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.

 

Anti-seat belt law advocate is killed in automobile accident

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   
There seems to be a contingent here at ATS who enjoy irony. This article, substantiated by Snopes, tells of a young man who felt that seat belt laws were an intrusion on his personal rights. He went to an early grave as a result.




I-80 crash claims UNL student's life
BY BUTCH MABIN / Lincoln Journal Star


Derek Kieper was a smart, funny, intense young man who relished a good debate and would do anything for his friends.

Kieper, a 21-year-old senior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, died early Tuesday morning when the Ford Explorer he was a passenger in travelled off an icy section of Interstate 80 and rolled several times in a ditch. Kieper, who was riding in the back seat of the Explorer, was ejected from the vehicle.

Two others in the vehicle, including the driver, Luke Havermann of Ogallala, and the front-seat passenger, Nick Uphoff of Randolph Air Force Base in Texas, sustained non-life threatening injuries. Havermann and Uphoff, both 21, were being treated at BryanLGH Medical Center West.

The three men, members of the same UNL fraternity, were returning to Lincoln from San Antonio, Texas at the time of the accident, reported to authorities by a truck driver around 3 a.m.

"At this point in time, I'm in shock," Kieper's father, Paul Kieper, said in an interview Tuesday.

"He was a bright young boy, a 4.0," Paul Kieper said. "He loved to be silly. He loved to debate."

www.journalstar.com...


Here is an editorial he wrote in September for "The Daily Nebraskan."



DEREK KIEPER: Individual rights buckle under seat belt laws

September 17, 2004

Editor's Note: The Daily Nebraskan is no longer accepting feedback to this column.


I’m from the school of thought where everyone should have the right to do as they please as long as they are not infringing on the rights of other people. This comes from the political philosophy that inspired our founders and freedoms.

The duty of government is nothing more than to make sure everyone’s rights are protected and not infringed upon. Uncle Sam is not here to regulate every facet of life no matter the consequences.

No law, or set of laws, has made the government more intrusive and ridiculous than seat belt legislation. Nothing is a bigger affront to the ideas of freedom, liberty, yada, yada, yada. Whether you are a pinko liberal or a right-wing whack job, there are plenty of reasons for just saying to hell with seat belt laws.

Democrats and Republicans alike should stand together to stop these laws that are incongruous with the ideals of both parties.

www.dailynebraskan.com...


Snopes




posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   
You can't debate Darwin



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Nice find Grady, but why do I get the feeling you're smirking? I don't think the man in question was wrong about what he said. Individual freedoms are the basis of any society that wishes to evolve.

I've been in more than 30 auto accidents, and I've only worn my seatbelt a handful of times. I happen to have very dense muscular and bone structure, so the impacts weren't life threatening. I've fought to a stalemate; dashboards, trees, a roadsign, guardrails, people, a deer, and I've managed to win victories over numerous windshields and windows. It's a combination of luck and genetics that kept me alive, and I wish more people would accept responsibility for their own survival. I don't need a government nanny, and I don't want to pay for anyone else to have one. Is that so wrong? A society that coddles its citizens quickly becomes a society of children. Look around you..

I say let 'em fend (think) for themselves, or let 'em die. No sense in allowing a weak, unlucky, uninteligent person to gratuitously pollute the human race's genetic wading pool. I say remove the floaties, and let's see who drowns. Get the popcorn, it's going to be a good show.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   
I always wore a seatbelt even before it was law. I'd rather not die horribly in a car crash, plus it saved my life back in 1991 when some drunken git slammed into my car head on. I walked away. If I hadn't been wearing the belt, I'd be six feet under now.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   
I've been in a number of crashes myself. I began wearing seat belts in 1964, when my father bought a 1964 Ford Custom. I was very obsessive about wearing them and they kept me from injury when I rolled my Opel Rallye in North Carolina in 1969 and again in 1970 when I struck a guardrail in Pennsylvania during a snowstorm. In 1973, I totaled my '67 Mustang when I struck a tree head on. I for some inexplicable reason did not have my seatbelt buckled and I suffered a very severe neck injury as a result. In 2003, I totaled my 2002 Honda Accord traveling at 80 mph, when the car in front of me lost control and wound up stopped perpendicular to traffic in my lane. The seatbelt caused serious injuries, but saved my life. I am a firm believer in seat belts and I only wish, I had not forgotten to buckle my belt in 1973.

It should be noted that I have been struck by two vehicles as a pedestrian.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   


... everyone should have the right to do as they please as long as they are not infringing on the rights of other people.



