It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Domo1
If it was built in the 70's it's not very safe. It has bad brakes, bad glass, bad seat belts (that you don't use), bad seats, poor handling, no crumple zones to mitigate force, no airbags, awful traction and crappy lights. I've owned a few (well the oldest was a '70). I loved them all, but even with a complete overhaul of the suspension and brakes they are unsafe. Being well maintained does not mean safe.
Research has shown that lap/shoulder seat belts, when used, reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger car occupants by 45% and the risk of moderate-to-critical injury by 50%.
Source:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Traffic Safety Facts 2008 Data – Occupant Protection
As to your "living a comparatively more free life", I don't see how it has anything to do with being free. It's a seatbelt. It literally goes unnoticed if it isn't your first day wearing one.
SuperSeeds
Anyways my point is if you're unfortunate to be dragged into one of their courts JUST DONT PLAY, right at the outset you ask them; BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU ATTACH A NAME DERIVED FROM A PUBLIC DOUMENT TO ME and don't let # proceed without having your question answered and you tell them that I CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS until they answer your question and stand on it!
When the "justice" starts speaking, interrupt them. Say, "Point of order!" They will immediately be silent. At that point, state "I believe I am the only party with standing, so barring objection from the court, I wish to RESERVE ALL RIGHTS now, and henceforth. Are there any objections from the court?" As the court has no standing to respond, simply speak to the record as such, "Let the record show that I have reserved all rights, and the court has not objected." At this point if they say anything to you, you simply say, "Objection. The record shows that I have reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak. Why are you speaking?"
12160.info...
And how much of the below page is actually based on reality?:
Halfswede
I know the OT is about the letter of the law, but wanted to add my 2 cents about the seatbelt laws. It should be the law that kids be belted. That said, if you as an adult choose not to, I would have no problem with there being no law IF IF IF my legally mandated (rightfully so) insurance rates weren't calculated to some degree on injury payouts (the highest dollar claims). Seatbelts statistically reduce injuries and related costs significantly, so as long as I am somehow connected financially to your choices, it needs to be the law.
Also, if you have children or a spouse and choose not to wear a seatbelt, you are simply a selfish person. You are choosing to avoid a nearly nonexistant inconvenience over a significantly higher chance of being alive for your children or spouse after certain kinds of accidents. If you have no one who cares about you, then think of the EMT or ER doctor that has to get dragged out of bed to deal with your choice.
Don't get me wrong, if it were some minor effect or questionable safety feature, I am not for laws without clear basis in fact, but seatbelts laws are akin to many other necessary traffic laws that reduce injury-accidents like yielding/speeding etc. If it was your "right" to drive however you feel, the roads would be a mess.
Research has shown that lap/shoulder seat belts, when used, reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger car occupants by 45% and the risk of moderate-to-critical injury by 50%.
Source:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Traffic Safety Facts 2008 Data – Occupant Protection
Halfswede
reply to post by butcherguy
So using your own logic, since the insurance companies have saved so much due to the laws, you would have to agree that going back to to no seatbelt laws would increase their costs. I am fine with going back to that so long as I get to check a box on my insurance that says "I will always be wearing my seatbelt. If I get caught not wearing it, I will pay double premiums". I get to keep paying the rates that only include the belt wearers, and you get to check a box that says "I choose to not wear my seatbelt" and you get to absorb whatever the increase to their costs are based on being in the not wearers group. Would you be for that? You get your freedom back, and both of us are fairly charged for insurance based on actuarial analysis. That severs the tie between your freedom and my wallet.
butcherguy
reply to post by Halfswede
I am fine with that plan.
Now tell me why the government should mandate that non commercial drivers carry insurance.
Shouldn't the government force us all to carry an insurance policy to cover any damage we might cause, whether we are driving or not? I can cause incredible damage whether by negligence or intention without the use of an automobile.
Here is an example: A homeless person steps off the curb into traffic and causes an accident. Whether a car strikes and kills or injures him, or someone swerves to avoid him, he is the party that is at fault. But who pays for the damages? An automobile insurance company will end up paying. Why shouldn't everyone be forced by the government to carry insurance policies for the damages that they might cause outside of their homes? Is it fair that they get a free ride?