Pantagraph.com | Letters | Seat belt law shows we're not really free

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

ican'tfindmyshoeee.. wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:33 PM:

" We have 4 judges sitting on the supreme court that today have demonstrated for the world to see, they have no clue what the Constitution is about.

And we are supposed to believe an anonymous poster on here that claims "driving is a privilege"???!...

do a search with the words "license right to travel"
You will then know, "Driving Is A Constitutional Right"... "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 26, 2008 2:25 PM:

" Modulation:
Once again you show us just how immature you really are by resorting to childish name calling and insults. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 26, 2008 12:29 PM:

" Superfly

Using the smoking laws as an example. Yes, they passed a law telling you where you can smoke. Do you understand why that is? They determined second hand smoke causes harm to "OTHERS". So this law is to protect "OTHERS" from some people causing harm to OTHERS!

How does a seat belt law protect "OTHERS"? If you chose not to wear your seat belt can that cause harm to SOMEONE ELSE? No! It can only cause harm to YOU!

When they pass laws that only affect YOU as a person and has no effect on OTHERS they are taking away your FREE CHOICE as to how YOU choose what is best for YOU and no one else.

Who is the government to decide what is best for ME? Do you feel the government knows what is best for YOU better than YOU DO? Do you agree the government should have that right to tell YOU what is best for YOU or do you believe only YOU should have that right to determine what is best for YOU as long as it does not affect OTHERS? "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 26, 2008 11:12 AM:

" You can not infringe on someone's right to life merely because something is considered a privilege. Period!

Yes, it is a law you must wear a SB. Yes, that is direct infringement on your right to life if you are injured or killed when the cause is from wearing the SB where you were forced to wear it against you will because of this law.

Just because it is a "privilege" does not grant the power to the government to violate your right to life. "

superfly wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:58 AM:

" FollowTheConsitution
"So you are saying because more lives are saved than lost it makes it OK to cost some people their lives?"

I am saying that it is not a right to drive and when you do drive you must follow the laws that have been passed.

Your analogy of the fast food does not make sense because McDonalds is a private establishment that is not a privilage that is given by the local, state, or federal government. However, they do have regulations and laws that regulate them set by lawmakers.
As far as smoking goes the government IS regulating where you can smoke. Also they are regulating the Tobacco companies on marketing (I think a good idea, kids and such), and now the flavoring of the tobacco.
They say you can smoke, however you can't smoke 15ft. infront of or in a public establishment, and you can't smoke any flavored cigarette except for menthol. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:02 AM:

" superfly

We understand seat belts save more lives than not by wearing one. But what about the lives that are lost because of wearing one?

So you are saying because more lives are saved than lost it makes it OK to cost some people their lives?

People that don't smoke, drink, eat junk food tend to live longer than than those that do. So is OK to pass laws making illegal to smoke, drink and eat junk food?

Is OK to just outlaw cars altogether because they cause pollution and cause people to die sooner from breathing that pollution? You can own a car, you just can't turn it on!

Should the government impose fines whenever you get caught going to McDonald's for eating junk food because it ia bad for you and cost you your life and/or cause health problems because of eating it? Let's face it, by not eating it it would save more lives. So let's outlaw it and impose fines when you are caught eating it. It's OK to buy it, but not OK to eat it! LOL "

superfly wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:09 AM:

" to FollowTheConsitution:

More lives are saved by seatbelts than not. It is the choice of the person to wear their seatbelt or get a ticket if caught not wearing the seatbelt. If you want to fallow the constitution please inform me of where it says that driving is a right.

Your claim that wearing a seatbelt is cruel or unusual punishment is just not valid. You do have a right to own property in the US, that is why you don't need a driver's license to own a car. You just can't drive it on a city street, county road, or a state highway without a license. Just think about the ATV's that you see. Those vehicles cannot be registered in the state of Illinois and are illegal to drive on the roadway. The government isn't saying you can't own them, they just say keep them off our roads.

