Click it or ticket?

[GanjaKat]

yeah i hate them too.. i get clostrophobic in a seatbelt, and feel that if i chrashed i wouldnt be able to get out with the shitty thing around me, so i tend to just pull it around me if i see a pig coming then let it ping back once they passed

 

[Bambi]

Click it

I'm one of those irritating people that kicks off if people aren't wearing seat belts, ESPECIALLY if some one is sat behind me. I used to get really mad at an exes friend, he always sat in the seat behind me (I'm short so he got more leg room) and he'd be like nahhh don't want to wear it, so then Id start a massive rant about if we crashed IM not dying because he's not wearing his seat belt and crushed me to death....I always won, I'm like a dog with a bone

But yeah, there's pro's and cons really, it could trap you in your car and you'd be fucked if you couldn't get out and the ca was about to blow up or some shit, but I do think it's safer to wear it, Id hate to fly out the window at speed, or if the cars rolling get tossed around the inside of the car.....

I think the pros out weigh the cons

CLICK IT DAMN YOU

 

[Shu]

I can't agree with this one bud. I know a lot of people have their opinion and I am a hypocrite often times, because I don't wear one on occasion. I am a pretty safe driver, but there is always other drivers you have to worry about.

Now I don't believe there should ever be a law against this, but I think seat belts are generally a good idea.

See when I was 14 or so my brother (19 at the time) was driving through Hollysprings,MS and a drunk driver turned into his lane. My brother Wes was driving a Nisan Maxima and the other dude was driving some type of truck. Well my brother had no time to react basically and jerked his wheel a hard left to avoid him. This resulted in him flipping his car 6 times. When the Firemen/police/ambulance got to the scene they used the jaws of life to pry him out of his car. Of course the truck couldn't be found, but the moral of the story is. If my brother had not had his seat belt on he would have been tossed from the car and rolled over and instantly would have died. Also the car had crushed around him, and he only walked away with a small concussion from whip lash.

So I disagree. Seatbelts are there for a reason, but I think Click IT or Ticket is a way for cops to make money.

 

[GanjaKat]

PROS:
Keep you from being ejected from the car
If you rolled you wouldnt be shot about the car
wont hammer the person infront of you in a crash
Keeps pigs happy

CONS:
its unconfertable
can cause clostraphobia to kick in (me and my gf's step dad at least)
Can snap/brake anyways and cause just as much damage as not wearing one
Could possible get fined
can trap you in a burning/chrushed car
Stop you getting out if despratley needed. e.i a car heading head on to you. fast.
restricted movement, even to do things such as get in your pocket...
Whiplash
Like blakstang said could do as much damage as the crash would do

i think the cons outweight the pros tbqh

 

[Serah]

We did already have a thread on this, though the argument stands it hasn't been posted in for nearly two years. I've merged them anyway. Carry on.

 

[Bambi]

Most of your cons are abit.....silly though

I'm claustrophobic and I also find them uncomfortable, but that's HARDLY a con...Oh I'm uncomfortable, id rather risk getting flung through my window? No thanks

Could possible get fined

isn't that a con for NOT wearing your belt?

restricted movement, even to do things such as get in your pocket...

Again, not a valid con. Its hard getting in your pockets sat in a car anyway, and Ive never had trouble getting into my coat pocket, only my jeans, which is just as awkward with or withOUT the belt

Whiplash

Id take whip lash over death/serious injury ANYday of the week

Sure it could do more damage, you might get stuck in there in a sticky situation, but more often than not, people tend to crash into things and end up being catapulted out than be trapped burning in a car. I used to work in insurance investigations (cars), the majority of car accidents where people colliding either with other cars on objects whatever, that would have seen the occupants of the car flung out were they not wearing belts, there's also the rolling/flipping on motorways

The kind of accidents you are talking about are FAR less frequent, sure they happen, but not half as much as those Ive stated

So, it's safer to wear the belt than not. I have a 4 year old kid, there's no WAY she's EVER getting in any car ever without a belt on

 

[GanjaKat]

yeah im not saying id rather whiplash that a injury but its still a con, and yes when you get clostrphobic having a seat belt and an start to panic.. at leats for me its a con

 

[Bambi]

and yes when you get clostrphobic having a seat belt and an start to panic.. at leats for me its a con

That's just you though isn't it? more how YOU feel about it rather than what it could do, not everyone will feel claustrophobic wearing a belt, so I honestly don't think it's a valid con

Oh, you could get claustrophobic wearing a belt

Its just your fear...not a con of it, that's like saying a con of going outside is feeling ...agoraphobic. It's a tad ridiculous

 

[GanjaKat]

ok, even if you take out the ones you fell are "ridiculas" they still even oput the same, and its down to personal prefference anyways i guess, like you will and i never will xD

 

[blakstang98]

I apologize for creating another thread on this when one existed. For once, I didn't search and this was the time there was one around, my mistake.

The last part you said Shu was my point, I don't like that it's the law. What I do in my car is my business, period, not the laws. Some people choose to wear seat belts, I have no problem with that. If I'm in someone elses car and they request that I wear the seat belt I will. I just think it's wrong that I have to pay $37 again just because they need money. I've lived in CT for 2 months and worked here for almost 2 years and I've payed for 2 seat belt tickets, bad law in my opinion.

 

[CassinoChips]

yeah im not saying id rather whiplash that a injury but its still a con, and yes when you get clostrphobic having a seat belt and an start to panic.. at leats for me its a con

Then don't drive.

I'm with Bambi on this one. If you're in the car with me, you're wearing a seatbelt. For a couple reasons. A) You're not crushing me to death if we get in an accident. B) You're not getting flung out the window if we get in an accident. I don't need that kind of guilt and aggravation in my life, tyvm. And if you're not in the car with me: C) Your little accident is backing up traffic on the freeway, causing me serious aggravation. Fatalities resulting from you being thrown through the windshield just make it take longer. D) It's my tax dollar that's paying for the police/fire department and highway divisions to clean your carcass/totaled car from the road.

Seatbelts can reduce accident-related deaths by as much as 50%. THERE IS NO GOOD REASON NOT TO WEAR A SEATBELT.

"I won't be in an accident: I'm a good driver." Your good driving record will certaily help you avoid accidents. But even if you're a good driver, a bad driver may still hit you.

"I'm afraid the belt will trap me in the car." Statistically, the best place to be during an accident is in your car. If you're thrown out of the car, you're 25 times more likely to die. And if you need to get out of the car in a hurry - as in the extremely tiny percent of accidents involving fire or submergence - you can get out a lot faster if you haven't been knocked unconscious inside your car.

"It's uncomfortable." What are you, five years old? There are Comfort Fit belt adjusters and belt extenders available from most auto parts stores and dealerships.

 

[Davey Gaga]

PROS:
Keep you from being ejected from the car
If you rolled you wouldnt be shot about the car
wont hammer the person infront of you in a crash
Keeps pigs happy

CONS:
its unconfertable
can cause clostraphobia to kick in (me and my gf's step dad at least)
Can snap/brake anyways and cause just as much damage as not wearing one
Could possible get fined
can trap you in a burning/chrushed car
Stop you getting out if despratley needed. e.i a car heading head on to you. fast.
restricted movement, even to do things such as get in your pocket...
Whiplash
Like blakstang said could do as much damage as the crash would do

i think the cons outweight the pros tbqh

The ones bolded and underlined are the ones with which I have an issue.

1) Getting fined for wearing your seatbelt? I think you've confused yourself, there...minus 1 con.

2) "can trap you" and "stop you getting out" are very similar terms, I'd combine them in to one point, minus 1 con.

3) Restricted movement, you can't do much sitting down, it's not the belt that's the problem it's the seat. Just take things out of your pocket. I'd say minus 1 con, +1 lazy point.

4) Whiplash, I'd put that as a silver lining...it's not pleasant but it's MILES better than being involved in a whiplash event without a belt...cracked skull, haemhorrages, etc?

5) "Could do as much damage" isn't really valid imo, you'd get a cracked rib at the most, depending on the speed. The fastest you're legally allowed to go on any road is 70mph, on dual carriageways or motorways, and very few accidents happen there (compared with, say, more rural areas, you just hear about motorway crashes more often because of how much damage they do), so you shouldn't really be going much faster than 40 usually, and a collision at 40mph isn't really powerful enough to crack ribs or do much else other than whiplash. In short, I disagree. Also, "could snap break causing as much damage" rolls on to this and that instance is a VERY slim chance.

I'd also add one more pro - it's FAR less ignorant. I've heard the odd "it's my choice" shite but I don't like that, mainly because, aye sure it's up to you but what happens when you've made the wrong choice? If you're alive after being tossed or whatever, you're to be rescued, taking up the valuable services of the rescuers, the paramedics, the surgeons, etc...all because you've made a really shit argument that does nothing but show you spitting your dummy out.

So, my list is really 5 - 3 for pros.

 

[blakstang98]

Then don't drive.Seatbelts can reduce accident-related deaths by as much as 50%. THERE IS NO GOOD REASON NOT TO WEAR A SEATBELT.

Actually, it also increases death by 50%. That's what makes this debate so 2-sided is that the numbers don't favor 1 over the other. Which means it all comes down to personal preference. I prefer to take my chances without wearing one whereas you prefer to not take the chance. I just don't think it's right to be fined for it.

