Click it or ticket seat belt campain

[DeletedUser]

If you wish to push the issue of airbags being required by law, by all means. You'll find, however, stiff resistance to such from the auto manufacturers. You see, because the people who make these death traps don't much care for the notion they have to spend money to make them safer for all their customers.

As to seat belts, and enforcement of such, it's an issue of liberties. It doesn't endanger other people's lives to not wear a seat belt, it only endangers your own. And while you're allowed to bungee jump, swim with sharks, or dance naked in a gay bar, all of which are extremely hazardous to your health, you only get horribly ticketed for endangering yourself by failing to put on a seat belt.

So while this money is being collected by the government, for ticketing citizens who fail to put on their own seat belts within their own vehicles, this self-same government works pretty damn hard to protect the profit margins of these auto-manufacturers.

Let's see how you swallow that pill.

 

[DeletedUser]

Btw, I decided we should have a law that tickets people for failing to sip their coffee when it's hot. Better yet, how about a law that tickets people for plugging in electrical appliances when they're not properly grounded? Or, how about if we ticket people for smoking cigarettes, that's pretty dangerous and you know it will eventually kill you, right?

At what point should you be monitored for the actions you commit to that endanger only your own life? Should there be a point? Should you be monitored for every action you do that endangers your life, or is there some sort of cut-off point? For that matter, why is it people can be thrown in jail for attempting to commit suicide? Lot good that will do for them, aye?

 

[Diggo11]

Indeed bungee jumping and swimming with sharks are dangerous activities, however they are activities where the maximum possible precautions are taken to minimise danger and risk to the customer. If these appropriate safety precautions are not taken and an accident does occur, then your bungee jump or diving instructor is liable to pay compensation for negligently failing to do so. It is only sensible and logical that the same be applied across the board - cars should be fitted with safety devices that will have a direct, measurable influence in saving your life in the instance of a crash. Let's take your example of smoking; why don't we just apply additional taxes to cars that fail to incorporate such safety devices as we do cigarettes, say 100% of the cost of otherwise including these devices? No more of an infringement of your civil liberties (to increase your risk of dying a traumatic and horrible death) than any other existing measure, and it may not go down well with the auto manufacturers, but I for one shall swallow that pill quite happily

 

[DeletedUser9470]

laws are made for people who have no common sense.

im sure if we had a high percentage of people burning themselves to death every year with a cup of coffee, a law would be put into place.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you wish to push the issue of airbags being required by law, by all means. You'll find, however, stiff resistance to such from the auto manufacturers. You see, because the people who make these death traps don't much care for the notion they have to spend money to make them safer for all their customers.

Really? What's their advertising? "You can drive our cars until you're dead or money back."?
I don't know any manufacturer around here, who doesn't produce cars without airbags for driver and front seat passenger (the majority also has them on the side and some for other passengers).
Airbags aren't required by law here, but economics seem to dictate them anyway. People apparently just won't buy cars without airbags.

As to seat belts, and enforcement of such, it's an issue of liberties. It doesn't endanger other people's lives to not wear a seat belt, it only endangers your own. And while you're allowed to bungee jump, swim with sharks, or dance naked in a gay bar, all of which are extremely hazardous to your health, you only get horribly ticketed for endangering yourself by failing to put on a seat belt.

Unlike other activities that endanger yourself, driving without seat belts generally results in costs for the community (cleaning of roads, counsel for witnesses, hospital stays and operations in case you're injured etc.) Other stuff doesn't affect as many people.

Or, how about if we ticket people for smoking cigarettes, that's pretty dangerous and you know it will eventually kill you, right?

Lots of countries ticket you for smoking (in public) though. Smokers pay more for life insurance and have been discussed to pay more for health insurance as well.

