# Safety belt.



## chewy

Always.


----------



## user4818

I always do, but I don't think it should be mandated by the gov't.


----------



## Chris1971

Peter D said:


> I always do, but I don't think it should be mandated by the gov't.



I agree. I always wear mine. In fact, it saved my life.


----------



## chewy

Of course it should be mandated by the Govt, kids turn into human cannonballs when they arent buckled in and the vehicle suffers extreme deccelaration. Unfortunantly some parents cant be trusted to use their judgement.


----------



## HARRY304E

Never it is safer that way.:thumbsup:


----------



## Chris1971

HARRY304E said:


> Never it is safer that way.:thumbsup:


:drink::bangin::bangin::drink:


----------



## user4818

HARRY304E said:


> Never it is safer that way.:thumbsup:


Are you serious or are you just playing dumb? :blink:


----------



## HARRY304E

Chris1971 said:


> :drink::bangin::bangin::drink:


I'm not kidding.


----------



## erics37

Peter D said:


> Are you serious or are you just playing dumb? :blink:


Harry's trying to trick you by neglecting to mention that he can fly.


----------



## Chris1971

Peter D said:


> Are you serious or are you just playing dumb? :blink:


I think he buckles his cats in but not himself.


----------



## B4T

I always use safety belt and being mandatory is a good thing.. :thumbsup:

Now the cheers will start.. THE GOVERNMENT TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS ONE AT A TIME.. 

It saves lives and cuts down on injuries.. Mythbusters said so.. :thumbsup:

When insurance companies have to pay out huge awards for personal injury.. the cost gets passed onto all of us..

The lawyers and doctors make a killing and ALL of us foot the bill..


----------



## user4818

erics37 said:


> Harry's trying to trick you by neglecting to mention that he can fly.


The sad thing is that he can vote.


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> Are you serious or are you just playing dumb? :blink:


I'm serious


----------



## HARRY304E

B4T said:


> I always use safety belt and being mandatory is a good thing.. :thumbsup:
> 
> Now the cheers will start.. THE GOVERNMENT TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS ONE AT A TIME..
> 
> It saves lives and cuts down on injuries.. Mythbusters said so.. :thumbsup:
> 
> When insurance companies have to pay out huge awards for personal injury.. the cost gets passed onto all of us..
> 
> The lawyers and doctors make a killing and ALL of us foot the bill..


:sleep1::sleep1:


----------



## RGH

march 17th 1992...saved my life...nys law requires it be wore.


----------



## erics37

Peter D said:


> The sad thing is that he can vote.


I think you mean he is LEGALLY ALLOWED to vote.

Whether he actually CAN or not is an entirely different discussion.


----------



## user4818

HARRY304E said:


> I'm serious


You do realize how stupid that is, right?


----------



## user4818

HARRY304E said:


> :sleep1::sleep1:


Wow, I think we have a first here. Harry actually :sleep1: his pal B4T. Huh? :blink:


----------



## user4818

erics37 said:


> I think you mean he is LEGALLY ALLOWED to vote.
> 
> Whether he actually CAN or not is an entirely different discussion.


Good point.


----------



## B4T

HARRY304E said:


> :sleep1::sleep1:


:huh:


----------



## chewy

HARRY304E said:


> I'm serious


Come on mate, Id hate to hear your in hospital having your steering wheel removed from under your rib cage.


----------



## Chris1971

Peter D said:


> Wow, I think we have a first here. Harry actually :sleep1: his pal B4T. Huh? :blink:


:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> You do realize how stupid that is, right?


That is your opinion not mine.

The Key here Gentlemen is to drive like you are going to be killed.


----------



## user4818

B4T said:


> I always use safety belt and being mandatory is a good thing.. :thumbsup:
> 
> Now the cheers will start.. THE GOVERNMENT TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS ONE AT A TIME..


Yes, doofus, the government IS taking our freedoms away one at a time. Why do you mock something that is obviously taking place?


----------



## user4818

HARRY304E said:


> That is your opinion not mine.
> 
> The Key here Gentlemen is to drive like you are going to be killed.


You're going to have to walk me through this one because you aren't making a bit of sense right now. :no:


----------



## Chris1971

December 19, 1997. Milk truck ran a stop sign and I t-boned it doing 55 mph. Milk truck tipped over and spilled 3000 gallons of milk on to the road. My truck ended up in the ditch.


----------



## B4T

Peter D said:


> Wow, I think we have a first here. Harry actually :sleep1: his pal B4T. Huh? :blink:


:thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::drink:


----------



## B4T

Peter D said:


> Yes, doofus, the government IS taking our freedoms away one at a time. Why do you mock something that is obviously taking place?


GO AWAY TROLL..


----------



## user4818

B4T said:


> :thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::drink:


He's definitely off the rocker tonight.


----------



## user4818

B4T said:


> GO AWAY TROLL..


:no::no::no::no::no:


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> You're going to have to walk me through this one because you aren't making a bit of sense right now. :no:


Piece of cake,.

When I took the test, the car I took the test in ,did not have a seat belt and it was just fine and dandy in 1976.


