California reduces possession of marijuana from misdemeanor to “infraction”
10-04-2010, 01:17 PM
#31
Originally Posted by Marcos.J
im a firm believer on the seat belt , i worked many crashes involving fatalities and if some of those victims were wearing their seat belts they could be very well much alive today. something so simple to use and people still refuse to wear it.
Much like federal mandated 65MPH limits.
10-04-2010, 03:20 PM
#34
Originally Posted by R40Victim
Seat belt laws for children and infants make sense. Let "Darwinian" rules decide which adults survive. Same with bikes, its your choice to take a chance at being road pizza.
Should you be held responsible for killing someone that would have survived with little or no injuries had they been wearing a seatbelt or helmet?
10-04-2010, 03:52 PM
#35
Originally Posted by wingracer
I wish it was that simple but again:
Should you be held responsible for killing someone that would have survived with little or no injuries had they been wearing a seatbelt or helmet?
Should you be held responsible for killing someone that would have survived with little or no injuries had they been wearing a seatbelt or helmet?
10-04-2010, 04:46 PM
#36
Originally Posted by Storydude1
The main reasons for seatbelt laws are for federal highway funding. Not Safety.
Much like federal mandated 65MPH limits.
Much like federal mandated 65MPH limits.
10-04-2010, 04:51 PM
#37
Originally Posted by Storydude1
No, that's what Insurance is for.
Also, should the insurance company have to pay hundreds of thousands in medical bills and other expenses for an accident that would not have been serious had the other driver been wearing a seatbelt?
10-04-2010, 05:09 PM
#38
Originally Posted by Marcos.J
you are kidding , only 16% of each citation goes to the agency everything else goes to court cost and other state fees small % does go to a general highway and safety fund.. Yes they generate some revenue , not worth risking your life by not wearing it. If you have seen what I have seen and expirience going to someone's house at 3am to tell some parents that their 17 year old son died on a car accident, you would be wearing a seatbelt too.
Originally Posted by wingracer
The responsibility is still on you. Insurance can't keep you from being charged with criminal negligence or involuntary manslaughter. And if you get sued for an amount over your insurance coverage, you could be on the hook for that.
Also, should the insurance company have to pay hundreds of thousands in medical bills and other expenses for an accident that would not have been serious had the other driver been wearing a seatbelt?
Also, should the insurance company have to pay hundreds of thousands in medical bills and other expenses for an accident that would not have been serious had the other driver been wearing a seatbelt?
10-04-2010, 05:12 PM
#39
Originally Posted by Storydude1
If it's not my Fault, I won't be charged with anything.
10-04-2010, 05:16 PM
#40
Originally Posted by wingracer
I said from the very first post that it IS your fault.
In the first instance, a seatbelt would have killed him by keeping him with the car instead of spitting him out and in the 2nd wearing the seatbelt would have made zero difference as the pole sheared and came through the windshield.
Seatbelts do save lives I'll admit.
Too bad the mandated use of such isn't due to increased public safety. It's due to increased Funding and Revenue Generation.
BTW, most LEO's I talk to HATE Seatbelts as a primary offense. Ask one how they feel about traffic stops and you'll understand why.
10-04-2010, 05:24 PM
#41
Originally Posted by Storydude1
Too bad the mandated use of such isn't due to increased public safety. It's due to increased Funding and Revenue Generation.
From a strict legal standpoint, you are not wearing a seatbelt to protect you, you are wearing it to protect the person that hits you from having a higher liability. In other words, you are protecting the insurance companies.
10-04-2010, 05:48 PM
#42
Originally Posted by Storydude1
Missed the total point. If your state doesn't have a SeatBelt Law, they get REDUCED Federal Funding via the Highway bill and DOT. Same with a 65MPH max speedlimit. Montana has a daytime limit of "whatever is safe and prudent" and they get reduced Federal Funding as a result.
If it's not my Fault, I won't be charged with anything. Last I looked we lived in a free country. Too bad thinking personal responsibility is someone else's problem is so prevalent. Laws dictating personal actions that in no way effect Public safety are draconian. Like the Seatbelt laws.
If it's not my Fault, I won't be charged with anything. Last I looked we lived in a free country. Too bad thinking personal responsibility is someone else's problem is so prevalent. Laws dictating personal actions that in no way effect Public safety are draconian. Like the Seatbelt laws.
10-04-2010, 06:03 PM
#43
Originally Posted by C_O_jones
You must live in Oreeegone, that's the only retarded state on the west coast that has a max of 65, both Wa and Cal both have max of 70.
10-04-2010, 07:28 PM
#44
Originally Posted by wingracer
I wish it was that simple but again:
Should you be held responsible for killing someone that would have survived with little or no injuries had they been wearing a seatbelt or helmet?
Should you be held responsible for killing someone that would have survived with little or no injuries had they been wearing a seatbelt or helmet?
10-04-2010, 07:50 PM
#45
Originally Posted by R40Victim
If I'm at fault, as in caused the accident; I didn't think it mattered. Otherwise for survivors, its their PIP(person injury protection) right? That's a tricky one, because they might've chosen not to wear it. I've seen people get tickets because a passenger wasn't wearing a belt. That seems a little lame, let them take their own lives into their hands(unless its a child or infant). I also see people riding in back of pickups... right past a cop.
