Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/21/2005 12:22:24 PM EDT
So, I am out and about in town, driving my truck...seat belt positively fastened as per the law that revokes my choice to or not to wear it....and while stopped at a red light, I see a few guys and gals out for a nice Sunday ride on their Harleys. Nice day out, sunny, warm...perfect day for a cruise out into the country......then it hit me.....they dont need to wear helmets....yet I am forced to wear a seatbelt. WTF kind of logic gets a state to a point where you can have one and not the other?

I have nothing really against seatbelts, I just dont feel the need to wear them every single time I am driving. I live in a very small town, and I drive less than a mile a lot of the time I go into town (usually we walk, but sometimes it makes sense to take the truck if we are picking things up)

I dont need a seat belt to drive 1/2 mile to the farm market for produce....and I dont need one to go 3/4 mile to the post office....if any person on a motorcycle can ride without a helmet, how the hell does the state think its entitled to tell me that I NEED to wear a damn seat belt?



[sgtar15] Discuss [/sgtar15]
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 12:25:52 PM EDT
Your right. As a motorcycle rider I think all riders should have to wear a helmet by law. Although i would like to ride without one sometimes. In NJ you have to wear one all the time.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 12:26:55 PM EDT
What has logic to do with this? It's about lobbying.

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 12:31:54 PM EDT
* IF I WERE ON THE SUPREME COURT * I would rule that 1) you don't have to wear your seatbelt and 2) you don't have to wear a helmet and 3) a hospital is not obligated to treat you nor does an insurance company have to cover your medical bills if you ignore item #1 or 2.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 12:35:25 PM EDT
I agree it's a little invasive, and it's a little hypocritical... but... I got clobbered in my car when I was 17, and would have been put through the windsheild if it wasn't for my seatbelt. ... and I was only about a mile from home.


Proximity to home doesn't make you safer
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 12:37:05 PM EDT
Stick it to the "MAN" and wear a helmet while driving your car. Argue that you interpreted the law to say a safety device, not particularly a seat-belt, then fight it all the way to the SC.


Link Posted: 8/21/2005 12:37:13 PM EDT
Judging from all of the stupid sheeple out there, to me seat belt laws maker perfect sense.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 12:45:25 PM EDT
Merrell said:

* IF I WERE ON THE SUPREME COURT * I would rule that 1) you don't have to wear your seatbelt and 2) you don't have to wear a helmet and 3) a hospital is not obligated to treat you nor does an insurance company have to cover your medical bills if you ignore item #1 or 2.


By that logic, they can deny treatment and coverage for any number of "risky" activities -- skiing, boating, skydiving, horseback riding and, of course, owning and using firearms. Only the sheeple who dutifully wake up, take mass transit to work and go directly home afterwards to sit in front of the TV will be eligible for insurance and health care.

The next step will be denying coverage if you:
drink
smoke
eat "unhealthy" food
play contact sports
etc.

Just because an activity doesn't appeal to you personally, don't condemn everyone else who participates.

And yes, I almost always wear a helmet when riding my Harley, but I sure enjoy the freedom of NOT being forced to wear one in those states that still offer a choice.

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 1:04:00 PM EDT
As someone who has had a Motorcycle license for 25½ years I feel that there should be no law requiring helmit. As a motorcycle driver I have allready choosen a dangerous mode of transportation - prudence should make me choose to use a helmit to improve my survivability - which I do.

I also use a seatbelt in cars. I have been in 2 high speed accidents, and the worst injury I got was a massive bruise to my ankle when my foot flew into the clutch pedal on impact.

As to insurance coverage vrs safety useage - it should only affect the deductable if any.

( owning a Harley while in High School was cool! )
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 1:05:57 PM EDT
most accidents take place within the distances you say you normally drive.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 1:08:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ready-aim-fire:
Merrell said:

* IF I WERE ON THE SUPREME COURT * I would rule that 1) you don't have to wear your seatbelt and 2) you don't have to wear a helmet and 3) a hospital is not obligated to treat you nor does an insurance company have to cover your medical bills if you ignore item #1 or 2.


By that logic, they can deny treatment and coverage for any number of "risky" activities -- skiing, boating, skydiving, horseback riding and, of course, owning and using firearms. Only the sheeple who dutifully wake up, take mass transit to work and go directly home afterwards to sit in front of the TV will be eligible for insurance and health care.

