Seat Belt Laws - Page 9

View Poll Results: Do you have IT Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity planning?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • We have IT DR planning

    9 81.82%
  • We have global Business Continuity planning

    4 36.36%
  • We have NO IT DR planning

    1 9.09%
  • We have NO BC planning

    0 0%
  • We are evaluating an IT DR plan.

    2 18.18%
  • We are evaluating a BC plan

    1 9.09%
  • Insurance is good enough

    0 0%
  • We have another site(s) that will take over

    3 27.27%
  • This won't happen to us

    1 9.09%
  • Our emergency personnel will protect us

    1 9.09%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 88 of 88

Thread: Seat Belt Laws

  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    dalek: While accidents in newer cars look worse they are less damaging to the ocupints. New frames are designed to crumple along the impact and transfer that energy around he drivers compartment so very little of the force is transferd. In old cars the frame was brittle and the full ofrce of the impact was transfered to the occupants of the car.

    I think I agree with RCGreen on this topic...i guess there is a first for every thing.

    For me what it comes down to is pure selfish monitary interests, fatalities in auto accidents raise insurance rates accross the board, so by not wearing your seat bealt you are activly hurting me. (same view i take on smoking, well that and the fact that when you smoke you are giving me cancer)
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  2. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    450
    Sorry if this crosses over anyone elses post, I haven't had the time to go through all of them.

    Here is my take on the subject of seat belt, helmet laws et al - get rid of them. This may sound strange coming from a law enforcement officer - but allow me a little lateral thinking here.

    Firstly, the respective government of the day has the right, no, the duty to enforce makers of products such as vehicles, helmets, bicycles or whatever, to produce a product that is inherently safe - that is to say, it is manufactured to strict safety standards & guidelines that include the fitting of seat belts, safety equipment etc. Like an employer has the responsibility to provide a safe workplace, governments and product manufacturers have that same responsibility to the general public.

    Now, the end user should not be forced to utilise these features by way of punitive action (fines, citations etc) as this has obviously proved ineffective as people keep getting fines every day. Some are quite happy to pay their little fine as a snub to authority, the government or whatever cause they happen to be supporting this week.

    My alternative solution is this, you, as a free spiritied and free thinking adult, wish to operate the said vehicle fitted with safety equipment (seat belts), without using them or ride that motorcycle without that helmet, go for it, its your life, its your choice....................... but wait there is a little catch;

    ... if you are injured whilst operating the said vehicle and it is proved you did not utilise the personal safety equipment provided (at great expense) to you, you waiver all rights to claim against the State and/or any subsequent insurance company for injuries suffered. So the bottom line is, YOU risk YOUR family house, childrens education and everything YOU own through your own stubborn bloody-mindness not to ensure YOUR own safety. Don't scream ignorance, YOU were taught about this equipment when you got your licence, permit to operate the thing !!!! If you dont own anything - well things are looking very bleak indeed - chances are you never will either !!

    It would only take for one or two well publicised cases and bingo - throw out all that expensive traffic enforcement campaign propoganda and people would start seriously taking charge of their own safety, which, is the fundamental principle in most Occupational Safety & Health situation around the world, why should this be different?.

    Think about this, if the seat belt proved to malfunction either through breakage or trapping the victim in the car and it subsequently led to that persons death or further injury - would the family not have every right and grounds to sue the backside off the belt manufacturer and car maker that installed it ? Too bloody right they would.

    So why should the reverse not be the same for government (read tax payers) and insurance companies, "we provided the equipment, you chose not to use it, whats your complaint?, why should we (the tax payers, insurance) pay for that nurse to wipe the dribble from your chin, spoon feed you and take you to the toilet for the rest of your days ?." Once your money runs out its the very basic of care for you Sonny Jim, you become an extremely low priority, we will provide the necessities of life, nothing less, nothing more. Oh, by the way, your family, yeah those ones living in abject poverty under the bridge across the way, they send their thanks and love..... not !

    The reverse is this, you used our equipment, this is a tragedy you have been so injured - as you took every precaution for this not to happen let us provide for you and your family in every way possible Mr. Responsible Citizen.

    As seat belts have proved to have saved more lives than they have cost, hashing over statistics is irrelevant.

    On matters of the use of provided personal safety equipment, be it in cars, motorbikes, hanggliders, boats, whatever - throw the responsibility right back onto the individual where it belongs - make your choice, reap the consequences - both the good and the bad, but don't whinge if you get it wrong.

