Seat belt fight !!!





#1
I get a kick out of this s***, You HAVE to wear a seat belt in a car in CT. but not a helmet when you ride a bike?????????, WTF!!!!! For the first time I saw the most stupidest thing, I saw a guy wearing full leather suit with NO helmet, whats the point of that?? dont get me wrong im the fool that wears shorts and a tank top sometimes, but ill take road rash any day compared to splitting my head open!! I was talking to a CT. cop and we got in to a heated talk over this, I was pissed and told him your going to tell me to wear a F****** seat belt and let bike riders wear no helmet??? He said thats the LAW, so I walked away before I got arrested!! Im not tryin to piss off people that like that kind of law but dam, it makes no sense to me.
 

Mr Bogus

Trouble Makers Inc.
Donating Member
Registered
#2
Is rather ironic, seatbelt laws and no helmet laws... on the other side..

Jeans and a tshirt offer little protection over shorts and a tank top in the real world..

However, I bet if you ever get exposed to real road rash, you will never ride without leathers or other good gear.. I have seen a number of guys ground down into the bones on short slides (literally missing all the meat down to the bone)

I have on occasion ridden without my lid but it is noisy and I am not real comfortable..

I dont get why anyone would argue about it with a LEO, they are just enforcers of the laws that you elected people to make.. dont like the law? change your elected officials..
 

ibified

Registered
#3
you hit it on the head when you said "he said its the law." Because, well, it is. the cop's job is not to set policy in the form of laws, but to enforce the laws, which he was doing. The cop isnt the one you need to take it out on, because he's doing his job.
 

ike

Registered
#4
I would never right up someone who didn't have a seat belt on in CT. It's the law yes but a very stupid one considering you don't have to wear a helmet in that state.
 

Vonderbach

Your AD here!
Donating Member
Registered
#5
Someone recently made a comment about seat belts that I could not help but applaud. Most people consider seat belts to be a personal safety issue, yet in an accident, a driver that is thrown from the seat will have no ability to pilot the vehicle. A seat belt may assist you in steering your vehicle to a safe stop. On the contrary, a helmet does nothing but provide personal safety.

I can't argue with that logic.
 

Zoinks!

Registered
#6
Someone recently made a comment about seat belts that I could not help but applaud. Most people consider seat belts to be a personal safety issue, yet in an accident, a driver that is thrown from the seat will have no ability to pilot the vehicle. A seat belt may assist you in steering your vehicle to a safe stop. On the contrary, a helmet does nothing but provide personal safety.

I can't argue with that logic.
If you're in NEED of the seatbelt, your chances for a "safe" stop are already over. If you're running the risk of leaving your vehicle, then you've already lost control of the vehicle and the seatbelt isn't going to do anything to help the car come to a safe stop. It MIGHT help you come to a safe stop, but that all depends on what the vehicle has done. Bottom line is, seatbelt laws are an infringement on the right to liberty. Yes, in many cases they help, and we should probably wear them (which I do every time I'm in a vehicle) but according to the Declaration of Independence, I have the right to make that choice, not the government. If I don't wear it, the only person I'm putting in danger is myself. William Holdorf in "The Fraud of Seat-Belt Laws" makes a very good point, "a person has the right to refuse any health-care recommendation. No nonpsychiatric doctor would dare attempt to force a person to use a medical device or take a drug or have surgery or other medical treatment without full consent. Yet politicians force motorists to use a health-care device, a seat belt, against their will under threat of punishment that could include jail."
 

dadofthree

Seasoned Beef
Donating Member
Registered
#7
If you're in NEED of the seatbelt, your chances for a "safe" stop are already over. If you're running the risk of leaving your vehicle, then you've already lost control of the vehicle and the seatbelt isn't going to do anything to help the car come to a safe stop. It MIGHT help you come to a safe stop, but that all depends on what the vehicle has done. Bottom line is, seatbelt laws are an infringement on the right to liberty. Yes, in many cases they help, and we should probably wear them (which I do every time I'm in a vehicle) but according to the Declaration of Independence, I have the right to make that choice, not the government. If I don't wear it, the only person I'm putting in danger is myself. William Holdorf in "The Fraud of Seat-Belt Laws" makes a very good point, "a person has the right to refuse any health-care recommendation. No nonpsychiatric doctor would dare attempt to force a person to use a medical device or take a drug or have surgery or other medical treatment without full consent. Yet politicians force motorists to use a health-care device, a seat belt, against their will under threat of punishment that could include jail."
You need to read better books. A person floating about in a vehicle during an accident can injure himself and other passengers to include death. Yes, by being maintained behind the wheel of your vehicle you might be able to control it to a save stop after the initial contact. Seatbelts are a live saver.