 

[DeletedUser28032]

Bungee Jumping, Swimming with sharks and smoking are all done under your own free will as a form of entertainment with the participant fully accepting the risks inherrant with that particular activity. If you do not believe the safety precautions are good enough then you don't have to do them whereas driving is essential and therefore should be made as safe as possible.
And although car manufacturers don't have to spend all that extra money making your car safe, in the long run it would be cheaper for them to do so, because that way they aren't being sued by people being injured in their cars or suffering from the inevitable drop in sales through people deciding that their cars are unsafe and not buying them

 

[DeletedUser]

I've heard of a drowning car three times (at this point I'd like to greet all GPS-users, that give their navigation system more credibility than the non-existent ferry), but nobody had problems using their seatbelt.

I

I don't disagree with most of what you've said, but as I said earlier, this can cause a problem...

A friend of mine hit a patch of ice one night which caused her car to go off the road, flip and land upside down in a lake. She and her 8 year old daughter were both wearing seat belts, and neither was seriously injured. Unfortunately, her seat belt jammed because of the weight of her body and she ended up drowning, her daughter was able to slip out of hers and survived uninjured (other than near hypothermia from being in the icy water).

 

[DeletedUser]

First off, I would like to state you're all a bunch of hairy little monkeys.

Alright, that out of the way...

Indeed bungee jumping and swimming with sharks are dangerous activities, however they are activities where the maximum possible precautions are taken to minimise danger and risk to the customer. If these appropriate safety precautions are not taken and an accident does occur, then your bungee jump or diving instructor is liable to pay compensation for negligently failing to do so.

*bing*

You made my argument for me. There is no law that enforces such precautions. It is, by and large, an insurance scene -- a means for insurance companies to increase their profit margins. By making it a law, insurance companies can "not pay out" on insurance claims if they can prove the injured parties failed to wear a seat belt (i.e., committed a crime).

Let's take your example of smoking; why don't we just apply additional taxes to cars that fail to incorporate such safety devices as we do cigarettes, say 100% of the cost of otherwise including these devices? No more of an infringement of your civil liberties (to increase your risk of dying a traumatic and horrible death) than any other existing measure, and it may not go down well with the auto manufacturers, but I for one shall swallow that pill quite happily

Governments should not be participating in the profiteering needs of corporations, particularly since corporations are borderless.

laws are made for people who have no common sense.

Unfortunately Neo, that's not the reality. The reality is laws are put in place because of special interest groups that have enough clout and lobbying influence to push their personal agendas through the door. Either that, or it's a media hot-button that will get politicians voted in for another term.

In the case of seat belt laws, it's the former.

I don't know any manufacturer around here, who doesn't produce cars without airbags for driver and front seat passenger (the majority also has them on the side and some for other passengers). Airbags aren't required by law here, but economics seem to dictate them anyway. People apparently just won't buy cars without airbags.

What's the population of Germany again? What percentage of the automobile market do they entail? Btw, your argument is anecdotal.

The vast majority of consumers buy cars they can afford, regardless of whether it has airbags. If you wish to push the airbag argument, you're going the wrong direction.

Unlike other activities that endanger yourself, driving without seat belts generally results in costs for the community (cleaning of roads, counsel for witnesses, hospital stays and operations in case you're injured etc.) Other stuff doesn't affect as many people.

Jack, those costs are incurred regardless of life loss. Those costs are incurred by the accidents in and of themselves, and end up being managed by the insurance companies. Once again you're arguing for government finance of insurance companies.

If you do not believe the safety precautions are good enough then you don't have to do them whereas driving is essential and therefore should be made as safe as possible.

No, driving is not essential. Public transportation exists, but people prefer to drive their own vehicles. However, it is a helluva lot cheaper to take public transportation. Anyway, your argument is not strong, because you're arguing that recreational activities can endanger your life without government regulations, whilst essentials must be regulated. That just doesn't make sense.

And although car manufacturers don't have to spend all that extra money making your car safe, in the long run it would be cheaper for them to do so, because that way they aren't being sued by people being injured in their cars or suffering from the inevitable drop in sales through people deciding that their cars are unsafe and not buying them

Not true. Auto manufacturers spend for lawsuits regardless, they have attorneys on staff. Such things cannot be avoided, and if it's not mandated by law, there really is no case because a consumer opts to purchase and drive a vehicle without airbags.

