Yes, but that’s true in any situation where harm COULD come to me. I’m not sure whether or not seatbelts cut down on injuries. I’m really not even sure they cut down on deaths. It all depends on the wreck in question.
What I will say is that now that it is a first offense to be pulled over for NOT wearing a seat belt it’s Cha Ching, which DOES make sense in terms of why I’m required to wear it.
Seatbelt laws are sorta stupid in a way. As a Libertarian I really ought to oppose them…yet in a way I really can’t. I myself know that seatbelts save lives, yet I didn’t start wearing them consistently until I got a ticket (probably over a decade ago). Doing so has probably saved my life.
So from a standpoint of freedom, I think we should have the right not to use them. Even though you’re a moron not too. But on the balance the laws probably do more harm than good. Out of pure laziness I let it slide.
Phaedrus, I suppose seat belts in some situations save lives, just as I’m sure in some situations taking vitamins help people stay healthier. Actually, I think the Vitamin thing has more evidence to support it…but nonetheless, I’m not convinced that seatbelts overwhelmingly save lives.
Now, I’m not sure I trust these statistics MORE than statistics indicating the other conclusion, but I think it goes to show that the topic is still up in the air.
I didn’t say the “law of nature” (which life is nasty, brutish and short), but “natural law”, as cited by the American Declaration of Independance, among other places. The Declaration declares these rights are given by the Creator – so that country, at least, was not created a secular state.
Perhaps this is what has been “written on our hearts” in the way of moral behaviour when conscience has been properly formed.
Please do not misunderstand, I never wore a seat belt until it was the law, actually I hate wearing one, but facts are facts, they do cut down on deaths and injuries.
I know what you mean , and I disagree with people twisting things this way too , dislike that crafty & treacherous religious folk can mislead the gullible . But I only meant there is a law of the heart , try breaking it , and you know what happens .
It exists . And this law is a natural one , who knows why ? but it has nothing to do with religion really . Naturally some people are cruel and calculating , but thats why others say to them “have a heart” , because we all know deep inside that what our heart feels is true .
When we try and hurt others , mistreat them , eventually , we become victims ourselves . All those criminals who commited suicide or were reformed somehow to become decent people who empathize with others , all the bullies , they done so exactly because their heart could,nt bear anymore the crimes they had committed , their cruelty
If There is only one law that you follow , follow your heart , refer what it says to your brain so that you dont end up an emotional wreck , since the heart is where emotion is , and the brain where Intellect lays .
We live in a time where scientists have realized that the heart is far more intelligent than we once thought , it is a remarkable organ , capable of so much , as much as the brain , perhaps more . Look out for British Professor Robert winstons work to read more on this . He and his work colleagues have made some discoveries about the heart and how it functions which may suprise many people . But many others will be saying “told you so” . Your right that religious authorities have hijacked this idea , and said that god has engraved a law into out hearts , but then they proceed to ask unreasonable things of us , which go against our hearts .
When I said initially “do not obey” I also meant do not obey those religious laws which have you in conflict . An example is preaching that sex is wrong before marriage . Now , we in our right mind all know this is wrong , because it contradicts our very strong feelings we have for each other , and the world presently is no place where it is easy for youngsters to stay chaste and celibate , But do you think God is such a tyrrant he would Judge you for having Sex outside of Marriage ? Not at all , he would,nt recommend promiscuity either really , but nonetheless
As Mark Twain once said, there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. Firstly, I find it interesting that this source is governmental. They would naturally be the ones wanting to show seat belts save lives…but for the sake of argument I’m going to go through a few claims here and show you why “these facts” are subject to dispute.
“Of the 31,910 vehicle occupants killed in crashes in 2001, 60 percent were not wearing a safety belt.” --okay, what sort of crashes were these? Mostly head ons? Side impacts? What’s significant about the year 2001? What counts as “killed”? Is a comatose patient still alive?
“Safety belts saved 13,274 lives in 2001, and if all vehicle occupants over age 4 had been wearing safety belts, 7,334 more lives could have been saved, NHTSA estimates.” What does it mean that safety belts saved “lives”? How many lives died due to seat belt usage? Estimates? Based on what? Why is 2001 significant again?
“Each percentage-point increase in safety belt use represents 2.8 million more people buckling up, 250 more lives saved and 6,400 serious injuries prevented annually, NHTSA estimates.” Based on what? I can estimate too, watch: I estimate seat belt usage contributes to approximately 4,000 deaths.
"Safety belt use has increased significantly in the past few years, but more must be done. Safety belt use in the United States rose to 75 percent in 2002 from 58 percent in 1994. " What the fuck? What the hell does this have to do with anything?
"Seventy-three percent of the people who were in a fatal crash in 2001 and were restrained survived; of those who were not restrained, only 44 percent survived. " What’s a fatal crash? Head on? Side? What does “not restrained” mean? What does “restrained” mean? Isn’t this about seat belts? Why are we talking about “restrained”? For all I know, this may mean car baby seats save lives.
"In fatal crashes, 75 percent of all passenger car occupants who were totally ejected were killed. Only 1 percent of those occupants had been using a safety belt. " I’ll buy that flying through a window is directly related to not wearing a seatbelt. What I won’t buy is that this is the typical type of crash.
“In the past 26 years, safety belts prevented 135,000 fatalities and 3.8 million injuries, saving $585 billion in medical and other costs.” How in the hell do you measure “prevented injuries”? How do you know what injuries would have occured?
Let’s not even mention that we don’t know how this data was analyzed, what sort of curves were used on the data, or any number of other variables.
At any rate, I’d hope you wouldn’t accept these as “facts” based on what these claims say. I’d really hope you wouldn’t buy these as facts because they call it a “fact sheet”.
I actually lobbied for the seat-belt law in California back in 1985. Sent a letter to the assemblyman who sponsored the bill, saying how i feared for the lives of obstinate family who would not wear a seat-belt. Got a letter back saying my letter had been read on the Assembly floor.