This Is A Game Changer

[chipbennett]

Your right to not use a seatbelt could jeopardize the lives of others occupying the vehicle or an innocent bystander or MV operator.

Are you suggesting that the seatbelt-non-user would become a projectile, that could present a hazard to other occupants, or be thrown from the vehicle, thereby presenting a hazard to bystanders or other motor vehicle operators? Are there any data to support such a claim, or to document the likelihood of occurrence?

I think there is satisfactory data supporting that observation as well as common understanding of the physics involved in accidents.

Feel free to cite it, then, and it can become part of the discussion.

To distinguish between limiting a woman's "choice" in the control of her own destiny and your choice in driving willy nilly through public thoroughfares seems a bit curious.

One: I wear my seatbelt, so it is not a choice that I exercise.

Two: what does the choice to wear - or not to wear - one's seatbelt have to do with "driving willy nilly through public thoroughfares"? Is there some evidence that correlates unsafe driving behaviors with the decision to wear/not to wear a seatbelt? Or is that a straw man?

"Don't touch my lap, but I'm going to tell you what you can do with your uterus."

What human being is murdered, 100% of the time, by the choice not to wear a seatbelt? And abortion has zip to do with the uterus. It is the neck/head of an entirely separate human being that is pierced. It is the brain of an entirely separate human being that has its brains sucked out. It is the head of an entirely separate human being that has its skull crushed.

 

[mtinner]

do those t-shirts come in extra large?

 

[Alpo]

Are you suggesting that the seatbelt-non-user would become a projectile, that could present a hazard to other occupants, or be thrown from the vehicle, thereby presenting a hazard to bystanders or other motor vehicle operators? Are there any data to support such a claim, or to document the likelihood of occurrence?

How is it that you miss the obvious physics? A driver who is not harnessed in a vehicle is more likely to lose control of the steering wheel than a harnessed driver. You are probably aware that no one in NASCAR drives commando. Same with Indy cars. There is also a lot of data available from the hearings in Congress prior to passing Title 49, Ch 301 in 1968 and amended in 1984.

I'm not certain you've watched TV, but assuming you have, it is likely you've seen what happens to unharnessed objects within a vehicle in the event of a sudden stop or force applied to the side of a vehicle. I haven't looked at youtube for this subject, but I'm sure there is adequate footage available for your review. An unbelted child sitting next to you in the front seat (or a pregnant mother for that matter) is likely to undergo life-threatening movement if you do allow your passengers to make a non-harness choice.

Feel free to cite it, then, and it can become part of the discussion.

IBID

 

[chipbennett]

How is it that you miss the obvious physics? A driver who is not harnessed in a vehicle is more likely to lose control of the steering wheel than a harnessed driver. You are probably aware that no one in NASCAR drives commando. Same with Indy cars.

So I suppose I can assume that you're rocking a five-point harness, HANS, helmet, and fire suit every time you drive your car?

There is also a lot of data available from the hearings in Congress prior to passing Title 49, Ch 301 in 1968 and amended in 1984.

You're citing congressional hearings from 1968 and 1984? Those are relevant 30 and 50 years later... how, exactly?

I'm not certain you've watched TV, but assuming you have, it is likely you've seen what happens to unharnessed objects within a vehicle in the event of a sudden stop or force applied to the side of a vehicle. I haven't looked at youtube for this subject, but I'm sure there is adequate footage available for your review. An unbelted child sitting next to you in the front seat (or a pregnant mother for that matter) is likely to undergo life-threatening movement if you do allow your passengers to make a non-harness choice.

And nowhere have I argued against the risk of injury to one's self when choosing not to wear a seat belt. You asserted that said choice posed a risk to others beside the one choosing not to wear a seat belt. Anything to cite to support that assertion?

IBID

Oh, right. Congressional hearing testimony from 50 years ago.

 

[Alpo]

I cited Federal Seatbelt Law. If you find the law irrelevant, you are arguing for its own sake.

You've missed the point entirely on "choice".

 

[chipbennett]

I cited Federal Seatbelt Law. If you find the law irrelevant, you are arguing for its own sake.

How does citing federal law prove your assertion that someone not wearing a seat belt is a hazard to others?

You've missed the point entirely on "choice".

No, I've not. Once choice poses risk only to the person making the choice. The other "choice" results in the death of a separate human being, not privy to the "choice".

 

[Alpo]

You've failed to read what I said. I directed you to the testimony supporting the law and its amendments. You obviously have unlimited time to ask questions, but sometimes a person learns more by actually looking at the cited research than asking questions on INGO. Of course, your mileage varies.

 

[chipbennett]

You've failed to read what I said. I directed you to the testimony supporting the law and its amendments. You obviously have unlimited time to ask questions, but sometimes a person learns more by actually looking at the cited research than asking questions on INGO. Of course, your mileage varies.

...because automobiles (and roads, and speed limits, and driver training) have been unchanged in any significant manner since 1984 - much less, since 1968?

Regardless of what that testimony reveals, how is it relevant to 2015?

 

[Alpo]

Denial of objective reality is a serious disorder.

 

[SMiller]

...because automobiles (and roads, and speed limits, and driver training) have been unchanged in any significant manner since 1984 - much less, since 1968?

Regardless of what that testimony reveals, how is it relevant to 2015?

Do you just like to hear yourself talk?

 

[chipbennett]

Do you just like to hear yourself talk?

Do you talk to message boards? I would assume that most people type.

 

[IndyDave1776]

How is it that you miss the obvious physics? A driver who is not harnessed in a vehicle is more likely to lose control of the steering wheel than a harnessed driver. You are probably aware that no one in NASCAR drives commando. Same with Indy cars. There is also a lot of data available from the hearings in Congress prior to passing Title 49, Ch 301 in 1968 and amended in 1984.

You might want to consider that this doesn't become an issue until AFTER you have already lost control of your vehicle. As for NASCAR/IndyCar usage, most people on the highway aren't driving cars designed for minimal weight at speeds approaching quadruple normal speed limits.

 

[Gluemanz28]

So then I can assume that everyone is getting a shirt

 

[Alpo]

You might want to consider that this doesn't become an issue until AFTER you have already lost control of your vehicle. As for NASCAR/IndyCar usage, most people on the highway aren't driving cars designed for minimal weight at speeds approaching quadruple normal speed limits.

Having grown up on county roads, I know it doesn't take freeway speeds to cause a problem. In fact, interstates are some of the safest roads. Everyone generally is driving in the same direction at relatively the same speed. Cross over a centerline on a county road? M * V + M1 * V1

 

[IndyDave1776]

Having grown up on county roads, I know it doesn't take freeway speeds to cause a problem. In fact, interstates are some of the safest roads. Everyone generally is driving in the same direction at relatively the same speed. Cross over a centerline on a county road? M * V + M1 * V1

That is all well and good, but it does not address the facts that you are not going to be dislodged from your seat until after you have already lost control of the vehicle, nor does it account for the comparison with restraint usage in race cars being completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Alpo]

If you don't have a seatbelt on and lose a turn just a bit, it is very difficult to correct when your ass is sliding all over. Slippery road, misjudgement, etc. You griip the steering wheel to correct your own momentum but don't correct for the car....whammo! Seatbelts do save lives.

Ask any trooper and they can tell you quite a bit about physics on the roadways.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you don't have a seatbelt on and lose a turn just a bit, it is very difficult to correct when your ass is sliding all over. Slippery road, misjudgement, etc. You griip the steering wheel to correct your own momentum but don't correct for the car....whammo! Seatbelts do save lives.

Ask any trooper and they can tell you quite a bit about physics on the roadways.

You really think a professional ticket writer knows more about driving than a professional driver?

 

[Alpo]

I'm lost.

What was your point?

And yah, I'd say a trooper probably knows more about what happens in the real world than some race car jockey who knows how to turn left at high speed.

 

[jmpupillo]

'Professional ticket writer'

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm lost.

What was your point?

And yah, I'd say a trooper probably knows more about what happens in the real world than some race car jockey who knows how to turn left at high speed.

Who said anything about race car jockeys?