click it or ticket season?

[GM.Chief]

I was in a rollover accident 8 years ago. It was me, my pregnant (w/ #2) wife, her brother, and my oldest son. All were in seatbelts. All walked away. I don't care what reasons people have for not wearing belts, if you're in my car you wear it, period. And if you're giving me a ride and you're seatbelts arre broken, I'm calling a cab.

BTW... the car we rolled was a brand new '01 Chevy Malibu. The car rolled 6x. Chevy's add is right on...Like a rock...Those are some safe vehicles. Just not with a 19-20 yr. old version of me behind the wheel.

 

[GM.Chief]

S-screw
T-the
E-entire
P-population
Just thought of that. IT IS A JOKE.

 

[Big country]

I just don't like being forced to wear it by a nanny stater government, that is all. So I'm not the anti Christ, I'm not saying that they don't save lives, I just said that there was one incident that one person was not wearing a seat belt and it saved his life. And then I was told that my father should have died for not wearing a seat belt. So pardon me if I got a little T-ed. GM the only vehicle that I have rolled was a Chevy 4x4 on an off road trip. And +1 they are very sturdy when rolling off a steep grade.

 

[Texas1911]

That is the best reason I've heard so far. I still think that in most cases if the car is to the point that you are being tossed around in the drivers seat the wheels ain't on the road/ground any more.

Skidding, you aren't going to move around much, but once you are skidding and you slow down the tires will suddenly grip and the car will either flip, or it will snap sideways depending on where the tires are pointing and if you've gone off-road or not.

Not like it matters much anyways, virtually no one can actually control a car in this condition on US public roads anyways. I personally think it should be mandated into the driving exam.

Put both feet in, countersteer, if you go off-road, straighten the wheels and just keep both feet put in it.

 

[M. Sage]

Saw lots of cops today, out standing around instead of driving. Is it click it or ticket season?


When you can't tax em, fine em.

Yep, they need some fresh revenue.

Not that I don't (or even wouldn't) wear a seatbelt all the time. I do and I would. Just like I always wear (at least) jacket, gloves, boots and full-face helmet every time I ride my motorcycle. Do I think there should be a law requiring me to do so? No. This "safety issue" is between me, my family and my insurance company.

 

[DCortez]

You need to talk to those that work wrecks...see people ejected or stuck halfway out a windshield, see the carnage and half to go tell some family member their kid/husband/wife is dead.

I would agree with that. However, real life happens and you can't save everyone. The day we are everyone's parent is the day we've all become democrats.

 

[cuate]

Click it or Ticket

My Uncle was a Texas Highway Patrolman for 37 years, he hated seat belts and said he wouldn't wear one. He prpbably did in the presence of THP superiors.

I wear mine because of two factors, have seen rollovers where occupant or occupants were thrown out and vehicle rolled over them, but main reason is to avoid the City, County, & State revenuers and their exorbitant "court costs" . "Nuff said".

 

[Rocket_Cowboy]

If seat belts are the great lifesaver of 4 wheeled transportation, when why are the 4 and 5 point harnesses used in race cars illegal for street use? The typical 3-point front seat harness can only do so much, but apparently the added stability of a 4-point would just be too much for a regular driver to handle.

I don't deny that seat belts generally help improve safety for the occupants of the vehicle, but I am very much not a supporter of seat belt or helmet laws. I doubt the sincerity of many of these "safety" laws, and the impressions being set are that they are more about revenue collection passed under the premise of safety.

 

[M. Sage]

A 4 or 5 point is more than most people would use. Trust me; it's a PITA to turn in your seat to do things like backing up in a 4 point (if you're wearing it correctly). You actually have to loosen it to turn and look.

I find 'em really comfortable personally. If I get another sports car, it'll be one of the first mods I make. With a 4 point, we wouldn't need airbags, that's for sure.