    Anyway, enough ravings - must run, off to a First Aid Course teaching me how to save the lives of idiots who dont wear seat belts !!

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Phat_Penguin: Interesting thoery, but without a mountian of legal paper work it wouldn't fly. Even if it was clearly stated that your insurnce didn't cover you if you where not wearing your seatbealt people would sue the insurance providers and then all of our rates would go up.

    Face it not wearing a seat bealt is not a victemles crime, you are activly stealign money from me when you drive without a seatbealt on.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  4. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    450
    LOL bballad ..... never said I was running for office .... yeah there would be a mountain of legal paperwork, but isn't that indicative of our over regulated, legistated, protected societies we live in .... sad really when we need that much protection from ourselves !!

  5. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    One related question. How do you (any one) feel about manditory insurance laws?
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  6. #86
    The ******* Shadow dalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,564
    IMO they should not be legislated....the reason? too much collusion amongst the brokers and agencies when they set premium rates, as well as the requirements for insurance.

    If there were no laws on the books, there would not be a "Monopoly" and each provider would have to stay competitive, in order to chase the business and not the other way around (consumer looking for the best deals).

    Insurance would still be a must have thing though, otherwise be prepared to lose your shirt in a lawsuit.If I thought I was that good of a driver that I didn't need Auto Insurance, well it's a gamble right, if I cause an accident and I did not have insurance, then I would most likely lose any property I owned (house etc) as well as make restitution by paying for the repairs and or injuries, and I am sure that a small claims or a court of law would see to it I made restitution...

    This would be interesting, to see if the premiums would drop drastically if the agencies/brokers knew that because there is no longer a law telling me I must have insurance, that in order for them to survive they would have to woo me for my business, and not me beg around for the most economical insurance plan....

    Another problem I have with most of these agencies is that they take our premiums and play with them on the market, do we see any of the profits (reduced premiums,dividends) I think not, but let them take a hit (18 Months ago they took a beating, because of investments into places like Enron) and watch how fast your premiums increase, to cover their shortfalls....
    PC Registered user # 2,336,789,457...

    "When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."
    Claude Swanson

  7. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    332
    I agree with the laws stating you must have car insurance for the simple reason that it helps to make sure that if you hit someone that you are able to pay damages and restitutions. And no matter how good of a driver you are you may still accidently cause an accident, so many things can go wrong that you just cannot control ie. blown tire, brake line break, power stearing fluid leak as well as many others. Auto insurance, in my opinion, is there to protect other people from your negligence or misfortune, depending on wether or not you could have prevented the accident. This is why, at least where i live, you are only required to have liability insurance, any extra insurance you want is all up to you, as long as you have the liability to take care of the person you hit.

    I still maintain, however, that since the seat belt will not help the person you hit regardless of whether or not you were wearing it, unless as it has been brought up before you end up flying through a window and physically hitting the other cars passengers or someone else, it should not be mandatory.
    \"He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.\"
    Benjamin Franklin

  8. #88
    The ******* Shadow dalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,564
    I agree with the laws stating you must have car insurance for the simple reason that it helps to make sure that if you hit someone that you are able to pay damages and restitutions
    Hhhmm, you are "not" the only one paying....all policy holders share in the problem of "You" having the accident, that's why they have this big pool of money, and also why the premiums increase, is because those that habitually get into car accidents ensure the rest of us help him/her pay for the damages....

    It's snowing right now, and for a province that gets it's fair share of snow/ice on the roads, you would think people would learn, I can't believe the amount of people who still have summer tires on their cars or worn down "All-Season" tires, so naturally these idiots slide all over the place and end up smacking into the car in front (they never try to avoid by going up onto the sidewalk or shoulder, or even trying to straighten out of a skid, I wander how many drivers know how to?) and this increases the premiums, no-end, so because the "Law" states I must have insurance on my vehicle, the Insurance Companies have a ready made pool of money at their disposal, it's a win/win situation for them, don't be misled into believing their fairy tales about huge payouts, this is not true, if it were, they wouldn't be in business long.....

    Plus the story about increasing your deductables helps lower your premiums, is a crock as well, the fact you have a high deductable will only ensure that you won't report any damage below the deductable, because it is a double edged sword in that you pay out the deductable and then your insurer says right you got into an accident, we are going to raise your rates 25% so why bother reporting the damage, just suck it up and go to a mechanic/body shop and get the repairs done.(Espescially if the accident was your fault, so hopefully the other driver is of like mind and will accept cash )
    PC Registered user # 2,336,789,457...

    "When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."
    Claude Swanson

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides