Vehicle: Car: Seat Belt
Faux Seatbelt   (+5, -32)  [vote for, against]
I hate seatbelts

How about a fake piece of seatbelt, attached to the side window post, that drapes over to your shoulder. Police on seatbelt watch will see it and think you are a good little citizen and leave you alone. Should pay for itself many times over.
-- Ozone, May 09 2008

New Zealand driver dies wearing fake seatbelt
The story Voice remembers. [jutta, May 09 2008]

Seatbelt T-shirt (midway through the page) http://www.davidmer...MerryMagicStore.htm
"A great gag and huge seller! Wear it yourself or the perfect gift." For someone you want dead or crippled, that is. [jutta, May 09 2008]

(?) NO Seat Belt killers
this ad was made by one of my ex students, and is part of a series. [xenzag, May 09 2008]

Macho Tissues Macho_20Tissues
What Rugged Individualists fighting back against Big Brother can cry into when their whiny rants don't find the appreciation they so richly imagined. [ping, May 11 2008]

Read http://www.klinespe...eat_belt_lawyer.htm
As apposed to xenzag's student who used propganda commercials as a resource [MikeD, May 12 2008]

More of the Same
[MikeD, May 12 2008]

Even more of the same... kind of.
BTW, first sentence from the 'More of the same' article: "The direct benefit from wearing a seatbelt when travelling in an automobile is uncontestable and has resulted in laws making the use of seatbelts mandatory." [Jinbish, May 12 2008]

A man was cited three times for not using a seatbelt. He later died using a device such as you describe. Won himself a darwin award, if I'm not mistaken.
-- Voice, May 09 2008

I was working the Emergency Room one day when we got a ring-down for a major accident with a prolonged extrication.

Seems a driver was towing a car with his car on the freeway and came off at a tight cloverleaf at much more than the 25MPH ramp speed. The cars jackknifed and tumbled end-over-end.

He came into my E.R. where we cut off all his clothes, started IV's, took C-Spine & chest X-Rays, trauma panel [bloodwork], cardiogram...we're talking the million dollar work-up.

We finally realized that his only injuries were a bruise to his left shoulder and right hip. He said he only wore his seatbelt that day to feel safer. After that, he swore to never move his car without his seatbelt on.

Having worked trauma for almost 10 years, I won't move my car until every person is belted in.

Screeeech, crash, crunch, smack, fishbone.
-- Klaatu, May 09 2008

Voice's guy didn't make it into the Darwin Awards (although they certainly come to mind), but see link for the story.
-- jutta, May 09 2008

You could take it one step further, and make it an article of clothing.

My mom insisted that my dad install seat belts in our car long before they were fashionable, and we thought she was being excessive.

But I've always felt badly for the fools that get ejected from their cars in low speed accidents and get run over by their own car. If that ever happened to me I'd want to be buried anonymously.

Buckle up.
-- normzone, May 09 2008

I'm not boning you because I disagree (though I do), I'm boning you because its baked.
-- Voice, May 09 2008

I was once the victim of an RTA as a backseat passenger, in the days before rear seatbelts were commonplace, let alone complulsory.
At that time, even front-seat occupants were not obliged to wear belts.
I struck the front passenger seat with enough force to knock it off its mountings, but the front-seat passenger's belt saved us both, and she had nothing worse than bruising.
Guess why I'm boning this.
-- AbsintheWithoutLeave, May 09 2008

Ozone - try running flat out into a brick wall and see what happens. Now imagine that you are a passenger in a car, and instead of the wall, someone is sitting in front of you; then imagine you are travelling at 50 mph instead of running at a max of 15 mph, and crash into the same wall. Tell me what you think happens next.

Not wearing a seatbelt is moronic. It's not cool or rebellious. It's just boring, selfish and childish.
-- xenzag, May 09 2008

//boring, selfish and childish//

Like all of the world's stupidities.

It's people like this who get head injuries in 25 mph crashes and end up on SSDI for the rest of their lives.

Is there a name for an obsession with some minor rule that leads one to expend more energy avoiding it than it would take to comply?
-- nomocrow, May 09 2008

My dad used to run us around in a van with two heavy wooden church pews in the back. They were in lengthwise, and slippery as hell. I figure that's used up all my automotive luck forever, and I now wear a seatbelt for everything. [-]
-- baconbrain, May 09 2008

Seams like a victimless crime to me. (Just like prostitution but without the STDs) [+]
-- MikeD, May 09 2008

Victimless? The people who pay taxes become the victims of this sort of thing.
-- nomocrow, May 09 2008

// [Seems] like a victimless crime to me.
Except for the other people the idiot-turned-projectile hits while flying around in the car, a point xenxag's former student's ad makes.
-- jutta, May 09 2008

//Idiot-turned-projectile// Shall we expect laws for properly securing the groceries/tool box/what-have-you aswell? At least idiot-turned-projectile is soft and relatively squishy. Besides, choosing your friends wisely is a better safe-guard, yes? With so much more benefit then not being pummeled by him/her in an automobile accident.
-- MikeD, May 09 2008

Princess Di. Nuff said.
-- wagster, May 09 2008

[MikeD] You're responsible for the things you have in your car or van, so if you've a heavy toolbox in there, it's up to you to see that it can't fly forward in the event of a crash.