I wish to hit another angle all of you are forgetting. Airbags and seat-belts are not designed to accommodate all body sizes and age groups. Airbags can (and do) kill minors and small people (under 5'). Seat-belts do tremendous damage to overweight people (the bulk of Americans are overweight, fancy that) and there are many reports of neck/esophageal injuries occurring to minors and small drivers who were unfortunate to wear seat-belts. And when you combine small with overweight, the likelihood of injury by seat-belt and/or airbag goes up exponentially.

So, really, making it mandatory for a small person to wear a seat-belt actually endangers the person and he/she could make a might fine lawsuit against the government for mandating such.

 

[DeletedUser]

I gotta go with hellstromm on at least one part. Sorry neo but laws are not made for people with no common sense...but lawsuits are (not in all cases)

 

[DeletedUser]

First off, I would like to state you're all a bunch of hairy little monkeys.

I'm not little!

What's the population of Germany again? What percentage of the automobile market do they entail? Btw, your argument is anecdotal.

The vast majority of consumers buy cars they can afford, regardless of whether it has airbags. If you wish to push the airbag argument, you're going the wrong direction.

Jack, those costs are incurred regardless of life loss. Those costs are incurred by the accidents in and of themselves, and end up being managed by the insurance companies. Once again you're arguing for government finance of insurance companies.

It's not that much anecdotal, you can check the pages of BMW, VW, Audi, Mercedes, Peugeot, Renault, Toyota, Opel, Skoda, Citroën, Fiat, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Seat, Volvo (which are about the most common cars on our streets) and try to find a car without airbags.
Obviously new cars are more expensive than used ones and people who can't afford much will rather buy older used cars that don't have airbags, but when it comes to new cars airbags seem to be included as often as radios nowadays.

I wasn't being that serious.
But according to some of the 70s newspaper articles, one of the main reasons why the obligation to wear seat belts was introduced, was to reduce injuries. However, this was not done to help the people and be nice to them, but in order to avoid their loss as manpower in the economy during their hospital stays which could have been prevented by wearing seat belts. Apparently it didn't only affect profits of some companies, but was noticeable in the GNP, which required the legislative to act.

 

[DeletedUser28032]

No, driving is not essential. Public transportation exists, but people prefer to drive their own vehicles. However, it is a helluva lot cheaper to take public transportation.

Maybe where you live, but I live in a rural area and so if you want to work anywhere other then the local shop then driving is essential. Public transport in my area is remarkably poor to say the least and i wouldn't recommend anyone trying to rely on it for anything.
Put it this way, i once worked out that in order for me to get home from work using public transport I would first have take a very long walk to the trainstation catch a train to another town and then a bus (and if the trains late I'll have to wait an hour for the next bus) taking much longer than the 20min drive.
So in short if you live in a big city then yes public transport is great but for the rest of us you need to drive

 

[DeletedUser9470]

Airbags and seat-belts are not designed to accommodate all body sizes and age groups.

yes they are, both law and manufacturer input:
it is illegal to have a rear facing baby seat in the front if the front airbag is active.
If your child is aged under 12 years they must be using an appropriate child restraint, unless they are over 135cm in height.
seatbelts in most new cars are adjustable as are the seats hight-adjustable so you can optimise comfort and safety.
neck injuries, commonly called whiplash, are caused because the seatbelt holds your body in your seat, but they don't hold your head (you have to do that yourself).
That said manufacturers are all putting active headrests in their cars to prevent this from happening.

So, really, making it mandatory for a small person to wear a seat-belt actually endangers the person and he/she could make a might fine lawsuit against the government for mandating such.

it is mandatory for them to be strapped in appropriately.
of course if you strap your kid in with no booster seat or adequate cushion so that the seatbelt isnt in the right place then you are responsible for your childs injuries. not the seatbelt.

i sold new and used cars for 5 years 10 years ago.
Customers are extremely aware of safety ratings.
the 2 main criteria for buying a new car are:
fuel economy
safety ratings
customers come in and ask about active headrests, pretentioner seatbelts, crumple zones, passenger safety ratings, pedestrian safety ratings, fuel economy etc... themselves!
they even tell you (salesman) what discount they are getting!!!!
this was 10 years ago, so i bet customers are even more analytical today.

as for used cars people want a bargain.
but they will not compromise on safety or fuel consumption.
used car buyers are even more anal when it comes down to getting their hard earned cash out of their pockets.

you can easily find 5 star rated cars for under £4000 and not that old either!

