Has anyone else heard about this?
I caught a couple things in the news the past couple days and I just had to shake my head.
It appears that the Feds are going to require some sort of stabilty or traction control on all new US vehicles by 2008 or 2010. Seriously?
How about federal mandates to pull your head out of your ass while driving? :beatyoass:
how bout they make everyone learn to drive a fully manual car from the 60's...
or make it a special license to be able to drive an auto.
it is basically blaming cars for bad drivers, this is society now, it is never the person's fualt, something else MADE them do it... or didn't prevent them from thier own stupidity.
*sigh* just means I need to get another old car again before they are banned.
Will this stop the 5' tall ladies talking on the phone while running through a YIELD sign and driving me off the road in their Expeditions from flipping over if they see me at the last minute & roll the ed vehicle trying to avoid hitting me?
:disappoin
Ford will have all of their vehicles equipped with this setup for the 2009 model year...so whether the U.S. government approves it or not, new Fords will still have them. I think all Volvos and Jags have them right now. Despite the massive cuts over at Ford, at least they have the foresight to keep safety issues in the program.
You also have to consider that vehicles today are massive. In the 1980's and 1990's, the "thing to do" was to lighten up the cars so that our underpowered engines wouldn't work as hard, and the cars would "feel" faster. ;) Well, with all these regulations now, lighter weights are really not feasible (or sometimes even possible), but the automakers have countered with more powerful engines. That's all well and good...but when the average new car weight is around 4000 lbs., and even more for SUV's and trucks, and with 250+ hp engines as standard, then something has to be done to help control the inertia of these vehicles. Think of this as the street version of NASCAR's restrictor plate.
Whether it's needed or not...it's a toss-up. On one hand, the government recognizes that technology can help stop many needless accidents from possibly occuring, and obviously they want to exploit that technology as soon as possible. On the other hand...as mentioned, it will still never fully account for human error or inattention to the surroundings. Overall I think it's probably a good thing because a) it just may work, and b) it will raise the bar for other domestic automakers. Ford can always say they were first to have them, before the gov't. rules kicked in, and that's a nice opportunity for advertising. Lord knows Ford needs something in its corner right now.
Some of the new technology in the pipeline is amazing. I think it's Lexus has a system that will "pre-charge" the brake system if its onboard radar detects a crash is iminent. Mercedes goes one better - they have a system that actually applies the brakes. Of course the driver will also hit the pedal, but even if they don't, if 40% of total stopping power is sufficient to stop the car the car can do so without driver intervention.
That being said, I dunno if the government should be mandating things like that, especially while ABS is still optional. It's like mandating power steering.
Eric: Ford may be able to claim first, but their competitors would probably be quick to point out that the legislation is probably very closely related to the Firestone/Explorer fisaco (much like the mandatd tire pressure monitoring system) :D
Welcome to the nanny-state. :p
"but when the average new car weight is around 4000 lbs., and even more for SUV's and trucks, and with 250+ hp engines as standard, then something has to be done to help control the inertia of these vehicles."
How about 14" front brakes with 4 piston calipers:pbb: Traction control really does nothing to help a lateral stability problem. It only aids in preventing accelleration wheel spin. What an SUV would need would be some type of active stability management.
But none of it should be government mandated. If the people want it they'll buy it and the automakers would sell it... I just dont think TCS or ASM is really high on the consumers priority list if they could get the same vehicle cheaper without that stuff... That is unless the insurance industry offered some nice incentives that would offset the initial cost.
I just hate it when 'big brother' gets involved.
My insurance company offers an incentive for traction control. When I applied for it, they asked if the car had ABS and TCS. Because of that my Grand Prix falls into the Vehicle Safety Discount.
Lexus and Mercedes might have some cutting edge systems, but what about the Vovlo XC90. You cannot roll it under normal cirspoogestances. And have we forgotten about the AdvanceTrac system? That is one amazing stability control system. The newer Explorers, like the XC90, can't be rolled. Now if u jump it, or bank it off a mountain side, or turn full lock at 60 mph, maybe. But AdvanceTrac will prevent, not aid in avoiding, a rollover. It goes beyond controling power distribution. It will indepentantly brake each wheel depending on the conditions it detects. If the yaw rate sensor and/or lateral accelerometer dectect an iminent rollover, it will take action to plant the vehicle on all four wheels. This system is will do everything short of steering the vehicle back to the ground, if any of the wheels do leave the ground. Ford has one hell of a system in the AdvanceTrac, but nobody knows about it. I feel it should be standard on all of their SUV's regardless of price. These SUV's are so massive it would be very costly in the future to go on with AdvanceTrac being a topshelf, only for the rich product.
