySomeone:
and you are young, it's cute.

Which has jack diddly to do with this. In actuality, at my age, I should be arguing the EXACT position you are, because people 18-30 have a natural instinct to disregard danger in favor of a reward. We're not hard wired to analyze risk versus benefit.

AbbeySomeone: Keep on keeping people alive just because you can.

Sure thing! I'll keep on preventing preventable death.

AbbeySomeone: if life were so preventable you wouldn't have a job.

I'm happy if I don't have to do my job. And preventing traumatic injury keeps me from having to do my job. Seat belts mean the difference between becoming a free-flying projectile in a motor vehicle collision, and being held in position and kept relatively unharmed.

Considering I'm here right now because of a seat belt doing it's job in three separate accidents, including a roll-over, Yeah. I'm going to champion them.

AbbeySomeone: When over protecting humans was not an insurable occupation people had more personable repsonsibility and were more careful.

AHAHAHA. No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed

Which lead the National Academy of Sciences to research and publish the White Paper, Accidental Death and Disability: The Neglected Disease of Modern Society

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9978#toc

You're an adult. Start acting like one.
2012-06-03 08:26:38 PM
1 votes:

B.L.Z. Bub: troll is obvious



You must not have children. I see this all the time....the children the children! If the guy was drunk tho I guess it was warranted. All they saw though was that the kid wasn't in a child-seat....bunch of narcs..I stand by my comment
2012-06-03 08:17:43 PM
1 votes:
AbbeySomeone: Oh f*ck this. I never knew what a seatbelt was until the late 80's.Generations of adults grew up like that, survived and are more prepared for the world than they were before insurance companies took over.

Please take this advice!

Don't wear your seat belt! There are tens of thousands of Americans who die each year waiting on organ transplants that greatly appreciate your help!
2012-06-03 08:13:40 PM
1 votes:

vossiewulf: Not that I think the law is a bad idea, but all of us of the get off my lawn age managed to make it alive to this point after spending our childhood bouncing around in the back seats of station wagons with no seat belts- child safety seats hadn't even been invented. We didn't even have a car with functional back seat seat belts until I was 8 or so.


Good Parenting ala 1982: you slam on the brakes while throwing your right arm across the the passenger seat occupant, no matter how old they were.
2012-06-03 08:10:21 PM
1 votes:
Oh f*ck this. I never knew what a seatbelt was until the late 80's.Generations of adults grew up like that, survived and are more prepared for the world than they were before insurance companies took over.
2012-06-03 08:03:25 PM
1 votes:

vossiewulf: Not that I think the law is a bad idea, but all of us of the get off my lawn age managed to make it alive to this point after spending our childhood bouncing around in the back seats of station wagons with no seat belts- child safety seats hadn't even been invented. We didn't even have a car with functional back seat seat belts until I was 8 or so.


wut
2012-06-03 07:57:22 PM
1 votes:
Safety seat? If the kid is 2+ years old, he or she is better off just being buckled up with a regular seat belt.
2012-06-03 07:28:53 PM
1 votes:
Guy should know better. Nothing the busy bodies at a "family day" like better than to feel self righteous about how to raise the snowflakes and rat somebody out to "save the children"...farkin bunch of narcs
2012-06-03 07:23:42 PM
1 votes:
These things are easily misunderstood. The same thing happened to me and it went like this:

We were in the back field partying it up. I was trashed. Everyone's kids were there and mine were likely the only toddlers not being given tastes of booze. The boy has to go to the bathroom. He's just training, so it was an emergency. He drives in the front seat when we're off-roading so it was no big deal to hop up with me for the drive. My house is less than a half km away. I pulled out of the field and the cops we're hiding on the service road. Nailed me right there. 2 no seat belts, drunk driving, endangering a child, telling completely untrue stories on Fark, and sh*t like that.
 
Displayed 11 of 11 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report