Wear Your [expletive] Seat Belt

"Nick Has an Exocet" (nickallain) 05/17/2019 at 22:44 • Filed to: Rant

0

59

I saw this meme on Facebook today. I can’t even describe how absurd it is. For the most part it’s baby boomers that spread this crap. Seat belts, empirically, save lives. As do airbags. They also reduce serious injuries in a crash - proven statistically over and over for many decades. You can deny climate change, religion, the Easter bunny (which we all know is real), and the 2020 Supra (which was all know is a fabrication) but you cannot deny that wearing a seat belt is about safety.

atfsgeoff > Nick Has an Exocet 05/17/2019 at 23:02

1

Wearing a seat belt is about safety.

Mandatory seat belt usage is about control.

Chariotoflove > atfsgeoff 05/17/2019 at 23:20

19

It’s also kinda about keeping our healthcare system from being weighed down with avoidable head injuries and our society not  having to bear the long term costs associated. 

Cash Rewards > atfsgeoff 05/17/2019 at 23:21

17

Mandatory seatbelt usage is about not wasting people's time to scrape you off the pavement and airlift you to a trauma center when you should have been up and walking around with a little soreness instead

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > atfsgeoff 05/17/2019 at 23:21

10

Mandatory seat belt useage is us agreeing that no, you really are fucking stupid and your next of kin doesn’t get to sue  someone because you made your choice.

I say the same thing about s ea t belt laws that I do about helmet laws - If your response is “I accept the risks” then you don’t get to turn around and whine about your injuries, and your next of kin forfeits any right to compensation from insurance, if your actions kill you. Since people still go on camera for TV news, tears in their eyes, crying about how dangerous motorcycles are after they crash on one without a helmet, I’d argue there’s a reason why we all agree seat belt laws are a good thing.

Final side note - if you view driving without a seat belt as some subtle form of rebellion or a stand against “control”......I have many other questions.

gettingoldercarguy > atfsgeoff 05/17/2019 at 23:21

5

Cost control when you live in a society that'll have to pick up the tab by law if you don't have sufficient insurance to cover additional injuries you sustain or need life long care.

atfsgeoff > Chariotoflove 05/17/2019 at 23:22

0

By that logic, all pedestrians and especially children should be forced to wear helmets at all times.

atfsgeoff > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 05/17/2019 at 23:24

1

I always wear my seat belt, have since long before I was driving.

I also always wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle.

I am still very much against compulsory seat belt or helmet usage.

gettingoldercarguy > Chariotoflove 05/17/2019 at 23:27

1

Preach!

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Nick Has an Exocet 05/17/2019 at 23:28

3

To spin off from a response I just made, my biggest pet peeve is when someone hides behind the “Well I accept responsibility for the consequences of expressing my freedom!” and acts like there’s literally no consequence from that decision. There was an incident last week where two teenage boys were in a car, drove too fast, and crashed so horrifically that the car split in half. The driver wasn’t wearing their belt but his younger brother in the passenger seat was. Driver was killed, brother was seriously injured. Terrible incident (I have heard nothing since to say there was something else afoot so I leave it as such) but “taking responsibilities for your freedom” would entail the costs of this incident being borne upon the driver. Or, in this case, their family. An d that to me is where that stance falls apart.

We all have obligations and responsibilities to one another. Even if we’re not aware of it. And such a selfish act can harm those close to us, whether we’re aware of it or not. So to potentially throw so much onto the shoulders of others with your  own self-pleasure being the equivalent of pissing your pants when you’re home alone...... I just have to ask why? What’s the point?

atfsgeoff > Cash Rewards 05/17/2019 at 23:29

0

It also gets people shot when no other violations have occurred.

Was this guy an idiot? Yes. Was this entire altercation completely preventable? Absolutely.

gettingoldercarguy > atfsgeoff 05/17/2019 at 23:29

7

Nothing like a slippery slope logical fallacy, amirite?

DipodomysDeserti > Nick Has an Exocet 05/17/2019 at 23:31

0

Yes, science has been able to prove seatbelts save lives, but the jury is still out on whether motorcycles are safer than cars, if the earth has gone through countless cycles of climate change throughout its history, or if magically beings in the sky control everything.

