Question for LEO’s

[Sylvain]

This is why it's better to keep your hammer above the visor. If you ever need it then it's right there. There isn't anything more secure than a visor. I do like to keep an anvil sitting in the back seat though, just in case I need the hammer.

You might think people are not stupid enough to keep a hammer on their dashboard but some people do.
I've seen people who keep those glass breaker hammers in their cup holder, unfastened.

Imagine getting hit in the face by that thing during a rollover at 50 mph.

Or people who have a big metal toolbox on the passenger seat.

 

[KokomoDave]

Weird thing is I don't wear a helmet in my car but have my seatbelt on riding my Fatbob. The anvil slows me down sure, nut the looks you get from the sparks flying off of it down the interstate is worth the price of admission!

 

[freekforge]

my dept requires us to wear our seat belt. its easy to sweep it away from all your gear after a bit of practice. when i ride in the passenger seat i still get hung up though. Even if we weren't required i would since our cars have the annoying dingers to remind you.

 

[MCgrease08]

I guess I never bothered to see if any I.C. codes covered this as I believe in Big Brother staying the heck out of people's lives just like in my moral code of 'sobriety checkpoints'. Just an intrusion on the rights of people to come and go w/o the Royal British stopping the colonists freedom of moving about.

While I'm not a big fan of sobriety check points, I'd certainly argue they don't prevent people from moving freely. There's no right for people to operate a vehicle while intoxicated.

Those that don't drink and drive tend to not get caught up in them.

 

[Dirtebiker]

I believe not wearing a seatbelt is dumb, but I am 100% against the state forcing us to do so!

Doug

I’m with you!
same as I don’t want anyone telling me to wear a helmet while riding motorcycles. MY business, MY choice!

 

[Dirtebiker]

While I'm not a big fan of sobriety check points, I'd certainly argue they don't prevent people from moving freely. There's no right for people to operate a vehicle while intoxicated.

Those that don't drink and drive tend to not get caught up in them.

Off the topic but checkpoints DO keep people from moving freely if it slows them down, makes them answer questions, or show papers.

 

[Benp]

Sobriety check points are more understandable for me because people shouldn't be driving while intoxicated or under the influence of any substance that could affect their judgment. I went through a checkpoint many years before and the police officer asked if I had anything to drink that evening, and I told him that I had a beer with my dinner earlier in the evening. He said "Just one?" I said "Yes sir." Then he had me to take a breathalyzer test. Then the got the results and said "Good man. Have a good evening."

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

Why would I shoot an old wife?

​Time for a new one?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

my dept requires us to wear our seat belt. its easy to sweep it away from all your gear after a bit of practice. when i ride in the passenger seat i still get hung up though. Even if we weren't required i would since our cars have the annoying dingers to remind you.

If you have Chargers, you can turn it off. Youtube has instructions. The dash light will still come on, but no audio warning.

 

[Benp]

If you have Chargers, you can turn it off. Youtube has instructions. The dash light will still come on, but no audio warning.

Will this void the warranty?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Will this void the warranty?

No. It's like resetting the oil change light. A series of button presses in a certain order.

You click and unclick the seat belt a certain number of times, press some control buttons. Do the same to turn it back on.

 

[KLB]

Sobriety check points are more understandable for me because people shouldn't be driving while intoxicated or under the influence of any substance that could affect their judgment. I went through a checkpoint many years before and the police officer asked if I had anything to drink that evening, and I told him that I had a beer with my dinner earlier in the evening. He said "Just one?" I said "Yes sir." Then he had me to take a breathalyzer test. Then the got the results and said "Good man. Have a good evening."

Everyone seems to have that thing they are good with the government doing that tramples on people's freedom because they think it is right.

Your logic is no different than that of someone wanting to ban something for people's benefit.

 

[judgecrater]

I believe not wearing a seatbelt is dumb, but I am 100% against the state forcing us to do so!

Doug

But if you refuse to wear a beat and are injured, then I think you should be ineligible to receive damages for injuries. Not wearing a belt does affect others.