----------



## B4T

HARRY304E said:


> Piece of cake,.
> 
> When I took the test, the car I took the test in ,did not have a seat belt and it was just fine and dandy in 1976.


----------



## Theriot

HARRY304E said:


> Piece of cake,.
> 
> When I took the test, the car I took the test in ,did not have a seat belt and it was just fine and dandy in 1976.


Did it have AC ,FM ,and electric windows. Lol


----------



## user4818

B4T said:


>


GO AWAY TROLL...


----------



## B4T

Here we have Peter Putz ruining another thread with his useless dribble..:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:


----------



## user4818

B4T said:


> Here we have Peter Putz ruining another thread with his useless dribble..:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:



GO AWAY TROLL...


----------



## HARRY304E

Theriot said:


> Did it have AC ,FM ,and electric windows. Lol


No AC ,Roll up windows 3 speed on the column.

It did have an AM-FM -8 Track tape player...:laughing:


----------



## user4818

HARRY304E said:


> Piece of cake,.
> 
> When I took the test, the car I took the test in ,did not have a seat belt and it was just fine and dandy in 1976.



OK, you're just trolling now.


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> OK, you're just trolling now.


What can I tell you it is all part of History.

What do you thing they had seat belts all the way back to the 1890's?:laughing:


----------



## Theriot

You didn't have AC than maybe you shouldn't use it now using that same logic. Sorry Harry but had to go there


----------



## user4818

HARRY304E said:


> What can I tell you it is all part of History.
> 
> What do you thing they had seat belts all the way back to the 1890's?:laughing:



So we should reject things that make vehicles safer because they didn't exist before? C'mon, you're not really that dumb, are you? :blink:


----------



## chewy

HARRY304E said:


> What can I tell you it is all part of History.
> 
> What do you thing they had seat belts all the way back to the 1890's?:laughing:


Vehicles and roads didnt allow the speed at which most of us travel these days and modern vehicles are engineered for safety around you staying put in your seat... wearing a seat belt.


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> So we should reject things that make vehicles safer because they didn't exist before? C'mon, you're not really that dumb, are you? :blink:


No, I reject seat belt laws that are just an excuse for the cops to pull you over to raise you're insurance rates.


----------



## HARRY304E

Theriot said:


> You did have AC than maybe you shouldn't use it now using that same logic. Sorry Harry but had to go there


No I said I did not have AC.


----------



## Theriot

Fixed it sorry meant didn't have.


----------



## erics37

HARRY304E said:


> No, I reject seat belt laws that are just an excuse for the cops to pull you over to raise you're insurance rates.


Whatever you say, but keep in mind that the next time you get in a head-on collision at speed, your car will reject you. Through the windshield.


----------



## HARRY304E

erics37 said:


> Whatever you say, but keep in mind that the next time you get in a head-on collision at speed, your car will reject you. Through the windshield.


Here is a tip.

Don't get into a head on collision at any speed....


----------



## user4818

HARRY304E said:


> Here is a tip.
> 
> Don't get into a head on collision at any speed....


Can you control what other drivers might do?


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> Can you control what other drivers might do?


Nope,But that does not mean a seat belt will help you.


----------



## user4818

HARRY304E said:


> Nope,But that does not mean a seat belt will help you.


Are you sure you haven't hit your head on the windshield already?


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> Are you sure you haven't hit your head on the windshield already?


What do I need a Windshield for..?:blink:


----------



## erics37

HARRY304E said:


> What do I need a Windshield for..?:blink:


Geez Harry.

I'd suggest quitting while you're still ahead, but you've been way behind for a long time.


----------



## user4818

erics37 said:


> Geez Harry.
> 
> I'd suggest quitting while you're still ahead, but you've been way behind for a long time.


I'm rather enjoying his never ending stream of logical fallacies.


----------



## HARRY304E

erics37 said:


> Geez Harry.
> 
> I'd suggest quitting while you're still ahead, but you've been way behind for a long time.


You do not need a seat belt to drive ,And you do not need cops pulling you over to collect fines and raising rates for insurance company's run by rich liberals ,.:laughing:


----------



## user4818

HARRY304E said:


> You do not need a seat belt to drive ,And you do not need cops pulling you over to collect fines and raising rates for insurance company's run by rich liberals ,.:laughing:


Yeah, you go fight the "man" by not wearing your seatbelt. Let us know how that works out for you.


----------



## user4818

Harry, it's official. After this thread you have now replaced B4T as the official forum doofus. You have him beat by a wide margin.


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> Yeah, you go fight the "man" by not wearing your seatbelt. Let us know how that works out for you.


So far so good.


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> Harry, it's official. After this thread you have now replaced B4T as the official forum doofus. You have him beat by a wide margin.


:sleep1::sleep1:


----------



## erics37

HARRY304E said:


> You do not need a seat belt to drive ,And you do not need cops pulling you over to collect fines and raising rates for insurance company's run by rich liberals ,.:laughing:


You don't need to put wires in conduits to make the lights work. And we certainly don't want the electrical inspectors to make us put our wires in conduits and raise conduit prices for conduit manufacturing companies run by rich liberals. Right?


----------



## HARRY304E

erics37 said:


> You don't need to put wires in conduits to make the lights work. And we certainly don't want the electrical inspectors to make us put our wires in conduits and raise conduit prices for conduit manufacturing companies run by rich liberals. Right?


Stick to the subject "Seat belts".


----------



## user4818

erics37 said:


> You don't need to put wires in conduits to make the lights work. And we certainly don't want the electrical inspectors to make us put our wires in conduits and raise conduit prices for conduit manufacturing companies run by rich liberals. Right?


Don't do it, you will now be drawn into the vortex of irrational conclusions and thought processes.


----------



## HARRY304E

In The New Hampshire you must be a Master Electrician to do Electrical contracting in that state ,But you do not have to wear a seat belt to drive to that job and do the work .


----------



## user4818

HARRY304E said:


> In The New Hampshire you must be a Master Electrician to do Electrical contracting in that state ,But you do not have to wear a seat belt to drive to that job and do the work .


So what? I agree that seat belt use shouldn't be mandated, but intelligence and common sense says I should wear it anyway.


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> Don't do it, you will now be drawn into the vortex of irrational conclusions and thought processes.


Something you specialize in....:laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> So what? I agree that seat belt use shouldn't be mandated, but intelligence and common sense says I should wear it anyway.



That all depends on who you believe doesn't it....:yes:


----------



## user4818

HARRY304E said:


> That all depends on who you believe doesn't it....:yes:


You're probably the most pig headed, foolish person I have ever encountered.


----------



## erics37

HARRY304E said:


> That all depends on who you believe doesn't it....:yes:


Harry, I'm often willing to stretch the boundaries of logic to accomodate you.... well no I'm not.... but please PLEASE don't suck me into trying to explain to you that there is no vast seat belt conspiracy at work.


----------



## HARRY304E

erics37 said:


> Harry, I'm often willing to stretch the boundaries of logic to accomodate you.... well no I'm not.... but please PLEASE don't suck me into trying to explain to you that there is no vast seat belt conspiracy at work.


There is but don't sweat it you have much bigger problems like spelling..:laughing::laughing::laughing:
accommodate..:yes::whistling2:


----------



## erics37

HARRY304E said:


> There is but don't sweat it you have much bigger problems like spelling..:laughing::laughing::laughing:
> accommodate..:yes::whistling2:


It's late, my spelling is slipping.

Good luck with your no seat belt thing. I suppose you've survived this long. Maybe Darwin was wrong :blink:


----------



## BBQ

B4T said:


> I always use safety belt


As do I




> and being mandatory is a good thing.. :thumbsup:


Nope


> Now the cheers will start.. THE GOVERNMENT TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS ONE AT A TIME..


They are, and the fact that you roll your eyes to that shows you to be a fool.


> It saves lives and cuts down on injuries.. Mythbusters said so.. :thumbsup:


I am sure it does. 



> When insurance companies have to pay out huge awards for personal injury.. the cost gets passed onto all of us..


That is a fact. 

Now are you going to also outlaw motorcycles?


----------



## BBQ

Never mind


----------



## BBQ

HARRY304E said:


> Never it is safer that way.:thumbsup:





HARRY304E said:


> I'm not kidding.





HARRY304E said:


> I'm serious





HARRY304E said:


> That is your opinion not mine.
> 
> The Key here Gentlemen is to drive like you are going to be killed.





HARRY304E said:


> Piece of cake,.
> 
> When I took the test, the car I took the test in ,did not have a seat belt and it was just fine and dandy in 1976.





HARRY304E said:


> What can I tell you it is all part of History.
> 
> What do you thing they had seat belts all the way back to the 1890's?:laughing:





HARRY304E said:


> No, I reject seat belt laws that are just an excuse for the cops to pull you over to raise you're insurance rates.





HARRY304E said:


> Here is a tip.
> 
> Don't get into a head on collision at any speed....





HARRY304E said:


> Nope,But that does not mean a seat belt will help you.





HARRY304E said:


> You do not need a seat belt to drive ,And you do not need cops pulling you over to collect fines and raising rates for insurance company's run by rich liberals ,.:laughing:





HARRY304E said:


> That all depends on who you believe doesn't it....:yes:


Wow!, just wow.


----------



## Chris1971

Who would of thunk a simple poll on seatbelt usage would have been so controversial?


----------



## BBQ

Chris1971 said:


> Who would of thunk a simple poll on seatbelt usage would have been so controversial?


Yeah, hard to predict that. :laughing:


----------



## user4818

BBQ said:


> Wow!, just wow.



When it's all lined up like that it shows just how out there he actually is. :blink:


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> When it's all lined up like that it shows just how out there he actually is. :blink:


 No,
It just shows my comments without what I was replying to.


----------



## BBQ

HARRY304E said:


> No,
> It just shows my comments without what I was replying to.


Harry, because I make sure I include the entire UBB code all anyone has to do is click the 'button' that looks like this







beside your user name and it brings you directly to the original post so that all context can easily be viewed.

I am not trying to bend what you said or hide what you responded too.