As far as mandating some kind of system. That's fine with me. It's smart. What should be done first, though, is remove the major distractions that cause the accidents; Cell phones, strict enforcement of LCD screens in the driver's vision, visor attactments, dangling mirror decorations, and so on. Another thing about the mandatory TC issue, most cars with any kind of power have some system in place already as standard equipment. This would only affect the cheap line of vehicles, which get into the most accidents anyway. But seriously, who cares if they MUST be installed in every vehicle on the road, is it that different from Airbags? Active Seatbelts? Safety Glass? If it bothers someone that much, they can always turn it off....or if switches become banned....fuses can be removed. It's not that big a deal to have something like this mandated.
Oh and if the government never got involved....LA would be uninhabitable, SPF90 would be as routine as deodorant, cars would have no doors, rust everywhere, no exhaust, no windows, bald tires and such, seatbelts would never be worn, drunk driver fatalities would be up 10 fold, etc... As long as they don't monitor my every move and fine me everytime my car sneaks above the speedlimit or shut my car down the instant my CEL comes on, I don't care what they do.
Take brakes away period. Survival of the fittest.
So do you use an anchor when you get to your destination or just crash into a brick wall?:grinno:
This country is WAY too concerned with not offending anyone to the point of it would rather not offend and live with a dngerous situation than to offend and have the problem go away.
Guess what? Most accidents are caused by human error. Nobody's perfect, but if more attention was payed on the roads - especially in bad weather - it would help.
Agreed..............
Be a good idea to train people to properly operate a vehicle instead of mandating "skill" be built into the car
The thing is though...there have been idiots that should not be behind the wheel of a vehicle since its conception and there will be those same types behind the wheel as long as humans are driving. All these new advances in saftey dont just save the idiot driver in their vehicle but the innocent folks that get hurt and killed because of careless drivers everyday! We can never prevent these drivers from changing their bad driving habits no matter what laws are implemented but we can save other lives with vehicles that are smarter than the driver in it.
anybody rember the movie demolition man, with silvester stalone? all this stuff reminds me of that... i fear that before i die, i will have to dress up to eat out at taco bell, and be driving a car that i have to talk to. we will get ticketed for cursing because there arnt any auto accidents anymore sence everything is automated and the police have nothing better to do and become puss's.
Not pro or con, But I must be the only one here old enough to remember these same comments about seat belts. Yet who feels safe driving agressively without them.
Well first off did any one talk to the tire companys about this. Just think how this cold affect there sales from people not being able to do a burnout. Also if it makes us have to put up and live with the dumbasses longer it can't be a good idea. Besides why would uncle sam be interested in keeping us safe it all boils down the insurance companys not wanting to pay out as much money. So they bought uncle sam to be on there side. That way they can have more money to line there pockets. Wcarney I'm old enough to remeber the seat belt thing. And to answer you I feel safe with out my seatbelt while agressive driving. Hell I don't normally wear one any way. I think it is rediculous to have to wear one to save the insurance companys money. They take enough from me every. If they had there way we would be driving around in big ole bubbles just so they could keep all of our money. I guess they won't get it untill the make it so safe they put themselves out of busniess. Kinda like that gum comercial were the gum flavor last so long. When are we gonna make uncle sam do things that are good for us not the big corporations.
Let me get this straight. You think that seat belt laws only exist to save insurance companies money
by lessening your injuries in a crash.
You get fewer injuries. They save money. And Uncle Sam is the asshole for saving your ass. But in the end,
you get fewer injuries. Is that what you're saying? I just wanna make sure I read that foolishness correctly...
WOW! I can not believe what I just read, I guess some people would much rather fly through a windshield:shakehead
Ever seen a projectile human after impact before? They're usually DEAD!