 

[Burt Gummer]

You need to talk to those that work wrecks...see people ejected or stuck halfway out a windshield, see the carnage and half to go tell some family member their kid/husband/wife is dead.
I am not saying whether the govt. should tell you to wear a belt or not, but there are good intentions in the law.....its more than a money grab.

I am one of those who "works" the wrecks. I spray paint the roadway around every chunk of skull and body part left in the street. I get the joy of also measuring the scene and getting those yummy morsels on my boots and I CAN tell you seat belts save SOME lives.

For those mad at the government for "making" you wear your seatbelt, blame your state government.
It is one of the laws passed when you agree to operate your motor vehicle on a public roadway. You can drive in circles on your private property or the Wal Mart shopping center all you want without your seatbelt legally if it tickles your fancy just to spite the evil government.

Once again if you do not like the law, have your state repeal it.

 

[Big country]

I am one of those who "works" the wrecks. I spray paint the roadway around every chunk of skull and body part left in the street. I get the joy of also measuring the scene and getting those yummy morsels on my boots and I CAN tell you seat belts save SOME lives.

For those mad at the government for "making" you wear your seatbelt, blame your state government.
It is one of the laws passed when you agree to operate your motor vehicle on a public roadway. You can drive in circles on your private property or the Wal Mart shopping center all you want without your seatbelt legally if it tickles your fancy just to spite the evil government.

Once again if you do not like the law, have your state repeal it.

If I could get it repeal the law I would, not because I don't like seat belts. Because I don't like being forced to do things by the (I'm officially stealing this phrase from Hoji) .gov in any case. I do agree that seat belts save some lives. But like DCortez said you can't save everyone. So I will keep wearing it to avoid getting anymore seat belt tickets and to save my ass (as they have done before I'm sure) but I will never like getting told by the .gov that I have to wear it.

 

[Burt Gummer]

If I could get it repeal the law I would, not because I don't like seat belts. Because I don't like being forced to do things by the (I'm officially stealing this phrase from Hoji) .gov in any case. I do agree that seat belts save some lives. But like DCortez said you can't save everyone. So I will keep wearing it to avoid getting anymore seat belt tickets and to save my ass (as they have done before I'm sure) but I will never like getting told by the .gov that I have to wear it.

Well if you really think about it you re told by the .gov to do EVERYTHING when it comes to traffic law. It tells you when to stop, go,how fast,how to turn,how to back up etc.
There are hundreds of traffic laws in the Texas Traffic Code that you obey every day. Seatbelts are but 1 of many.
It is humorous to hear somebody say "I hate being told what to do" about X problem but they follow the rules about the other 1,000 things they do daily.

I can tell that you hate the seatbelt law but if you really did not want to follow what the gubment said to do you would not have your vehicle registered, have a DL,obey any traffic law or any Penal code for that matter (theft,homicide,rape etc).
It is better to say "I hate the seatbelt law" and not obey it than to say you hate being told what to do.
Lets not even get into dating or marriage and that whole nutshell.

Food for ye brain.atriot:

 

[Rocket_Cowboy]

Lets not even get into dating or marriage and that whole nutshell.

I hate dating and marriage too, but what's that got to do with seatbelts?

 

[Burt Gummer]

I hate dating and marriage too, but what's that got to do with seatbelts?

Ok it was a reference to being told what to do and not liking it.
Forget I mentioned it, some of you will understand it though.

 

[drj3828]

Here is my 2cents worth!
Goverment say you have to wear seat belts in a motor vehicle for life saving reasons. If not you get a ticket! Cost lot's of money. Is it a good ideal well on one hand YES on the other a pain in the rear. But it is the law!
They did for public safety reasons.
OK eating fried chicken or chicken fried steak is also a safety problem because it can cause heart attacks and vien blockage, but the goverment has not made a law against that YET.
So my question is when is enough enough!
More folks die from heart problems caused by blocked viens than any thing else! At least that is what is told my the AMA.