 

[Tactically Fat]

But if you refuse to wear a beat and are injured, then I think you should be ineligible to receive damages for injuries. Not wearing a belt does affect others.

If it came down to it, I'm not sure where I'd fall if I were forced to make a decision on seatbelts or not. On one hand - I think it should be a choice. On the other hand - I most certainly see the benefit of this line of thinking.

Make it an insurance issue. If you tell your insurance carrier that you're a religious seat-belt wearer - then you'd better be wearing your seatbelt if you're in an accident. If you tell them you don't wear your seatbelt - you're not getting insured. And if you tell them you wear it - and you don't wear it... Your claims will be paid once then you're dropped. If anyone wants to insure you going forward, then you should be prepared to pay appropriately for your actions.

I have a feeling, however, that this would lead to even MORE uninsured motorists. Which would lead to the rest of us paying even MORE.

But I think that coming at it like the "no tobacco pledges" that employer health care coverages have would be a good place to start. Get preferential premium rates as a non-tobacco user. But if you're caught with nicotine in your system - you lose your job (and your insurance).

 

[KLB]

But if you refuse to wear a beat and are injured, then I think you should be ineligible to receive damages for injuries. Not wearing a belt does affect others.

Damages are totally dependent upon who is at fault. If someone is injured by someone else, it should not be relevant whether that person was wearing a seatbelt, had airbags, etc. The relevant point is that the person would not have suffered injury if not for the other party.

 

[boljr01]

I've been in a few crash test machines to test the effect of a seatbelt.

One that simulates head-on collisions, and one that simulates rollovers.
...After you do a few rolls they ask you if you want to do the same thing without your sealbelt on.
Even at low speed a rollover will break your neck, you can also get crushed and killed by any passenger not wearing a seatbelt. You can also get ejected as the car rolls and lose your head.

I don't know anyone who would decide not to wear a seatbelt after being in one of those.

Well, now you do
Not a simulator but an actual flip + several rolls in a GMC Jimmy in '91. Not wearing a belt saved my life as the roof of the vehicle was touching the seat where I would have been had I been wearing one.

Perhaps not 'statistically smart' but I don't drive like the average statistic either...how many of those ~1400 lives the fed says would have been saved/year if wearing a belt were doing other things at time of crash (putting on makeup, texting, drinking, etc.).

 

[Cameramonkey]

Well, now you do
Not a simulator but an actual flip + several rolls in a GMC Jimmy in '91. Not wearing a belt saved my life as the roof of the vehicle was touching the seat where I would have been had I been wearing one.

Perhaps not 'statistically smart' but I don't drive like the average statistic either...how many of those ~1400 lives the fed says would have been saved/year if wearing a belt were doing other things at time of crash (putting on makeup, texting, drinking, etc.).

You are applying the flawed logic that the anti gunners use. Pushing to do x while ignoring y.

(random numbers to illustrate)
"we shouldnt wear seatbelts because 500 people were killed by wearing them." (yet 5,000 lives were saved because they WERE wearing one)
"We should ban guns because 500 people were killed by them." (yet 5,000 lives were saved by a good guy with a gun)
"we shouldnt get a flu shot because 50 people died due to complications. (yet thousands are saved by not dying from complications from the flu)
etc...

In the end, although some lives are lost, it is a net gain and we shouldnt necessarily push for one just because of personal preference/experience.

 

[bwframe]

Don't crash victims often go through the windshield when they aren't wearing seat belts? Will an airbag stop this even if not buckled?

 

[HoughMade]

Damages are totally dependent upon who is at fault. If someone is injured by someone else, it should not be relevant whether that person was wearing a seatbelt, had airbags, etc. The relevant point is that the person would not have suffered injury if not for the other party.

Ever hear of "failure to mitigate" or "comparative fault"?....but no worries, as long a plaintiff's lawyers contribute to reelection funds, the legislature will see it your way.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Damages are totally dependent upon who is at fault. If someone is injured by someone else, it should not be relevant whether that person was wearing a seatbelt, had airbags, etc. The relevant point is that the person would not have suffered injury if not for the other party.

Exactly.