Seat-belts and Helmets

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by eternlgladiator, Jul 28, 2011.

  1. eternlgladiator macrumors 68000

    eternlgladiator

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Location:
    Twin Cities
    #1
    So this question is for those of you who live in states where you are required to wear a seatbelt in your car but not a helmet on your motorcycle.

    First, a little background. I haven't had a ticket or warning for either one and don't plan to any time soon so you can dispel that notion right away.

    I don't understand why the state can mandate my wearing a seatbelt, run advertising campaigns about it, and write epic amounts of tickets for it. But when I see a guy on a motorcycle wearing board shorts, flip flops, and sleeveless t shirt, and sunglasses; all is well and he can keep moving along.

    Why?!?

    If a motor cyclist can make a decision about their own safety, then why can't the driver of a car make the same decision?
     
  2. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #2
    In Texas, you must wear a helmet on a motorcycle unless you complete an accredited safety course. But I agree with your point - I would be in favor of a mandatory helmet law here and everywhere.
     
  3. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #3
    States lose out on federal highway funding if they don't have a seatbelt law on the books. That's all, if the feds did the same with helmets, we'd see the same thing
     
  4. eternlgladiator thread starter macrumors 68000

    eternlgladiator

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Location:
    Twin Cities
    #4
    Then why not require both? It seems hypocritical not to. The government is saying we care about car drivers but not cyclists?

    Not that this is the first time our government has done something hypocritical but thats's a different conversation.

    I understand there's a political tie here but I'd rather keep the discussion off that topic.
     
  5. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #5
    Because its not a hot button like seatbelts are.
     
  6. skittles90623, Jul 28, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2011

    skittles90623 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    #6
    maybe they just want more money issuing tickets or a better perception from its citizens. but that's a toughy, and all motorcyclists should wear helmets

    :confused:
     
  7. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #7
    I'd be in favor of the opposite.

    I don't really see the point of wearing a seatbelt when I drive (I'm still a little sore over the seat belt ticket I got in February).
     
  8. swiftaw macrumors 603

    swiftaw

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    Omaha, NE, USA
    #8
    I don't have a problem with people who don't want to wear seatbelts or helmets. However, if someone chooses not to and are involved in a accident then the other party cannot be held responsible for your injuries.
     
  9. StvenH90 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Location:
    Florida
    #9
    I only have lap belts in my car, (Not 3-Point, with shoulder). I keep getting pulled over because cops think I don't have my seat belt on (Convertible, they can see in)... It's a stupid law, I think; it should be my option (I would still wear it). But I did love the law when I was nailed for speeding, instead they give me a ticket for "not" wearing my seatbelt (I was).
     
  10. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #10
    This is how it should be.
     
  11. codymac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #11
    That's incorrect.

    In Texas, we have to maintain proof of health insurance coverage in order to be excluded from the helmet law. There's never been an exclusion regarding MSF or rider training.

    http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/msb/helmet.htm

    We've gone from no helmet law to a mandatory one to various insurance exclusions for adults.

    I don't drive without a seatbelt/harness on and I don't ride without a helmet.
    :)

    OP: I don't get it either. Funny thing is... we've got bicycle helmet laws (generally municipal). Someone explain that one to me.
     
  12. Apple OC macrumors 68040

    Apple OC

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Location:
    Hogtown
    #12
    They are hypocritical ... when you have a helmet law there is not much money to make because everyone helmets up.

    with seat belts ... there is a goldmine in un-belted drivers
     
  13. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #13
    One point of wearing a seatbelt is not to go head first through the windshield.

    And even if you don't care if you crump your squash - I don't want to have to pay for your care (through increased insurance premiums) because you were so uninformed that you didn't wear seat belts.

    There's a reason racing drivers wear 5 point harnesses - so they don't die. And if you think that you can't get really damaged going 65 or 70 mph - I suggest you are mistaken.

    That's the point of wearing seat belts - SURVIVAL!

