Question for LEO’s

[Sylvain]

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?

Yes.
No.An airbarg is not/less effective if you're not wearing a seatbelt.
It's designed to keep your head/face from hitting the dashboard and windshield.
Without a seatbelt you will just fly above the airbag and hit the windshield.

You can still get a concussion (your head hitting the windshield) or break your neck, and die, even if you don't fully go thru the windshield.And even if you have airbags in your car.

The airbag alone won't keep you from getting ejected from the car (from either the side window or windshield) during a roll-over or a head-on collision.

This video shows the difference between sealbelt + airbag , and no sealbelt + airbag.

[video=youtube;9_Af8w2SAT4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_Af8w2SAT4[/video]

 

[Sylvain]

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.).

That's irrelevant.
The reason why they crashed has nothing to do with their survivability.

If you crash because you were texting and you're not wearing a seatbelt you will most likely not survive.
If you crash under the same conditions with your seatbelt on you will most likely survive.

And how good of a driver you are (or think you are) shouldn't change your decision to wear or not wear a seatbelt.

People crash into you even if you don't crash into them.
If you get rear ended by a truck on the highway and are not wearing a seatbelt you will fly thru your windshield.

 

[HoughMade]

My uncle's friend's former barber's exterminator got in an accident and the car caught fire. If he had been wearing a seat belt, he would have been burned alive.

 

[Benp]

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.

I don't think people should have the freedom of driving while intoxicated, but it sounds like you think they should have this right.

 

[Hawkeye]

My uncle's friend's former barber's exterminator got in an accident and the car caught fire. If he had been wearing a seat belt, he would have been burned alive.

What is a "barber's exterminator"?

I'm sure we've all heard apocryphal one-off stories of where wearing a seat belt kills someone.

 

[Libertarian01]

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).

I agree that there is risk to allowing freedom and liberty. Oh, the horror!

So allow freedom and liberty while simultaneously limiting financial spread. Pass a law that says something like this, "Any person not wearing a seatbelt during an accident assumes full liability with no insurance payout until all personal assets are exhausted." Ergo, their savings, home, car, guns, 401k, etc become their deductible in ANY accident irregardless of fault.

This would still allow them to choose, but to have serious skin in the game if they choose irresponsibly. People who smoked used to pay 15% additional for health insurance when I sold it. They weren't forced to stop smoking, only to pay their freight. So too should it be for auto insurance.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Kutnupe14]

I agree that there is risk to allowing freedom and liberty. Oh, the horror!

So allow freedom and liberty while simultaneously limiting financial spread. Pass a law that says something like this, "Any person not wearing a seatbelt during an accident assumes full liability with no insurance payout until all personal assets are exhausted." Ergo, their savings, home, car, guns, 401k, etc become their deductible in ANY accident irregardless of fault.

This would still allow them to choose, but to have serious skin in the game if they choose irresponsibly. People who smoked used to pay 15% additional for health insurance when I sold it. They weren't forced to stop smoking, only to pay their freight. So too should it be for auto insurance.

Regards,

Doug

I starting a campaign that if you get shot by a stray bullet, and aren't wearing a bulletproof vest, insurances doesn't have to cover your medical bills.

 

[Tactically Fat]

I agree that there is risk to allowing freedom and liberty. Oh, the horror!

So allow freedom and liberty while simultaneously limiting financial spread. Pass a law that says something like this, "Any person not wearing a seatbelt during an accident assumes full liability with no insurance payout until all personal assets are exhausted." Ergo, their savings, home, car, guns, 401k, etc become their deductible in ANY accident irregardless of fault.

This would still allow them to choose, but to have serious skin in the game if they choose irresponsibly. People who smoked used to pay 15% additional for health insurance when I sold it. They weren't forced to stop smoking, only to pay their freight. So too should it be for auto insurance.

Regards,

Doug

But then those people would probably be on the government dole / benefits for years and years...and I don't want that.

 

[freekforge]

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

Whaaatttt!? how am i just hearing this. Our "fleet" (only a couple cars) are all dodges chargers and durangos. I still wear mine when out on patrol but when you need to move you car its an annoyance.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Whaaatttt!? how am i just hearing this. Our "fleet" (only a couple cars) are all dodges chargers and durangos. I still wear mine when out on patrol but when you need to move you car its an annoyance.

maybe not. Our Town and Country supposedly has this shutoff feature. Normally if you unbuckle, it will ding at you once every 15 seconds for 5 seconds. So essentially 10 seconds of silence interrupted by 5 seconds of dings. Annoying AF if you are on your knees turned around tending to a baby in a car seat. (dont worry, I can drive with my feet ) I found supposedly magical methods to turn it off. Nope. doesnt work. Hopefully you have better luck than me.

 

[KLB]

I don't think people should have the freedom of driving while intoxicated, but it sounds like you think they should have this right.

You are correct. What is intoxicated? Picking some arbitrary blood alcohol level is silly. One person could be falling down drunk at a certain level, while another could be pretty much unaffected.

I feel the same way about any of the other stupid things people do while driving. Texting, talking, reading, doing their makeup, shaving, etc. There shouldn't be laws against it. None of those actions in and of themselves cause injury to anyone. Once they cause injury to someone or something, then they should be held accountable for that.