Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/22/06 09:42 AM, -poxpower- wrote:

Just shut the fuck up and wear it, its a good habit to take and it can save your life.

I second that.

It's stupid to not wear it, but I don't want to put a gun to your face and tell you to put it on.

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.

If you have a 1000 Kg vehicle going 40 m/s and you are 100 Kg and you stop, you will be flying through that fucking windshield at just under 400 m/s. I'm sure you don't want to be that guy.

As for your freedom of choice, they are the government and you are the citizen. If you don't like the law you can put some effort into changing it. But I doubt you care that much.

At 2/22/06 08:53 PM, Richthofen wrote:

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.

If you have a 1000 Kg vehicle going 40 m/s and you are 100 Kg and you stop, you will be flying through that fucking windshield at just under 400 m/s. I'm sure you don't want to be that guy.

Where did you get your physics lesson from? In such a crash, the person ejected will be going no more than the speed of the car before it crashed--there's no acceleration force being put on the ejected person.

According to your logic, if the car was going 100 mph then came to a sudden halt, the driver would be ejected at supersonic speeds, which is of course, absurd.

At 2/22/06 01:45 PM, -poxpower- wrote:

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

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.

lol. it surely depends what you mean by "accidents".
Let's at least stick to cycle road deaths as a measurement of danger.. (noted thou, not all cycle deaths are the result of head injuries).

http://www.kenkifer...ges/health/risks.htm

"Over 90% of cycling fatalities are caused by the cyclists being struck by motor vehicles" -- (US stats.)

i believe the biggest reasons by law you need to wear a seatbelt are because.

A. IT brings a good habit of wearing it, which'll save your life by the least

B. if you go crashing out the window, you're gonna leave a big mess, not just your body, but the funeral expenses etc. will kill your parents too.

C. If you're a parent and wear a seatbelt, you're encouraging your kids to wear em. Thus like i said in A brings a good habit in wearing them.

At 2/23/06 10:13 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote:

"Over 90% of cycling fatalities are caused by the cyclists being struck by motor vehicles" -- (US stats.)

Dude, cars don't go on the bike paths. I wonder how many of those accidents are the driver's fault, because I, along with lots of other cyclists, sometimes ride in the middle of traffic and burn red lights and stop signs. Not to mention the times when you'd veer into traffic after getting your wheel caugh into some sort of bump or crack in the road. Although the one time that a car did run into me, it was his fault haha. He had the sun in his face and couldn't see me crossing the street. Luckily he was going at like 10mph ( which according to Professor Physics up there would propel me at lightspeed within 10 seconds after impact).
Of course there's also the argument that the city should make more place on streets for bikes, but whatever :o

But my point is mainly that street cyclists are reckless and should protect their own heads because when you crash into a car, you won't damage it more than it will damage you :o
Could you imagine if you were a driver and killed a reckless teenager who went into traffic, solely because he didn't wear a helmet?

Anyways, I never heard of anyone being taxed or even stoped for not wearing a helmet, but everyone should. Its not like a kneepad that can save your knee from chaffing, helmets save your skull.

But yeah whatever, no one should be able to force anything onto you blabla you are free and live in your own country and land and you pay taxes, who are other people to tell you what's good for you why in the 50s uranium-enriched diets were great but did it mean it was no so I can smoke alcohol all I want lolwtfbbq.

You can be wearing a seatbelt and still die despite everything,

if your going 70MPH on a highway pursuit with cops behind you, and you were to hit a roadblock instantly, you'd instantly die most likely or die very soon of internal bleeding because the speed and impact force rates would put your organs all over the place and smash your brain and bones to bits if you hit the window or dashbaord

Enursure, the speed you are going whne you stop moving, you stay going. So u dont go 400 mph when ur 40 mph, ur the same, always unless you hit somthing.

At 2/22/06 08:32 AM, PhysicsMafia wrote: 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.

You would think. An insurance company in Wisconsin no longer covers you if you're in an accident and aren't wearing a seat belt. Along with this announcement they revealed that they would also be increasing premiums and deductables. Jackasses.

Seat belt laws are bull shit. We have them here in Pennsylvania and I hate them with a passion. The goverment needs to stop worrying about my safety and worry about Iraq or something.

At 2/23/06 07:29 PM, The_Tank wrote: Seat belt laws are bull shit. We have them here in Pennsylvania and I hate them with a passion.

Are you perchance extremely overweight?

At 2/23/06 10:29 PM, -poxpower- wrote: Are you perchance extremely overweight?

You shouldn't make gross assumptions like that, pox.