So if you don't want to fallow the rules regulating a privilege then you do have the right not to participate. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 25, 2008 10:24 PM:

" Superfly:

So a privilege gives the government the right to pass laws that can put your life at risk against your own will?

And since this is merely a privilege being given to you by the State government then they can deny you a drivers license just because they don't like the way you look, yes?

Our constitution clearly states no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property. It also states nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I don't know about you, but causing harm to someone or costing them their life as a result of requiring them to wear a SB is certainly cruel and unsual punishment inflicted and depriving them of life when it is direct cause of being restrained by SB because the government says you have to wear one.

Regardless, privilege or right, it does not give the government the right to force you to put your life at risk. "

superfly wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:11 PM:

" It seems funny to me that nobody on this blog has mentioned that driving is not a right. It is a privilege. Remember your driver's education? It is simple. If you would like the privilege to drive then you must fallow the rules and laws.

For some of you that may be slow.
A right is something that cannot be taken away, as in the right to a lawyer if you are charged with a crime.

A privilege is something that can be taken away, lets say your driver's license after you tenth DUI.

So this young man who is correct in asking questions and making intelligent observations is incorrect (like many of posters here) in stating that it should be up to a person to choose to wear a seatbelt.

You have a choice to wear your seatbelt or not, however just like in school if you don't follow the rules then you get in trouble. "

c.a.t.s. wrote on Jun 25, 2008 6:32 PM:

" another crooked lawyer on the way "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 25, 2008 2:32 PM:

" Modulation:

If you want proof look up the law that requires you to wear a SB. That is all the proof needed to prove the State government has taken away another free right of ours!

To quote Ryan:

"It should be a person's common sense and their choice to wear one. A person should think to their self and say ``Hey, I bet if I wear my safety belt then I can drive safer.'' But now we don't have to think about it. Our government is telling us and making the decision for us."

What about the "government is telling us and making the decision for us"....do you not understand?

This has NOTHING to do with statistics on wearing SB's. "

mixdown wrote on Jun 25, 2008 2:05 PM:

" I like the way this kid thinks. I wear a seatbelt primarily because I can't afford the fines, and secondarily because my own driving would surely throw me around the car. But it still should be solely my choice. I mean, if women can choose to murder their babies, shouldn't something as trivial as a seatbelt be a choice, too? "

Modulation wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:22 AM:

" To: jk83: Wow little man sounds like you have no life. I am busy on business while you read all these posts. See the issue here fool is that the person that posted this letter provided NO support for his argument and no proof. This little person then makes one supposed post along with his supposed mother and then vanishes. Why do you suppose. Likely because they do not have any information to stand on. LAw student made the best statement but you are too stupid to understand. By the way love your statistics, from your intellegence level I could see how you had to do the reasearch to come up with that one. You are reason enough for me to change my minds on seat belts. We would be better off without people like you and YOU likley would be one that would not wear a seat belt. "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Jun 25, 2008 10:57 AM:

" TO: LAW STUDENT

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Ben Franklin

P.S. We cannot leave the country whenever we want. In order to do so, you need to obtain a work permit or citizenship (or get a temporary Visa and return to the states every 3 months.) which is harder to do than it is to get one to come into the country. So I ask why is it that us, who follow the constitution and the advice of our founding fathers, are now being told to leave this country? I believe anyone who chooses to destroy the very fabric of our society; a form of gov't run BY THE PEOPLE, not an overbearing facist regime that continously violates their own laws, should be the one's to leave this country. "

cocoa wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:17 PM:

" law_student - Amen to that! "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:45 PM:

" law_student

Sounds like you will do well in Washington! LOL "

mdorf4 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:46 PM:

" arete
Nobody on here said a seatbelt can't save lives. Most of us agree that it is a good idea to wear. It's just weather the government should have the right to make us. We feel that since we are only putting ourselves in danger, it should be the choice of the individual. There are a lot of things all of us could do to make ourselves safer, but where does it stop. Should Big Macs and Whoppers be illegal? They are certainly bad for you. "

law_student wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:09 PM:

" It's quite interesting, if not sadistically entertaining, to see what you all have to say. I just have one problem: it comes from a debate I had in school about Freedom v. Security. The moral: you CANNOT have both; it's just that simple. So why don't we all take a step back and realize that we sacrifice numerous freedoms daily to have the securities we have in this country. If you all really want your freedoms so badly, you DO have the freedom to move out of this country whenever you wish. Me, I choose to live safe and abide by our freedom-limiting laws. "

jk83 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:06 PM:

" To Modulation: Where did you go bud? I was having so much fun reading your safety statistics! Statistics are as useful as a nasty flavored lollipop. I have some statistics too...even some observations!

1. Those w/ cancer and w/out health insurance are more likely to die than those w/ health insurance. 2. Unhealthy eating and lack of exercise can lead to obesity. 3. Baseball is 90% mental, the other half is physical.

Does this have anything to do w/ the letter Ryan wrote...no, but it just goes to show you that anyone can post stats and no one cares. So little man, why don't you get out from your parent's basement, stop playing Dungeons and Dragons, evaluate and come up with stats of your own.

Oh yeah, I went there. "

arete wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:07 PM:

" Perhaps the more vehement anit-seatbelt advocates will come to an end like Derek Kieper, who in September 2004 wrote an anti-seatbelt letter to the Daily Nebraskan and then in January 2005 was killed when the Ford Explorer in which he was an unseatbelted passenger went off the road and he was ejected. The other occupants, wearing seatbelts, were injured but survived.

And then there are the others too cool or smart to wear seatbelts, like Princess Diana and Herb Rooks (the Miracle on Ice hockey coach). "

Normally wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:39 PM:

" It is so refreshing to see a young person thinking instead of just repeating the propaganda force fed every day. We are loosing our freedoms every day, especially to unconstitutional laws like the Federal mandatory seatbelt law. Congress knew they had no authority to pass such a law, so they used the threat of withholding highway funding to force states to enact such laws.

Using a totally valid example of coercive, revenue driven laws to point out our loss of freedom does not make seatbelt use a bad idea, a claim not made in Ryan's letter.

Keep an open mind and consider why a law is passed and who it affects. Someones "good idea" is not automatically good for everyone. More often it is a grab for power than a quest for safety. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:03 PM:

" Yada Yada

Freedom does not extend any rights to cause harm to someone else.

As for the government coming in and demolishing your house? Guess again! They most certainly CAN come in and demolish your house if they feel they need your property for the betterment of the community. Sure, they have to pay you for it, based on what THEY feel the fair market value is. But if they decide they want it they can just take it! There is nothing you can do about it! Welcome to losing more of your freedom! "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:59 PM:

" Just sayin

They most certainly can search your car! They do not need to ask you nor do they need a warrant. Perhaps many years ago this would have been the case, but not anymore!

If they couldn't search your car for a SB violation they couldn't search it for any other minor moving violation either. Guess what? They DO search cars and they don't get your permission nor do they obtain any warrants!

My son has been stopped 3 times just over not wearing a SB. Each time they searched his car! This is a big problem especially with young drivers. They are constantly searching their vehicles without permission and without obtaining any warrants! "

just sayin' wrote on Jun 23, 2008 5:00 PM:

" FollowTheConsitution:

They can't search your car for a SB violation. They can ask you if they can search it. You can then say "no." They then need a warrant. The judge will then decide whether to issue it. Perhaps based on an odor or something freely seen in the car.