Yep that is what I said. It just rubs me the wrong way that the whole seatbelt deal came around and was made into a law because the insurance companies lobbied to make it that way. Uncle sam didn't do this for us it all started to save those companies money. Yes they do save you from injuries. But the Idea that something is a law to mainly save the big company $$$ is total . If they were really interested in saving injuries they would have made it a law way back in the days of the Tucker. They new then that the seatbelts saved people. But what whappend they got put out of busniess by the big 3. Uncle sam didn't do any thing but let it happen. Why you might ask because because if they didn't the big 3 would have lost there ass. And that mean lees campain contrabutions for the politictions So yes those belt do you some good but the main reason cars are safer is to save those companies money. Not to protect you and me. So Yes I think it is bull. That would be like me getting you something to make you safe but the only reason that I did it was so I could profit from it. I wasn't looking out for you I am looking out for my wallet. That alone tells me that money is more important than our safety. So put that in you pipe and smoke it! LOL
That rant just makes it even stupider. Somebody trying to save your life is evil because they might make money from it? You'd better close all the drug companies and hospitals and while you're about it, fire all the doctors and surgeons too, because they get paid pretty good too. Don't let's forget policemen - they keep the streets safe but get paid for it. Sorry, Paul, you're fired. And the factories that make X-Ray machines, CAT scanners, and all other medical equipment should all be closed down. They do, after all, make money by saving lives.
And what, exactly, are you trying to say about the seat belt thing not becoming law in the 50's? Are you saying it'd be OK if it had happened then, but because they happened later they're not OK?
How about children? Do you think it's OK to endanger the life of a child so that you might increase the risk to an insurance company? And if you don't, do you think it's intelligent to put yourself at a risk that you would not subject your child to? A risk that you acknowledge, but only accept because in your twisted way it hurts insurance companies more than it hurts you?
Just one more time, so I have it perfectly clear: After admitting it yourself that seatbelts save people, you are purposefully trying to increase your own personal risk in the hope that you'll cost insurance companies money. Never mind the fact that wearing seatbelts is a good idea, you're not doing it because somebody told you to. You'll be dead or in a wheelchair, but by God, those awful insurance companies would pay for it! So if you're standing on train tracks and a train is coming, and your life insurance agent told you to get off the tracks, would you stick your tongue out at him and let the train hit you?
Let me tell you this: Insurance companies have the choice to accept risk. If they thought the only reason for having seat belt laws was to save them money they'd simply put a clause in your insurance that states that if you aren't wearing a seat belt at the time of an accident you are denied your claim. Not paying idiots who would rather fly through a windshield (or a broken sunroof, or a broken side window, or wherever inertia decides to throw them) millions of dollars for their stupidity - now THAT would save them money. They would be perfectly within their rights to do so, and it would be pretty hard to find an argument against it in court. They won't pay you if your car is stolen because you left the keys in it, so why should they pay you if your neck is broken because you didn't buckle up? In fact, they could go one further and drop your policy if you get a seatbelt ticket, just like they do if you get caught DUI. It would be perfectly reasonable for them to do so, especially since they've got Washington and the NHTSA wrapped around their collective fingers.
I rather think you've already had something in your pipe and smoked it. Sometimes I think the only thing stupider than a stupid idea are the stupid things said to justify it...
I buckle up everytime I'm in a car. I was in a rear end accident once. I was the front passenger and we slammed into an Envoy. We hit so hard it flung the rear of the car 3/4 of the way into the other lane. No doubt that belt saved me from injury or even my life. I guess I was helping the insurance company out by not having them pay for an extended hospital stay. I didn't feel like saving them money. I felt like living another day. Luckily we all walked away from that accident. It sickens me to read about people, even in our own community here, that think the seatbelt law is a sham, a joke, a marketing ploy to save companies with millions of dollars in assets a few thousand dollars per victim. It's a law for a reason, not because the government has the power to do so. The people in power, making these laws have a brain. They are in power for a reason, they aren't like the average person, who could care less about anyone but themselves. They know it works to benefit society as a whole.
Oh by the way, if the seatbelt law is all about saving money, someone should inform the insurance companies about the cost of replacing new vehicle airbag systems. They'd repeal the Dual Airbag law in a flash and replace it with a Maximum of 2 Airbags per vehicle instead of a Minimum of 2.
