Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Does your state have a law were you have to wear your safety belt?

California has had the law for sometime now but, however I see no point in it.

I know it's for our own good and safe being but, people should be able to choose to put they're own life at risk if they want and not be ticketed on it. I could understand if it effected other drivers on the road but it's not like not wearing it is going to hurt anyone except yourself if you get in a crash.

Princess Diana (of England) would likely have survived the car crash which killed her, if she had been wearing a seat-belt.

i saw tell parents to drive around a road at like 60 mph (atleast when the speed limit is that), then slam on the brakes, sendign the kids into the back of the 2 fronts seats. it worked with me

Uhm, if your ass goes flying out the window, you can damage other cars, or property. Plus the medical team that would need to come in, plus the city workers to clear your shit up, plus the morgue, and your family paying for a funeral, all your friends, family affected by the incident.
Your a fucking retard.

At 2/21/06 08:10 PM, BFG_9000 wrote: Princess Diana (of England) would likely have survived the car crash which killed her, if she had been wearing a seat-belt.

Yeah, we don't know that for a fact.

You missed my point. Shouldn't it be your own damn choice if you want to risk your life and not wear the safetly belt. Since your doing no harm to anyone else.

At 2/21/06 08:15 PM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: Uhm, if your ass goes flying out the window, you can damage other cars, or property.

Okay, I didn't think about that, but how much damage can a person do.

Plus the medical team that would need to come in, plus the city workers to clear your shit up.

Like they wouldn't have to if nobody died? >:(

plus the morgue, and your family paying for a funeral, all your friends, family affected by the incident.

Just because you don't wear your safety belt and get in a accident doesn't mean YOUR GOING TO DIE.

Your a fucking retard.

Fuck You.

At 2/21/06 08:15 PM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: Uhm, if your ass goes flying out the window, you can damage other cars, or property..
Your a fucking retard.

Explains why our country has laws enforcing bike helmets. The human head is veritable missile when it's decelerated suddenly by metal.

At 2/22/06 08:22 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote:

At 2/21/06 08:15 PM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: Uhm, if your ass goes flying out the window, you can damage other cars, or property..
Your a fucking retard.

Explains why our country has laws enforcing bike helmets. The human head is veritable missile when it's decelerated suddenly by metal.

You'd think the extra hardness of a helmut would increase the lethality of the head in such an occasion also. Strange.

its because of the insurance companies, if you arnt wearing a safety belt you will most likely be injured worse and therefore make a bigger claim. so if safety belts can be inforced it will reduce death and insurance premiums.

At 2/22/06 08:29 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: You'd think the extra hardness of a helmut would increase the lethality of the head in such an occasion also. Strange.

Yeah. And the helmets often fly off in pieces adding to the high velocity shapnel..

At 2/22/06 08:56 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote:

At 2/22/06 08:29 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: You'd think the extra hardness of a helmut would increase the lethality of the head in such an occasion also. Strange.

Yeah. And the helmets often fly off in pieces adding to the high velocity shapnel..

BOOM HEADSHOT

As for the seat belt law, I think a good comprimise which some states have is to have the law, but only enforce it when other laws are broken. So, if you're minding your own business, doing 55 in a 55, driving prudently and defensively, but you're not wearing your seat belt, the cop won't pull you over. However, if you're caught speeding or driving recklessly, or cause an accident, you can get cited for both the infraction for which you were pulled over, and the seat belt violation as well. Similiarly, if someone else causes a wreck that you were in, if you're injured, then you not wearing a seatbelt will be considered in the accident as a mitigating factor, reducing the fines for the other driver, (or consequences if you get hurt or killed), or, at the extreme, reduce the accident from their fault to no-fault (50-50 fault).

At 2/21/06 08:19 PM, ExtraLife wrote: Just because you don't wear your safety belt and get in a accident doesn't mean YOUR GOING TO DIE.

But the chances of it taking place increase noticeably.
Did you know that the force of a car crashing at 50 km/h are equal of falling from a 5th floor?

If you die, what this means for people is:

-grief to your loved ones
-state has to take care of your kids/wife
-boss has to replace you
-one less worker, consumer, person etc.

