I would think that seeing the image from a car accident along a highway in California, a couple of years ago, where the one dead body wound up draped atop a highway exit sign, would gave people a heads up on how you do not want to look in public when you die from not being buckled in.
I remember all of the freedummies screaming about the tyranny of seatbelts and motorcycle helmets back in the 90s (or maybe 80s). They're STILL whining about it? Pathetic.
It’s my God-given right to be ejected headfirst through my windshield in case of a car crash! Wait until I find out about this “safety” glass, then I’ll really be indignant.
Someone tell Mr. Larose that particular "government overreach" goes all the way back to 19-freaking-68, when U.S. market cars were first required to have sealtbelts...
When Australia made seatbelts compulsory there was an advertising campaign that showed the results of unrestrained passengers hitting the interior or even exiting the car. The images were as strong as could be broadcast in the time slots. Somewhat later I was studying medical photography, and the teacher had taken many of the photos used in that campaign. He showed us some that had not been approved for broadcast. Ever since then I put the seat belt on before starting the engine
Got a double batch of Sicilian-style fish soup, with chunks of fresh, snow-white cod fillet, simmering on the range. Just a few minutes now. I'm already drooling.
The local social media in the Southern California suburb where I live is filled with graphic details about daily neighborhood car crashes, including vivid photos and videos. Without fail one or more people in the car walk away unscathed, and one or more fly out the window and are killed or close to it. Guess who was wearing a seatbelt and who was not.
OK, let the unbelted victims suffer for their own actions you say? Problem is their misfortune is a also huge cost to society. If a person survives being thrown from the car, their body is likely to be quite mangled, incurring exorbitant, long lasting medical costs. Anecdotally, the participants in the accident, most likely, don't have any kind of insurance to cover their medical bills. Who's paying those bills?
People who involuntarily exit the car during an accident often have head injuries or severely damaged limbs that prevent them from working for extended periods, if ever. How does their family compensate for a lost wage earner? I would bet that the same people who oppose safety laws also oppose providing "socialist" support for financially strapped families.
Not to mention the psychological stress caused to passersby who witness a ragdoll lifelessly careening through the air. No amount of support can eliminate that memory.
Everyone pays for seat belt scofflaws (and motorcycle helmet scofflaws), not just the people who chose not to use one.
Wanna drive without a seatbelt or motorcycle without a helmet? Fine, sign a waver saying that you don't get to be treated at our overworked ERs. That idea used to be a no-starter on account of the Hippocratic Oath, but now that doctors are more or less REQUIRED to go against that in the cases of miscarrying women in Red states, surely we can make a case for the "freedumbs riders" who have, unlike the women, CHOSEN to be injured.
I remember one time being rear-ended. I could feel myself being thrown forward then jerked back by my seatbelt. I'm not going to argue whether seatbelts save lives. They do,
dumb ways to die (eye eye) so many dumb ways to die
I would think that seeing the image from a car accident along a highway in California, a couple of years ago, where the one dead body wound up draped atop a highway exit sign, would gave people a heads up on how you do not want to look in public when you die from not being buckled in.
I remember all of the freedummies screaming about the tyranny of seatbelts and motorcycle helmets back in the 90s (or maybe 80s). They're STILL whining about it? Pathetic.
It’s my God-given right to be ejected headfirst through my windshield in case of a car crash! Wait until I find out about this “safety” glass, then I’ll really be indignant.
Someone tell Mr. Larose that particular "government overreach" goes all the way back to 19-freaking-68, when U.S. market cars were first required to have sealtbelts...
Darwinism at it's finest........
I'm fine with that as long as they do not come to my hospital when they inevitably fly through their windshield
You don't want them to die? Why not? What else are we to do with them? Educate them? HA HAHAHAHAHH!!!
When Australia made seatbelts compulsory there was an advertising campaign that showed the results of unrestrained passengers hitting the interior or even exiting the car. The images were as strong as could be broadcast in the time slots. Somewhat later I was studying medical photography, and the teacher had taken many of the photos used in that campaign. He showed us some that had not been approved for broadcast. Ever since then I put the seat belt on before starting the engine
We should also stop encouraging them to get vaccinations
Got a double batch of Sicilian-style fish soup, with chunks of fresh, snow-white cod fillet, simmering on the range. Just a few minutes now. I'm already drooling.
Insurance companies should put some fine print into their policies. Failure to use your seatbelt automatically voids your policy.
Alternatively, if someone hits you while you're not belted, your damages become correspondingly less.
The local social media in the Southern California suburb where I live is filled with graphic details about daily neighborhood car crashes, including vivid photos and videos. Without fail one or more people in the car walk away unscathed, and one or more fly out the window and are killed or close to it. Guess who was wearing a seatbelt and who was not.
OK, let the unbelted victims suffer for their own actions you say? Problem is their misfortune is a also huge cost to society. If a person survives being thrown from the car, their body is likely to be quite mangled, incurring exorbitant, long lasting medical costs. Anecdotally, the participants in the accident, most likely, don't have any kind of insurance to cover their medical bills. Who's paying those bills?
People who involuntarily exit the car during an accident often have head injuries or severely damaged limbs that prevent them from working for extended periods, if ever. How does their family compensate for a lost wage earner? I would bet that the same people who oppose safety laws also oppose providing "socialist" support for financially strapped families.
Not to mention the psychological stress caused to passersby who witness a ragdoll lifelessly careening through the air. No amount of support can eliminate that memory.
Everyone pays for seat belt scofflaws (and motorcycle helmet scofflaws), not just the people who chose not to use one.
Republicans, please live out your values and do not use seat belts. Also: no insurance for you. Insurance is socialism. Thank you.
Excellent Vic!
Wanna drive without a seatbelt or motorcycle without a helmet? Fine, sign a waver saying that you don't get to be treated at our overworked ERs. That idea used to be a no-starter on account of the Hippocratic Oath, but now that doctors are more or less REQUIRED to go against that in the cases of miscarrying women in Red states, surely we can make a case for the "freedumbs riders" who have, unlike the women, CHOSEN to be injured.
I remember one time being rear-ended. I could feel myself being thrown forward then jerked back by my seatbelt. I'm not going to argue whether seatbelts save lives. They do,