Re: Deaths up since Florida helmet law repealed

Grumman-581 wrote:
> James Connell wrote:
>
>>But a helmet prevents sticking a cell phone in your ear.
>
>
> Depends upon the type of helmet...

Not that I'd argue with all the rest but....
you missed the sarcasm.

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:z3yKe.31$_T5.1830@news.uswest.net...
>
> ""Magilla"" <cavey_curtis@$$ yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ruwKe.86027$5N3.80708@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Scott" wrote
> >
> > > Head injuries are the leading cause of death in car wrecks too, but no
> one
> > > is pushing a helmet law for drivers.
> >
> > Maybe because head injuries was also the leading cause of political
> > injuries last administration? Then again, the mandatory wearing of the
> > tin-foil caps......
>
> Creates morons with the right to vote.
>
> Lets legislate willful liars.
>
> The left would be decimated.

90% of government would be decimated. The other 10% aren't willful liars,
they're just ignorant of the truth.

"Joe English" <jenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
news:f09e6$42fb369a$ce504822$31761@allthenewsgroup s.com...

> NUmber 1 reason for seat belts - money, and allowing police to stop and
> issue you a ticket and get their nose in your car and in your business -
> nothing to do with safety

Again, cite?

Seatbelts were required to be installed in cars long before they were
required to be worn. So since it wasn't about cops stopping you back then,
are you saying that some really powerful manufacturers of seatbelt webbing
and buckles lobbied the government to require seatbelts in cars even though
they have no proven safety value? And then what about all the statistics
that clearly show that seatbelts save lives - more leftist propaganda to
dismiss?

Sometimes I just don't understand you, Joe. Actually, most times I don't
understand you.

Chris Guynn wrote:

> I mean, if the insurance companies aren't going to
> pay claims where the people aren't wearing seatbelts anyway, what difference
> does it make. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that it would increase
> the payouts the insurance companies have to make by increasing the number of
> people who wear seatbelts.

Insurance companies deny legitimate claims all the time. A few people may drop the
matter, but mostly it just lets them keep the money a little longer. As for denying a
claim based on not wearing a seatbelt, my mother worked for a lawyer most of her life
but stopped years before seatbelt laws were enacted. IIRC, even in the 70's failure
to wear a seatbelt could reduce a settlement, because it essentially means you
volunteered to be injured more than if you'd used the safety equipment available in
your car.


--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.

Thus spake Steve <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> :

>
>
>Grumman-581 wrote:
>
>
>> And helmets in cars would prevent more... You don't see that many race
>> car drivers killed in all the wrecks that they have and they don't have
>> air bags... They have helmets and good restraint systems... Probably
>> cheaper than air bags also...
>
>Helmets would save a few drivers, but in most crashes severe enough to cause a fatal
>head injury a helmet would probably just mean dying of chest trauma instead. Good
>restraint systems and a real roll cage would probably do a shitload more for safety
>than helmets. Having the average driver be half as skilled as the lowliest rookie on
>the track would do even more.

I'd love to have a good 5 point harness in my car. But, surprise,
they're not DOT certified and thus not legal. The 1980's Ferrari GTO
255 had a four point harness, but also had a lap & shoulder strap to
make it legal in the US.

I know several people driving cars around town with cages. A friend
drives his Spec Miata to work on occasion.

I saw a quote once on one of the rec.aviation NG.

"If drivers were regulated like pilots, we'd have better drivers and
fewer of them."

--
dillon

Pain is Nature's way of saying "that was stupid"

Thus spake Joe English <jenglish@wisperhome.com> :

>Greg Mossman wrote:
>
>> "Joe English" <jenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
>> news:2cf08$42fabbab$ce504822$26519@allthenewsgroup s.com...
>>
>>
>>>The seat belt law(enacted here long before Bush) is just another way for
>>>the cops to stick their nose into your car
>>
>>
>> Perhaps, but that still doesn't mean it's about the money. Any criminal
>> dumb enough to get caught for not wearing a seatbelt deserves to get caught.
>>
>> And of course it was enacted long before Bush. Seat belts, like other
>> safety devices, cost the automakers money and they aren't great selling
>> points. Bush, the corporate kiss-ass that he is, would never sacrifice
>> corporate profits for the sake of public safety.
>>
>>
>NUmber 1 reason for seat belts - money, and allowing police to stop and
>issue you a ticket and get their nose in your car and in your business -
>nothing to do with safety

For all intents and purposes, seat belt laws are a primary offense
twice a year, Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day weekend. The "click
it or ticket" campaigns.

If you're going to have a law, enforce it or get it off the books. I
wear my seat belts because I want to, not because of any law.

--
dillon

Pain is Nature's way of saying "that was stupid"

Thus spake "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> :

>
>"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:z3yKe.31$_T5.1830@news.uswest.net...
>>
>> ""Magilla"" <cavey_curtis@$$ yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ruwKe.86027$5N3.80708@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >
>> > "Scott" wrote
>> >
>> > > Head injuries are the leading cause of death in car wrecks too, but no
>> one
>> > > is pushing a helmet law for drivers.
>> >
>> > Maybe because head injuries was also the leading cause of political
>> > injuries last administration? Then again, the mandatory wearing of the
>> > tin-foil caps......
>>
>> Creates morons with the right to vote.
>>
>> Lets legislate willful liars.
>>
>> The left would be decimated.
>
>90% of government would be decimated. The other 10% aren't willful liars,
>they're just ignorant of the truth.
>

You mean 10% would be decimated (that being the actual meaning of the
word). And the number would be closer to 50%. The remainder are
idiots of all stripes. Smart people stay out of politics, at least in
the front.

--
dillon

Pain is Nature's way of saying "that was stupid"

Greg Mossman wrote:
> "Joe English" <jenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
> news:f09e6$42fb369a$ce504822$31761@allthenewsgroup s.com...
>
>
>>NUmber 1 reason for seat belts - money, and allowing police to stop and
>>issue you a ticket and get their nose in your car and in your business -
>>nothing to do with safety
>
>
> Again, cite?
>
> Seatbelts were required to be installed in cars long before they were
> required to be worn. So since it wasn't about cops stopping you back then,
> are you saying that some really powerful manufacturers of seatbelt webbing
> and buckles lobbied the government to require seatbelts in cars even though
> they have no proven safety value? And then what about all the statistics
> that clearly show that seatbelts save lives - more leftist propaganda to
> dismiss?
>
> Sometimes I just don't understand you, Joe. Actually, most times I don't
> understand you.
>
>
I will take that as a complete compliment