Just shut the fuck up and wear it, its a good habit to take and it can save your life. I can't understand why people would get to ridiculously defensive over taking one second every time they get into their car to possibly save their lives and a lot of grief.
I didn't use to wear a bike helmet, and nothing every happened to me, but then I just picked up the habit of wearing one, and last summer I fell off my bike and my head slammed on the pavement. No helmet = me alone at 8am on a bike path with a bloody head trying to find help.

There are loads of laws to ensure everyone's safety, don't complain about the one that seems to target idiots.

what about cops who watch for the seat-belt chest band and pull over drivers on pure suspicion (nice excuse). Not to mention the money that it puts into government coffers.

seat belts and air bags also cause fatalities.. some percentage of lake or river deaths. Newer smart-belts or bags could "sense water" and auto release, but that logic will lead us to driverless cars as a way to reduce the "idiot" factor road toll. Seat-belt laws are a slippery slope to eliminating free choice from driving.

Seat-belt laws don't make drivers safer. It could just as easily be claimed that it makes idiot drivers feel artificially safe at dangerous speeds.

At 2/21/06 08:08 PM, ExtraLife wrote: Does your state have a law were you have to wear your safety belt?

I live in Sweden where you must have seatbelt and it is GOOD.

California has had the law for sometime now but, however I see no point in it.

Because if you are driving faster than you should and crashes and dies, you would wish that you had the seatbelt on, bastard!

I know it's for our own good and safe being but, people should be able to choose to put they're own life at risk if they want and not be ticketed on it. I could understand if it effected other drivers on the road but it's not like not wearing it is going to hurt anyone except yourself if you get in a crash.

Because your ass can fly out of the window and smack into someones window or head and cause much damage.

At 2/22/06 10:07 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote: what about cops who watch for the seat-belt chest band and pull over drivers on pure suspicion (nice excuse). Not to mention the money that it puts into government coffers.

That's why we should focus less on seat belt stings and more actively prevent drunk and/or reckless drivers. Not only does that reduce the threat on the roads for the people that drive safely, it makes seat belts less of an issue.

Believe me, there's plenty of people to go after that threaten other people out on the roads with their behavior without us going after people just threating their own.

At 2/22/06 10:11 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 2/22/06 10:07 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote: what about cops who watch for the seat-belt chest band and pull over drivers on pure suspicion (nice excuse). Not to mention the money that it puts into government coffers.

That's why we should focus less on seat belt stings and more actively prevent drunk and/or reckless drivers. Not only does that reduce the threat on the roads for the people that drive safely, it makes seat belts less of an issue.

The law in Massachusetts is that you can't be pulled over soley by seatbelt laws, but if you were speeding and pulled over and the cop sees you without a seatbelt, that's an offense.

Sounds like someone's just being a whiny bitch. There's no reason why you can't just put on your seatbelt. It's not hard, it's not uncomfortable, and it takes no time at all. My '73 Monte Carlo didn't have shoulder restraints and I got in a serious accident in it. Luckily for me I got T-boned, but it could have easily been a head on collision, in which case, I almost certainly would have died along with my passenger whose lap belt didn't even work. He would have been ejected through the windshield and had his head and neck severely lacerated and my face would have been buried in my steering column.

Shit happens, why the hell do you want to take an unnecessary risk when it's so easy to take preventative steps. Not to mention the fact that getting seriously injured as a result of not wearing your seat belt creates undue burden on the state on account of the fact that you're a dumbass. Hell yeah it should be illegal to not wear your seat belt.

Pro:
Risk of death is less.
Contra:
In some cases you benefit the society more being dead than alive.
You like living "On the edge" (driving without a seatbelt is an extremely boring edge).
You want to commit sucide, but you do not want people to think it was!

I do not get in a car if I cannot wear a safety belt. Period (if the speeds are over 20 km/h or something).

At 2/21/06 08:10 PM, BFG_9000 wrote: Princess Diana (of England) would likely have survived the car crash which killed her, if she had been wearing a seat-belt.