I may agree with the philosophy but I believe not wearing seat belts does infringe upon me and everyone else. You see a certain percentage of the population does not wear seat belts and they cost all the rest of us lots of money through higher insurance rates. I could have spent that money on something else that I needed. Therefore the people who don't wear seat belts and get killed as a result of that just infringed upon my liberty to spend my money as I please. I believe that is an infringement on my rights. Therefore everyone should wear their seat belts unless they want their insurance company to not pay if they die or get injured as a result of not wearing seat belts. Wearing your seat belt makes you look more intelligent too.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:51 AM
link   
What about children and seatbelts?...I wonder if the anti-seatbelt people believe it infringes on their rights too??...or how about their parents rights to control the child?...



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Parents are legally responsible for the actions and wellbeing of their children until whatever age their society has agreed on. Of course, parents never really stop caring about their children and should always try to advise them on issues like this one.

My life has twice been saved by NOT wearing a seatbelt. Once I was T-Boned while riding in a friend's Chevette, and was saved a gruesome fate crumpled inside that P.O.S. because I was ejected through the drivers window. On another occasion I was riding in a Miata that hit a skid at 70 mph or so on a rural road. I tumbled over the back of the trunk because I was sitting on the head rest with my feet on the seat. I rolled off the back, tumbled into the dirt and suffered a sprained wrist. My friend who was driving, and wearing his seatbelt, was along for the ride when the car cartwheeled over a stone wall. He's alive, but he'll never be the same, due to head injuries. The number of serious seatbelt injuries nationwide is lower than the number of deaths that could have been prevented by wearing the thing, I understand that, I'm just playing Devil's advocate by saying "Not wearing a seatbelt could save your life."

Orion
I don't think we should allow the erosion of personal choice, and the corresponding personal responsibility, just for the financial benefit of insurance policy holders. Also, consider this - the more accidents that occur the higher the rates go. The more times a bad driver survives a catastrophic wreck the more chances he or she has to wreck up again and drive up your rates. Therefore, the more deaths that occur due to negligence or arrogance or stupidity or bad luck, the better off your bottom line will be. That's assuming the bottom line is your ultimate goal, which I don't think it is. I'm sure you, and all the other proponents of seat belt laws, have the best intentions, and only want to save all us idiots from our own bad decisions, but don't you see the problems with that? Most importantly, you're holding back the progress of evolution, and secondly you're setting a dangerous precident when it comes to civil liberties vs. fiscal sensibility. If our dollars have more value than our values themselves, we have no right calling America the land of the free - America the underwritten would be more appropriate.

Pisky
Head ons are definitely nasty if you're not wearing a seatbelt. I don't see your opinion on the law aspect though..are you for or against mandatory seat belt laws?

Grady
Where did you find an Opel in South Carolina? I was under the impression that they've never had stateside dealerships. Did they used to have a presence here, or did you import? I'm also curious as to your stance on the legal issue, whether or not the State should have the power to criminalize those who refuse to consider their own welfare.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   
As a rather "sporty" driver and race driver, I just don't feel right if I'm not buckled up and bolted to my seat tightly.

Most ricer kids think its cool and really flashy to drive their cars without wearing their seatbelt it seems, they seem to think driving fast and on edge can only be done without their seatbelt.

When I went trough the police accademy, we also had to do some driving tests and high speed persuit practices in narow streets. Some of the new and young recruits were all talking about how they were good drivers and when looking at their cars in the parking lot it was clear a load of them were ricers.

So we did a test, with and without the belt on, high speed turning, controlled slips, uncontrolled slip recovery's and so on.

I already knew what the result would be, I went trough the same tests and practices when going for my license as a race driver.

I didn't even want to drive without my seatbelt on, because I knew that with my belt on, there wasn't a single slip I couldn't get out of and that my controll over the car would be far greater, meanwhile the kids that first did it without seatbelt ran over more cones and cardboard pedestrians then there seemed to be on the track!! After wich they had to redo it with seatbelt and withnessed they didn't even hit a fraction of the cones and cardboards.

Imho this guy getting killed is rather ironic and I'm truelly smirking, because as a racedriver and police officer, I've experienced the vast difference between strapped and unstrapped when your slipping, hit something, had a tire blowing and so many other situations.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne


I've been in more than 30 auto accidents, and I've only worn my seatbelt a handful of times.


It would appear that a good driver's ed course would be more beneficial to you than a seatbelt. Your insurance must be (quite rightly) exhorbitant.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The more times a bad driver survives a catastrophic wreck the more chances he or she has to wreck up again and drive up your rates. Therefore, the more deaths that occur due to negligence or arrogance or stupidity or bad luck, the better off your bottom line will be.