Maybe he doesn't like to get his blouse wrinkled. Ever thought of that?

i'd put my money on wi-fi car-cams becoming compulsory for more and more drivers in the next 5 to 10 years.

If you don't wear a seatbelt, you are putting your life at risk. End of story.

If you are in an accident without a seatbelt and get knocked out who the fuck is controlling your car? That's why we have seat belt laws.

At 2/21/06 08:08 PM, ExtraLife wrote: but it's not like not wearing it is going to hurt anyone except yourself if you get in a crash.

So, you're advocating natural selection?

That's a good value, it might save us some stupidity. It automatically weeds out anyone in soceity who doesn't understand inertia.

At 2/24/06 03:45 PM, Cold_Logic wrote: That's a good value, it might save us some stupidity. It automatically weeds out anyone in soceity who doesn't understand inertia.

I don't want to pay for their stupidity.

At 2/24/06 04:05 PM, redskvnk wrote: I don't want to pay for their stupidity.

I was lying under the assumption that they wouldn't drive any more or any less safely due to the lack of a seat belt.

But "pay" as in increased auto insurance rates because of an increased road mortality?
That's a good point. My auto insurance is high enough as it is...

At 2/24/06 04:07 PM, Cold_Logic wrote: But "pay" as in increased auto insurance rates because of an increased road mortality?
That's a good point. My auto insurance is high enough as it is...

Ja. Insurance rates, and increases in the costs of your average accident.

In the past 26 years, safety belts prevented 135,000 fatalities and 3.8 million injuries, saving $585 billion in medical and other costs. If all vehicle occupants had used safety belts during that period, nearly 315,000 deaths and 5.2 million injuries could have been prevented — and $913 billion in costs saved. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]
http://www.nhtsa.dot..r2003/factsheet.html

I don't want to debate the merit of my source or it's numbers – I'm just putting it out there to illustrate how safety measures like seatbelts save the entire society money. Therefor the line of thinking that goes "I don't care if other people do or don't do it," is fallacious.

At 2/24/06 04:22 PM, redskvnk wrote: I don't want to debate the merit of my source or it's numbers – I'm just putting it out there to illustrate how safety measures like seatbelts save the entire society money. Therefor the line of thinking that goes "I don't care if other people do or don't do it," is fallacious.

Yea, because that logic assumes that it doesn't affect you. When it affects a society, it no longer becomes an issue of personal preference or whether "seat belts are comfortable or cool." Of course, I never really put that much thought into seat belts until today, even though I've always worn one.

At 2/23/06 10:36 AM, Alexi101 wrote: You can be wearing a seatbelt and still die despite everything,

if your going 70MPH on a highway pursuit with cops behind you, and you were to hit a roadblock instantly, you'd instantly die most likely or die very soon of internal bleeding because the speed and impact force rates would put your organs all over the place and smash your brain and bones to bits if you hit the window or dashbaord

Umm false. Guy I work with who recently got out of the hospital hit the big cement support holding up a bridge going rougly 90mph. He broke both legs and his right arm, but the seatbelt and airbag pretty much saved his life. Only reason he had the injuries is that his car folded up like a coke can upon impact.

At 2/24/06 09:02 PM, ReiperX wrote: Umm false. Guy I work with who recently got out of the hospital hit the big cement support holding up a bridge going rougly 90mph. He broke both legs and his right arm, but the seatbelt and airbag pretty much saved his life. Only reason he had the injuries is that his car folded up like a coke can upon impact.

That doesn't make what he's saying false. Indeed, if you are travelling at 70 mph and hit say a bridge abutment or someother heavy, immobile object, you can die pretty easily even if you are wearing a seat belt. Of course, if one's going fast enough that they're guaranteed to die regardless of whether or not they're wearing a seat belt, I have a feeling the cops will get them for that speed first than before any seat belt law.

At 2/24/06 09:27 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

That doesn't make what he's saying false. Indeed, if you are travelling at 70 mph and hit say a bridge abutment or someother heavy, immobile object, you can die pretty easily even if you are wearing a seat belt. Of course, if one's going fast enough that they're guaranteed to die regardless of whether or not they're wearing a seat belt, I have a feeling the cops will get them for that speed first than before any seat belt law.

if your going 70MPH on a highway pursuit with cops behind you, and you were to hit a roadblock instantly, you'd instantly die most likely or die very soon of internal bleeding because the speed and impact force rates would put your organs all over the place and smash your brain and bones to bits if you hit the window or dashbaord
Yes you do have a great chance of dying, was just pointing out that like most absolutes, the absalute that he presented was false. Not saying that everyone that is in the same situation lives either, but seatbelts do greatly increase the chance of survival in an accident at any speed.