----------



## HARRY304E

BBQ said:


> Harry, because I make sure I include the entire UBB code all anyone has to do is click the 'button' that looks like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beside your user name and it brings you directly to the original post so that all context can easily be viewed.
> 
> I am not trying to bend what you said or hide what you responded too.


Yes I see that...:thumbsup:


----------



## Chris1971

Okay kids. Back to the poll questions......


----------



## 480sparky

Chris1971 said:


> Okay kids. Back to the poll question.:thumbsup:



Which one? There's hundreds of 'em.


----------



## B4T

BBQ said:


> Harry, because I make sure I include the entire UBB code all anyone has to do is click the 'button' that* looks like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beside your user name and it brings you directly to the original post so that all context can easily be viewed.
> *


*

Really neat trick.. for a bungee cord user.. :laughing:*


----------



## Cujo

I never use to, but now my vehicle has seatbelts that adjust better so I can wear it safely and comfortably. I wont wear a belt if I cant wear it properly.


----------



## TooFarFromFenway

I wear my seatbelt every single drive, no matter how short. 

Last year, after returning from the airport from picking up my wife, it had been raining, and we were merging onto I95 in Cocoa when I lost control of my TrailBlazer. (Bald tires, had appointment the next day to get new ones) Rolled the vehicle 2 complete rotations, and ended upside down in the ditch on the side of the road. 

I think God that I and everyone else in the car had their seatbelts on. If not, we'd all been dead. 





































I did lose my iPod though..... RIP 1st Gen iPod, she served me well.....

I'd always worn my seatbelt before then, and will continue to do so in the future. 

It's just not worth the risk.


----------



## Chris1971

Glad your okay but, those tires are way passed their useful life.


----------



## TooFarFromFenway

Chris1971 said:


> Glad your okay but, those tires are way passed their useful life.


I know. It was my "I don't drive this often at all, so I will neglect it" vehicle. Learned that lesson VERY well! 

I kick myself for not taking my dad's truck.


----------



## BBQ

Chris1971 said:


> Okay kids. Back to the poll questions......


I don't live in RI so I can only vote one time.


----------



## amptech

I always wear my seat belt and have since I got my first vehicle that had them(the first 4 didn't). My wife always wears a seat belt. My kids always wear a seat belt and anyone riding in their car must wear one as a condition of riding in their car. Indiana has a mandatory seat belt law. That being said, I don't think it should be a legal requirement. It is mostly a political piece of legislation. Anybody who thinks it is wholly based on the government's concern for public safety needs to explain to me why there is no helmet law for motorcycles in this state. I always wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle too.


----------



## Big John

Wearing a seat-belt reduces essential freedoms about as much as not smoking at a gas pump.

-John


----------



## electricmanscott

Big John said:


> Wearing a seat-belt reduces essential freedoms about as much as not smoking at a gas pump.
> 
> -John


Seriously, you'd have to be a complete moron to use that argument against wearing a seat belt maybe even more so than just not wearing one for no reason at all which is pretty damn moronic.


----------



## Big John

electricmanscott said:


> Seriously, you'd have to be a complete moron to use that argument against wearing a seatbelt.


 Thanks for the compliment.  By all means, enlighten me.

-John


----------



## BBQ

Big John said:


> Wearing a seat-belt reduces essential freedoms about as much as not smoking at a gas pump.
> 
> -John


John, for me I wear a belt, but it is wrong how the Feds blackmailed the states into passing seat belt laws. 

The Feds threatened to withhold the money that came out of our pockets 

That is not how things are supposed to work.


----------



## HARRY304E

BBQ said:


> John, for me I wear a belt, but it is wrong how the Feds blackmailed the states into passing seat belt laws.
> 
> The Feds threatened to withhold the money that came out of our pockets
> 
> That is not how things are supposed to work.


At least New Hampshire Has the balls to tell the feds to shove it..:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Big John

BBQ said:


> John, for me I wear a belt, but it is wrong how the Feds blackmailed the states into passing seat belt laws....


 Alright, so your grievance is federal-overreach, and not specifically the seat-belt requirement.

I've never heard people who dislike seat-belt laws say _"If only the state had passed this law without federal interference, I'd be all for it!" _

I think the opposition often comes down to people who simply resent being told what to do, no matter who's doing the telling.

-John


----------



## HARRY304E

TooFarFromFenway said:


> I wear my seatbelt every single drive, no matter how short.
> 
> Last year, after returning from the airport from picking up my wife, it had been raining, and we were merging onto I95 in Cocoa when I lost control of my TrailBlazer. (Bald tires, had appointment the next day to get new ones) Rolled the vehicle 2 complete rotations, and ended upside down in the ditch on the side of the road.
> 
> I think God that I and everyone else in the car had their seatbelts on. If not, we'd all been dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did lose my iPod though..... RIP 1st Gen iPod, she served me well.....
> 
> I'd always worn my seatbelt before then, and will continue to do so in the future.
> 
> It's just not worth the risk.



Bald Tires...is what the problem is here ,Not whether or not there should be laws about seat belts,,,In fact your insurance company should not have had to pay because of the bold tires .