If you choose to take your life in your hands by not wearing a belt, some might argue that it's your own responsibility. However, when you fly forward out of the backseat and kill the front seat passenger, is it victimless then?

(and yes, that's exactly what can happen when you give them a 50mph head-butt to the back of the skull)

It's not sensible, it's not victimless and it's not necessary. [-]
-- david_scothern, May 10 2008

// Should pay for itself many times over //

Pack also includes a two hundred millimetre sharpened steel spike which conveniently attaches to the centre of the steering wheel, a single-shot pistol with one bullet, a bottle of 50 proof vodka, and a T-shirt for the passenger which has "I'm with Stupid" printed on it.

-- 8th of 7, May 10 2008

Wow, I don't see why this post is getting such negative results. This idea is 100 times safer than the EFP shotgun...

1. Sure, this idea should not be embraced world-wide but; A man who drives alone, has led a full life and couldn't rightly care whether or not he exits this life now, as apposed to twenty years later in a nursing home wearing adult diapers, has just as much right to choose comfort over safety as a well-to-do business man has to attend an horse-race and wager what he can afford to lose.

2. Of the 13 bones on this page, I assume there are a corresponding 13 automobiles that *do not have* radar detectors, lest someone experience guilt due to hypocrisy
-- MikeD, May 10 2008

//a bottle of 50 proof vodka//

Most vodka is at least 80 proof (40% alc.). For the "stupid pride suicide kit" described for non-seatbelt-wearers, I'd recommend 150-proof vodka, or pure ethanol.
-- sninctown, May 10 2008

We were referring to Gay-Lussac proof... but yes, a fair point. 94% Ethanol would be just fine.
-- 8th of 7, May 10 2008

//My dad used to run us around in a van with two heavy wooden church pews in the back.// If you think that's bad, when I was in preschool, we went on field trips riding in the back of a van with no seats. 20+ kids under the age of 5 would huddle on the floor as the teacher's son would actually be allowed to stand up in the passenger seat.

[-]Anyhow, a bone for you because using a fake seatbelt takes just as much effort as using a real one.
-- Jscotty, May 10 2008

Just as it is dangerous to have that proposed EV-pusher trailer (that made its pros excited) for fear of jackknife, like that accident [Klaatu] has pointed out, I would surely buckle up with the real thing, much more I expect much that the greatest danger are the unexpected vehicles in the rear that could jacknife the vehicle I am in towards a frontal collision of another vehicle.

Oh, how I wish each cars have belt longitudinally wrap around them too - so that, whenever accidents occur beyond the capability of brakes, the belt ends that wrapped around, beneath the car, would deploy their ground penetrating anchors to brace and pin the car down and dead on its track. And so are the belted tires, the black-belted martial artists, leather-belted ladies, utility-belted Batman and Robin, Van Allen Belt, etc...........

BELTS Should Be For REAL!!! As Celts for weal, delts for meal, felts for teal, gelts for deal, melts(1) for seal(1), melts(2) for seal(2), pelts for seal(2), pelts for veal, and welts for zeal.
-- rotary, May 10 2008

I am shocked and dismayed. Having seen the response to this idea I was contemplating deleting it and with hat in hand, limp off to lick my wounds. But no! In fact that thought only lasted as long as I felt bad about what you were saying to and about me. About two seconds. If I’m going to go down, it will be in a blaze of glory!

First, to the boning given because I did not know it was already baked, I accept your judgment. But for the rest of you wimps... I used to believe that most halfbakers marched to a different tune. Now I find that they dance to the mantra of cradle to grave security.

I can remember a time when you could flirt with a woman without the fear that you might be hitting on the one that thinks a wink is equal to sexual harassment and is ready to file charges just to prove the point. I can remember a time when the teens in my town used to hang around the old flooded stone quarry, diving of cliffs that ranged from a few feet high to a hundred feet. I enjoyed it, my father’s generation had enjoyed it, but my son never will because Big Brother decided to protect us by annexing the quarry, making a park out of it, and placing the cliffs off limit.

And what is this bull about the Darwinian award? I did not advocate refusing to wear a safety harness while crash testing vehicles. In fact I did not advocate going without a belt at all. I myself even have been known to don a seatbelt now and again. I absolutely wear one during inclement weather, heavy traffic, and around known police checkpoints. And there is the rub, as at times I do not know where they are checking and the belt slips my mind. The last time I forgot to wear my safety belt I had not even traveled a full two blocks before I found myself owing the state a fair amount of change. Why should I have to pay the state for a memory lapse? It can’t be because the state is worried about my well being or I would not read news stories about how it is TOO EXPENSIVE TO PUT SEATBELTS ON SCHOOL BUSSES!