Did you know that the State of SC is where the Clicket or Ticket originated?

Belts can only do so much for an occupant, they can't guarantee your safety. If the event is bad enough you might die.

I've seen to many kids killed by their own vehicle in roll overs.
 
#8
You need to read better books. A person floating about in a vehicle during an accident can injure himself and other passengers to include death. Yes, by being maintained behind the wheel of your vehicle you might be able to control it to a save stop after the initial contact. Seatbelts are a live saver.

Did you know that the State of SC is where the Clicket or Ticket originated?

Belts can only do so much for an occupant, they can't guarantee your safety. If the event is bad enough you might die.

I've seen to many kids killed by their own vehicle in roll overs.
10 years ago my daughter fell asleep at the wheel,woke up half way off the road. [kids reactions are too damn quick] jerked the car into a 180 backed it in a ditch on the other side of the road and went airborn car flipped upsidedown ,landed on it's roof.Slid for ways and then rolled twice down into the bottom of the ditch upside down again.Not a scratch,unbuckled and rolled out the back of the car.That little Beretta's top held up
 
#9
I dont get why anyone would argue about it with a LEO, they are just enforcers of the laws that you elected people to make.. dont like the law? change your elected officials..
Unfortunately certain laws should not have been passed regardless of who voted for whom. And LEO's have "discretion" so they definitely do not have to enforce every law every time, although I disagree with them having that kind of power anyway since it is abused.
 
#10
You need to read better books. A person floating about in a vehicle during an accident can injure himself and other passengers to include death. Yes, by being maintained behind the wheel of your vehicle you might be able to control it to a save stop after the initial contact. Seatbelts are a live saver.
I don't believe that's what his point was since that was stated. Maybe you need to read better?

Did you know that the State of SC is where the Clicket or Ticket originated?
red herring.

I've seen to many kids killed by their own vehicle in roll overs.
Has nothing to do with personal choice, which was his argument.

It's obvious you are arguing from the perspective that the government absolutely can tell everyone what they can and can't do. I disagree with that premise and so does the constitution.

This used to be the land of the free. Now everything is against the law. Interesting.
 
#11
So by this logic, if someone is killed because they were wearing their seat belt (it doesnt happen often, but it does happen) do the surviving members of the family have the right to sue due to the fact that the govt made them do something that killed them?
 

Mr Bogus

Trouble Makers Inc.
Donating Member
Registered
#13
Someone recently made a comment about seat belts that I could not help but applaud. Most people consider seat belts to be a personal safety issue, yet in an accident, a driver that is thrown from the seat will have no ability to pilot the vehicle. A seat belt may assist you in steering your vehicle to a safe stop. On the contrary, a helmet does nothing but provide personal safety.

I can't argue with that logic.
That is the exact reason truck drivers are given during training...


has been mandatory for truck drivers for maybe 15 years or more nationwide?
 

djsin

Lily's Daddy
Registered
#14
no thank you.. I like having the freedom to choose, there are times I wear my helmet and times i dont...for the most part Im not a big fan of having no perifrial vision and the sound of my exhaust ringeing in your head from inside a helmet is much worse too...now with that being said...if Im going on any real ride i will wear it, but around town and to bike night, i choose not too....I'm not a big fan of seat belt laaws either but...then again it isnt obstructing my vision or hearing either
 

Zewski

Registered
#15
Indiana is the same way bro! Got to wear the belt.....but not the helmet. I will NEVER understand that! I think that it has something to do with governent funding and the state budget.
 

NickSully

Donating Member
Registered
#17
Out here in the west (Nevada) things are a little different. They have a helmet law here but no "click it or ticket" law. They do have a seat belt law but cops can't pull you over for just not wearing your seat belt like in almost every state back east. You have to be pulled over for something else for them to enforce the law such as speeding or failure to yield.

Anybody care to explain that one? Why have a law if you can't enforce that law directly?
 

brian7396

Donating Member
Registered
#18
So by this logic, if someone is killed because they were wearing their seat belt (it doesnt happen often, but it does happen) do the surviving members of the family have the right to sue due to the fact that the govt made them do something that killed them?
stranger things have happened.
 

Similar threads




Top