Why can't we decide whether or not to buckle up?
well i dont mean to step on toes or any thing but, i hate when people say seat belts save lives. I have a buddy who was a in a bad accident. He fell asleep at the wheel and fliped and rolled his car several times he was ejected from the car doctors and surgens said if he had been wearing his seat belt he would have died. I saw the car and it stood from wheels to roof a lil over 2 feet high. the only reason he flew out was cause it was t top. sorry just had to vent
well now that i read all the post i would like to post again.
i do think its a good idea to make cars safer, but i am unsure about some things they do. i mean i feel like my freedoms are being taken from me. i dont have the freedom to choose to wear my seat belt or not i wear it but i dont like it simply because it is uncomfortable. and couldnt they have done other things rather then make seat belts mandatory. uh eating while drivng messing with the radio talking on the phone site seeing while driving and i heard from some one that putting on make up while drivng is the equivalant to driving drunk. what about the tvs in the cars i mean they are a distraction to you and any one in other cars who can see them i just think they could do away witha lot more but even if they did it would still be taking away a freedom to do some thing. but i guess every one will never be happy with whats going on just got to grin and bere it all.
...And for every "If he'd been wearing his seatbelt he'd have died" story there are a thousand "If he'd have been wearing his seatbelt he'd have
lived" stories. I, personally, have lived through several accidents (in particular, one involving a Dodge Ramcharger and a dump truck, another involving a Cougar and an eighteen wheeler) in which had I not been buckled up I'd have at least been injured, if not killed. My sister T-boned a Dodge Caravan in her Cavalier - the seat belt broke her collarbone, but the mounties said that had she not been wearing it she'd have gone through the windshield, where she very likely would have died (which makes sense - if she was pressed against that belt hard enough to break a bone she obviously would have been thrown with great force). Your argument is invalid.
I do agree that people should actualy pay attention to what they are doing behind the wheel, but we all know that this is not going to happen. The problem with using this logic to argue against seat belt laws is that you're trying to prevent accidents (a good thing) but seat belt laws try to make you safer once the accident has happened (also a good thing). Even if you are the most careful driver in the world there's always that SUV driver gabbing on his cell phone that could punt you off the road, or cross the yellow line and hit you head on, or run a stop sign and broadside you (or you broadside him), and so on. Even taking the other driver out of the picture, there are dogs, deer and children running out in front of you, road debris, ice/snow, mechanical failures, tire blowouts, and dozens of other potential hazards. As long as there are cars there will be collisions, and seat belts are there to help you in that regard, no matter how careful you yourself are. Then again, if you're fool enough to not wear a seat belt you couldn't possibly be the most careful driver in the world now, could you?
BTW, taking away freedoms behind the wheel in the name of public safety is not a new thing. You are not free to drive drunk, for example, because your freedom to drive drunk is not as important as my freedom to not have the roads full of drunk drivers. Your freedom to travel 80MPH through a school zone is not as important as a child's safety. Even outside of driving: Your freedom to steal my car is not as important as my freedom to keep my belongings safe. Most laws take away a small freedom to provide the greater population with a larger freedom (or safety). All freedoms come with a cost, and that cost is responsibility. In the case of gabbing on a cell phone while driving, your responsibility for the accident you cause will be paying for the car you hit, your own car, and the other person's medical expenses.
Back in the days of the Tucker, there weren't kids runnin' around in 200 horsepower Turbocoupes and Civics that were smartass, and think they know it all. Much less admitted on a public forum they drive stupidly AND admit they pretty much don't give a f*ck about their own safety.
Thats why they made seatbelt use all but mandatory in the 90's.
It stands to reason that out of 40 million drivers, a few are going to have accidents. Yes it's true seatbelts won't save EVER one of them, they WILL save more people that wear em, than ones that don't.
Like most people will agree (i hope :grinno:) it may be the law, but if you want to drive like an ass, and not wear a 'belt, well, that's your choice, even if it's the law. Just when you're crippled or maimed for life, I for one am NOT gonna sit and listen to anyone bitch about how they were not at fault, or wasn't paying attention, or whatever. Just try not to take any innocent people with ya...
sorry for the rant, but after losing a brother almost a year ago in a car accident, i felt like saying something.
ps: if you don't think about yourself, then think at least about your brother, your mother, your father....think about those that will suffer....f*ck that...just THINK!
ohhh...and the topic at issue...