I was going to rant on about my experiences of jumping out of perfectly good airplanes, hang gliding, and most dangerous of all, teaching in high school, and then point out that even though it is not required in my state, I wear a helmet while on a motorcycle. I have decided however that it is not worth throwing out any more pearls before this group.

Just one more thought about the Darwinian awards. When the crap finally does hit the proverbial fan I would lay money that more of the Rugged Individualist make it than those that need to depend on Big Brother to tell you how to act, and what is PC. By the way, Darwin was wrong.
-- Ozone, May 11 2008

I'm sorry you thought you were joining a site where people shared a proclivity for elf-destruction, a lack of common sense, and a disregard for human life. I'm sorry you feel we are all wimps because we disagree with one idea that has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I'm sorry you think you deserve special treatment because of the lifestyle you have chosen.

Don't let the door hit you in the butt when you leave.
-- Canuck, May 11 2008

//Why should I have to pay the state for a memory lapse?//
I like that. Maybe I'll use that as an excuse when I forget to file my tax return.

re. jumping out of perfectly serviceable aeroplanes etc. - these you are not required to do.
I myself happily subject my body to large amounts of pressurised unbreathable compounds whilst carrying only a limited supply of breathable ones, but I'm not going to forget to take with me at least two, probably three redundant, alternate sources.
I am not risk averse, but neither am I stupid.

What [canuck] said.
-- AbsintheWithoutLeave, May 11 2008

//Rugged Individualist// Laughable comment - come on [Ozone] lighten up. I'm sure when the end of the world comes along, you can join all the other surviving, non-seat belt wearers with a loud chorus of "Ha Ha - told you so", as we poor, non- rugged ones wring our hands with envy, seeking a few unworthy breadcrumbs at the feet of our new terrible Faux Seatbelt wearing masters.
-- xenzag, May 11 2008

//By the way, Darwin was wrong//
[reads [ozone]'s profile - vague comprehension dawns]
So you don't wear a seatbelt so that you can be Raptured more easily?
No Divine fiddling with the buckle, just...foooom!
Well, why didn't you just say that?
Don't forget to leave the sun-roof open.
-- AbsintheWithoutLeave, May 11 2008

For those of you who have never actually studied evolution but only run with the crowd, you need to study it! It is the math and science that drove me away from evolution. Not religion. While there are dozen of things that do not fit I’ll just point out one. Evolutionist claim that it is high stress environments that cause evolution to go into overdrive. But even if you do not use that fact and only go with an unadjusted exponential growth curve, calculation based on the most conservative data used by evolutionist, you have no choice (if honest with yourself) but to come to the conclusion that we should be seeing dozens of new large scale viable species (cat and dog size, not microbes or bugs) evolving yearly. Not to mention the thousands of new species that need to show up but die off because they do not make the grade. The number of species we have on Earth should be shooting through the roof if the claims of evolution are correct, but instead we see a decrease in the number of species and we have an endangered species list.

Come on. This is a group of individuals that seem to understand math and science. Take a real look at the numbers. Don't just accept your knee-jerk reaction here. Take a true indepth look at the data before you make up your mind. I will talk numbers and facts all day long, but if you can only call names, then you are not really learning or teaching are you. I'm not afraid to look at the numbers. Are you?
-- Ozone, May 11 2008

Sorry [xenzag] I'll lighten up. Seems I may have been listening to the voices again.
-- Ozone, May 11 2008

+2, -19

I can see 'em. But, how do they prove your point?
-- daseva, May 11 2008

I like your other ideas, but this one is terrible. I would support making seatbelts optional as long as no one else is harmed, ie requiring people who don't wear seatbelts to buy insurance to cover the costs of 1) higher medical bills due to injury or injury of others by their flying, unbelted body, and 2) lost contribution to society due to premature, needless death.

<off topic alert!>

//I'm not afraid to look at the numbers. Are you?//

There appears to be a fossil record of animals diverging into different species, similarities in bone structure between all mammals, etc., that suggests that some form of evolution does occur. I agree that there is plenty of room for refining the theory, and it is unknown what the current rate of speciation is (might even be negative due to humans joining isolated areas). However, I think that no other approach (ID, creationism, etc) makes adequately testable predictions to allow falsification.

Let the off-topic debate/flamewar commence...or not. please, let this be forgotten. may people someday find the truth, and post many half-good ideas in the meantime.

</off topic alert!>
-- sninctown, May 11 2008

I thought this was going to be a rant against people using leopard tails as seatbelts or something. (-)
-- Shadow Phoenix, May 11 2008

//Just one more thought about the Darwinian awards.// And another - it's called the Darwin award. A Darwinian award would be one that..ah, forget it.