The next step will be denying coverage if you:
drink
smoke
eat "unhealthy" food
play contact sports
etc.

Just because an activity doesn't appeal to you personally, don't condemn everyone else who participates.

And yes, I almost always wear a helmet when riding my Harley, but I sure enjoy the freedom of NOT being forced to wear one in those states that still offer a choice.




I don't condemn it, I just don't want to have to pay for it when you ignore a readily available safety device and decide to play organ donor. Didn't say "ban" any of those activities, just use prudent and reasonable safety precautions. As far as the shooting analogy, wear your ear & eye protection. Just simple stupid common sense stuff.

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 1:23:02 PM EDT
You guys would have a field day with my last car:

10 pt. rollcage, Sparco Evo seat, and a 5pt. harness.
but took out the airbag!

I certainly don't think belts should be mandatory, but c'mon, what are you
doing in your car - aerobics?! You're just sitting there...why not slap in on?

Even if the law went away, you bet your ass I'd still be wearing one!
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 1:41:02 PM EDT
Make helmet use in cars mandatory too

It is just a reasonable safety precaution that should be forced on you for your own good.

Look at the safety record of Nascar when they wear helmets

Anyone else see the stupidity of this argument???

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 1:46:44 PM EDT
I've said this before - it's all about how powerful the insurance lobby is. If you're in an auto accident and you're wearing a seatbelt, the cost of your claim will be lower than if you're not wearing the seatbelt. If you're riding a motorcycle and you're not wearing a helmut, the cost of your claim (on average) will be less than if you are wearing a helmut.

How can this be? You're more likely to die in the motorcycle accident without a helmut. They insurance companies can should you that over time with a large pull of insureds, that wrongful death claims cost less overall than tramatic motorcycle accidents.

The situation is very logical, but weird.

R.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 1:50:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GhostRing:
You guys would have a field day with my last car:

10 pt. rollcage, Sparco Evo seat, and a 5pt. harness.
but took out the airbag!



Just don't wear your helmet on the transits...
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 1:51:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ready-aim-fire:
Merrell said:

* IF I WERE ON THE SUPREME COURT * I would rule that 1) you don't have to wear your seatbelt and 2) you don't have to wear a helmet and 3) a hospital is not obligated to treat you nor does an insurance company have to cover your medical bills if you ignore item #1 or 2.


By that logic, they can deny treatment and coverage for any number of "risky" activities.......



My Health Ins. already states - no seat belt = no coverage. Do not know if it has been tested/challenged. Predict we will see more of this.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 1:54:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By racer934:

Originally Posted By GhostRing:
You guys would have a field day with my last car:

10 pt. rollcage, Sparco Evo seat, and a 5pt. harness.
but took out the airbag!



Just don't wear your helmet on the transits...






Actually, I've been pulled over 'cause the officer couldn't see a shoulder strap...
Got up to the car and apologized for pulling me over!
Said it was the safest looking vehicle he's ever pulled over...
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 1:55:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 2:00:52 PM EDT by packnru]
It's because the motorcylist have their shit together, and the dumbass car people won't get off their asses long enough to get the seatbelt law repealed.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 2:10:39 PM EDT

Nobody (no competent adult, that is) should be REQUIRED by law to wear seatbelts, helmets or anything else. What's next - no more skydiving, scuba diving, hiking in remote areas, skiing, swimming, etc??

However - insurance companies and hospitals should be allowed to CHARGE you more, depending on your choices of what risky behaviors you choose to engage in. Wanna ride your motorcycle without a helmet - pay a lot more in insurance premiums. Simple as that.

IF you take FREE INSURANCE from the state - THEN you have to agree to things like seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, no mountain climbing or bear baiting, etc. Don't think it's fair? Cry me a river and get a job!


If for instance, you told your insurance company that you wear seatbelts, and were in a crash - and the police report indicated that you were NOT wearing it, the insurance company should be allowed to refuse to pay. By the same token, if you claim to be a non-smoker on your home insurance policy, and then your house burns down because you smoked in bed and fell asleep or something - your surviving relatives should get nothing.

