LIve Free or Die.

[Bob Riebe]

You would be much better off seeking facts on the matter, as a number of studies have shown otherwise, both on vehicles with and without airbags. It was the basis for several states that challenged the motorcycle helment laws, providing evidence that belts had a great effect on others due to the drivers remaining in the seat and much more aware if wearing belts, where as with bikes the helmet didn't provide such ability to remain in control of the vehicle.

Due to the above a person not wearing a seatbelt infringes in the personal safety of others, a right which is not afforded in the Constitution. Then again, you seem to ignore a great number of aspects of the Constitution, so I'm sure that won't bother you at all.

If what you say is true, then this study is reason enough to eliminate air-bags.

Airbags associated with increased probability of death in accidents, study finds
June 2, 2005
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that airbags installed in automobiles have saved some 10,000 lives as of January 2004. A just-released study by a statistician at the University of Georgia, however, casts doubt on that assertion.
In fact, said UGA statistics professor Mary C. Meyer, a new analysis of existing data indicates that, controlling for other factors, airbags are actually associated with slightly increased probability of death in accidents.

Do you have a link of name of said study you mentioned?

[donKey jote]

While the value of airbags seems dubious in the new study, the value of seatbelts is not. The analysis found that proper use of a seatbelt reduces the odds of death by 67 percent for any given speed category and airbag availability. Airbags, however, cause no statistical difference in car-crash deaths, except for unseatbelted occupants at low speeds, where the odds of death are estimated to be more than four times higher with an airbag than without.

duh!
Be free and buy yourself a car without an airbag if you wish.
Be stupid and don't wear a seatbelt, except maybe in said car at low speeds.


p.s. here's the link Bob posted:
Airbags linked to higher car accident deaths, USA
.... or did he?

[Dave B]

I really see no problems with people not wearing their seatbelts, its Darwinism in action.

As I said earlier, I've no problem in theory with the terminally stupid killing themselves through drink-driving, speeding, and/or failing to use perfectly sensible safety precautions.

However, the aftermath of such incidents has a financial cost as the fire brigade cut your remains out of your car, the police close the road, and the paramedics debate whether to use a shovel or a mop to get you into the ambulance; all this before you consider that RTAs have this annoying habit of involving innocent parties.

[Dave B]

p.s. here's the link Bob posted:
Airbags linked to higher car accident deaths, USA
.... or did he?

That study appears to make a gigantic leap of faith, speculating what might have occured had airbags not been involved in accidents. It fails to conduct a side-by-side comparison, which is the very essence of scientific study.

[Malbec]

As I said earlier, I've no problem in theory with the terminally stupid killing themselves through drink-driving, speeding, and/or failing to use perfectly sensible safety precautions.

However, the aftermath of such incidents has a financial cost as the fire brigade cut your remains out of your car, the police close the road, and the paramedics debate whether to use a shovel or a mop to get you into the ambulance; all this before you consider that RTAs have this annoying habit of involving innocent parties.

Drink driving and speeding are very different from not wearing your seatbelt.

The first two raise the risk of causing an accident and speeding worsens the effect of the accident as well. The same cannot be said for not wearing a seatbelt.

Not wearing a seatbelt causes harm to the person not using it and if they are sitting in the back, the person in front only. The negative impact is therefore much reduced compared to drink driving and speeding, and importantly doesn't really raise the risk for other roadusers who get caught up in an accident with them.

This is not to say I think not wearing seatbelts is acceptable, as I said its Darwinism in action with the stupid taking themselves out of circulation.

[chuck34]

State do not have the right to pass any law that is un-Constitutional by either the States own, or Federal Constitutions. The Fed. one trumping all others.

Clearly, and I have not said otherwise. In order for your argument to hold any water you need to show me where in the US Constitution it says "States shall not pass seatbelt laws".

That is the only place rights come from.

Again, no it is not. The US Constitution is not where rights come from. Read the document.

Other wise we would still have segregation.

Jim Crow laws were were "normal" laws that were, thank God, over-turned by the States themselves. And the "Due Process" clause in the 14th Amendment spoke specifically to the States which is why when those law's Constitutionality was challenged, they were defeated.