Sorry but you should have to pay for all injuries and damage and also have your licence revoked for driving like that ,IT IS the same as DUI..


----------



## HARRY304E

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## Theriot

HARRY304E said:


> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


What happen to you post?


----------



## HARRY304E

Theriot said:


> What happen to you post?


It was a never mind post...


----------



## TooFarFromFenway

HARRY304E said:


> Bald Tires...is what the problem is here


I know that, and I already admitted that sir. I knew they were bald, and well past their useful life. Agree 100%



HARRY304E said:


> ,Not whether or not there should be laws about seat belts,,,


I never said that sir. Not once. I simply related a personal experience as to why I still, to this day, wear my seatbelt. As does everyone in any vehicle I am driving. If someone doesn't like it, they can walk. 



HARRY304E said:


> In fact your insurance company should not have had to pay because of the bold tires .


No sir, do not agree at all. I received a big penalty from the highway patrol for it. I also pay higher insurance rates now, because I have an accident that was my fault, due to my own negligence. I also payed a huge deductible to have my vehicle replaced. Should your workman's comp insurance refuse to pay for your injuries because you were not doing something you should have been? No. Should you have a higher premium and higher deductible because of it? Sure. 



HARRY304E said:


> Sorry but you should have to pay for all injuries and damage and also have your licence revoked for driving like that ,IT IS the same as DUI..


No sir, it most certainly is NOT the same as a DUI. Not even close. You can have your opinion, and I am ok with that, but don't even TRY to put me in the same boat as someone who drinks and drives. 

Did you also miss the part of my post that said that me, my brother, and my wife were perfectly fine, BECAUSE we wore our seatbelts? No injuries. Not even a single scratch.


----------



## BBQ

Big John said:


> Alright, so your grievance is federal-overreach, and not specifically the seat-belt requirement.
> 
> I've never heard people who dislike seat-belt laws say _"If only the state had passed this law without federal interference, I'd be all for it!" _


I would not have been for it even had it been a local idea either but if it was voted in by the local residents I would except it. The fact is local voters said no at least a couple of times until they were blackmailed. 

It seems you have an ends justify the means mentality as long as the cause is one you agree with. 



> I think the opposition often comes down to people who simply resent being told what to do, no matter who's doing the telling.



You say that like it is somehow wrong, I see it as the reason people boarded the Mayflower and later threw tea in a harbor. 

I am hardly the sky is falling guy that Macmike or CS is but you can't deny that we are loosing are freedoms all the time. 


BTW, smoking at a gas station danger to all, Harry not wearing his seat belt only realistically a danger to him.


----------



## BBQ

HARRY304E said:


> ,In fact your insurance company should not have had to pay because of the bold tires .


Where do you get this crap?:laughing:


----------



## user4818

BBQ said:


> Where do you get this crap?:laughing:


He's the new forum doofus. ----------> :jester:


----------



## Chris1971

Peter D said:


> He's the new forum doofus. ----------> :jester:


I could do a poll. You'd probably win.:whistling2:


----------



## user4818

Chris1971 said:


> I could do a poll. You'd probably win.:whistling2:


It's possible but unlikely. :thumbsup:


----------



## Theriot

I love the polls are used as threats. You better not or I'll start a poll. Lol


----------



## BBQ

Chris1971 said:


> I could do a poll. You'd probably win.:whistling2:


........Zing!!:laughing:


----------



## user4818

BBQ said:


> ........Zing!!:laughing:



How could I possibly hold a candle to B4T and Harry's level of doofiness? :laughing:


----------



## Theriot

Peter D said:


> How could I possibly hold a candle to B4T and Harry's level of doofiness? :laughing:


By using words like doofiness.


----------



## user4818

Theriot said:


> By using words like doofiness.


Zing!!!!! :thumbup:


----------



## user4818

I just noticed that Tool voted "no" besides Harry. :001_huh:


----------



## Big John

BBQ said:


> ...It seems you have an ends justify the means mentality as long as the cause is one you agree with....


 I really take issue with that.

I have implied I support the idea of seat-belt laws. I have not defended the mechanism by which our current laws were enacted, because I don't have an informed opinion there. I see those as two separate topics. 

(And if you're speaking generally, then I challenge you to show me other examples where I've been that shallow in how I treated an issue. Feel free to PM me so we don't derail this.)


> ...You say that like it is somehow wrong...


 Sometimes, I think it is. See below.


> ...You can't deny that we are loosing are freedoms all the time....


 I don't deny that we are losing important freedoms. But we could argue that _any _law is a restriction of freedom.

Laws are a balance of the benefit they provide to society versus the limits they pose on the individual. In this case, the limit it imposes on the individual is almost non-existent: All you're doing is latching a belt.

But the benefit to society at large is a significant reduction of the demands on our already ridiculously over-burdened and expensive health-care and insurance systems.

So yes, I think blindly opposing a law simply because we resent it *is *wrong. I think we need to understand we live in a very interconnected society and that our unrestricted actions can affect our neighbors in unpleasant ways. 

If we're going to fight government, let's make sure the fight is worth it.

