Click it or ticket!!

[bytor2112]

In the Great State of Florida.....it's click it or ticket. That means wear your seat belt or pay a fine. YET......you can ride a motor cycle without a helmet! Yep, that's right....pretty doggone stupid....don't you think?????

[Dravin]

Bucket or Suck It?

[pam]

Bucket it or muck it.

[Dravin]

Bucket it or muck it.

/me pictures a LEO w/ pitchfork on the billboard.

Actually, that'd probably discourage people more than a fine.

[pam]

What does LEO have to do with this thread? Sorry I couldn't resist.

[Dravin]

What does LEO have to do with this thread? Sorry I couldn't resist.

Don't tell me this guy with a pitchfork isn't intimidating!

[Jbs2763]

i just want the car to quit dinging at me to put on the seat belt...distracts me from texting

[Guest]

Yep! Pretty stupid.

[Moksha]

Bucket it or muck it.

That's pronounced Bouquet! Mookay?

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

I don't actually get why there's a law against it. I mean of course it'll keep you safe, but laws are generally made to keep people safe from others' stupid mistakes... you're just hurting yourself if you don't put it on. I'd say it's a matter of insurance maybe, rather than the law.

</rant in thread obviously not intended for serious discussion>

[nbblood]

I don't actually get why there's a law against it. I mean of course it'll keep you safe, but laws are generally made to keep people safe from others' stupid mistakes... you're just hurting yourself if you don't put it on. I'd say it's a matter of insurance maybe, rather than the law.

</rant in thread obviously not intended for serious discussion>

You're not accounting for additional emergency services payed by the taxpayer or insurance payer that are required if you don't wear a seatbelt. It could be the difference between an accident report and an ambulance ride. Also, if your insurance covers your medical bills, other insurance payers, through their premiums, are really footing the bill. Now with so-called health-care reform, taxpayers will be paying for others' medical bills.

So, although the physical damage would be your own, the financial damage is very much shared with plenty of people.

Note, I am NOT standing on a soapbox for wearing seatbelts. I am as guilty as anybody else in that matter. I'm simply providing another perspective.

[phatbac]

I know people just hate evolution but....

I think people who ride motorcycles without a helmet (or just ride one to start with) is once again natural selection hard at work!

P.S. my lovely wife likes to call them Donor Cycles for obvious reasons.

[Mahone]

I don't actually get why there's a law against it. I mean of course it'll keep you safe, but laws are generally made to keep people safe from others' stupid mistakes... you're just hurting yourself if you don't put it on. I'd say it's a matter of insurance maybe, rather than the law.

</rant in thread obviously not intended for serious discussion>

Also remember if you are in a back seat and not wearing a seatbelt, you could easily crush the person in front of you when in a crash.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

You're not accounting for additional emergency services payed by the taxpayer or insurance payer that are required if you don't wear a seatbelt. It could be the difference between an accident report and an ambulance ride. Also, if your insurance covers your medical bills, other insurance payers, through their premiums, are really footing the bill. Now with so-called health-care reform, taxpayers will be paying for others' medical bills.

So, although the physical damage would be your own, the financial damage is very much shared with plenty of people.

Note, I am NOT standing on a soapbox for wearing seatbelts. I am as guilty as anybody else in that matter. I'm simply providing another perspective.

Yea that makes sense, but that's why I mentioned insurance in my other post... that can go up if people are found to not be wearing them. So that still encourages it in what I believe to be a better solution.

Also remember if you are in a back seat and not wearing a seatbelt, you could easily crush the person in front of you when in a crash.

True, but that's still just affecting someone you know usually, rather than random strangers that get killed from drunk drivers crashing into them for example.

Just saying, it doesn't really sound justified to me personally. Sure I wear mine 95% of the time, but I don't see it as a matter of law.

[Mahone]

True, but that's still just affecting someone you know usually, rather than random strangers that get killed from drunk drivers crashing into them for example.

Just saying, it doesn't really sound justified to me personally. Sure I wear mine 95% of the time, but I don't see it as a matter of law.

I personally would prefer that it was law. I don't have children, but I know that if a child (or any family member of mine) was killed because the person behind them (whether a friend, someone from church or whatever) did not put on their seatbelt, I wouldn't be feeling very sympathetic to that person. As far as I would be concerned, they should be prosecuted for murder.

[Mahone]

I thought I'd post that video to emphasize my point. I'm not trying to be contentious or anything, I just think wearing a seatbelt is vastly under estimated.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

I personally would prefer that it was law. I don't have children, but I know that if a child (or any family member of mine) was killed because the person behind them (whether a friend, someone from church or whatever) did not put on their seatbelt, I wouldn't be feeling very sympathetic to that person. As far as I would be concerned, they should be prosecuted for murder.