 

[Davey Gaga]

Credible sources would settle the statistical side of the debate. :dave:

 

[blakstang98]

Credible sources would settle the statistical side of the debate. :dave:

I may be able to find some number data after lunch, but for now, I'll give you this link to sink your teeth into. It's from Wikipedia, so I assume that should be a credible source for now. The section on Risk Compensation is a good start. It even mentions how buckled up drivers tend to drive more aggressively, which I wouldn't have thought of, but it makes sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt

 

[CassinoChips]

I may be able to find some number data after lunch, but for now, I'll give you this link to sink your teeth into. It's from Wikipedia, so I assume that should be a credible source for now. The section on Risk Compensation is a good start. It even mentions how buckled up drivers tend to drive more aggressively, which I wouldn't have thought of, but it makes sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt

From your own source:

"The study controlled for endogenous motivations of seat belt use, which it is claimed creates an artificial correlation between seat belt use and fatalities, leading to the conclusion that seatbelts cause fatalities. For example, drivers in high risk areas are more likely to use seat belts, and are more likely to be in accidents, creating a non-causal correlation between seatbelt use and mortality. After accounting for the endogeneity of seatbelt usage, Cohen and Einav found no evidence that the risk compensation effect makes seatbelt wearing drivers more dangerous, a finding at variance with other research."

The seatbelts themselves aren't causing any more fatalities. More drivers are wearing seatbelts more often in congested areas, the congestion leading to more crashes and more fatalities.

 

[Seed]

I mean...it's not necessary...but it probably helps people survive...and it helps whoever gets the money too.
Mod Edit: PLease avoid one line posts, as they don't contribute to the discussion.

 

[blakstang98]

Well twin, my point is that aggressive drivers are a bigger cause of vehicular casualties than lack of seat belts. And it's also a known fact that residential accidents happen more than ones in congested areas. Aggressive driving is overall a really bad practice in driving, and I see aggressive driving more frequently than I ever have. That is easily the greater of the 2 evils, not my lack of a seat belt.

I believe that if I own a car, then it's my business what I do in it. A police officer can't search your house unless they have documentation permitting to. Shouldn't it be a law that requires documentation to violate my ownership? If a cop looked through my window and saw me doing something that could endanger my life, is it fair that they can give me a ticket for that? It's not safety that they seek, it's money. Not to get political, but if so much money wasn't flushed down the drain on random crap, they wouldn't care about hitting a random driver with a seat belt violation.

 

[Donald Trump]

Well twin, my point is that aggressive drivers are a bigger cause of vehicular casualties than lack of seat belts. And it's also a known fact that residential accidents happen more than ones in congested areas. Aggressive driving is overall a really bad practice in driving, and I see aggressive driving more frequently than I ever have. That is easily the greater of the 2 evils, not my lack of a seat belt.

I believe that if I own a car, then it's my business what I do in it. A police officer can't search your house unless they have documentation permitting to. Shouldn't it be a law that requires documentation to violate my ownership? If a cop looked through my window and saw me doing something that could endanger my life, is it fair that they can give me a ticket for that? It's not safety that they seek, it's money. Not to get political, but if so much money wasn't flushed down the drain on random crap, they wouldn't care about hitting a random driver with a seat belt violation.

Firstly I'd like some sort of study that shows that people who wear seatbelts drive agressively. Secondly the prince of darkness isn't sitting back and bailing out car manufacturers with speeding ticket money, there simply isn't enough. It's a fine to stop people driving without seatbelts, because when they crash they die/suffer worse injuries, and when you're in hospital it's the government that pays. That's part of the reason cigarettes are taxed highly, that and they're dangerous.
There's no such thing as freedom, because freedom is anarchy. Government exists to legislate as they see fit, seatbelts are the will of the people. I'm not going to say you should wear a seatbelt, I don't follow laws I disagree with, however because you disgaree with them doesn't mean that they're wrong.

 

[CassinoChips]

Well twin, my point is that aggressive drivers are a bigger cause of vehicular casualties than lack of seat belts.

Fair point. But an aggressive driver wearing a seatbelt is more likely to survive an accident than an aggressive driver not wearing a seatbelt.

I believe that if I own a car, then it's my business what I do in it. A police officer can't search your house unless they have documentation permitting to. Shouldn't it be a law that requires documentation to violate my ownership?

Sure. Unless there's probable cause. If a cop looks through the window of your car and sees you smoking crack, does he have to get documentation to arrest you? Why would the seatbelt law be any different? A law is a law.

It's not safety that they seek, it's money.

Nah, it's safety. And it's saving money in the long run. Because it costs the state X times more money to pay the police officers/firemen/EMTs/highway workers who have to clean up a wreck that was made much worse because someone didn't wear a seatbelt.

Firstly I'd like some sort of study that shows that people who wear seatbelts drive agressively.

If you look at the Wikipedia page Stang linked earlier, it mentions that there are studies that have linked seatlbelt use to a higher tendency of aggressive driving. Although one study essentially refuted that, so ... yeah.

and when you're in hospital it's the government that pays.

Not in the best country in the world! GOOOOOD BLESS AMEEEERICA! LAAAAAAND THAT I... am getting a little fed up with, tbph.

There's no such thing as freedom,

Gods help me, I'm agreeing with the anarchist. But he's right. Even the so-called "inalienabe" rights can be taken away by the government at a whim.