-John


----------



## HARRY304E

BBQ said:


> Where do you get this crap?:laughing:





TooFarFromFenway said:


> Been raining, and we were merging onto I95 in Cocoa when I lost control of my TrailBlazer. (Bald tires,


:whistling2::whistling2:


----------



## HARRY304E

.........................


----------



## Jlarson

With all the retards out here on the roads heck yes.


----------



## HARRY304E

HARRY304E said:


> Bald Tires...is what the problem is here ,Not whether or not there should be laws about seat belts,,,In fact your insurance company should not have had to pay because of the bold tires .
> 
> Sorry but you should have to pay for all injuries and damage and also have your licence revoked for driving like that ,IT IS the same as DUI..







TooFarFromFenway said:


> I know that, and I already admitted that sir. I knew they were bald, and well past their useful life. Agree 100%


Good.



TooFarFromFenway said:


> I never said that sir. Not once. I simply related a personal experience as to why I still, to this day, wear my seatbelt. As does everyone in any vehicle I am driving. If someone doesn't like it, they can walk.


Cool..:thumbsup:





TooFarFromFenway said:


> No sir, do not agree at all. I received a big penalty from the highway patrol for it. I also pay higher insurance rates now, because I have an accident that was my fault, due to my own negligence. I also payed a huge deductible to have my vehicle replaced. Should your workman's comp insurance refuse to pay for your injuries because you were not doing something you should have been? No. Should you have a higher premium and higher deductible because of it? Sure.


My workman's comp has nothing to do with you driving around with bald tires.
But my auto policy Also pays for people that drive around with bald tires.





TooFarFromFenway said:


> No sir, it most certainly is NOT the same as a DUI. Not even close. You can have your opinion, and I am ok with that, but don't even TRY to put me in the same boat as someone who drinks and drives.


Yes it is if your tires are bald then you mine as well be DUI. 




TooFarFromFenway said:


> Did you also miss the part of my post that said that me, my brother, and my wife were perfectly fine, BECAUSE we wore our seatbelts? No injuries. Not even a single scratch.


Yes and I thank God that no one was hurt and I hope you have learned a lesson about tires,,Because you can not prove that seat belts saved anyone in this case.


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> I just noticed that Tool voted "no" besides Harry. :001_huh:


Yup because he knows better.:thumbsup:


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> He's the new forum doofus. ----------> :jester:


Hmmmmm.

I wonder why you keep pointing that out about other members..:whistling2:


----------



## user4818

HARRY304E said:


> Yup because he knows better.:thumbsup:


Other than a bunch of lunatic sounding comments, you haven't provided one reason why not wearing a seat belt is a smart idea.


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> Other than a bunch of lunatic sounding comments, you haven't provided one reason why not wearing a seat belt is a smart idea.


 A _woodchuck would chuck_ as _much wood_ as a _woodchuck could chuck_ if a _woodchuck could chuck_ wood.


----------



## HARRY304E

Peter D said:


> Other than a bunch of lunatic sounding comments, you haven't provided one reason why not wearing a seat belt is a smart idea.


I don't have a problem with seat belts 

I have a problem with liberals making* any* laws because every time they do it cost the tax payers too much of their hard earned money and their freedom..


----------



## electrictim510

As long as attempting suicide is illegal then I think not wearing seatbelts should be lumped in thi category. Anyone who does not use a seatbelt for children riding in their vehicles has not seen enough accidents. I don't like when governments overstep into things they shouldn't but I see nothing wrong with seatbelt laws. I am one of the crazies who think smoking wacky tobacky in the privacy of your own home should be legal though... outlaw it in public right along with cigarettes, though.


----------



## erics37

HARRY304E said:


> A _woodchuck would chuck_ as _much wood_ as a _woodchuck could chuck_ if a _woodchuck could chuck_ wood.


Holy **** he finally lost it. I mean really ****ing lost it. :blink:


----------



## TooFarFromFenway

HARRY304E said:


> My workman's comp has nothing to do with you driving around with bald tires.
> But my auto policy Also pays for people that drive around with bald tires.


That's an analogy. Have you ever hurt yourself and required medical care? Did you have all of your PPE on when this injury occurred? Should your WC denied your claim because of your lack of PPE? 




HARRY304E said:


> Yes it is if your tires are bald then you mine as well be DUI.


Well, that's your opinion, but it doesn't make it right. 



HARRY304E said:


> Yes and I thank God that no one was hurt and I hope you have learned a lesson about tires,,Because you can not prove that seat belts saved anyone in this case.


Nope, I can't. However, the chances that people in my car had been injured, even slightly, is VERY high, especially in a rollover. 

What do YOU think protected us from injury? Mattresses mounted inside the vehicle?


----------



## TooFarFromFenway

HARRY304E said:


> I don't have a problem with seat belts
> 
> I have a problem with liberals making* any* laws because every time they do it cost the tax payers too much of their hard earned money and their freedom..


So, you don't wear your seatbelt to "stick it to the man"? Let's go through this logically. 

When the police pull you over, and they going to care that you're not wearing it because you're sticking it to the man? Nope. They'll still ticket YOU, costing YOU more money. Not just in the initial fine, but increased insurance rates. 