Just let the freakin' market decide. As long as there is a relatively unregulated insurance industry, this kind of thing will sort itself out without the big mommy government telling us what's good for us and what isn't.


Link Posted: 8/21/2005 2:15:02 PM EDT
Never mind that insurance rates have continued to rise at previous levels despite these intrusive laws. So much for saving lives, and premiums. It's about making those filthy bastards more money.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 2:16:45 PM EDT
If you wear a helmet driving a car or truck you wil be stopped and written up (impaired vision, hearing, and possibly heat stroke to cause dizziness and other impairments of driving)


I bet if you put a seat belt on your Bike and wore it you would be stopped and written up as well.....


It is all a way of generating tax revenue


(and I know th eapologists will be in here to bitch about the rising costs of healthcare blah blah ad nauseum, I have PRIVATE insurance that covers me 100%, I also have public and work insurance policies, as well as living in a socialistic medical paradise {sarcasm} so nomatter what I am covered 6 ways to sunday on any injuries I get from just about anything, including my riding horses that don't want me on their backs, that all said, I can still get tickets, and have, for not wearign seat belts or helmets respectively)
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 2:19:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TacticalPenguin:
If you wear a helmet driving a car or truck you wil be stopped and written up (impaired vision, hearing, and possibly heat stroke to cause dizziness and other impairments of driving)




Really ??

Wow - that's ridiculous. So many auto accidents result in head trauma, that wearing a helmet INSIDE a car should be the ultimate safety feature. I actually had this discussion with a friend of mine who is an M.D., and he agreed that wearing a helmet while driving a car actually makes more sense that wearing a helmet while rollerblading.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 2:20:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spyda:
Never mind that insurance rates have continued to rise at previous levels despite these intrusive laws. So much for saving lives, and premiums. It's about making those filthy bastards more money.



That and idiot juries awarding $250 million dollar settlements for "loss of companionship" after some idiot pulls in front of a train or drives off a cliff (with trial lawyers taking their usual percentage, of which how much gets donated to judges' campaigns?)
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:34:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 4:35:31 PM EDT by JeffC]

Originally Posted By macro:

I dont need a seat belt to drive 1/2 mile to the farm market for produce....and I dont need one to go 3/4 mile to the post office....if any person on a motorcycle can ride without a helmet, how the hell does the state think its entitled to tell me that I NEED to wear a damn seat belt?

[sgtar15] Discuss [/sgtar15]



Whaaaaaah!

If you feel so strongly don't wear one. How do you know when you're going to need one? If you had this kind of precognition, why not just stay home on those days?

It's common sense to wear a seat belt. Unfortunately there are so many morons in this litigious country, common sense has to be legislated. If motorcyclists aren't required to wear one and don't then it's their problem. I don't really care if they smear their brains all over the road, I just don't want to pay for it. Same for smokers, drug users, and auto drivers who don't wear belts.

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:49:35 PM EDT
I think the seatbelts laws suck but if I were in an accident and we didint have a seatbelt law I would sue the state for not having a seatbelt law.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:09:20 PM EDT
Ah, a subject I know a little about....

You can only be pulled over if your state has a primary seatbelt law...meaning that they can pull you over for not wearing it..irregardless of whether you were doing anything else wrong or not. KY has a secondary seat belt law stating they can only cite you for it if you are not wearing it when you are pulled over for something else. I have had the same cop try to give me an additional ticket for not wearing it twice when pulled over for doing 65 in 55 zone.....he came right out and stated that I was not wearing my seatbelt and he could tell so at a distance (which is the real reason he stopped me...more money). I showed him I had it on but was wearing a nice dress white shirt (differeing from my norm) and I didn't want it to wrinkle it (meeting with the guvnah you know) and my seat belt was only across my lap. He said, tell it to the judge...I did...and won. Jerk.


Anyway, the seatbelt and helmet laws came about because (not so much of insurance lobbying) but because of fatalities.
Seatbelts save lives (its proven) and the transportation department has made it its goal to reduce fatalities so ergo the push a number of years ago for states to have seat belts and helmet laws. They tied it to money that the state DOT's got for its programs...if you didn't have a law....you lost a certain amount of funds. Then the lobbyist got to the legislators and made them remove the helmet law penalty. Some states repealed the law if they had it...some didn't (knowing that its safer to wear a helmet). Some had never passed the law, didn't care about the money so much...and still don't have the law. Lots of studies on seatbelts and helmet use and pros/cons.

