FYI, you can turn the dinger off. Look in the owners manual. It was the first thing I did since part of the time I'm working in a field and didn't want that dinger going everytime I was in and out of the truck for a few minutes.

 

I know I mean I have cost the insurance company millions, oh wait, I havent cost them a dime. That seatbelt is not a magic bubble that will protect you from everything, you can still get hurt. Why don't you try answearing the questions I asked in my last post, since no one else has seemed to be able to.

 

Look at the data. Seat belts greatly reduce the chance of injury in major MVCs. Prior to 1968 it wasn't known how much seat belts helped. Now that technology has improved seat belts are more affective and safer.

Yes they can cause injury. However, I think most people will agree that they would rather have some bruising on there chest then be thrown through a windshield or tossed out during a roll over.

I agree that sometimes seat belts do more harm then good, but the vast majority of the time, they do there job, and save lives.

I'm sure some car restoration group threw a hissy fit when they tried to mandate it. People restore cars to there original state, seat belts were not original back then, there for they aren't required.




Do a little research. School buses are designed to function better without seat belts in the event of a crash. They are built differently from passanger vehicles. The seats are higher up, filled with energy absorbent padding, and placed closer together.

There's also the issue of liability. School buses carry kids from K-12 the majority of the time. How many of those kids do you think would wear seat belts if it were optional? It would become the school bus drivers responsibility to make sure EVERY child was wearing there seat belt correctly. A 20 minute trip to school would take 4 hours. Now if that bus gets in a wreck and a child is killed for not wearing a seat belt, there would be lawsuits left and right. The driver would be drawn and quartered for not strictly enforcing seat belts. It's impractical.

 

Yeah, I'm aware of that option. I just have no need to turn it off since I put it on every time now and never hear it anymore. Thanks, though.

 

It's not that we don't want to answer your questions, we don't want our answers to fall on deaf ears. It appears no one will ever convince you that wearing seat belts is wise, even though it's mandated by law. There is research to answer your questions....if you want them answered, search for them yourself.

 

So what you are saying is that because people like to restore vehicles to their original state that that outways the safety gains and an exception was made. Also for the school bus you are saying the risk of a lawsuit outways the obvious safety gains so its just not worth it. Basiclly what I am getting at is they will make exceptions for some but not for everyone, and there fore its a BS law and should be left up to the decision of a responsible adult to make for themselves.

 

Im not saying its not wise, hell I agree that it is much safer to have it on then not. I am just saying the government shouldnt make that decision for me.

 

Yes, an ADULT to make. Children are too young to make informed decisions like that. Hence why we don't let them smoke, drink, etc until they are older.

Ok, let's say they designed a school bus with seat belts. The school bus goes to pick up the kids in the morning and all 40 or so of them get on. While some of them will wear the belts, a lot will not. So when that bus crashes, the design of the bus will rely on the seat belts to keep the occupants safe. OOPS. Turns out kids weren't wearing the seat belts!!! What a shocker, anyone who has kids knows that kids hate seat belts. Now you have a bus full of severely injured kids because someone thought that every one should be wearing seat belts.

The rule has exceptions for reasons. I admit the restoration thing is a little whack, but that was the way it was explained to me.

 

That is one old truck. I know trucks from the 60's had them, unless the owner took them out.

A retro fit kit would need to be NHTSA tested and approved. Who is going to undertake that project ? It has to do with a law placing undue financial burden on someone / company.

School buses have different crash characteristics then a car or pickup.
Ever wonder why the seat backs are so high ? Yes, that stops the 70# missile out the front window.
A bit of thought on the 2 topics makes the answer clear.

If it was created ( as you posted ) as a revenue creator, if you get revenue from another method than tax for all, why do you care.
If you do not smoke or drink, why would you care about an increase on the sin tax on those items. Let those who choose to do those things foot the bill.
Be happy about it, those who choose to do those things are paying for your state and county costs. A direct benefit to you as a citizen, without a dime coming out of your pocket. I think that might qualify as free money...

 

My father in-law refuses to wear a seatbelt. His reasoning is that he would rather be thrown free from the wreckage. What makes it even better he puts the belt over his shoulder as in pretending to have it on so he won't get a ticket? I just cannot help but laugh a little inside when I get into a car with him

 

Why not design the school bus like it is now but add seat belts that way the kids that want to wear them have double the protection?

 

Because its not the governments place to decide that because I smoke or drink or don't wear a seat belt that I should have to pay more taxes. Thats part of me being an adult and being able to make my own decisions on how I want to live my life. Its not up to the government to tell me that I can or can not do something that brings no harm to anyone else, and for them to tax me extra because I do is complete BS.

 

Seatbelts can harm as much as they can help....my wife was t-boned in her bmw, and wasn't wearing a seat belt....cop said that saved her life as it threw her over to the pass side. I don't wear mine, i think its a personal choice.....40 million children a day ride a school bus without them, motorcyclist ride without them, why should I? I got a ticket about 3 months ago, $15 nad it was done

 

I answered your questions, and now you go off on a tangent about how it is not up to the government to decide how to collect taxes ?
That is part of their job, anyone who has a HS diploma knows this from civics class.
If it is not up to the government to decide how to collect taxes, then who's job is that ?

I think it was said best, in a post above:
Actually it is not deaf ears, it is just the canned answer of "complete BS".
No it is not complete BS, it is taxation with representation.
If you don't like the outcome of this in your state, become more involved then just casting 1 vote in the next election.

 

Or I can do like I have been doing for years, do what I want and pay the fine if I get one. Its not that I don't think that they can take taxes just about however they want I just simply don't agree with the way they are doing it. Why discriminate against smokers or drinkers or anything else that draws a Sin Tax.