I think Ford should at least make it an option, but not mandatory...
Then again, i also think Big Brother is getting WAY too involved in our transportation...just my ranting, sorry folks!, have a great day!
Well it all comes down to this for me. I don't like be forced to do anything. I should have the right to pick what I can do as long as I don't violate your rights. So if I don't wear myseat belt I'm the one that pays for it. Like I have said before they are making me do it for the wrong reasons.
Also why should they take away your right to do a smokey burnout just because some other dumb ass doesn't know how to drive. Isn't this the U.S.A where I live? Isn't it a free country? So wear or don't wear you seat belt. I'm not gonna tell you witch to do. Because you should have the right to choose witchever you want. Wearing a seatbelt is way different than driving drunk. Driving drunk you aren't in contorl of the car so you are more likely to cause an accident. That would violate my rights to have a safe road to drive on. But I you don't wear you seatbelt who is hurt besides you.
Also if they made it harder to get a driver license. They should have some sort of madatory driving test you have to pass. Showing you have the ability to drive the car you have there for the test. Not just turn left, turn right, park on a hill, parallel park, then OK here is your license. Need to have more of an intese driving challenge you have to pass.
So once again you're using the "I know seat belts could save my life but I ain't wearing 'em because somebody's telling me to" argument. This almost makes me wonder if you've already bashed your head on the windshield.
Who is hurt besides you? How 'bout the other passengers in your car, when as the vehicle starts to roll over you become and unbelted 200-pound blender? Ask my mother about this, who was injuured by my unbelted father hitting her in a crash in Maine about 25 years ago. In the car alone? Here in Canada where our taxes pay for health care, every person that pays taxes is hurt when doctors have to put people back together for acts of stupidity. Down there in the USA somebody has to pay for the medical bills. Somebody pays for the long-term care of a quadripelegic that sailed through a windshield. Not hard to see why insurance companies are trying to save your ass now, is it? And somebody has to take care of the person for the rest of their lives (or bury them). Then there's the police/ambulance costs, the unnecessary burden on already overcrowded ER's and hospitals...
And you think you should have the right to do smokey burnouts on public roads? Aside from the fact that regardless of what you may think, smokey burnouts are considered careless operation of a car, and regardless of the fact that they cause unnecessary wear and tear on paved surfaces, and regardless of the fact that they generate plenty of noise, odour and pollution that your neighbours shouldn't have to put up with, please explain to me how you should have the right to stand on your brakes and gas to show off to your buddies?
Burnouts at a drag strip are one thing - everybody there accepts a certain risk when they enter the races or even attend them. Race tracks have emergency personnel handy for when things go wrong. Doing it on public streets creates risk that others have not acceoted (nor may they even be aware of it). That's why you're not allowed to do it.
I think you've proven that one doesn't need a great degree of intelligence to drive in MO...
Glad I am going out west soon! :flip: :giggle:
I'm all for the traction control on the cars except the way Ford does it now. I had an 01 Focus with traction control and when it kicked in you wouldn't move. It would cu the fuel off in 2 of the 4 cyclinders. If they would do it the way Chevy does it with the ABS brakes kicking in when it starts to slip that would be much better.
As for the seat belt thing. I'm 50/50 on when I wear mine if I'm going just down the block I just hop in and go. If I'm going to be driving long distance the belt goes on. And this argument can spil over into the motorcycles too. If you had a motorcycle would you ware a helmet. I know I would with out thinking twice. Its not a law in IL the you have to ware them. Would you ware one?
Yes, I certainly would. It's law here in NS, but one time on a motorcycle trip to Maine I took a little ride without one just to see what it would be like. Hated it - I was so paranoid, plus the bugs and wind near blinded me. I wasn't long in pulling over and putting my helmet on...
This wasn't aimed at you personaly. I was making a statement because the ipsd said its a law to help the insurance company pad there pockets and not pay out.
