jsnipy wrote:
If your injury or death from not wearing a safety belt results in disability which in turn gets you any state's financial assistance then I feel it is a concern of the state.
Disability would likely be the push needed to blow my brains out, with little cost to the state. Point is moot, taxes are squandered in far larger quantities elsewhere.Dilbert_X wrote:
jsnipy wrote:
If your injury or death from not wearing a safety belt results in disability which in turn gets you any state's financial assistance then I feel it is a concern of the state.
Perhaps it's "most likely" that the post is about seatbelts simply because the thread is about seatbelts, and the post I replied to was about how seatbelts don't affect anyone but the driver.11 Bravo wrote:
i can say the same for food, coffee, music, cell phones, gps, people, etc...mikkel wrote:
Not wearing a seatbelt affects everyone in traffic when wearing one would have prevented serious injury or death. Don't make me wait for hours stuck in traffic because you had to skip the seatbelt and die, turning a tow-to-the-side-of-the-road accident into an emergency vehicle convention.11 Bravo wrote:
if it affects other people yes. a seatbelt only affects the individual, so idc about that. some cunt yapping on his phone or dicking around with the gps concerns me.
It isn't a matter of what you do in your car. It's a matter of what you do in your car on public roads.
but ya a seatbelt will most likely cause a traffic jam accident versus that stuff.
you wont get it unless you were wearing your seatbelt kthxDilbert_X wrote:
jsnipy wrote:
If your injury or death from not wearing a safety belt results in disability which in turn gets you any state's financial assistance then I feel it is a concern of the state.
point is the seatbelt should be the least of your concerns. YOUR point was YOUR time. MY point was YOUR time would be MORE affected by those things.mikkel wrote:
Perhaps it's "most likely" that the post is about seatbelts simply because the thread is about seatbelts, and the post I replied to was about how seatbelts don't affect anyone but the driver.11 Bravo wrote:
i can say the same for food, coffee, music, cell phones, gps, people, etc...mikkel wrote:
Not wearing a seatbelt affects everyone in traffic when wearing one would have prevented serious injury or death. Don't make me wait for hours stuck in traffic because you had to skip the seatbelt and die, turning a tow-to-the-side-of-the-road accident into an emergency vehicle convention.
It isn't a matter of what you do in your car. It's a matter of what you do in your car on public roads.
but ya a seatbelt will most likely cause a traffic jam accident versus that stuff.
Did I ever suggest otherwise?11 Bravo wrote:
point is the seatbelt should be the least of your concerns. YOUR point was YOUR time. MY point was YOUR time would be MORE affected by those things.mikkel wrote:
Perhaps it's "most likely" that the post is about seatbelts simply because the thread is about seatbelts, and the post I replied to was about how seatbelts don't affect anyone but the driver.11 Bravo wrote:
i can say the same for food, coffee, music, cell phones, gps, people, etc...
but ya a seatbelt will most likely cause a traffic jam accident versus that stuff.
you make no sense. your time in traffic is not equated to a monetary value. lots of things cause traffic, such is life on the road.mikkel wrote:
Did I ever suggest otherwise?11 Bravo wrote:
point is the seatbelt should be the least of your concerns. YOUR point was YOUR time. MY point was YOUR time would be MORE affected by those things.mikkel wrote:
Perhaps it's "most likely" that the post is about seatbelts simply because the thread is about seatbelts, and the post I replied to was about how seatbelts don't affect anyone but the driver.
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-07-20 11:00:30)
If you notice how slow everyone's going, it's not much of a shock. They're not really hurtling through that interchange recklessly. The difference is in places like the UK people go fast and then stop at designated areas (traffic lights etc..) and leave big gaps and all that, in India and places similar everyone goes much slower and leave small gaps and don't stop at designated places. You can cut infront of a bus but that bus is travelling very slowly anyway and they're all paying attention to what's going on in front.
Except for the extra risk you are putting other people at by not wearing one. If it were only the safety of the person choosing not to wear the seatbelt, then it would be fine. That is not the case.jord wrote:
Mum had a vauxhaul estate, belts were kinda tight so I never wore one. Nobody elses business really.
same, 2nd nature for me just to click in. Like... what if...FFLink wrote:
Feel really uncomfortable if I don't use one.
Oh, sorry! I misspoke, I don't actually have the license yet or anything, just the learning handbook. No I was with my boss on our way up to Santa Barbera when the person pulled in front of us. That could have been a really bad accident.HaiBai wrote:
how did you get a license in 2 weeks...?-Sh1fty- wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Not wearing a seatbelt affects everyone in traffic when wearing one would have prevented serious injury or death. Don't make me wait for hours stuck in traffic because you had to skip the seatbelt and die, turning a tow-to-the-side-of-the-road accident into an emergency vehicle convention.
It isn't a matter of what you do in your car. It's a matter of what you do in your car on public roads.
It's funny the way you put it, but I agree.
I nearly got into an accident on the freeway because some retard switched lanes from the exit into the middle lane without looking. That kind of retarded shit needs to be reeducated.
What the hell are you talking about?11 Bravo wrote:
you make no sense. your time in traffic is not equated to a monetary value. lots of things cause traffic, such is life on the road.mikkel wrote:
Did I ever suggest otherwise?11 Bravo wrote:
point is the seatbelt should be the least of your concerns. YOUR point was YOUR time. MY point was YOUR time would be MORE affected by those things.
What extra risk? How many people are injured by somebody flying through their window? As for the car I'm travelling in, well if someone has a concern for their own safety then they can request I wear a belt.Bertster7 wrote:
Except for the extra risk you are putting other people at by not wearing one. If it were only the safety of the person choosing not to wear the seatbelt, then it would be fine. That is not the case.jord wrote:
Mum had a vauxhaul estate, belts were kinda tight so I never wore one. Nobody elses business really.
You are required by law to wear a seatbelt in the uk.jord wrote:
What extra risk? How many people are injured by somebody flying through their window? As for the car I'm travelling in, well if someone has a concern for their own safety then they can request I wear a belt.Bertster7 wrote:
Except for the extra risk you are putting other people at by not wearing one. If it were only the safety of the person choosing not to wear the seatbelt, then it would be fine. That is not the case.jord wrote:
Mum had a vauxhaul estate, belts were kinda tight so I never wore one. Nobody elses business really.
Ya I've seen the advert, my posts are generally from the perspective of the driver. I can't remember the last time I sat in a backseat.CammRobb wrote:
You are required by law to wear a seatbelt in the uk.jord wrote:
What extra risk? How many people are injured by somebody flying through their window? As for the car I'm travelling in, well if someone has a concern for their own safety then they can request I wear a belt.Bertster7 wrote:
Except for the extra risk you are putting other people at by not wearing one. If it were only the safety of the person choosing not to wear the seatbelt, then it would be fine. That is not the case.
The extra risk incurred could be this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-9JR2P4wWI
And your point is...?ebug9 wrote:
My best friend's brother was coming up to an intersection and his brakes failed. They got t-boned as they went through the intersection which caused the truck to flip upside down into a ditch full of water. Passenger flew into the back seat cause he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. It actually saved his life because the passenger side was crushed all the way over to the gearshift.
Yeah, seatbelts can kill, but they do save a lot more people than they hurt.ebug9 wrote:
My best friend's brother was coming up to an intersection and his brakes failed. They got t-boned as they went through the intersection which caused the truck to flip upside down into a ditch full of water. Passenger flew into the back seat cause he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. It actually saved his life because the passenger side was crushed all the way over to the gearshift.