She would have likely survived if the people who had her took her to a hospital. Her whole death was a conspiracy. Just because she wasn't wearing a seatbelt doesn't mean that that was the reason she died.

But I do have to agree that the seat belt laws should be removed.
As the great Bender once said. "Those things take lives more than they do save them"

At 2/22/06 11:16 AM, Souta wrote: But I do have to agree that the seat belt laws should be removed.
As the great Bender once said. "Those things take lives more than they do save them"

No, seat belts save lives. There's very few instances I can think of where a seat belt can cause death in a case where not wearing one would have prevented it.

(if the speeds are over 20 km/h or something).

At some point technology (namely speed) made seat-belts necessary. At what point will safer roads or safer cars make seat-belt laws unneccessary?

Planes for example have "seat-belt on" and "seat-belt off" lights ....chiefly because seats don't come with built-in toilets. However, with road safety the argument is that a driver going at safe speeds ALWAYS needs a seat-belt because another idiot might be going fast in the opposite direction. This means we're protecting safe drivers with straps inside a very robust shell by punitive measures (..because in this country cops don't need an extraneous reason to stop a car for seat-belt infringment).

Likewise, bike helmet laws are punnishing the responsible cyclist chiefly for the existance of bad drivers. So how is that fair? The problem i have to fines is that they just don't hurt rich people as much as they do poor people. Where is the equallity of justice here?

Unlike Pox, i've never fallen off a bike in my life, and refuse to be forced to "feel safer" on the ever more dangerous roads (young drivers with ever more powerful transmissions) ...instead choosing to rollerblade (which doesn't require helmet!) as it lets me to better avoid bad drivers -legally use the pavement. (yes, bikes on pavements are illegal here unless it's a child's bike) ... WTF??!

And no, i don't see any difference between bike-helmet laws and seat-belt laws, except that it's about 100% easier to see a cyclist without a helmet : (

At 2/22/06 11:28 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote:

(if the speeds are over 20 km/h or something).

At some point technology (namely speed) made seat-belts necessary. At what point will safer roads or safer cars make seat-belt laws unneccessary?

Yes, but roads and cars can only be made so safe. The cars could drive themselves, but there is always an inherent risk involved in having large, heavy objects operating at high speeds within feet of each other, and crossing each other's path. And even then, you'll still have people opting not to have the computer drive, because they want to drive themselves, unless there is another government regulation requiring people to have their cars controlled by computer.

where i am from, if you are caught without a safety belt, you are sentanced to death

not really

At 2/22/06 08:29 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

At 2/22/06 08:22 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote:

At 2/21/06 08:15 PM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: Uhm, if your ass goes flying out the window, you can damage other cars, or property..
Your a fucking retard.

Explains why our country has laws enforcing bike helmets. The human head is veritable missile when it's decelerated suddenly by metal.

You'd think the extra hardness of a helmut would increase the lethality of the head in such an occasion also. Strange.

You fucking moron, Who the fuck wears a helmet while driving? Unless your retarded, you don't. Flying off your bike at 10 or 15km/h is a little different then flying through your window doing 70 or 100 km/h.

At 2/22/06 11:28 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote:

This means we're protecting safe drivers with straps inside a very robust shell by punitive measures

That's a stupid argument. seriously. Not considering the fact that people do make mistakes on their own and do ram their cars in phone poles and brick walls.
Seriously, wearing the seatbelt drasticaly increases your chances of surviving an accident. Falling through a frozen lake is pretty much a death sentence, belt or no belt.
The only cases belts kills people I would imagine are when kids or already weak people get into accidents. There is nothing that will save a 100 year old grandma made of glass when a truck rams into her, even if the cause of death is 'belt snaped her in half' instead of 'truck pulverized her".

For once, its not a big price to pay to just strap up, and if a cop pulls YOU over and takes your lazy-ass money to help fund public projects with your one-the-edge rebellious rockstar ways, I am totaly fine with that. In the meantime, I will wear my belt because I am not 10 years old anymore and I can take the time to strap it in.

Likewise, bike helmet laws are punnishing the responsible cyclist chiefly for the existance of bad drivers.