Damn you science !

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > atfsgeoff 05/17/2019 at 23:33

3

Good for you, so do I.

Good for you, so do I.

Still doesn’t address the issue of responsibility. If you refuse to wear a seat belt/wear a helmet and you die in an accident, should insurance pay out? Should your next of kin be held responsible for the financial burden of the accident since you chose to increase that risk? I say this in an additional comment, but we all have obligations and re sp onsibilities to other people, whether or not we’re aware of it. So what about things like economic debts or professional liabilities such as being a medical specialist or a lawyer? 

atfsgeoff > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 05/17/2019 at 23:38

0

If you refuse to wear a seat belt/wear a helmet and you die in an accident, should insurance pay out?

Which insurance and for what? Who is at fault for the accident? An argument could be made that health insurance should not pay out (or at least not as much) if you’re not wearing a seat belt or helmet, but vehicle liability insurance and life insurance should still pay out.

Should your next of kin be held responsible for the financial burden of the accident since you chose to increase that risk?

Typically your vehicle liability insurance covers that burden. Next of kin is almost never responsible for debt of the deceased, regardless of cause of death. Any remaining debts are settled from the deceased’s estate, by the executor of said estate. No different than if you had a heart attack or brain aneurysm.

So what about things like economic debts or professional liabilities such as being a medical specialist or a lawyer?

Again, no different than any other cause of death.

Nick Has an Exocet > atfsgeoff 05/17/2019 at 23:47

2

Okay, but what about if I screw up and you die but would have been saved by a seat belt? Now I have to 1) live with the fact that I killed you and 2) deal with the un necessary consequences of your death.

That’s bullshit.

ranwhenparked > Nick Has an Exocet 05/17/2019 at 23:50

2

Yeah, but my cousin’s neighbor’s brother’s former supervisor was in a really bad crash in 1981, got thrown through the windshield and lost most of his face, but he said a paramedic told him that he would have died if he was wearing a seatbelt because the car looked like maybe  it could have caught fire. So I haven’t worn a seatbelt on anything since. 

Spanfeller is a twat > atfsgeoff 05/17/2019 at 23:51

0

Many people are against compulsory bicycle helmets here... they argue it reduces the amount of people using them too much

DipodomysDeserti > Chariotoflove 05/17/2019 at 23:56

0

Well, if that’s the case, any reasonable public health professional would advocate for a ban on fast food and food with a high sugar content. Because those are things that are actually weighing our healthcare system down. Pretty sure head injuries are pretty far down the list of ailments that have ever weighed down a modern healthcare system.

While were at it, maybe have universal preventative healthcare. That’ll do a hell of a lot more than seatbelt laws.

 I always wear a seatbelt and a helmet, but you reasoning is flawed.

Cash Rewards > atfsgeoff 05/18/2019 at 00:00

2

Those are two separate issues altogether. Other countries have seat belt laws that don't get people shot. Other countries don't have the gun laws we do. It's not the seatbelt law that's the problem here

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > atfsgeoff 05/18/2019 at 00:01

2

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Why? If you willingly accept additional risk of death or injury, why pay out? Also, covering these increases the burden on the rest of us.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Well, again, why? Seems like the insurance is pretty expensive if it has to cover people who won’t wear helmets. Also, your estate covers debts if you die, after insurance covers whatever it says it does. If you have a spouse or co-signers for something, they can be held liable for debts relating to your estate. Medical insurance or life insurance is often there to cover these but why are they willingly covering you if you choose to greatly increase yo ur chance of death in an accident?

TO sum it up from a different angle, you describe the law as one of control, I sum it up as one of accountability. Your actions have consequences and that law is designed to hold you accountable for choices. An d with the seat belt law, I guess I have no concept of what you gain by disobeying it other than the most minor and ineffective form of disobedience.

atfsgeoff > Nick Has an Exocet 05/18/2019 at 00:01

0

You should be immune to any wrongful death lawsuits if the death could likely have been prevented by use of a seat belt. Still on the hook for property damage though.