 

[M. Sage]

Well if you really think about it you re told by the .gov to do EVERYTHING when it comes to traffic law. It tells you when to stop, go,how fast,how to turn,how to back up etc.
There are hundreds of traffic laws in the Texas Traffic Code that you obey every day. Seatbelts are but 1 of many.
It is humorous to hear somebody say "I hate being told what to do" about X problem but they follow the rules about the other 1,000 things they do daily.

I can tell that you hate the seatbelt law but if you really did not want to follow what the gubment said to do you would not have your vehicle registered, have a DL,obey any traffic law or any Penal code for that matter (theft,homicide,rape etc).
It is better to say "I hate the seatbelt law" and not obey it than to say you hate being told what to do.
Lets not even get into dating or marriage and that whole nutshell.

Food for ye brain.atriot:

The problem is that most of the other traffic laws (excluding speed limits in many instances) are simply setting a standard on how vehicles should be operated. Operating a large number of motor vehicles in close proximity without some standard code of conduct would be insane. They've got a similar code of rules for traffic in the air and on the water for the same reason; to keep things from banging together and making a mess.

Seatbelt laws do not serve this purpose.

They did for public safety reasons.

Negative. Someone not wearing a seatbelt is not a threat to public safety. He's a threat to his own personal safety.

 

[DCortez]

I hate dating and marriage too, but what's that got to do with seatbelts?

We all have to do things we do not like, disagree with, or see no sense in

 

[kingofwylietx]

Seatbelt laws do not serve this purpose.

Negative. Someone not wearing a seatbelt is not a threat to public safety. He's a threat to his own personal safety.

IIRC, the seatbelt law was designed to save the gov money. Somebody said they would save a bunch of money if we wore seatbelts and the government said 'it shall be'. Again, IIRC, the money would be saved from treating people with fairly severe injuries that were caused in a majority of accidents (minor accidents, under 15 or 20mph). Theses people were jamming up the hospitals when most of their injuries could have been avoided. Seatbelts are not really for the high-speed head-on collisions, you're pretty much screwed there.....they are for lower speed impacts. Airbags are also mandated by the government, though they are much less intrusive......until used...then they are very intrusive.

My daughter sometimes has the same problem, they make her ride in a car seat (baby seat) because she's only 2 yrs old. She doesn't always like it, but I wouldn't take her out on the roads without it.

 

[M. Sage]

The government wasn't paying those bills. Insurance companies were.

Guess who it was that lobbied for (and got) seat belt laws? Funny that they got their seat belt laws to lower costs, but we didn't get lower rates.

 

[kingofwylietx]

The government wasn't paying those bills. Insurance companies were.

Guess who it was that lobbied for (and got) seat belt laws? Funny that they got their seat belt laws to lower costs, but we didn't get lower rates.

No, insurance only pays for people that are insured. You are thinking micro, you have to change gears to a macro outlook. I'm insured, I'm pretty sure that you are insured.

The truth, is that places like Parkland are paid for by the [local] government through [our] taxes. As a matter of fact, Parkland provided OVER $500 MILLION in uncompensated care last year. That is only 1 healthcare system here in the Dallas area, every large city has one or more. It's a huge drain on society, though it has obvious merits. The people pushing universal healthcare don't like to talk about the care already offered in metropolitan areas, nor do they like to talk about the cost.

Parkland wants to build a new $1.2 billion facility....with the city of Dallas tax dollars. It's an abused system. It's supposed to be a place for the uninsured and less fortunate to receive critical care........but what you find is that folks line up for free care every time they get a cold. It wasn't designed for that capacity. If you want to find the illegal aliens, visit parkland. If you want to find gang-bangers shot & stabbed, visit on a weekend. Taxpayers get the bill, not insurance companies. That is a lot of money that could go to teachers, firemen, policemen, roadway maintenance, and improving infrastructure.

If you want to read more: [url]http://www.governing.com/article/lifeline[/URL]