Tickets help

[nightcreacher]

in case they chickened out,I know, cause during WWII,I was one,now I'm a truck driver,so don't get in my way while your in your 4 wheeler

 

[greg334]

Ah yea right, they wore a helmet.

Not really, it was called a helmet but it provided little protection to their head with a crash, it was mainly for to protect against flying shrapnel. It was made out of leather with some padding (not much), usually had a buckle and leather strap on the bottom and on the back. The pilot's name was usually printed on the back, on a canvas patch.

Many of them did wear it but a lot of them wore a hachimaki headband with the rising sun on it instead.

 

[iceman274]

There have been instances where seatbelts have actually helped in killing someone in an accident

 

[ebsprintin]

Speaking of seatbelts and helmets, does anyone remember that old tv show called CHiPs? I always wondered why the officers driving a patrol car wore helmets also. Makes you wonder.

I think that had something to do with the Village People.

My seat belt policy would be that your insurance policy would only cover you if you were wearing your belt. No belt, no coverage unless you got a special Leo B. approved policy. Same with helmets. My issue with helmets when I had to wear one was that the dot motorcycle helmet standards came from automobile racing helmet standards, and the auto standards were based on protection within the tight confines of an automobile crash cage. DOT helmets are too heavy for the motorcycling environment. Your head gets ripped off, so you don't get a crushed skull.

eb

 

[Freightdawg]

Anybody know why kama kazie(sp) pilots wore helmets?

Probably for the same reason that they use alcohol wipe before lethal injections, SAFETY FIRST!!!!

 

[AMonger]

Prove you have the money in the bank to cover the million dollars or more it may cost for immediate and long term care after your accident with no seatbelt and more power to you. Otherwise buckle your lousy seatbelt and get over it so we don't all pay through higher insurance rates to pay the bill for someone too selfish to wear a seatbelt.

Oh, I'm sure my response will be unpopular as well but that's ok. Seatbelts should be mandatory for everyone and so should motorcycle helmets for that matter, again, with the same exemption for those with 7 figure bank balances.

I've asked no one to be responsible for my medical bills. If society elects to bear them, without my consent, then they've elected the increased risks that go with it. It would be like me taking out life insurance on you without your knowledge or consent, and then forcing you to exercise 3 times a week to lower my risk.

 

[AMonger]

I'm with LDB on this one.


Ever picked up a body part from a roadway?

I have.....twice.

There is no excuse for you to not wear a seatbelt.

Here's one: It's my life and I elect not to.

 

[AMonger]

Smart choice.........


(BTW - a "seatbelt" saved my life in a bad accident back in 2003. I am a full believer in seatbelts and have no problem with Government mandating that I wear it)

I don't understand people like you at all.

 

[Turtle]

I've asked no one to be responsible for my medical bills. If society elects to bear them, without my consent, then they've elected the increased risks that go with it. It would be like me taking out life insurance on you without your knowledge or consent, and then forcing you to exercise 3 times a week to lower my risk.

Personally, I'm dead set against the government enacting laws that govern the wearing of a seat belt, but the above is disingenuous at best. If you're dead in the wreck, someone's still got to clean up the mess and hose you off the pavement, with or without your consent. Society says we help people if possible, to render emergency aid to those in need. It's not a case of you giving consent, of opting in. You've already given consent unless you've opted out. If you are in an accident and are unconscious, unless you have signs all over your van and on your person explicitly opting you out of society and their help, you have already given your consent to society being at least partly responsible for you.

 

[AMonger]

Personally, I'm dead set against the government enacting laws that govern the wearing of a seat belt, but the above is disingenuous at best. If you're dead in the wreck, someone's still got to clean up the mess and hose you off the pavement, with or without your consent.

I must dispute. Generally, the argument given from the mandatory-seat belt and various other gummint-is-my-daddy crowd is that medical bills have a tendency to be of a massive, grinding, ongoing nature. I still disagree that that gives them the right to tell me what to do when I haven't asked them to be responsible for me, but at least there's some reasoning there on which one can hang a hat. But the stick-and-a-spoon and hosedown job isn't of that ongoing, expensive nature. The fire dept comes out, does its thing, and goes back to the firehouse, or Denny's, or wherever. No ongoing costs incurred.

Society says we help people if possible, to render emergency aid to those in need.

Oh, society says that? Then society can pay the tab. When society gets tired of paying the tab, then society can stop saying that.

It's not a case of you giving consent, of opting in. You've already given consent unless you've opted out. If you are in an accident and are unconscious, unless you have signs all over your van and on your person explicitly opting you out of society and their help, you have already given your consent to society being at least partly responsible for you.

Not precisely true, but close enough for our purposes, I s'pose. But the operative factor is presumed consent (through being unable to say otherwise). And again, that's a presumption society chooses to make. Being that's society's choice, they've chosen to accept the costs. So the argument doesn't change.

Ah, life would be so much simpler if society would just obey the 6th and 8th commandments. You don't steal (the larger YOU, not you specificially), then you avoid these conundrums.