I can totally understand about not wearing seat belts. When I got my first Cougar in '87, it was about that time that the U.S. government started to literally blackmail the states. If the states did not raise the legal drinking age from 18 to 21, AND if the states did not create and enforce seat belt usage, then the goverment threatened to cut off all funding for the interstate highways and state/local routes. At this point I'm 17-18 years old, got my first car, and just as I become an adult (well, okay, physically anyhow LOL), these authoritative demands are unleashed on the state of Ohio, then ultimately trickle down to me. I get screwed out of buying beer, and I get forced into seat belts, at the same time. Welcome to adulthood, Eric.
Fortunately (and surprisingly), at that time the state of Ohio opted for a law where you couldn't get pulled over simply for not wearing your seat belt, but if you were pulled over for something else and the officer noticed your belt was not on, then you could get nailed for it. Oh, and they nailed people left and right. But it sure felt optional. And to be honest, I felt perfectly safe in my Cougar copuppies. I knew these were good, solid cars, built with better safety standards than most other cars at the time, and I trusted my abilities and judgment.
Unfortunately...life doesn't work like that. It's the other vehicles that screw up that perfectly logical ideal. When the clouds open up, the angels start singing, and you finally have the epiphany that the seat belt is the only thing that prevents you from flying through the windshield in a moving collision, then you have second thoughts about not wearing one. It took probably 6-7 years before I started to wear it all the time. Yeah, I was young and rebellious, and more than a little resentful at the state and federal governments for their B.S. political moves. But I got over it--and luckily, without incident. Now it's just a routine thing. The only thing that makes seat belts interesting now is the broken-latch syndrome on the Fox cars. ;)
I'd wear a helmet on a motorcycle as well. I haven't the time nor bike to get my permit yet. But I know one thing, when they repealed the helmet law here in PA....a whooollllee lot of people died within a week. Did they get what they deserved? Not really...more like it was a slap in the state's face for thinking it was a smart move. Back when it was first repealed, I saw almost every biker without a helmet. Now it's only a few brave souls who I guess are out to prove something.
It is such a sad thing to only see change, official or not, come after multiple casualties occur.
I have no problem wearing a seat belt, and if I were into motorcycles I would also wear a helmet.. but I don't care for laws TELLING me to do it. If I should want to remove myself from the gene pool by not wearing a seat belt and just driving until something happens, what business is it of theirs? That's between myself and the people I'm close to.
"But wait," you might say, "you were just supporting the other thread where California was suing the auto manufacturers for their part in global warming! I thought you generally wanted less government interference!".. well yes, I do sort of support it.. but that's litigation, not legislation. Given the two, as much as I dislike the whole lawyer-centric direction of society, I'll take the former.. and it's also against corporations and not individuals. It's also not being done with any significant amount of my money. :p (I may eat the occasional California navel orange, but that's about it. I don't watch movies, I don't buy DVDs of movies, and I don't drink wine.. so that pretty much covers the main sources of income I can think of for CA off the top of my head) Hey, I never said my opinions were perfect.. :p
Back to the topic: I don't think I would have as much of a problem with some of the somewhat passive nanny-state shiznit like mandatory airbags and traction control and ABS if they would put some more money into lightening these vehicles at the same time. New materials research, etc. I think it's sad how bloated these cars are becoming. I'm starting to think people should need a CDL to drive some of the bigger SUVs.
So let me get this stright Thunder chicken! So because I voice my opinion here and told you the basic run down of the Missouri driving part of the test you are saying that I'm uninteligent? I guess I should start calling you names for wearing your seat belt or having your opinion that they are just so GOOD. I think you have to much time on your hands. Maybe you should go ahead and vote and take everyone rights away just so no one could get hurt. So all in all I stick by my words I'll do what I want. So if you wanna do everything they tell you have a nice lame life. So say what you want and type in response to this until your fingers bleed. I don't really care what you say about me. You obviously don't care about my right to have an opinion so why should I care about yours.
Just to set the record stright I do drive defensively and not like a maniac. But I choose not to wear my seat belt so that makes me a bad person. OK I can live with that. So have fun I'm outty this thread.
No, ipsd, I did not say you are unintelligent because of MO's driving test requirements. I said you are unintelligent because you said you think you should have the right to do smokey burnouts on public roads and do whatever you want.
