Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 21:59:58 -0500
Reply-To: mcneely4@COX.NET
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@COX.NET>
Subject: Re: Don't forget your seatbelt
In-Reply-To: <4de03983.610c440a.64f2.6d3f@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Jeff, I took you to mean that the government has no business telling you to wear a safety belt. You stated that you do wear one and that you believe in them as a means of personal safety, but that you don't like the government sticking itself in to your personal life (I've heard that about other matters, some I agree with, some I don't).
My different take is that there is a safety matter for others, even the non-driving public, because of the further element of control the driver has in an emergency situation (like a sudden stop and swerve, that might throw the driver into a position where (s)he had less leverage or even contact on the wheel or the brake. That has been studied by the insurance industry and auto manufacturers. It is real. Thus, society has an interest in seeing to it that folks buckle up.
Are there local governments that take advantage of this law for revenue? Perhaps. When my high school age daughter was at a summer program away from home, her roommate was ticketed in the small town where they were living for driving 5 mph over the speed limit. A couple of days later they read in the local paper that the town was able to meet its payroll obligations that month because it had collected enough traffic ticket revenue to make up what had been an expected shortfall. In most states, there is a requirement that local jurisdictions drop the speed limit on state and federal highways entering the town in increments, rather than in a single large decrease. That serves to give drivers a chance to accommodate to the altered condition. In my current home state of Oklahoma, when that was proposed as a state law, all the little towns pitched a fit, and the most talked about reason was that it would deprive them of revenue. Huh? I thought traffic laws were about safety. Hmmmm........ .
mcneely
---- Jeff Schwaia <vw.doka@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> Even an nice jolt from an updraft will do...
>
> I knew people would take my post incorrectly. I'm not against safety belts, just legislation enforcing the issue. And anyone who thinks the local government isn't using that legislation to help fund their departments is either an idiot or a fool.
>
>
> As Ben Franklin said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>
>
> Happye Friday,
>
> Jeff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of John Rodgers
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 4:22 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: Don't forget your seatbelt
>
> If, like I have, you ever experience in an airplane, an unexpected,
> uncontrolled outside loop down between the treetops - then you will
> never ever fail to remember to put on your seatbelt - EVER! no matter
> what kind of vehicle you are in!
>
> John
>
> John Rodgers
> Clayartist and Moldmaker
> 88'GL VW Bus Driver
> Chelsea, AL
> Http://www.moldhaus.com
>
>
> On 5/27/2011 5:28 PM, Dave Mcneely wrote:
> > fwiw, the insurance industry pushed the seat belt and (where applicable) helmet laws through. In states that passed, then repealed, helmet laws, the insurance industry strongly opposed the repeals. The insurance industry pushed for air bags, and has pushed for other safety related laws. Big Brother? A safety belt not only protects the person belted in, but gives drivers an added margin of control when they are not pelted by passengers flying about, and when they are still secured while engaged in emergency maneuvers. Thus, the seat belt protects not only the occupants of the car where they are belted in, but the lives and property of others.
> >
> > If I were an insurer, I would insert a clause to the effect that if a driver and passengers were not wearing safety belts when an accident occurred, the insurance would not apply except for liability, and then only at the minimum level required by law, regardless of the stated value of the policy. That would be clear up front at the sale of the policy.
> >
> > Society really does have a stake in protecting its citizens from the misbehavior of others.
> >
> > mcneely
> >
> > ---- Jeff Schwaia<vw.doka@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >> Before I rant, let me say that I always wear my seatbelt, just like I always
> >> wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle. That being said...
> >>
> >> I really hate the fact that big brother feels the need to legislate this
> >> crap. Perhaps it's the Libertarian in me, but I think it's BS. If I want
> >> to ride without a helmet, I should have every right to do so. The life I
> >> risk is my own. Same goes for seat belts.
> >>
> >> I know, I know, people love to chime in with who pays for your medical
> >> expenses, etc., if you get hurt. That's another issue altogether.
> >> Personally, I believe it's nothing more than another way to generate a
> >> revenue stream for our local governments.
> >>
> >> If it were really all about safety, then why not mandate helmets for cars?
> >> I can guarantee it would reduce the number of head injuries that occur in
> >> bad accidents (with or without seat belts).
> >>
> >> How about a Hans Device? That would sure take care of all those whiplash
> >> injuries!
> >>
> >> Four (or five) point harnesses? Left shoulder separation is common in car
> >> accidents due to the 3 point safety belt.
> >>
> >> END OF RANT
> >>
> >> Happy 3 day weekend!
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Jeff
> > --
> > David McNeely
> >
> >
--
David McNeely
| 