All laws restrict a person, but not our freedom. As a "society" we are free. As a person, you are not necessarily. (i.e. a minor, a convict, etc). Kind of mob-rule, and the mob supports seat-belt laws. That is why it's so great that the constitution is so hard to change. It usually takes agreement across many years or even generations to make a change. During times of rampant emotion, we have the constitution to rein us in. Who knows, perhaps a constitutional challenge to SB laws is in the works (not that it would succeed). After all, driving is a privilege, not a right, unless you do it on your own property, where you don't even need a license. "

Yada Yada wrote on Jun 23, 2008 12:31 PM:

" Freedom is a joke. Am I able to walk up and slap you upside your little head, obviously not. Can I stand in the middle of Veterans Parkway and swear at the people eating their diner, again no. But then again, I'm not hauled off without a trial, my family isn't killed because of my views, the females are not sentenced to sex slaves, and the government doesn't decide one day to demolish my house...so how much harm is a seatbelt?

BTW, I, as another driver on the road, appreciate the fact the oncoming drivers can't lean over to pick something off the floor and swerve into my lane killing me. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 23, 2008 11:36 AM:

" Just Sayin'

The NUMBER of laws have nothing to do with our freedom, but the law ITSELF that our government passes most certainly does have something to do with our freedom.

Our government passes laws that are in direct violation of our constitutional rights. The constitution IS our law that gives us our freedom.

14th Amendment: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property

I don't know about you, but forcing a law on me that "could" cost me my life by denying me the freedom of choice whether I choose to take that gamble or not is depriving me of my life!

Then the 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The State violates this right where they claim they can just search your vehicle when stopped for not wearing a SB. "

Brenstalka wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:10 AM:

" "It should be a person's common sense and their choice to wear one." This excludes 90% of the population. "

chanteuse87 wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:16 AM:

" All of you going off on this young man need to stop... Seriously - he's only 13 (14 at the latest). You should be ashamed of yourself. He can't even drive yet so he probably doesn't fully understand the law yet. Let him think and have an opinion for pete sake.. And Modulation.... WOW! Lay off!! How can you talk about this kid not having common sense? Let me say again that he is 13, maybe 14. How dare you go and beat up on a child's opinion? Do you go around slapping infants, too? Might as well... "

Just Sayin' wrote on Jun 22, 2008 4:43 PM:

" I am actually not surprised that the article's author does not know what freedom means, but I am amazed that the general public does not. Freedom does not equal anarchy (lack of Laws). Freedom equals lack of Tyranny. Until the formation of the USA, there was no concept of the free man. Everything was owned by a King. Individuals owned nothing - not even their own body. All activity and movement was licensed. Even the "new world" was carved up, sight unseen, by the royals. What the new American government created was a venue for the common person to participate in their own destiny for the first time. We could own what we could, work at what we wanted, travel, and believe as we pleased. We could even participate in governing. This was freedom.

The number of laws enacted by our government have nothing to do with our freedom. However, Kudos to the 7th grader who wrote the article. I am sure you will help keep our future in trust and help ensure we always maintain the government our founders envisioned. "

The Cat wrote on Jun 21, 2008 8:32 PM:

" JimmyChooGirl: It would appear that you posting handle indicates you’re into specialize high fashion items with an emphasis on handmade or limited edition shoes so you take time to select what you do or write. BTW, “(un)modulated” really doesn’t know much about auto insurance since it is more related to risk factors on where you live, what you drive, and state idiosyncrasies than seat belt usage. Rates have been influenced more by the cost of cars with expensive new features and car repairs (driven in large part by weight reductions due to CAFE standards) than other factors. Some states, like NJ, with so called “no fault” for bodily injury can get you a car insurance rate hike even if you are injured while walking legally in a cross walk as a pedestrian since your insurance pays your medical costs. "

mdorf4 wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:54 AM:

" Tell that to the students at tienanmen square alexp. I am sure they have some freedoms, but they don't have the freedom to question their government or things we take for granted in our bill of rights. And then there's Tibet... "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 20, 2008 6:32 PM:

" thats what she said

The entire article has nothing to do with SB laws specifically. He merely used SB laws as an EXAMPLE of one more right of freedom we have had taken away.

The seat belt law may be a minor thing for some people to worry over, but that is not the point nor was it the point of the article!