I thought I'd post that video to emphasize my point. I'm not trying to be contentious or anything, I just think wearing a seatbelt is vastly under estimated.

It's definitely a valid point, sure. If it were me who lost someone I cared about to something like that, I'd obviously be furious at the person who didn't buckle up. I'm not saying wearing a seat belt isn't important, but my opinion stands as far as whether or not it should be law.

So I guess I can agree to disagree.

[pam]

It would be interesting to see statistics of accidents where a fatality occurred for not wearing seatbelts. I'm not saying everyone that wears a seatbelt is immune to that possibility...but I don't think we can argue that they have saved many a life.

[Mahone]

It would be interesting to see statistics of accidents where a fatality occurred for not wearing seatbelts. I'm not saying everyone that wears a seatbelt is immune to that possibility...but I don't think we can argue that they have saved many a life.

It's really easy just to put it on as well. I can understand why (albeit disagree with) people speeding, but there is a reason for it. There is also a reason why drink driving happens. However I cannot think of any reason whatsoever why someone would choose not to wear a seatbelt, unless their body shape causes it to be an inconvenience.

Anyway, these are UK statistics from 2008:

About 370 people die in road crashes in Britain each year because they fail to wear a seatbelt, safety campaigners said today.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) said 30% of those sitting in the back of cars and 6% in the front seats failed to use belts.

The figures were much worse in vans, at 31% of drivers and 42% of passengers.

The study coincides with the 25th anniversary of the law making it compulsory to wear seatbelts in the front of cars. Wearing them in the back was made compulsory in 1991.

The RoSPA said more than 50,000 lives had been saved by seatbelts since the laws were introduced, while government figures suggested about a third of people killed in car accidents were not wearing them. The charity said this was equivalent to 565 deaths in 2005 and it estimated about 370 people might otherwise have survived.

The society suggested penalty points be imposed on drivers not wearing seatbelts.

Kevin Clinton, its head of road safety, said: "It is shocking that a stubborn minority of people still do not belt up when they get into a vehicle.

"We need to understand why they are still not getting the message and to ensure there are regular targeted campaigns so that deaths and injuries continue to reduce.

"It may be that some people simply forget to wear their belts and need to be encouraged to get into the habit. Others may not feel they are necessary or that it is not cool to wear one.

"Perhaps it is time to consider giving drivers three penalty points when they fail to wear their belts."

Clinton said it was important for adults to set the right example for children: "As television advertisements have shown, an unbelted rear seat passenger can be thrown forward and kill someone in the front of a car.

"In a crash at 30mph, if unrestrained, you will be thrown forward with a force of between 30 and 60 times your own body weight.

"Recent car seat laws have done more to protect children, but adults need to set an example by wearing their own belts so that children understand the true value of seatbelts as they grow too big for a child restraint."

Seatbelt law anniversary marked with grim statistics | UK news | guardian.co.uk

Edited January 6, 2010 by Mahone

[ferretrunner]

I don't actually get why there's a law against it. I mean of course it'll keep you safe, but laws are generally made to keep people safe from others' stupid mistakes... you're just hurting yourself if you don't put it on. I'd say it's a matter of insurance maybe, rather than the law.

</rant in thread obviously not intended for serious discussion>

Injuries in accidents are more severe if someone is not wearing a seatbelt. I would have no problem with someone choosing not to wear a 'belt, so long as there is a law that states in an accident, that person is 100% responsible for his/her medical bills, regardless of fault. Why is it fair to expect a someone to pay for injuries that were avoidable by wearing a seatbelt. There's a big difference between paying a bill for a broken arm and cuts and paying for someone who's in ICU after being ejected from the vehicle (not wearing a 'belt).

OP- I agree. There needs to be a helmet law for the donor cycles.

[Guest jonusb]

the Great State of ottawa escort Florida.....it's click it or ticket. That means wear your seat belt or pay a fine. YET......the Great ottawa asian escort State of Florida.....it's click it or ticket. That means wear your seat belt or pay a fine. YET......the Great State of Florida.....it's ottawa asian escorts click it or ticket. That means wear your seat belt or pay a fine. YET......the Great State of Florida.....it's click it or ticket. That ottawa escorts means wear your seat belt or pay a fine. YET......

[Churchmouse]

We have the same law in Ohio. My wife's parents were killed when they were hit by a truck. Neither had seat belts on. Her mother was thrown from the car which rolled over on her. Her dad fractured his skull when hit hit the windshield. He was in a coma for a month before dying.

We always wear our belts. If the law had been passed a few years earlier it may have saved them.

As for motorcyclist's not wearing helmets. There's no cure for stupid.