I don’t see how this is any different than accidentally causing the death of a frail, elderly person when a younger adult would have easily survived the accident. Some people are more frail than others, either by nature or by choice (i.e. not wearing seat belt). Everyone takes calculated risks every day.

So far the best solution to this is make mandatory seat belt usage a non-primary offense, meaning that while you can still be cited/fined for it, you can’t be pulled over just for not wearing your seat belt. But if you’re pulled over for speeding or rolling through a stop sign, they can cite you for the seat belt in addition to whatever other offense they stopped you for. That way, nobody who is “minding their own business” and following the rules of the road, gets dinged for exercising their freedumbs, but those who cause a collision or drive unsafely can still be hit with it.

atfsgeoff > Cash Rewards 05/18/2019 at 00:04

0

Were it not for the seat belt law, the encounter would not have happened at all.

The Ghost of Oppo > Nick Has an Exocet 05/18/2019 at 00:09

4

Baby boomers are making sure they add ‘ ruining social media’ to the long list of things they fucked up 

atfsgeoff > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 05/18/2019 at 00:11

0

Why? If you willingly accept additional risk of death or injury, why pay out? Also, covering these increases the burden on the rest of us.

Because that’s what you’re paying your insurance company for. If your life insurance policy specifically mandates seat belt usage in order to collect, well that’s between you and your insurance company.

If you have a spouse or co-signers for something, they can be held liable for debts relating to your estate.

Your spouse is only liable for debts co-owned. Co-signers of anything assume responsibility for the debt if the primary signer doesn’t make the payments for ANY reason, not just death.

Medical insurance or life insurance is often there to cover these but why are they willingly covering you if you choose to greatly increase your chance of death in an accident?

They are willingly covering you because you are paying them to cover you. If there is a clause in the policy which mandates seat belt usage in order to collect on a car accident claim, then so be it. This is ostensibly something you read and agreed to when you signed the policy contract.

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > Nick Has an Exocet 05/18/2019 at 00:11

1

Loud pipes saves lives.

Chariotoflove > DipodomysDeserti 05/18/2019 at 00:17

2

I think that if you are trying to equate consumption of certain combina tions of foodstuffs with head trauma, then you are building the foundation of your thesis on a fallacy, and you should reconsider your own arguments.

I also note that you did not, in fact, attempt to refute any association between seatbelts and prevention of head trauma . You merely diverted from it to start what appears to b e another conversation.

Nick Has an Exocet > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 05/18/2019 at 00:25

3

He says to the guy who just bought a pipe cutter to remove the stock cat and resonator from the Exocet.

Chariotoflove > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 05/18/2019 at 00:35

1

This is the crux of the problem. No one who is in a severe accident is going to refuse treatment on the scene because they recognize and accept the consequence of their choices.

And no emergency room or medical service is morally or legally allowed to deny you all emergency trauma treatment.

So, society bears the direct costs of your decision.

Chariotoflove > atfsgeoff 05/18/2019 at 00:36

0

Not at all times, o nly while they are engaged in an activity that is known to significantly increase their likelihood of sustaining a serious injury.

atfsgeoff > Chariotoflove 05/18/2019 at 00:46

0

More pedestrians die from head injuries than car drivers or bicyclists.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518302731

Statistically, helmet use should be mandated to walk anywhere.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > atfsgeoff 05/18/2019 at 01:05

0

Not the same. Actually, we’ve had the “seat belt” law of pedestrians for a while now. We have jaywalking laws that say pedestrians need to use crosswalks. For drivers, there are those lines you need to brake before at intersections, and crosswalk traffic signals for pedestrians . Many pedestrians get killed because of inattentive drivers or they’re crossing at places/in ways they should not. SO it’s a pretty clear-cut case of either the person who hit them is at fault, or the person who was hit did something they shouldn’t, and the law exists to hold them acc ountable for their actions, similar to seat belt or helmet law.

atfsgeoff > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 05/18/2019 at 01:07

0

Given the increased risk to life/limb, I would argue that a person not wearing their seat belt or a helmet is MORE accountable for their actions than those who do wear them. The personal penalty for not avoiding an accident is far greater.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > DipodomysDeserti 05/18/2019 at 01:14

1

Don’t know if your comment is sarcastic or not because people *are* trying to fight for restrictions on high calorie/high sugar foods. It’s why we have the labeling laws that we have in the first place. People were advertising “low fat” or “fat free” foods where the fat or oil was replaced with sugar. So we have more detailed, and larger print nutrition information on food now. Also NY and CA want restrictions on certain junk food purchases. We’ll see how far they get but yeah, these things are indeed being discussed and put in place.