//By the way, Darwin was wrong.// About what?
-- MaxwellBuchanan, May 11 2008

About wearing a seat belt of course.
-- xenzag, May 11 2008

[Jscotty]'s bone, same effort required, is just as legetimate as mine.
-- Voice, May 11 2008

//joining a site where people shared a proclivity for elf-destruction//

Have I been stalking Lothlorien all this time in vain? Tsk Tsk Tsk, you should calm down before you anno [Cannuk]. I believe what Ozone is trying to say is:

Life is full of danger. Our entire span of existence is a constant balance of risks vs rewards. Who can claim moral authority to choose what risks shall be fined?

Personally, I wear a seat belt. I spend most of my driving alone and I drive a 5114lb car. Not too many vehicles can eject me. I choose to wear my seatbelt because I have paid three times for not doing so. ($125 a pop) My life has consisted of dangers oh so much more lethal than not wearing a seatbelt. Let me ask you (at the risk of pissing everybody off); What will you do when (not if) the day comes that your illusion of safety comes crashing down around your cozy worlds of denial?

Man is nothing more than a contemplative beast, capable of the most heinous acts of violence and oppression. I have seen this first hand. I see this daily. One day something will kill each and everyone of you. Whether it be old-age, a car crash, a man bursting into a classroom with an assault rifle, a religious fanatic strapped with plastic explosives and ball-bearings, nuclear holocaust, metal fatigue in a main support beam of the building you work in, toxins leaching into the water supply, etc, etc.

My point, (and please take this as from someone who does not know if the next minute will be his last), a life lived in fear is a life wasted.
-- MikeD, May 12 2008

I really like the idea of having no seatbelt but instead having a very dynamic seat that would wrap me in careful, loving, soft, warm, kiss-like embrace whenever accidents happen. Everyone here would agree with me that seatbelt will be obsolete in the future because it will be considered hazardous, cumbersome, poor old technology. Hope someone here would half-bake an enrapturing car seat, and I would gladly toss a croissant and be a die-hard advocate and a prolific co-engineer for its development.

So, friend Ozone, take the lead. (shhh, please with true seatbelt on, shhh) I will be right here close behind you, in a safe distance of course.
-- rotary, May 12 2008

//instead having a very dynamic seat that would wrap me in careful, loving, soft, warm, kiss-like embrace whenever accidents happen//

replace airbag with inflatable woman.
-- FlyingToaster, May 12 2008

I might be hearing implausible voices with implausible light bulb...

What? An inflatable bun?
-- rotary, May 12 2008

MikeD, what makes you think I am not calm? I'm so calm I make a pool of still water look frenzied. One of the things in life I find distasteful is a situation where someone feels their rights are being trampled upon because they think a law or regulation is inconvenient and aimed specifically at them. They get all self-righteous and blather on about how pointless such a law is and somehow that's supposed to support their position that disobeying it is OK, and come up with cutesy little ways to justify their rebellious behaviour.

I'm all for rebellious behaviour, in its place, but I don't want rebels driving 20 to 30 kmh over the speed limit on my residential streets, just because the posted speed is inconvenient.

I choose to wear a seat belt not because I live in fear of being fined. I made the choice when I was 14 and was nearly thrown from the back seat into the front seat of my grandfather's car when he drove through a stop sign and t-boned another car. I have always worn a seat belt since that day, and that fact saved my life when I totalled my first car (I really liked that Dastun 210) in a single-car accident, after skidding on some black ice and going over a 6-foot drop. I walked (well, limped, actually) away from that crash with only bruises, to both body and ego.

And to return to the point, am I supposed to bun this idea simply because it may be an effective way to avoid getting fined for not wearing a seat belt?

<edited to remove [m-f-d]> I'll just leave the fishbone, and get out of here. Buckle up for safety , y'all.
-- Canuck, May 12 2008

It is fine if you don’t wear a seatbelt, as long as you’re willing to be responsible for your actions. That means you can’t use your health insurance to pay for your injuries because that makes everyone else’s premiums go up.

If you live in a country where you have “free” healthcare, then you buckle your seatbelt out of respect for the taxpayers.

I don’t know why this is such an emotional issue. If it’s legal to smoke five packs of cigarettes a day, then it should be legal to forego the seatbelt. Just DON’T ask me to cover your butt when you lose your gamble.

[-] for idea being baked and for not promising to pay for your own gambling loss. Sorry.
-- bneal27, May 12 2008

Why mfd it ? It's an original idea, albeit amazingly stupid.
-- FlyingToaster, May 12 2008

BUNGCO is not especially proud, but nevertheless eager to introduce the "FAUXED" brand - a whole line of fake safety equipment. Child seats, smoke alarms, low calorie beer, motorcycle helmets, those rubber flanges over waste disposalls - the list goes on and on. If you are sick of safe - you can get FAUXED!