Ok, so that ONLY affects you. Cool. How's that working out for you? 

If you're in an accident because of a blowout, and you roll your van, and end up tossed into the middle of the highway, do you think that anyone is going to care that you were "sticking it to the man"? Nope, medics will scrape your remains off the road just the same. Your family will be devastated, your wife's insurance will go up and be out of a bunch of money because your insurance should deny your claim because YOU didn't wear your seatbelt. 

How's that work out for YOU? Not so good....

Do you not see the flawed logic in not wearing your seatbelt because of how it was implemented? Yeah, keep sticking it to the man, I am sure the government will take that into consideration next session.....


----------



## user4818

TooFarFromFenway said:


> Do you not see the flawed logic in not wearing your seatbelt because of how it was implemented?


I'm not sure he can because you're applying logic to a situation with no logic or commonsense.


----------



## electricmanscott

TooFarFromFenway said:


> So, you don't wear your seatbelt to "stick it to the man"?


Which supports my moron comment.

I'll be the first to admit that I am wishy washy on certain issues. If they benefit me I'm all for it, if they cause me trouble in some way I'm all WTF! :laughing: BUT, I truly believe we need laws, some completely ridiculous, to protect some of us from our own stupidity.


----------



## user4818

electricmanscott said:


> BUT, I truly believe we need laws, some completely ridiculous, to protect some of us from our own stupidity.


Here's the problem with that - where do you draw the line? I'm not against laws as they are required if we are to live in a civil society, but ultimately you can't protect people from their own bad decisions and stupidity, no matter how many laws you make.


----------



## electricmanscott

Peter D said:


> Here's the problem with that - where do you draw the line? I'm not against laws as they are required if we are to live in a civil society, but ultimately you can't protect people from their own bad decisions and stupidity, no matter how many laws you make.


Unlike some of these goons I won't pretend that have all the answers. :no:


----------



## chicken steve

TooFarFromFenway said:


> So, you don't wear your seatbelt to "stick it to the man"? Let's go through this logically.
> 
> When the police pull you over, and they going to care that you're not wearing it because you're sticking it to the man? Nope. They'll still ticket YOU, costing YOU more money. Not just in the initial fine, but increased insurance rates.
> 
> Ok, so that ONLY affects you. Cool. How's that working out for you?
> 
> If you're in an accident because of a blowout, and you roll your van, and end up tossed into the middle of the highway, do you think that anyone is going to care that you were "sticking it to the man"? Nope, medics will scrape your remains off the road just the same. Your family will be devastated, your wife's insurance will go up and be out of a bunch of money because your insurance should deny your claim because YOU didn't wear your seatbelt.
> 
> How's that work out for YOU? Not so good....
> 
> Do you not see the flawed logic in not wearing your seatbelt because of how it was implemented? Yeah, keep sticking it to the man, I am sure the government will take that into consideration next session.....


 
TFFF, 
while i'll not disagree your stance on it's _face _value, you of _all_ people here should realize big biz cloaked in the guise of safety legislates it's way into profitable quarterlys 

follow the $$$

~CS~


----------



## electricmanscott

chicken steve said:


> TFFF,
> while i'll not disagree your stance on it's _face _value, you of _all_ people here should realize big biz cloaked in the guise of safety legislates it's way into profitable quarterlys
> 
> follow the $$$
> 
> ~CS~


If you read that in a Donald Sutherland voice it actually makes sense. :laughing:


----------



## chicken steve

electricmanscott said:


> If you read that in a Donald Sutherland voice it actually makes sense. :laughing:


----------



## TooFarFromFenway

chicken steve said:


> TFFF,
> while i'll not disagree your stance on it's _face _value, you of _all_ people here should realize big biz cloaked in the guise of safety legislates it's way into profitable quarterlys
> 
> follow the $$$
> 
> ~CS~


Sure, I can agree with that. Of course we know our congress if for sale, for the right price. I will agree 100%. But, I never addressed that. I simply was addressing the common sense approach. 

I may not be required to wear a seat belt in my vehicle, but I do, as does everyone in my car. For my safety and theirs. Getting stopped and ticketed has nothing to do with that decision. 

Just like when I am out boating, I always wear my inflatable PFD that automatically inflates if I end up in the water. I'm not required, but God forbid I hit a wave weird, and end up in the water. I also wear my dead man cord too. Most do not, but if I need it, at least I have it. 

Better safe than sorry. Even if it wasn't a law, I would wear my seatbelt.


----------



## fanelle

I never wear a seatbelt unless there is a police car behind me. I know it is illegal to not wear it but I view it as a personal choice. I feel as a minor you should be required to wear them. However I am an adult and a licensed driver and as such I have been made aware of the risks and know the consequences. If I choose to not wear my seatbelt I don`t see why anyone else should have a say in it. I don`t force anyone to wear or not wear there seatbelts.


----------



## B4T

fanelle said:


> I never wear a seatbelt unless there is a police car behind me. I know it is illegal to not wear it but I view it as a personal choice. I feel as a minor you should be required to wear them. However I am an adult and a licensed driver and as such I have been made aware of the risks and know the consequences. If I choose to not wear my seatbelt I don`t see why anyone else should have a say in it. I don`t force anyone to wear or not wear there seatbelts.