100% agree that preventative medicine should;ve been a thing yesterday. I argue for it and want to see it in the USA. It also isn’t the topic being discussed.

Onto the insurance topic - that is 100% what it’s about. Insurance, or socialized medicine costs, reflect how much it costs to take care of the people who need treatment. If an accident without a seat belt costs 100,000, but with a seat belt, it costs 10,000, then we can see that the system took 10x as much to treat the person without a seat belt than the one who wore it. All so someone can do the exact same actions as everyone else, but just be more expensive to heal when an accident happens....

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > atfsgeoff 05/18/2019 at 01:25

0

My quick definition of accountability is as follows - Following through, and accepting consequences, of actions and decisions we make.

So going off of that, if you accept that driving without a seat belt or riding without gear is more risky than riding without, then you should ride *safer* since you have more to lose. And that people would be much more aggressive with the safety systems since, after all, they’re protected in case of a crash so why not risk the crash? Your comment seems to lead that, does it not? So I’ll ask the question - do you believe that people who drive without seat belts are safer drivers?

atfsgeoff > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 05/18/2019 at 01:30

0

So I’ll ask the question - do you believe that people who drive without seat belts are safer drivers?

No. But they’re definitely more likely to die an earlier death and thus remove themselves from society’s burden of caring for them in their golden years. In the long run, it’s a self correcting problem.

Chariotoflove > atfsgeoff 05/18/2019 at 01:37

1

From re ading that article, the statistics actually say that the pedestrian fatalities are from multiple trauma and when engaged in road travel (see my above comment about engaging in activity that increases risk of serious injury, not “at all times” ) . Therefore, helmet use by pedestrians may not significantly protect them. Perhaps they should be wearing full body armor when using the roads.

According to your article, however, cyclists do in fact suffer a high incidence of death specifically from head trauma. This makes me glad that my city has a helmet ordinance for cyclists, and I wish t hey enforced it more stringently. I feel pretty strongly about this as a person who is only here today and not a vegetable because of my helmet.

I refer you to this page on trauma facts by the American Association for the S urgery of Trauma on death from trauma and its costs each year.

I also refer you to the CDC website and the multiple studies cited therein that shows how effective seat belts are at saving lives. Also, statistics show that seat belt laws are more effective when enforced as a primary offense.

As a person who has studied spinal cord injury and neurological injury as part of my job , I can tell you with certainty that trauma not only kills people, but neurotrauma causes long term health deficits that ruin lives and drain our country’s health care resources. If there are simple methods that are proven to save our society from a siginificant amount of this suffering and burden, why wouldn’t we mandate them?

If your answer is “personal freedom”, then my response is “fine” when I do not have to suffer the costs and burden of someone else’s ex ercise of that freedom. The fact is though that our society is morally and legally obligated to help someone who suffers injury. We cannot callously say, “well he made his choice, and now he gets to live with it; no treatment for him”. So, someone who gets in a car accident and is seriously injured because he wasn’t wearing a seat belt still gets airlifted, and the trauma team still gives him all they have to save him. And afterward when he is left with permanent disability, our society gets to pay the costs.

So, sure, I’m all for personal freedom when it goes with personal responsibility. But w hile I have to bear the responsibility for someone else’s choices, I have a say. And I say hooray for seat belt laws.

gettingoldercarguy > DipodomysDeserti 05/18/2019 at 01:43

1

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > atfsgeoff 05/18/2019 at 01:48

1

For the second time tonight, Kinja has borked but I do want to respond to the discussion on accountability. The comment this is replying to is summed up as you presenting the challenge that “If not wearing a seat belt results in increased deaths, then the problem becomes self-correcting. An d if the person not wearing a seat belt dies, then they are no longer the burden of society (either when ill after an accident or in old age) ”. Two thoughts.