Personally, you and I pay for the people who don't use seatbelts and helmets in the form of higher costs at medical facilities and in a way ...insurance premiums (you think the insurance companies aren't going to pass the buck?). If a motorcycle rider is injured and is brain dead...and say the family has little or no insurance or the insurance runs out...who pays for the extended stay of that patient...the hospital or long term care site who then pass on the loss to everyone.

At least I hope to have broken my kids from riding motorcycles ever...for the last couple of years...they have learned to call them ORGAN DONORS. It would be nice to have cheaper gas but I am safer in the car than the M/C ...I am sure of that.

Essayons
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:43:27 PM EDT
Helmet and seat belt laws were inacted SOLELY for more revenue.

Waht about having to re-register your vehicle after every year or two?
Does that make sense?(That is, for those of you who know why we have registration)
Registration should only occur when the vehicle changes ownership.

Why are you all so quick to say "not treat people"? You're saying people deserve to die for not wearing a seat belt or helmet. And those of you who are against motorcycles... insurance on cars are a LOT more expensive than motorcycles for a reason. Because they are very dangerous to others and kill a LOT more people each year than the deaths of motorcyclists each year. So let's put things in perspective shall we?

Some of you are so quick to allow a nanny state. Those who criticize BATFE agents for going after firearms owners are not against cops pulling you over for not wearing a seat belt, helmet, or having an expired registration? Hypocricy.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:53:54 PM EDT
To me it's a common sense thing, regardless of the law, on both issues.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 4:05:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MachinegunManiac:
And those of you who are against motorcycles... insurance on cars are a LOT more expensive than motorcycles for a reason. Because they are very dangerous to others and kill a LOT more people each year than the deaths of motorcyclists each year. So let's put things in perspective shall we?



one fact you overlook is that there are tons more cars out there than m/c and so the exposure to a car accident is much greater than that of a m/c. I see a rapid increase in the sale of m/c and perhaps they are pleasure vehicles (driven solely on a nice weekend, much like a boat). Lots less boat accidents around too aren't there? Couldn't tell you about the price of insurance on either one though.

Essayons
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 4:20:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 4:23:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 4:28:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
To me it's a common sense thing, regardless of the law, on both issues.



To me its common sense that none of this actually has anything to do with safety, it has only to do with kontrol from ze Faderland.


If it had anything to do with safety, motorcycles would be banned, and helmets would be required in cars.

There you feel safer now?


Link Posted: 8/22/2005 4:37:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 4:39:49 AM EDT by swingset]

Originally Posted By Hawker:
most accidents take place within the distances you say you normally drive.



Where the hell else are they going to occur? At distances I don't normally drive?

That would be an interesting statistic to find out that accidents occur where you're not even driving! I wonder if I only drive where I normally don't, if I'll avoid ever having one?

Shit, that's amazing. I learn something new and stupid every day.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 5:20:30 AM EDT
Dont wanna wear a seatbelt? DO what I did. Though granted it is quite extreme, I wore my belt like 95% of the time But seemed to have the bad luck of always being spotted by the cops on that 5% chance I was'nt. So on my last 75$ ticket i was furious. I pulled my belt all the way out of it's housing then just cut it with a knife. Now i just drape it over my shoulder so it looks like I'm wearing one But without the restrictive pulling on my chest. About a month after that got stopped at a ballbuster roadblock, they took a look and let me go. (it was seatbelt month, and they were looking to make money for the state at my expense ) Well fuck'em. So now i drive unfettered by oppression of the state. And what do I do come inspection time? Well i open up the belt housing reattach the belt temporaily, pass the inspection, then take out the belt again. No fuss no muss.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 5:35:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Merrell:
* IF I WERE ON THE SUPREME COURT * I would rule that 1) you don't have to wear your seatbelt and 2) you don't have to wear a helmet and 3) a hospital is not obligated to treat you nor does an insurance company have to cover your medical bills if you ignore item #1 or 2.



Here here. That way we still have personal choice (and personal responsibility if we screw up), and it'd probably save the hospitals/insurance companies huge amounts of money.
Top Top