Did you ever bike in your life? I'd venture that most of the bike accidents are caused by people to themselves. The instances where you ram into someone are much rarer than the ones where you ram into a car, a car rams into you or you stuck a wheel in god knows what and take a dive. Maybe 5 year old kids who pedal as fast as I walk don't need one, but I assure you that at the speeds I am going when I'm in traffic or on a bike path, I wouldn't want to fall because its almost a guaranteed fracture if my skull hits that pavement.
Besides, its not really enforced over here, the bike helmet thing, but I am responsible enough to know I need to wear mine, and when some idiot not wearing one slams his skull on it when we collide, he'll be sorry.

You life is worth infinite dollars and hours to you, if you can't spend 40 bucks on an helmet or 2 seconds to strap on a belt, that's kinda sad. Maybe you're Robocop though, if so I am sorry and will abide by the laws of Neo-Detroit in the future.

i must agree with u having to wear a seatbelt as a mandatory law is highly unjust

At 2/22/06 01:53 PM, anti-honky wrote: i must agree with u having to wear a seatbelt as a mandatory law is highly unjust

You also cried when some flash authors made fun of you. Your opinions are entirely invalid.

I support seatbelt laws, if for nothing else, because it's economically prudent. Less serious injuries in accidents, means less drain on the economy when a person gets into an accident. Fewer days off spent in the hospital or whatever, fewer days off for family and friends who might otherwise have to take time off / go to a funeral, ETC.

Seatbelts are proven to be highly effective, and are an entirely net-positive thing. The only possible, viable argument against them is the "It's my life and I'll be as stupid as I want with it" argument, however I believe that one is negated when you look at the economic costs.

.
Personally? I've always worn a seatbelt, and even if I'm just moving my car across the street, or around a parking lot, I feel really weird not wearing the seatbelt. Like my fly is open or something. I've been in two accidents where I was driving, and the first one would have been assuredly much worse had I not been wearing the seatbelt.

Well, the UK does - it's in place for the same reason as the scuicide law. Also, it's there so you don't hurt others, because it's possible to kill another person by no wearing your seatbelt.

I can suggest why wearing a seatbelt is good for the other driver. Imagine a car crash where one driver, weighing 100kg travelling at 100km/h, smashed into another. He flies out of the windscreen (without losing speed, this is hypothetical), then crashes into the other driver 0.1 seconds after the initial impact.

Let 'Mass' equal the mass of a human body, which shall be equal to 100kg
Let 'Acceleration' equal the acceleration of the human body at rest to the speed of the car across a time of one tenth of a second, which shall be equal to 100km/h

First determine the acceleration:
Acceleration = Change in speed / Time (A = Delta V/ t )
A = (100 - 0) / 0.1 = 1000
Hence let 'Acceleration' be equal to 1000m/s2

Next determine the force:
Force = Mass x Acceleration (F = MA)
F = 100 x 1000 = 100,000 N
Hence the force is 100,000 N

This is the force transferred into driver two if he is wearing a seatbelt. If neither was wearing a seatbelt, both would hit in the middle at the same time. For the sake of argument, say they lose all their energy within one tenth of a second of colliding.:

Determine the momentum of both when they hit
DRIVER 1
Momentum = Mass x Velocity (P = MV)
P = 100 x 100
P = 10,000 kg-m/sec

DRIVER 2
Momentum = Mass x Velocity (P = MV)
P = 100 x -100
P = - 10,000 kg-m/sec

Finaly, find out how much energy is transferred into them

Energy Transferred = (Momentum 1 x Momentum 2) / Time
E = P1 x P2/t
E = 10000 x 10000 / 0.1
E = 1000000000 J, or 1,000,000 Kj

A million kilojoules of energy is not something you are likely to survive, and you are likely to cause substansial damage to the passengers. Even 100,000N would leave you no chance of survival. At slower speeds, you become exponentially more likely to survive, since the expression involves the square of P

In conclusion, it is sensible to make seatbelts mandatory, and takes very little time on the part of the seatbelt-ee, but saves a lot of time for the emergency services.

I hope my maths works, I sort of got carried away