Of course, every FAUXED product (by BUNGCO!) contains a plaque with a strongly worded disclaimer, noting the product to be used only for a conversation starter or for educational purposes or for something not especially dangerous.
-- bungston, May 12 2008

What about a device that fools idiots into thinking they are defying authority and taking risks with their health while actually making them safer and less a burden on society. A seat belt that says "I'm with stupid" or "fuck cops" that they would proudly and consistently use.
-- WcW, May 12 2008

Ozone's son: "Thanks, son, for reminding me of what you've archived in HB about your grandpa's 3-f*wishbone thought-meal; without, we could've been chased off by those ancient cops clad with primitive fabrics back to the future. And thanks for this extra-padding of our craft seats coz we might as well be chased off too for being suspect to sexist mutilation here due to these hidden telescopic rubbery multitasking emergency arms tucked behind our seats.

So enjoy a nostalgic scenery of their antediluvian city that looked like our countryside neighbors back in our present time. And remind me to keep our instruments--to check our faux tires from hovering before their wary eyes.

So, buckle up with our orange FAUX SEATBELTS!"
-- rotary, May 12 2008

I always buckle-up, and it is out of fear (of injury to myself/others), but I really think that it's time to overhaul the average car's seat belt system. Perhaps a four-point design?

Last year I was in a nasty accident, and the seat belt left its mark on me. Kind of like your idea, but bruised meat instead of fake material. My right knee also impaled the dash (nice chunks of skin left stuck to it), and my right wrist smacked the steering wheel. My head hit the driver's window, and I was left delirious and gasping for air (felt like a kick in the guts).

Seems my Incredible Bulk was torqued around the diagonal portion of the belt, and many of my injuries were a result of that. A four-point system would have kept me aligned and I'd probably have just suffered some mild whiplash. All this whilst stopped at a red light!

I hate to think of how much worse it would have been had I not been secured, and in a very safe car.

Idea apparently baked, and I throw a bone - rare for me - as a knee-jerk emotional reaction to the memories this idea triggered. Let's hope that the idea stays as it's such an important topic.

I do agree with all here who have said, "go ahead, do what you want as long as it doesn't cost us."

Where I live, in Vancouver, Canada, we get fined for not wearing helmets when out for a bicycle ride, the excuse being that an injury will cost the system, yet I still see people smoking!! Pisses me off that I will have to pay for their cancer treatment, or possibly my own when they cause me to develop it.
-- TIB, May 12 2008

//rebels driving 20 to 30 kmh over the speed limit on my residential streets//

Nor do I [Canuk]. This in particular really gripes my ass because I cannot take my 5 year old son for a walk down to the end of the street. People whom do not buckle-up, however, do not put my children at risk.

***The only people that fear natural selection are the weak***

One more thing ...

//I'm all for rebellious behaviour, in its place//

Lone driver, pays for own health insurance, knows risk involved.

Who's point are you making? Hard to tell.
-- MikeD, May 12 2008

// People whom do not buckle-up, however, do not put my children at risk.

(They do, if they're in the same car, as we've previously covered; they also do in terms of health-care costs.)

What if your children are the ones who don't buckle up? Because they can get away with it, since the seat belt laws aren't being enforced; because their driver can get away with it, since seat belt laws aren't being enforced; and taking risks is cool, and showing fear - even reasonable fear - is not?

I don't find that level of stupidity unrealistic, and I don't think your kids should die for it.

[admin: no, this is not just a let's all; it's an invention - a seat belt decoy. You can disagree with the idea, but this isn't mfd material.]
-- jutta, May 12 2008


First things first, my children don't ride with irresponsible people. Period.

Secondly, I am in no way, shape, or form saying taking risks is cool. I am however saying that taking risks is inevitable. I recommend people don't take risks they cannot "pony-up" to, if it don't pay off.

The point of the matter is that, albeit few and far between, there are people whom could choose not to wear their seatbelts and hurt no one but themselves, and not care one way or another.

If you can't concede that point then I am wasting my finger-calories.
-- MikeD, May 12 2008

// First things first, my children don't ride with irresponsible people.

I wish you the best of luck for your future. And I don't think *you* believe, or would inspire your kids to think, that taking unreasonable risks is cool; alas, parents are frequently not in as much control of their kids' values as they think or wish.
-- jutta, May 12 2008

-- MikeD, May 12 2008

It's only a seatbelt. I don't see why people get so worked up about wearing one.
-- hippo, May 12 2008


a long time ago in a land far away from a good portion of youse, I and a friend put together our first model rocket... we were both in our early 20's, but had no prior experience.

So we build the thing, go to light it and the fuse burns down to the quick and...... nothing, nada. So we figure we'll just put a match to it, that should be hot enough. Just as yours truly is about to touch a freshly lit match to a solid-fuel rocket motor a *bit* of common-sense kicks in and we decide to make a fuse for it instead.

Long story short I still have all the fingers on my hand.