I suppose if you used that line of reasoning you might agree with a proposal I saw in a college newspaper one time. The proposal was to do away with many laws concerning driving especially the one about following a speed limit. If there was no speed limit, all the too slow folks would just eventually get killed off. Cross the street too slow and sorry you're history. This would help speed the sale of running shoes.

I don't propose doing away with the speed limit although it does sound like fun. It may be less fun though if your mother or someone else gets killed driving only 55mph when someone driving 120 mph hit them. How would you like driving on a foggy day with no speed limit? I might be a crazy maniac driving 120 and demolish someone going only 30 mph because of the fog.

On the opposite side, there are some highways that I believe could have the speed limit much higher and still be safe. If you are going to argue against seat belts, you might as well argue against speed limits since both are laws meant to protect us. If we don't need seat belt laws, then we don't need speed limit laws either.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
As a rather "sporty" driver and race driver, I just don't feel right if I'm not buckled up and bolted to my seat tightly.

Most ricer kids think its cool and really flashy to drive their cars without wearing their seatbelt it seems, they seem to think driving fast and on edge can only be done without their seatbelt.


By Ricer do you mean the import tuners? I knew many and alot actually used a 5 point harness much better then any stock cars seat belt, they would get Sparco seats and a 5 point Harness. Many like the race look they got with them.

Infact the import tuners were the only people I would ever see use a 5 point on their daily driver.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Pisky
Head ons are definitely nasty if you're not wearing a seatbelt. I don't see your opinion on the law aspect though..are you for or against mandatory seat belt laws?


Personally, I think anyone with a modicum of common sense would wear them anyway. I do not believe that the lawmakers have the interests of the people at heart in this situation - as far as I am concerned its just another way of collecting revenue. That said, law or not, I would always wear a seatbelt and advise others to do the same.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
Most ricer kids think its cool and really flashy to drive their cars without wearing their seatbelt it seems, they seem to think driving fast and on edge can only be done without their seatbelt.

I'm just curious, but where I live the term 'ricer' has very negative connotations and is applied to one specific group of drivers whose culture is well known for producing, well, rice. Is this the case where you are, or does it have a different meaning in Belgium?



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
It means imported cars from Japan. Same thing with motorcycles, someone has a "rice burner" they are driving a kawasaki or something instead of the deep rumble of a Harley. A import makes a high pitched whiney noise while a harley makes a deep, hard, rumble that is music to the ears.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I don't wear a seatbelt most of the time. I don't think I should be penalized for it either, it's my choice whether I want to live or die. Ironically when I used to street race I had a NIRA spec. roll cage, 5 point harnesses, seats bolted to the frame and a fire extinguisher next to my left leg. Quite frankly I think america needs some chlorine in the gene pool, maybe if we repealed some of the safety laws people would redevelop something I like to call Common Sense. You older guys will remember what that is but I wonder about my generation



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Thanks for the clarification. We call them rice burners too, but the only people called 'ricers' are the asian kids that drive rice burners. Not exactly PC, but that's what it's used for where I live.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
You seem to be quite "driven" when it comes to accidents, Grady
Nice find! I always make sure to buckle up myself, but the one time our car was hit from behind, I had just loosened the seatbelts to grab something in the backseat (I was the passanger). That is the only time I've been in a car accident, but also the only time I didn't wear the belt. Luckily I only bumped my head in the windshield and had no other injuries, but the guy who ran into us suffered severe neck injury - nor was he wearing seatbelts.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I feel bad for the kid (yeah, he was just a kid to me), but the auto industry installed seat belts as a safety measure knowing that there's a chance that someone is going to involved in an accident.

I wear mine all the time. I feel secure when I'm wearing it!

I feel that if people would use their common sense and wear these safety devices, the government wouldn't have to devise laws for people who don't wear them. It's for people's own good!

Plus, the cost in healthcare and insurance is what the real reason for these laws, on top of trying to save your life!

To come to a conclusion of my post, I've got this to say: Buckle up people!



[edit on 24/1/05 by Intelearthling]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   

There seems to be a contingent here at ATS who enjoy irony. This article, substantiated by Snopes, tells of a young man who felt that seat belt laws were an intrusion on his personal rights. He went to an early grave as a result.


Talk about irony...

And a logical person would think this would put some brains into those idiots, but NOPE, they won't learn until they see they bodies getting buried from hell.

Surf



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join