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not little!

I think this is one of those things where I'll refrain from asking for evidence.

It's not that much anecdotal, you can check the pages of BMW, VW, Audi, Mercedes, Peugeot, Renault, Toyota, Opel, Skoda, Citroën, Fiat, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Seat, Volvo (which are about the most common cars on our streets) and try to find a car without airbags.

Hehe, kay...

• Daewoo Lanos
• Ford Festiva
• Hyundai Excel
• Hyundai Lantra
• Hyundai SX Coupe
• Hyundai Sonata
• Hyundai FX Coupe
• Land Rover Defender
• Mitsubishi Lancer
• Mitsubishi Mirage
• Mitsubishi Starwagon
• Nissan Terrano
• Proton Satria
• Proton Persona
• Seat Cordoba
• Suzuki Swift
• Suzuki Baleno
• Suzuki Jimny
• Suzuki Grand Vitara
• Toyota Landcruiser
• Toyota Camry
• Toyota Prado

To name just a few (Regulations in various countries vary, which itself varies the list of automobiles without airbags).

But according to some of the 70s newspaper articles, one of the main reasons why the obligation to wear seat belts was introduced, was to reduce injuries. However, this was not done to help the people and be nice to them, but in order to avoid their loss as manpower in the economy during their hospital stays which could have been prevented by wearing seat belts. Apparently it didn't only affect profits of some companies, but was noticeable in the GNP, which required the legislative to act.

Hmm, do you happen to have any supporting material on this claim?

Maybe where you live, but I live in a rural area and so if you want to work anywhere other then the local shop then driving is essential. Public transport in my area is remarkably poor to say the least and i wouldn't recommend anyone trying to rely on it for anything.

Braet, it still doesn't address the issue. Just because you claim it is a necessity doesn't justify the government mandating paying them for your failing to put on a seat belt.

yes they are, both law and manufacturer input:
it is illegal to have a rear facing baby seat in the front if the front airbag is active.
If your child is aged under 12 years they must be using an appropriate child restraint, unless they are over 135cm in height.

Let's see... a law does not automatically make something safe. And tell me Neo, when was one 12 year old child the same height and weight as another 12 year old child? And look at that, a law exists to protect your child from an airbag, go figure, aye? You would think, "hey, there's something to this, isn't there?!?" Well yes, there is. Air bags are damn dangerous for small folk, be they minor or merely short! Air bags are damn dangerous for very tall folk, once again regardless of age. Air bags are damn dangerous for very thin folk and obese folk. Air bags are damn dangerous for everyone except the nominal height and weight. Now why the hell are they installed in the first place when there is such a huge minority of people that do NOT fall into that nominal height/weight?!

seatbelts in most new cars are adjustable as are the seats hight-adjustable so you can optimise comfort and safety.
neck injuries, commonly called whiplash, are caused because the seatbelt holds your body in your seat, but they don't hold your head (you have to do that yourself).
That said manufacturers are all putting active headrests in their cars to prevent this from happening.

Seat-belts in most new cars are not adjustable. But, even if this were true, that still accounts for a very small percentage of all the vehicles on the road. And yet it's mandated we must all wear seatbelts. Go figure, aye?

Same goes for this active headrest. How many vehicles have such a device installed in cars, and why is it mandated that we wear seatbelts on all those vehicles that do not have these active headrests?!

it is mandatory for them to be strapped in appropriately.
of course if you strap your kid in with no booster seat or adequate cushion so that the seatbelt isnt in the right place then you are responsible for your childs injuries. not the seatbelt.