Short story long humans don't naturally judge physical actions which are outside of the body's abilities; for that we rely on calculation and experience; 60mph is pretty far outside the human body's natural abilities.
-- FlyingToaster, May 12 2008

Personally, I think that not wearing a seatbelt is a stupid idea. You just never know when something will happen and you'll have to rely on it. On the other hand, you have the inconvenience of having to put the belt on (although I believe some manufacturers have offered automatic seatbelts), and the discomfort of wearing one. I don't find any comfort with a seatbelt, but I appreciate that some people don't like them.

Well, here's an option. Why do people not like to wear seatbelts? If they're properly adjusted, they fit comfortably over the shoulder. Is it because they don't like this thing pulling gently across their chest? If so, why not use the seatbelt pre-tensioners that are being fitted into more and more vehicles.

The belt could then lie (fairly) loose over the person's clothing, and the moment a collision is detected it could be pulled tight. It's effectively the same as current pretensioning seatbelts, but it would lie a little looser over the occupant.

That's just an option - don't know if it would impair the function of the belt. Sorry if my comment is meandering - I'm half-asleep here.
-- Defiler, May 12 2008

//Of the 13 bones on this page, I assume there are a corresponding 13 automobiles that *do not have* radar detectors//
My car is clean of any kind of detector other than my eyeballs, and my driving licence of thirty years is clean of any points for any driving offence.
(For reference: I drive a very ordinary saloon car capable of sub 9 second 0-60mph, I know it will comfortably exceed 120mph, and unlike American cars of similar performance, it actually goes around corners)
I feel uncomfortable *not* wearing a seat-belt. [-]
-- coprocephalous, May 12 2008

[MikeD] I see your point on the issue of fear. People sometimes get freaked out by things that are highly unlikely while completely ignoring real threats. This is human nature I suppose. The thing about seatbelts though, is that unlike quitting smoking, it is something that is really easy to do.
-- bneal27, May 12 2008

It's a sad state of affairs that legislation is needed to coerce automobile operators into using this safety device. I despise such laws, as they ignore the *extremely* obscure scenarios where seat belt use is not appropriate. I give this countermeasure a pastry, although I would never use the countermeasure myself.
-- ed, May 12 2008

[Ozone] et all refusnics, do you also refuse to wear your seatbelts when flying? At least in a car it might save you in the event of a crash, but in a plane, who knows... but I bet you all dutifully fasten them every time without fail.
-- xenzag, May 12 2008

Children must be locked down in the back seat. Has anyone ever gone to the effort of a statistical analysis of how many accidents were caused by the driver/mother trying to reach into the back to comfort a crying baby? Why has nobody even touched on the fact that it is too expensive for the state to put seatbelts on school buses?

Has anyone given any thought to the fact that it is politicians that usually know less than your average citizen about everything, except how to talk out of both sides of their mouth, who are telling you how to live your life? These are the same people that have made it a law that there has to be Braille on drive up ATMs.

The government is pushing itself ever further into our lives, and more times than not it is some fool who is only trying to make political points who is designing the bill. Maybe I should have chosen a different item of intrusion and stupidity as the subject of my bake.

If I had complained about the fact that hammers now have instructions glued to the handle telling you to use the flat part to hit the nail with, would you have claimed I was advocating using the claw? Do you have any idea how many farmers and ranchers were insulted by OSHA when it distributed warnings that cow manure can be slippery. If that were my gripe would you have boned me because you were claiming I was advocating using cow dung as grease? As Jim Stafford says, “You gotta watch your step when the chips are down.”

What I have seen written here because of this posting makes me think a fair number of you were potty trained at gunpoint.
-- Ozone, May 12 2008

"These are the same people that have made it a law that there has to be Braille on drive up ATMs."

Those are there so that a blind person in the back driver's side passenger seat can use the ATM. Just because it seems stupid to you that blind people want to have some of the same advantages that you do does not make the thing itself a bad idea.

I get it. You don't like government intrusion for political gain. You response completely misses the point: Seat belt laws are good laws.

They protect not only the wearer, but other occupants of the car.

They also protect other drivers because they help drivers maintain control after an initial impact.

They help to prevent head injuries.

They are necessary for airbags to work properly, further reducing head and other debilitating injuries.

They are a cheap way to help reduce the burden on society of the medical costs associated with long-term injuries.

The government is not, in this case, "pushing itself into your life." This is one of the good laws. With the entire Patriot Act out there, you take up your lance against seat belt laws?

I've never understood the utter inability to distinguish between government intrusion and laws that are designed to help everyone and to prevent stupid people from hurting a lot of people.

Fortunately, our system is designed to handle this. It takes time, but it usually works in the end. And laws that are based on a legitimate state interest that does not disproportionately affect a suspect class usually survive.