Speed limits, are guide lines, or were, which gave discretion to law officers to determine if one was exceeding the advised safe speed, endangering others; therefore, at least at one time, one could go to court to challenge it and if the judge agreed with the driver that the driver was not posing a danger, the ticket would be overturned.
I defeated one ticket in that manner.

Great for you, but States no longer take that view on the subject.

At the same time, tell me where the 55-- NATIONAL-- speed limit came from?

I suppose you are speaking of the law passed by Congress in '74? If so I would say that it is/was illegal, except possibly on interstate highways. And at the time many States, and police forces, took the same view. I would suggest that this is possibly the reason you were able to defeat your ticket. That was a well known way for State and Local governments to circumvent a law they didn't agree with, without going through the time and expense of challenging the Constitutionality of the law.

Seat-belt and helmet laws are laws protecting one from one's self.
Show me where in the Fed. Constitution this is allowed. Where any government can tell citizens what bathromm to use, where to sit in the bus, how to sit in a car, what road gear must be worn.
Show me where in the Constitution this is permitted.

Again you show your lack of understanding of the Constitution. It is not my duty to show you where it is allowed. Quite the opposite in fact. You must show me where those laws are prohibited by it to the States.

The Federal Constitution has the FINAL say so in all cases, period.

No, the US Constitution has final say so in the powers enumerated there-in. If it is outside the scope of the Constitution as written and amended the US Constitution has no say at all.

MONEY, is the factor that stops challenges to Constitutional freedoms as no lawyer works for free, plus the abuse that comes from the Tenth Amendment, is partly because Washington, from top to bottom, does not want to give up powers it has, legal or otherwise, and big money, which could attempt a challenge to Tenth Amendment, sees no profit in it and probably a loss of power as they have Wahsington insiders in their back-pockets to a degree.

Do you really think that the 10th Amendment is abusing you? Do you really want to challenge the 10th Amendment? If that is really what you are saying then you are arguing for a National Government, not a Federal one. There is a huge difference, and knowing your views on many subjects, I do not think a National Government is what you are after.

Our view of rights differ and I doubt we will ever agree.

Actually I think our views are very simmilar. You just need to read up a bit more on what our Founding documents actually say, where they came from, and their scope. There are many great books out there about the Constitution Convention, the ratification debates, letters between the Founders, etc. that would be a good starting point. Go to the source material where ever you can. Histories and biographies written latter are often colored by political perspectives.

[donKey jote]

That study appears to make a gigantic leap of faith, speculating what might have occured had airbags not been involved in accidents. It fails to conduct a side-by-side comparison, which is the very essence of scientific study.

you don't say !

[airshifter]

duh!
Be free and buy yourself a car without an airbag if you wish.
Be stupid and don't wear a seatbelt, except maybe in said car at low speeds.


p.s. here's the link Bob posted:
Airbags linked to higher car accident deaths, USA
.... or did he?

It's just no fun debating with someone that posts this kind of stuff. His link backs my statement on seatbelts, and he asks me for a source after attempting to cherry pick the same link to suit a view that opposes what is said.

A classic for sure!

[Bob Riebe]

It's just no fun debating with someone that posts this kind of stuff. His link backs my statement on seatbelts, and he asks me for a source after attempting to cherry pick the same link to suit a view that opposes what is said.

A classic for sure!

The link speaks of airbags related to higher death toll, while saying at high speed belts do not contribute to death.
It says squat about seat belts stopping people from losing control in accidents thereby protecting other drivers, etc, etc, etc.
If that is out there paste it, otherwise you are just babbling which has no class at all.

[Rollo]

It says squat about seat belts stopping people from losing control in accidents thereby protecting other drivers, etc, etc, etc.

Protecting other drivers from what? Dangerous and idiotic driving?

This is irrelevant considering you obviously didn't give two hoots about protecting other drivers in the first place by driving at more than 100mph. How about obeying the speed limit in the first place?

I was spoit out of a car that went end over end at triple digits. Why I was going that fast is not relevant.

At this point the whole seat belt pales into insignificance compared to the fact that you were driving negligently. What possible reason can you justify breaking the law wantonly?