Hehe, and you don't see that as an obvious scapegoat for insurance companies?

i sold new and used cars for 5 years 10 years ago.

hehe, is this where I get to needle you for being a used car salesman?

Customers are extremely aware of safety ratings.

Indeed, but they really don't know what those ratings entail, nor of the fact airbags & seat-belts endanger the lives of people outside of nominal height/weight and that seat-belts may increase the likelihood of injury/death in some types of accidents.

 

[DeletedUser9470]

I think we need to kidnap HS, and swap him with one of the dummies in a crash test.
LOL

WITHOUT SEATBELT | WITH SEATBELT

|

WITHOUT SEATBELT | WITH SEATBELT

|

WITHOUT SEATBELT | WITH SEATBELT

|

comon! which would you choose?

 

[DeletedUser]

Hehe, kay...

• Daewoo Lanos
• Ford Festiva
• Hyundai Excel
• Hyundai Lantra
• Hyundai SX Coupe
• Hyundai Sonata
• Hyundai FX Coupe
• Land Rover Defender
• Mitsubishi Lancer
• Mitsubishi Mirage
• Mitsubishi Starwagon
• Nissan Terrano
• Proton Satria
• Proton Persona
• Seat Cordoba
• Suzuki Swift
• Suzuki Baleno
• Suzuki Jimny
• Suzuki Grand Vitara
• Toyota Landcruiser
• Toyota Camry
• Toyota Prado

Daewoo Lanos (I didn't mention it, and they don't have a webpage, but I found used cars 1.6 here, 1.5 here and 1.4 here('98 and '97 registrated first), which have airbags for driver and in one case front passenger

Ford Festiva - doesn't exist here, but the cheapest Ford models are Fiesta and even cheaper Ka, both by default with at least airbags and side airbags for driver and front seat passenger.

Hyundai - those you mentioned aren't available, but the cheapest one available: i20 classic variant with airbags and side airbags for driver and front seat passenger.

Land Rover - didn't mention it, as there are too few to notice...maybe the Freelancer but it has airbags and isn't exactly a cheap car either.

Mitsubishi Lancer - cheapest Lancer (Basis) with plenty of airbags

Mirage and Starwagon not available.
Mitsubishi Colt (Basis) - cheapest Mitsubishi available includes various airbags

Nissan Terrano - doesn't exist here. Cheapest: Nissan Pixo (VISIA) includes airbags for driver and front seat passenger.

Protons are cars? ....Ah well, according to wiki they tried to sell cars here from '95-'01, but with ~2.000 a year it wasn't profitable enough and they gave up.

Seat - cheapest one: Seat Ibiza has airbags and side airbags for driver and front seat passenger in all editions by default

Suzuki Swift - by default with 7 airbags

Suzuki Baleno - not available

Suzuki Jimny - by default with airbags for driver and front seat passenger

Suzuki Grand Vitara - cheapest edition by default with 6 airbags

Toyota Land Cruiser - by default with a couple airbags

Camry and Prado - not available

Toyota iQ as the cheapest one, comes with plenty of airbags

Hmm, do you happen to have any supporting material on this claim?

my bad, can only offer wikipedia right now: ("Sie [Die Anschnallpflicht] wurde eingeführt, um volkswirtschaftliche Schäden durch Körperschäden und Schadensereignisse durch Verkehrsunfälle abzuwenden.") The obligation to wear seat belts was introduced to avoid economic damages due to physical injury and damaging events due to traffic accidents.

 

[DeletedUser31931]

I know someone who is legally allowed to not wear a seatbelt in Britain because he saw a car crash with people killed because they were wearing seatbelts and therefore he developed a phobia of seatbelts. This is true. He went to court and campaigned to be allowed to not wear a seatbelt and he won the court case. He is legally allowed to drive and be a passenger without his seatbelt on.

 

[DeletedUser]

I know someone who is legally allowed to not wear a seatbelt in Britain because he saw a car crash with people killed because they were wearing seatbelts and therefore he developed a phobia of seatbelts. This is true. He went to court and campaigned to be allowed to not wear a seatbelt and he won the court case. He is legally allowed to drive and be a passenger without his seatbelt on.