1) As we have demanded that our cars be safer, many crashes that would’ve killed an unbelted passenger now only injure them. So an accident that a person in a seat belt could walk away from c ould cripple someone unbelted, rather than killing them outright . It isn’t a simple binary “You come out unscathed or you’re dead” in crashes.

2) You opened up that original comment by agreeing that accepting more risk while driving didn’t mean someone was a safer driver. I don’t see a way to say anythi ng other than we agree that people who drive without a seat belt aren’t accepting the risks associated with that, even though we also both agree there is more risk than driving while wearing a seat belt.

atfsgeoff > Chariotoflove 05/18/2019 at 01:57

0

So, sure, I’m all for personal freedom when it goes with personal responsibility. But while I have to bear the responsibility for someone else’s choices, I have a say. And I say hooray for seat belt laws.

Let me ask you this, what about someone getting seriously injured from a fall while free climbing? Maybe free climbing should be prohibited as well, and mandate that government-approved climbing safety equipment be used for all rock climbers. After all, free climbers are burdening all of us with their irresponsibility.

All swimmers and beach-goers should be compelled to wear flotation vests. Every one of those people who must get rescued and taken to the hospital, are YOUR burden to bear.

Maybe people should be prohibited from working on their own cars unless they have a government-approved vehicle lift? Lots of people get crushed under their cars when jackstands fail, you must bear the responsibility for them too.

BTW New Hampshire currently does not have any mandatory seat belt usage law, or even any mandatory car insurance law, and yet they have some of the cheapest car insurance rates in the nation.

atfsgeoff > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 05/18/2019 at 02:10

0

I don’t see a way to say anything other than we agree that people who drive without a seat belt aren’t accepting the risks associated with that, even though we also both agree there is more risk than driving while wearing a seat belt.

Accountability starts with accounting. Simply charge more for medical insurance after a person who is unbelted, gets injured (but not killed) in a crash. Same with helmetless motorcycle riders. Seems easy enough to me.

Then of course the logical conclusion to that rabbit hole is comparing how much lifetime medical costs are for a chronically injured person vs how much they actually contribute to society. Society holds life as sacred, but doctors and surgeons and phar maceutical scientists don’t work for free. If it costs $5 million to keep a car crash victim alive for 30 years, when they’re only contributing say, $600,000 worth of work to society over that time period, how does a society with a policy of always saving every life possible regardless of cost, sustain itself?

nFamousCJ - Keeper of Stringbean, Gengars and a Deezul > Nick Has an Exocet 05/18/2019 at 05:12

0

They just have to wait til they have a friend or family member in an accident they would have survived with a seatbelt however said friend/family member *wasn't* wearing theirs and was ejected from the vehicle and DoA. A sick truth but have had it happen to me personally "hey, I have some bad news ... Yeah she was ejected from the vehicle... I know at least it was quick". If they don't want to wear them then fine, it's population control at that point. 

SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media > atfsgeoff 05/18/2019 at 07:06

0

Australia: Seriously Under Control...by your measure.

SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media > Nick Has an Exocet 05/18/2019 at 07:19

4

Here’s my seat belt anecdote for Oppo:

Punting along a dirt road in the company 4x4. Cross a cattle grid and see a 100 Series Land Cruiser and a bloke that looks dead on the side of the road. Confirm that bloke is in fact very dead. Check the Cruiser. There were more people here but they aren’t now. Continue up the road to nearest property. Find dead blokes wife and two infant children just less than a kilometres up the road. Get asked ‘Is my husband dead?’. I respond ‘...yes’. Take dead man’s family to nearest property then go back to dead man to keep him company for a while till the ambulance gets there. Go home.

Later I find out that dead man wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. Everybody else was. Dead man was pushed into the top of the door as the Land Cruiser rolled. Door top folded out under his load and he was pulled through the door and crushed by his own car...did I mention how dead he was?