And, for the record, I personally believe that everyone who ever gets in a car should have to wear a lightweight helmet.
-- nomocrow, May 12 2008

(UK school buses have seatbelts)
-- david_scothern, May 12 2008

just to clarify, my [-] wasn't for the cleverness of the idea, but for any further baking of it.
-- FlyingToaster, May 12 2008

[nomocrow] The Patriot Act is for the common good. But now at least I understand the problem. Personally I’m more concerned about a terrorist destroying some part of our infrastructure than I am about if John and Jane Doe are wearing their seatbelt or not. But as I said, at least now I understand disconnect.

Would now be a good time to submit my design for a RADAR scrambler? The prototype worked great! Made the car read 15 m/h while going 35m/h.
-- Ozone, May 12 2008

//Personally I’m more concerned about a terrorist destroying some part of our infrastructure than I am about if John and Jane Doe are wearing their seatbelt or not//[O3]

//People sometimes get freaked out by things that are highly unlikely while completely ignoring real threats// [bneal27].

Nuff said.
-- AbsintheWithoutLeave, May 12 2008

[Absent] While it is true that the probability that somebody is on the road without a seatbelt on is very high, the danger that poses to me is zero. The probability that terrorists are eventually going to meet with some success in their endeavors to hurt the US and its friends is not zero. The destruction they could cause is far from zero.

High probability times zero impact is zero worry, low probability times major impact means there is something to worry about. Simple math. Very simple math.
-- Ozone, May 12 2008

Having vehicles on the road whose drivers may be killed or rendered unconscious by minor impacts is a risk to other travellers. Only in specific circumstances (i.e. after a minor incident), but if an SUV glances off another vehicle, the driver knocks himself out smashing the windscreen with his head, and the whole shebang comes through the central reservation to maim me, I'm not going to be satisfied with the knowledge that he was single and had health insurance. A mildly unlikely situation in reality, but not impossible - which is why I don't think you can argue that the risk is only to the person who opts out of seatbelt-wearing.
-- david_scothern, May 12 2008

What if the unrestrained driver catapults through his windshield, and then through the air towards you, and then through your windshield, and because his lack of seatbelt sort of worried him he was wearing a helmet just in case, and it was one of those World War I German helmets with a spike on top, and it was a _poisoned_ spike! What then, Ozone? WHAT THEN???
-- bungston, May 12 2008

Oh what right, if John Doe was really Agent Jack Bauer in mufti, on his way to deflect the latest anti-murcain plot, who had inadvertently forgotten to fasten his belt because of cute li'l Britney-Louise who was asking for his autograph as he leapt into his SRX?
What then, huh, huh?
-- AbsintheWithoutLeave, May 12 2008

Bleems upon the blarie gits

Amuck and inder trows

Farmlie glicks and utter cruks

Meenops feep the crow

I’ll bipp grinder loud and doer

Flinging runks of limp and bonet

Watch the mefy gorsal bit

And then see if I don’t

Since we are all belted in I thought a bit of Vogan poetry was in order.
-- Ozone, May 12 2008

//Simple math. Very simple math//
The same simple maths that shows you right, and Charles Darwin wrong?
Keep digging, Rocket Boy.
-- AbsintheWithoutLeave, May 12 2008

[Ozone], about 43,300 Americans die in automobile accidents every single year. The biggest and worst terrorist act killed 3,000 Americans. Driving probably has a lot more impact on and risk to your life than terrorists.

Crashes with fatalities average about 39,000 incidents, so it looks like a lot of the accidents are happening to solo drivers, maybe.

A lot of people are not getting killed, though. More than 2.5 million people are hurt in auto crashes each year, but don't die from them. Seatbelts, maybe?

55 percent of fatality victims were not wearing seat belts. Which may indicate that seatbelts won't save your life in every case, but I didn't think they would. Given that most folks do wear seatbelts, I'd say that is disproportionate enough to say seatbelts save lives.

The link to the lap belts lawyers is kind of misleading. The discussion underway is about shoulder belts, which they admit are safer. (I know I wouldn't wear just a lap belt any more.)
-- baconbrain, May 12 2008

But [baconbrain] the terrorists are not a threat to themselves, they are a threat to me. (I'm aware of suicide bombers) Somebody driving sans seatbelt is a threat to themselves, not a threat to me.
-- Ozone, May 12 2008

To me, the most threatening drivers on the road are the young men who believe they can't die, and who believe they can really drive, and who believe they don't need seatbelts. Getting the little bastards to contemplate their own mortality by slipping on a shoulder belt would mean I'd have to contemplate my own mortality a lot less often.

You can't show that beltless drivers are not a threat to anyone else, can you? For instance, if an ambulance comes whizzing past me, it puts my life at risk. Compulsory seatbelts mean less ambulances.
-- baconbrain, May 12 2008

[baconbrain] Can we be friends anyway?
-- Ozone, May 12 2008

Oh, yeah. Good discussion. Thanks.
-- baconbrain, May 12 2008

//Somebody driving sans seatbelt is a threat to themselves, not a threat to me.//

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. And your entire argument hangs on this premise. That means that your argument is not well-founded.