    After going to racing school, I won't pull out of my garage without belting in.
     
  14. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #14
    Are you serious?

    ^^^

    What shrink said.
     
  15. senseless macrumors 68000

    senseless

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    #15
    A loose body in the car is a deadly hazard to other passengers, plus it's important for the driver to remain belted behind the wheel to maintain control during an accident or spin. And all the other reasons.
     
  16. KnightWRX macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #16
    Unless the other party is directly responsible. Otherwise, I'd go around and ram into motorcyclists without helmets, Carmageddon style. You just gave a license to murder with your comment.

    I think what you meant was liable for injuries in a no-fault accident, or an accident with the injured party being at fault.
     
  17. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #17
    If you get into a terrible car accident on the highway....

    If you're not wearing a seatbelt, you fly through the windshield, the highway is closed while your guts are scraped off the pavement. Then once that's done, it remains closed while accident reconstruction teams figure out what the hell happened, as is customary in fatal accidents. The highway is closed for several hours. An entire city is inconvenienced. Tax dollars are spent paying police to clean up this mess when they could be out working real crimes. Carbon emissions are higher because of all of the idling cars stuck in traffic.

    If you are wearing a seatbelt, you remain in the car. You survive, perhaps with some injuries, but nothing major. The accident is moved off to the shoulder of the road as soon as police arrive, you're taken to the hospital. At worst, one lane of traffic is closed for 30 minutes, the entire scene is clear within an hour. Others aren't stuck in the highway turned parking lot.

    So no, you not wearing a seatbelt doesn't just effect you.

    If you don't wear a seatbelt and suffer injuries, why should I be liable even if I was at fault? Your injuries might have not been as bad, or you might not have been injured at all, if you were wearing a seatbelt. IMO, if you don't wear a seatbelt, you should not be allowed to hold the other party responsible for injuries - their only liability should be to fix your car.
     
  18. KnightWRX macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #18
    Because we don't give out licenses to murder. If you're at fault, assume it. Heck, for all you know, a guy not wearing a helmet is much cheaper than a helmeted rider. The dead a cheap to bury, the cripple expensive to maintain. ;)

    Seriously, no one is saying you should be responsible to pay for his injuries, but you should still be liable for the accident.
     
  19. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #19
    Your first two paragraphs are all about government intrusion in people's lives and then you state that you don't want the discussion to become political. Do you not see the hypocrisy?

    Absolutely and if you don't have health insurance then the health care system has every right to go after all your assets and those of your family for raising such a stupid person.

    Funny how so many of the attendees at NASCAR events are the ones who don't want to wear a seatbelt. NASCAR drivers wouldn't survive a tenth of the accidents they are in if they didn't wear a seatbelt. Why do 'normal' drivers think otherwise?


    In regards to bicyclists, there's a paucity of research out there about the effectiveness of bicycle helmets. However, the general consensus is that the more bicycles on the road, the safer it is for everyone and helmets are only effective in some cases, but not all.
     
  20. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #20
    It should be a drivers choice.

    It is my right as an American to be stupid. I should be allowed to ride the line of negligence as long as I never cross it.
     
  21. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #21
    It's my right not to pay for your stupidity when it is so easy to wear a belt.

    "Freedom, without limit is just a word"
    -Dawful
    -T. Pratchett
     
  22. StvenH90 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Location:
    Florida
    #22
    What if I own(ed) a car without seat belts? Do you think the government should force me to install none factory equipment?
     
  23. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #23
    If you are in an accident and seriously injured, should the hospital only provide care to the extent of your personal savings?

    With rights come responsibilities.
     
  24. Jagardn macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    #24
    And if you choose to be stupid and not wear a seatbelt, you should be denied healthcare on everyone else's dime.
     
  25. tunerX, Jul 28, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2011

    tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #25
    It is not your right to refuse to pay. You pay regardless.
     

Share This Page