His two girls have grown up not knowing who he was or even remembering him. But they almost certainly know how he died...

Wear your seatbelt.

Urambo Tauro > Nick Has an Exocet 05/18/2019 at 07:38

0

The burden of proof when it comes to seat belts should be on those who resist them. There are plenty of good reasons to support belt usage. The real question is: “why not wear one?”. They’re not that uncomfortable. And even if you are sensitive to them, just use one of those fuzzy pads . (although I guess you can’t use those on airbag-equipped belts)

diplodicus forgot his password > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 05/18/2019 at 08:32

0

There was something similar on New year’s day where I live. But the driver lived and one of his passengers died, he hasn’t gone to court yet but he’s being charged with reckless driving resulting in death, has to forfeit his right to drive and reimburse the city/county for emergency services.

Nauraushaun > Nick Has an Exocet 05/18/2019 at 08:52

0

The meme isn’t arguing that it’s safety. It’s questioning that safety in a car is worth fining for when safety on a bike is totally unimportant .

Tbh motorcyclists break a heap of rules that car owners need to adhere to. It’s a losing battle. Fuck motorcyclists.

mXxxxXm24 /O/ /O/ > Nick Has an Exocet 05/18/2019 at 09:35

1

You’re right (especially about the Easter bunny) , but in terms of enforcement: it is about money. I mean police can point to safety as a good reason, but it is still about the money.  If it was about safety they would implement a device that made wearing seatbelts the only feasible way to drive, but that would be expensive and wouldn’t pay their salary.

mXxxxXm24 /O/ /O/ > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 05/18/2019 at 09:41

1

The only 2 times I’ve hit deer (luckily just clipped them), were when I had the factory exhausts on my cars. I genuinely believe it is safer to drive a car that produces a sound. Electric vehicles are doomed, unless...  they emanate sounds of a bear or mountain lion at all times.

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > Nick Has an Exocet 05/18/2019 at 10:14

2

It’s a Harley riders saying but can be applied to stick frame miata’s as well.

Nick Has an Exocet > mXxxxXm24 /O/ /O/ 05/18/2019 at 11:23

0

We had that in the 80s with the automatic seat belt.

I’ve never seen someone get a belt ticket. I really don't see this being about money.

DipodomysDeserti > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 05/18/2019 at 13:02

0

Never vodka and post.

DipodomysDeserti > Chariotoflove 05/18/2019 at 13:03

0

Never vodka and post.

mXxxxXm24 /O/ /O/ > Nick Has an Exocet 05/18/2019 at 14:17

0

Fair point. Seatbelts less so than other things. I was more looking at the whole picture. Cops issue citations to fill their quotas and thus keeping their jobs. If cops stopped issuing citations they would not have jobs. They make laws to enforce with fines  so that they always have a source of revenue to fall back on.  Though they are mainly after bigger gains like drug busts or duis.

Cash Rewards > atfsgeoff 05/18/2019 at 17:10

0

If someone blows through a stop sign and kills pedestrians in a crosswalk, should we get ride of the crosswalk? After all, no crosswalk, no people, who cares if he blows through the stop sign?

atfsgeoff > Cash Rewards 05/18/2019 at 17:31

0

It it happens often enough, yes, they remove the crosswalk and build a pedestrian overpass bridge.

Chariotoflove > DipodomysDeserti 05/18/2019 at 23:51

1

Good advice, but contrary to Oppositelock SOPs. :)

DipodomysDeserti > Chariotoflove 05/19/2019 at 00:48

1

I’m drinking whiskey tonight, so I shouldn’t type anything too stupid.

HondoyotaE38: A Japanese and German Collab...wait a minute > Nauraushaun 05/20/2019 at 09:59

0

i love you dude, but this take is terrible. try saying this to the large number of motorcyclists here on Oppo and you will get so, so rekt

Nauraushaun > HondoyotaE38: A Japanese and German Collab...wait a minute 05/20/2019 at 10:58

0

Mmm you’re right. But it’s a fact that motorcyclists aren’t held to as strict rules as motorists.

Makes a man angry