Does this bother you, or are you accustomed to making argument from false premises to reach silly conclusions with no basis in fact?
-- nomocrow, May 13 2008

[nomocrow] What do you mean? Where are you from anyway? Do you understand what is being said? Do you understand what you are saying? Please keep it in context and tell me how John Doe riding down Hwy 101 without his seatbelt on threatens me while I'm sitting down at my supper table, more than a terrorist planning on poisoning my water supply threatens me? Come up with numbers, studies, and real data or stop just making up and/or claiming crapp.
-- Ozone, May 13 2008

/while I'm sitting down at my supper table/

How about when you're on the highway, as I suggested? Given that the law holds (and common sense suggests) you should wear your belt, the burden of proof is on you to show that bystanders are not being threatened.
-- david_scothern, May 13 2008

//Do you understand what is being said?//

Yes. Never mind, troll.
-- nomocrow, May 13 2008

I think I have a solution to this problem. Instead of a seatbelt law, insurance companies could simply refuse to pay for injuries caused by seat belt neglect.

This would make everyone’s premiums go down since we would no longer be paying out the millions of dollars spent for all those people in traction and comas as a result of seat belt neglect.

This also applies to motorcyclists who are somehow exempt from seatbelt laws.

Basically not wearing a seatbelt voids the warranty on your body.
-- bneal27, May 13 2008

Speaking of motorcycles, why is it legal to ride a motorcycle but illegal to drive a car without a seatbelt?
-- bneal27, May 13 2008

Because there are more things for your body to collide with (e.g. steering wheel, dash - actually the whole car interior) when you crash your car. A seatbelt helps with this.

Coming off a motorcycle is basically digital - you either live or die, depending on whether your body hits anything unyeilding before slowing down sufficiently.
-- Texticle, May 14 2008

[david scothern] This is it. I’ll try one more time to open your eyes, but I have a feeling you do not want to see the other side.

I can see the other side. I can understand how somebody living in a high-density urban location can not imagine anyone so simple as to get behind the wheel without putting on a seatbelt. I know that that individual could never imagine somebody feeling safe while playing in the middle of the road, but I can imagine those things. Why? For the same reason I cringe every time I see some actor surprised by a vehicle driving up on them in the country. As a child I used to run down the middle of the road to my neighbor and I could hear a car coming well over two minutes before it got there. That is not an exaggeration in the least. If you don’t trust me ask someone you know who used to live in the sticks.

Why should I place myself on a highway for you [david scothern] when I don’t live anywhere close to one? I no longer have any consistent experiences that would cause me to even think about being in danger from highway traffic. Therefore the threat of monetary loss is the only thing that weighs on my mind to remind me to click-it as I go into town to shop.

But it seems only the urban lifestyle can be considered while making laws. And don’t reach for straws, I don’t drink.

So now, please explain to me [david scothern] or anyone else, how my riding down the back road to go fishing at the old swimming hole, without my seatbelt on, puts you in danger! Then extrapolate from there!
-- Ozone, May 14 2008

Oh, if only governments enact laws to foster innovations in safety, then probably seatbelt would be a thing of the past. Seatbelt is hazardous in a number of cases too - think about it! We badly need much better technologies to virtually eliminate fatalities in car accidents.
-- rotary, May 14 2008

One word: Ejector seats with little propellers that pop out the top and GPS navigation with push button motion control to help find a safe landing zone.
-- daseva, May 14 2008

With all that has been said here, the thing that upsets me most is that, nobody has said anything about the Vogan poetry!
-- Ozone, May 14 2008

Expectations... yea.. we like to mess with those.
-- daseva, May 14 2008

I really believe seatbelt will be totally replaced by special air bags on both sides of a seat: the airbags have special nonabrasive Velcro in their mating surfaces upon deployment! Well, suggestions for its enhancements are more welcome than foolish remarks of naysayers. One great enhancement is a rapid collision-activated vacuum apparatus beneath the seat.

Well, rather than waiting for revised enforcement laws, the "Side-Airbags Instant-Belt" is supplemented with rolled-tissue-cartridged FAUX SEATBELT with "no littering" label (as it doubles as a tissue paper to be used before disembarking).

Oh, before naysayers can react, the Velcro pads are to be deployed such that their appropriate position can only be subjected to shearing forces - not the "peeling" process. (A "licking tongue" configuration perhaps!)
-- rotary, May 14 2008

[ before naysayers can react ]

-- normzone, May 14 2008

Take it from a former seat-belt engineer. Always wear it.

And if it's frayed on either edge, get it replaced. Seat belts are strong stuff, but they have design limits and some of them are designed with tear-away stitching to be used only once in an accident. I'm afraid Velcro won't do it, even in shear.

People who don't wear their seat belts become a healthcare burden on our overtaxed healthcare system when they turn into vegetables who probably don't have insurance anyway. Stupidity tends to bleed over into many activities, after all.
-- RayfordSteele, Jan 11 2011

random, halfbakery