Just make sure you have a organ donor card filled out and who to notify upon death..

IMO.. you are pushing the envelope and it will turn around and bite you in the ass.. defensive measures saves lives.. 

The roads will keep getting more dangerous because of distracted drivers every year.. I wish you luck..


----------



## fanelle

B4T said:


> Just make sure you have a organ donor card filled out and who to notify upon death..
> 
> IMO.. you are pushing the envelope and it will turn around and bite you in the ass.. defensive measures saves lives..
> 
> The roads will keep getting more dangerous because of distracted drivers every year.. I wish you luck..


I agree the roads are getting more dangerous and to be honest if I did contracting work where I was on the road and in and out of the van everyday I might be more inclined to wear one. Where I live though is in the sticks. I live 4.4 miles from work each way and see an average of 10 or so cars in my route there.


----------



## electricmanscott

fanelle said:


> I agree the roads are getting more dangerous and to be honest if I did contracting work where I was on the road and in and out of the van everyday I might be more inclined to wear one. Where I live though is in the sticks. I live 4.4 miles from work each way and see an average of 10 or so cars in my route there.


Are the roads lined with pillows? :laughing:


----------



## fanelle

electricmanscott said:


> Are the roads lined with pillows? :laughing:


 
No but I have often wondered which is worse hitting a deer which I see from time to time or hitting a fat guy which I see everywhere. I don`t have to worry about the fat buy running infront of my truck though.:thumbsup:


----------



## B4T

Other than a head on collision.. running into a tree is a real deal breaker..

You wind up going 40-60 MPH through the front windshield..

If you get ejected.. the truck or car just might roll on top of you..

But you know better.. :whistling2:


----------



## TooFarFromFenway

It's your choice, and I will support that, no question. 

But, did you see the pictures I posted? I survived without a scratch, because of seatbelts. 

Now, just a simple question: What about your family? Just think about that. Maybe it'll change your mind, maybe not. But, it is ultimately your decision, but I respectfully suggest you reconsider. 

Cheers!!


----------



## BBQ

Big John said:


> I really take issue with that.
> 
> I have implied I support the idea of seat-belt laws. I have not defended the mechanism by which our current laws were enacted, because I don't have an informed opinion there. I see those as two separate topics.


That is some serious double talk, perhaps you should become more informed before going further? 



> I don't deny that we are losing important freedoms. But we could argue that _any _law is a restriction of freedom.


John, I really think you have missed my point entirely.

Had the 'people' wanted the law, I would not be complaining.

Had the feds not used the money they taxed from our pocket as a means of blackmail to force the acceptance of seat belt laws I would not be complaining.

I don't have a problem with laws, I have a problem with the Feds exceeding their authority and telling states how things will be.




> Laws are a balance of the benefit they provide to society versus the limits they pose on the individual. In this case, the limit it imposes on the individual is almost non-existent: All you're doing is latching a belt.


Again, it is not the law I have an issue with, it is how it became law.

Maybe next time it will be the Feds deciding fatty foods should be prohibited, what form of blackmail will they use then? The precedent has been set. If the Feds think it is good for us they will force it on us if we want it or not.

They are ignoring the will of the people, that is what I have an issue with.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical

I don't wear a seatbelt


----------



## chicken steve

TooFarFromFenway said:


> Sure, I can agree with that. Of course we know our congress if for sale, for the right price. I will agree 100%. But, I never addressed that. I simply was addressing the common sense approach.
> 
> I may not be required to wear a seat belt in my vehicle, but I do, as does everyone in my car. For my safety and theirs. Getting stopped and ticketed has nothing to do with that decision.
> 
> Just like when I am out boating, I always wear my inflatable PFD that automatically inflates if I end up in the water. I'm not required, but God forbid I hit a wave weird, and end up in the water. I also wear my dead man cord too. Most do not, but if I need it, at least I have it.
> 
> Better safe than sorry. Even if it wasn't a law, I would wear my seatbelt.


agreed TFFF

if people assumed a level of personal responsibility for thier actions, we wouldn't need the safety cabal imposing on our freedoms

imho, you're free to be an idiot, as long as you are responsible for your the consequenses of your idiocy

that every accident has to be documented to the nith degree , because of a litigant hostile society looking to play blame game , is testimony to more of the above being needed

just mho....

~CS~


----------



## Big John

BBQ said:


> That is some serious double talk, perhaps you should become more informed before going further?


 Do you really not see the difference between supporting an idea and supporting a reality?

If I had been involved in a popular vote about whether to have a seat-belt law, I would have voted Yes because I agree with the idea. 

If the popular vote had been defeated, and nobody wanted a seat-belt law, but the government created one anyway, there's a good chance I would be in favor of repealing that law. 

Now you're gonna say "But that's exactly what happened!" And I already explained, I will not agree with you before I see that for myself. There's no shame in trying not to act ignorant, no matter how many 's you post.

-John


----------