The reasoning you gave for not wearing a seat belt is another reason I called you unintelligent. There may be hundreds of legitimate reasons for you to not wear your seat belt (There was a period after my car accident that I didn't wear mine because it was uncomfortable on my injured shoulder, and my sister had the same after hers because of her broken collarbone), but "Because I don't want to save insurance companies money" and "Because they told me to" are just plain stupid. Even a simple "Because I don't like it" would have been better than that. You even acknowledge that it's safe to wear them but cut your nose off to spite your face because you're told to do it. Using your same logic, the government tells you to drive on the right side of the road. Are you now going to drive on the left because they told you otherwise?
Now, as for your "It's my God-given right to do whatever I want" attitude: Sorry to break this to you, but it is not. Driving is not a right, as any DMV or policeman would be more than happy to tell you. When you get your driving license it is under the condition that you will abide by the laws of the road, whether you agree with them or not. If you break those rules you lose the privlege to drive. It is quite as simple as that.
Now, whether you chose to be "outty this thread" or not is your own choice. Take your toys and go home. Just please don't go trying to justify a stupid position (and since you acklowledge that seatbelts are safe surely you acknowledge that not wearing them is stupid) with even stupider reasons.
Who do you ask to lock the thread when the admin is doing half the arguing..? :p
, I'm just glad I didn't start this one. :shakeass:
I always wear a helmet when I ride. From my freinds 50cc to my streetbike-thing, I always wear one. It is personal choice but nce you drop one, you'll thank got you had it on.
Yeah, but the Admin makes valid points, vs. a buncha selfish "opinions"...
Myself, i'd rather save the money for the ticket, and quite possibly my life...I guess when ipsd buries as many friends and family as I have due to car wrecks and no seatbelts...well, then maybe he'll change his tune.
It may be your right to you OPINION, but it is also the law...I think if the state made seatbelt violations into moving violations, or more than just a misdemeanor...it might do some good.
Wanna see a good argument that belts save lives? google it.
Look at all the traffic fatalities...almost ALL are from unbuckled motorists...
Sorry, Carmen, for keeping a nearly worthless (and TOTALLY hijacked) thread going, but by God, some people just don't know how lucky they are to be alive.
And as far as freedom goes...yeah, you got some freedoms. Freedom to knowingly break a law that was made to save taxpayer money is not one of them. The more I think about it, the more pissed off I get.
You're free to voice you opinion, and with that said, i'm climbin' off my soapbox.:nkhk:
"It's the law" is the part I don't like.
Personally, I have no problems wearing a seat belt every time I drive further than the end of my driveway. But if someone else wants to risk their lives, that's between them and the people that care about them. Not me, not the government, not some random opinionated person with no other connection to that person's life. I realize it's generally the christian way to meddle in other people's lives, but come on..
[SIZE="1"](and yes, I deliberately threw that last line in there to give even more reason to lock the thread)[/SIZE]
Naww, I ain't gonna lock it. It wouldn't be fair, and would be an abuse of admin powers to lock a thread simply because I don't agree with what's being said in it. If Chuck (the thread starter) wants it locked because it's been hopelessly derailed I'll do it, but I'm not about to go closing threads because people are arguing with me. I called him stupid, he called me stupid, so we're square. I'm not about to flex my admin muscles (the only muscles I have, BTW) in order to win an argument...
I was joking, really. I know we could always ask someone else to lock it. :p
And yes, I figured you for the type that wouldn't just lock a thread to get the last word in a situation like this. (or would avoid locking the thread to avoid the appearance of foul play) That probably didn't come out the way I intended it, but it was meant as a positive statement.
I wouldn't mind not seeing this post pop up whenever I click "New Posts" :D
If it saves lives.............. I don't see the problem here. There always have been and always will be sketchy drivers on the road. I bet this kind of discussion was had a lot when seat belts were made mandatory. And ABS. A lot of people don't like ABS because you're leaving a skill in the hands of the car. The fact is, ABS cars stop shorter in panic stops, when 95% of drivers would lock the brakes. Airbags?
It has pretty much happened already. Almost every vehicle over $15G has some sort of stability/traction control already. Besides, with performance cars, you can disable these functions when you don't want them.
It's just the next natural Nader step.
Carm-
Well I stopped reading this a while ago...but if it's derailled into nonsense, feel free to put the lock on it.
Mmmmkay...will do....