![]() |
fiddy more useless laws
|
Quote:
Matt |
Quote:
really, read that back out loud to yourself and then kick yourself for being such a sheep. |
Quote:
i cannot be convinced on this subject |
Quote:
Quote:
I would be willing to bet more are exited thru doors and due to t-bones more than head ons And why do you think people are rendered unconscious by high impact collisions? I have been in a couple and never knocked out, and now that I think about it, I have never even heard of a friend that was rendered unconscious due to a car wreck. |
Quote:
alls i hear is sign here and sign here, this amount of $$$ is due on this date |
Quote:
|
Fuck these fools man. Half of you act like youre so perfect, you wear your fucking seat belt, you never smoked a joint, never speed, never do anything illegal. Fuck that, bunch of hypocrites. Unless youre fuckng perfect, then dont bitch at someone who doesnt want to wear a seatbelt.
|
Quote:
I already did on page 1, you ignored it. Like you said, you can not be convinced that you are wrong, so I will quit trying. Enjoy your ticket(s). |
i'm going to bed but for the record
i believe these things: 1. people should seriously ALWAYS were their seatbelts (thinking to themselves, "if i get in a wreck i will have a better chance of less injury") 2. that the person should have to make thier OWN decision on if they want to wear the seatbelt to prevent less possible self harm 3. government is total bullshit for making the seatbelt law a law, total bullshit |
Quote:
|
Quote:
because my example, that i was using, was head on collisions. like i said, it was a for instance. to be honest i really don't feel like sitting here and discussing every possible scenario, but you're still not making sense. if you hit someone, or are hit, at a high rate of speed, you are not going to have control over the vehicle period. all the systems you use to control the car are likely smashed, and even if they are not the amount of force transfered into the car would likely over ride any possible maneuvering you could do with the limited mechanical systems of a car. simple physics will tell you that. as for the unconsciousness, maybe i have had a collision or two of my own. your world isn't the only one that exists. regardless i have wasted enough time with you tonight, i have other far more interesting things to do. |
Quote:
it's almost like conservatism vs. neo conservatism here. :1orglaugh |
throw the belt on when the cop is turning around.
|
Quote:
Off topic here but, smoke joints, speed and the odd illegal thing, but without a seatbelt youd get pulled over 50% of the times here, and be busted %100 of the time. And jscott. Flying bodies and limbs inside a vehicle kill people, not just the driver. Stop playing it like this is about you as an individual, its about your responsibility to anyone who gets in your vehicle. http://www.big-boys.com/articles/verybaddriver.html Imagine a child sitting beside this guy when he fell asleep. That alone should convince you. (sure you wont fall asleep like he did, but a good example of how a car tosses someone around like nothin) |
ok one more post and then i swear i am done.
by your reasoning, it is ok for the government to dictate our safety. let's outlaw cigarettes because they cause cancer. and skydiving, lots of people die doing that, jetski's have to go, anything sharp, knives, pointy sticks, sharp rocks, better just outlaw cars all together, lots of people die in them, you know what? let's just pad the whole world in foam rubber, and make everyone dress in full hockey pads 24 hours a day. i mean really, where do you draw the line? this is the kind of insulated, diluted thinking that is getting us into problems. but enough hyperbole and sarcasm. have a good night. :upsidedow |
Stupid. What about the guy who is out jogging in the emergency lane of a busy street? How come he is not required by law to wear protective gear? Does bodily injury only matter in certain situations such as driving?
Give it a break people and stop trying to defend a shitty, worthless law. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Im not sure why they would feel that is adequate. But in some states its illegal to poke your old lady in the ass too, so nothing surprises me. I have a family and no-one leaves my driveway in any vehicle unless seatbelts are worn. |
smack, you forgot about how that guy played a video game for 24hrs and it killed him......maybe it's time video games should get banned
|
Quote:
In CA every person in the vehicle has to have a seatbelt on. Go back to page one as to why your state is only requiring the driver. |
it is fucked up , you not wearing a seat belt only affects you.
|
Here is what it comes down to.
If you do something that can endanger the life of others, it is illegal. Why do you think we cant run red lights or drink and drive. Several examples in this thread have proven that not wearing a seatbelt can cause you to endanger the life of others. |
Think there's no harm in using a seatbelt. It was made to protect you and it it already built in your car..so why not use it!
|
Quote:
DUH. Point is, if youre going to make stupid laws, dont pick and choose. |
Quote:
There is no pick and chosing, all those things are lawed and regulated as well. Smoking only effects other's health if they are around it, so smoking in public areas is illegal. Skydiving doesnt endanger others because you cant sky dive in the middle of a busy city and land on someone. Allthough juding by your latter statment, you might belive this possible. You cant hunt in public parks and accidently shoot someone, you thing that isnt regulated. Maybe not where you live, but thank god that is the law here. And i wish you didnt honestly want me to address your last remark. |
Quote:
If you want to get incredibly technical with this, Lets. State inspections require the seatbelts to be functional, great, but says NOTHING about the seat being bolted down properly. Please defend that for me. Why not seatbelts in boats? You could wreck and get launched from it and hurt someone. Youre going to tell me "thats regulated too", yes, I know this, I also know that regulations dont prevent accidents. How come cars before 1958 that were built with one brake light, are not required to install another one like the modern cars? Does the government not care about the saftey of older car owners? I agree it can save a life, but I just dont see how it is justified when they leave out a plethora of potential damage from accidents caused by other than cars. |
where the damn thing, it will save you
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123