Wow, do they award you with a little card to hand police officers? AND! If he has a phobia of them, did he cut the seatbelts out? If so, he is endangering passengers lives by driving them and could be a law suit if there was a wreck!

 

[Diggo11]

First off, I would like to state you're all a bunch of hairy little monkeys.

Aww, I wanted to be the hairless donkey

*bing*

You made my argument for me. There is no law that enforces such precautions. It is, by and large, an insurance scene -- a means for insurance companies to increase their profit margins. By making it a law, insurance companies can "not pay out" on insurance claims if they can prove the injured parties failed to wear a seat belt (i.e., committed a crime).

If people are not taking adequate precautions to maximise their safety, then they probably shouldn't be entitled to a full payout of their claim. A seatbelt has been proven to minimise accident and harm, yet it is the most simple of devices available in every car (yes, it has been required by law here for yonks) and takes minimal effort to utilise. Not sure about the dodgey cars you seem to have in the U.S., but seatbelts here are always adjustable at least for new cars in the driver and passenger seats, and thus is not an unreasonable demand to be worn when it comes to insurance and locally even criminal liability.

However, to airbags. Whilst airbags cannot be retrofitted to existing cars so easily, more often than not they do come standard in new cars (and rightfully so). Compared to the seatbelt, the airbag has the advantage in that it is there. If you crash in a car with airbags, you cannot be even partially at fault for "not using" your airbags. There is no human factor involved - they are just physically always present. There is essentially no possibility of corporate greed "twisting" your ignorance and lack of common sense into a reason to not uphold your insurance policy.

Governments should not be participating in the profiteering needs of corporations, particularly since corporations are borderless.

Lol, you really do like to play devil's advocate from time to time hehe, swapping from complaining about corporate greed above to protecting it down here. In principle, or a desirable principle for the sceptic/realist, governments exist to protect their people and meet their collective needs and wants. One of the most basic collective needs is safety - so it's very damn well their business to ensure appropriate safety is maintained. Pure capitalism, also known as corporate greed, is not a desirable system for any government, so yes they really should intervene where there are simple and common sense measures to greatly enhance safety and overall productivity. (The less people we have dead or left with severe disabilities, the more people we have working - for corporate greed ironically - which is of a net benefit to any economy.)

I wish to hit another angle all of you are forgetting. Airbags and seat-belts are not designed to accommodate all body sizes and age groups. Airbags can (and do) kill minors and small people (under 5'). Seat-belts do tremendous damage to overweight people (the bulk of Americans are overweight, fancy that) and there are many reports of neck/esophageal injuries occurring to minors and small drivers who were unfortunate to wear seat-belts. And when you combine small with overweight, the likelihood of injury by seat-belt and/or airbag goes up exponentially.

With the possible exception of minors and irregularly short adults, whose position in relation to the airbag is indeed of notable risk, I'd like to see evidence you're not overstating this aspect. Let's not forget if you crash then you crash, you've got to be stopped by something, but the airbag would beat the tar five to ten metres down the road almost every time. Similar to the seatbelt argument you pushed before, they come with their dangers, but ultimately they win out over the windshield.

Same goes for this active headrest. How many vehicles have such a device installed in cars, and why is it mandated that we wear seatbelts on all those vehicles that do not have these active headrests?!

When death is at stake, safety is not something that should be dropped to the lowest common denominator. Simple as that

 

[DeletedUser]

its the obvious choice to wear and seat belt and keep from getting hurt. its so simple all you do is put the belt over you and put it into the thingy (*click*) it ain't rocket science people!

 

[DeletedUser3543]

I wear my seatbelt ALL the time.

Not only that but I won't move the car a single inch if ALL of my passengers aren't wearing one too.

All that and I drive a Landrover freelander! If I were to ever have a crash with another car, I would definitely want to be the one in the Landrover [which incidentally has seatbelts all round, and airbags for driver, passenger and on the side].