The POINT of the article was about our FREEDOM being taken away little by little. The POINT is if we as a people just continue to sit back allowing our rights to be taken away little by little then one day you are going to wake up and have no rights at all!

How would that compare to other countries when that happens? Sure, we are not anywhere as bad off as these other countries YET! But if WE as a PEOPLE keep allowing our government to take away our FREEDOM by taking little at a time, then one day in the future we will be like some of those other countries and by then it will be to late to do anything about it! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 20, 2008 6:22 PM:

" "thats what she said"

That was copied and pasted. The entire set of posts was from the same article.

I did not say it increased deaths bt 15%. I just copied and pasted the entire article word for word and did not add anything to it.

But what is says is that States with "primary" sealt belt laws had a higher percentage of people wearing seat belts and as a result among those fatalities involved it showed 15% more deaths than States with "secondary" laws.

Meaning States with primary laws showed 15% higher fatalities over States with secondary laws which is due to more people wearing seat belts in States with primary laws.

It makes sense because the more involved with doing something will only increase the chances and odds of something happening to more people. "

alexp wrote on Jun 20, 2008 6:06 PM:

" Ever been to China? I like how Americans just assume China isn't free. I've been. It is as free as it is here, In some cases, freer. "

thats what she said wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:43 PM:

" To: Follow the Constituition....

Really?

You (or rather....someone else wrote and you cut and pasted): A 1995 NHTSA study, Safety Belts Use Laws: An Evaluation of Primary Enforcement and Other Provisions, indicates that states with primary enforcement safety belt laws achieved significantly higher belt use than did those with secondary enforcement laws. The analysis suggests that belt use among fatality injured occupants was at least 15 percent higher in states with primary enforcement laws."

You "paraphrased" that in completely the wrong way to suit your point!!

The study does not suggest that there were 15% more fatalities.......it says that belt use AMONG fatalities had increased by 15%. Which does suggest that even if you wear your seat belt, you are not completely safe, but does NOT suggest that there are 15% more fatalities by wearing your seatbelt. "

thats what she said wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:51 PM:

" However, to make a comparison to China...or other "non-free" countries based on safety belt laws shows immaturity, a spoiled attitude that so many in America have today and a lack of compassion for those countries. I defy any one of you screaming about how America is not free to walk up to somebody from China....somebody from pre-war Iraq and say "Yeah...I know how you feel. We have seatbelt laws."

To quote the hilarious Jim Gaffigan, thats like walking up to someone who is starving and saying "I know how you feel. I skipped lunch in college. Twice." "

thats what she said wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:49 PM:

" I commend Ryan for taking a stand. And I have no doubt he may be an intelligent boy, although I would suggest that when defending your intelligence you have slightly less spelling and grammatical errors. And mom, you did right by defending your son, but you may want to begin instilling a little humility along with his brains and confidence, instead of setting an example of name-calling in a healthy debate. Obviously there are other people on here being needlessly malicious, but you are his momma and he is going to pay more attention to what YOU.

And not all of the comments on here, directed towards your son were negative. A few were, but the rest were not talking negatively to him, rather engaging in healthy debate. There are two sides to any debate and when you take a stand you are going to have people that disagree with you. You can't have it both ways....you can't say "I am intelligent for my age so I should be taken seriously when talking about adult matters" and then cry foul when people don't take it easy because you are a child. "

Shadow wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:39 PM:

" I agree with you Ryan. I hope young people like you grow up and act on your beliefs to improve our American way of life, or what is left of it. Maybe someday this country can be restored to what it once was and we can truly be the "home of the free" and "land of the free" again. As it stands we are a nation of cowards, all to happy to give away our freedoms to keep those nasty terrorists at bay. The illusion of terrorism has been a tool that the government has effectively leveraged to chip away at our ever diminishing freedom. We are so scared of a terrorist attack that we gladly give up almost all of our freedoms in the name of "safety". "

JimmyChooGirl wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:28 AM:

" *L* I'm a dog owner, never had a cat. :) "

tammy wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:02 PM:

" for those of you who are condemning a child who has an opinion shame on you he has a right to an opinion just like you have a right to but he does have a point why is it a law it should be up to the person that needs to where it i know people that if they had worn there seatbelt they wouldn't be alive today to play with there children and i am sure that everyone that is stating an opinion on here does not wear a seatbelt no i dont infact to me a seatbelt makes me feel like im being choked once it locks into place yes i will wear one when i am in someone elses vehicle but if i chose not to in my vehicle then its MY CHOICE if i die or live not anyone else's choice "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:04 PM:

" TO: Jimmychoogirl

I've never met cat, or have had any disagreements w/ them, but you asked them according to their name? Sorry, but cats are jerks :-) (take it from an owner) "

JimmyChooGirl wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:22 AM:

" The Cat - nice post. :)

What do you think my handle says about me besides the obvious that I like shoes? :) I'd say yours means, observant and calm. :) "

The Cat wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:27 AM:

" It is interesting how some posters use a handle to convey their “creditability” on issues that is totally in contrast to the content of their posts. “Modulation” is a good example since the term means, “varying a tone to convey a message”. The poster “Modulation” should more aptly have used “Shout”, “Scream”, “Yell”, or “Rant” based on the text of his/her posts in this thread. Of course when you are so fixated on the “benefits” of seat belts rather the benefits of personal freedom maybe you get carried away. "

dave3838 wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:00 AM:

" People have said, "we are a country of laws." But why are the laws passed. Let's see, we can pass a seat belt law. BUT WE CAN'T PASS A LAW; REQUIRING A PRAYER BEFORE SCHOOL STARTS. "

dave3838 wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:52 AM:

" Here are my thoughts on seat belts. If they save lives, why don't motorcycles have them. If they save lives, why don't SCHOOL BUSES require children to wear then?

I would like to know how much money our Sec. of State and Congressmen get from insurance agency for elections. SEAT BELTS AND CAR INSURANCE LAWS $$$$$$$$$$$$$

To me it is not about saving lives it is about MONEY!!! Money for gov.t! Money for Ins. companies!!! "

qhawkeye wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:15 AM:

" How many people died last year because they were wearing a seatbelt? Do seatbelts really save lives? "

VoiceInWilderness wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:54 PM:

" Ryan Cavallo's hasn't posted for 7 days...I repeat it again hoping he will respond to the posts since this one:

youngnwise wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:07 PM:

" ok, hello its me ryan first of all i would like to say that it was MY idea to write this article. Second of my parents have NEVER gotin a ticket for not wearing there seat belts. And third of all i was a seventh grader i am now going into 8th grade thank you very much. And i would like to say one more thing whyile im online mr.Modulation i thank you for ur comments but dont call my parents stupid and dont just assume that just because this article exsposes the government that it was not writein by a 7th grader going into 8th grade. BUT everyone is intitled into thier own oppion so i guess he can right what ever he wants. And one last thing thank you all for takeing the time to comment my article. I hope to write another soon bye.=] " " "

CocoA wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:57 PM:

" No one should ever resort to telling another person, even anonymously, that the world would be a better place without that person. All I can think about when I read that is the little girl in Missouri hanging herself after being told that. Words DO have the power to hurt and influence, and there's no excuse for the gutter talk going on here! "

mdorf4 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:59 PM:

" Apparantly, Modulation thinks whoever is the most hateful wins. I wear my seatbelt, because it reduces the risks of me dying if I am in an accident. I just feel it should be my choice. Those of us defending this stance are not anarchists that feel there should be no laws, we just don't want a government that takes away choices that affect only us. No amount of name calling or insipid "little man" comments are going to change my views. I am pretty sure I am a more pleasant person to be around and more useful to my community than he/she is, so I'll leave that to the rest of you to decide as to who the world would be better of without. I'm not sure if the world would be better off without Modulation, but this comments section certainly would be. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:35 PM:

" Most people do wear them but it still should be a choice. If it were i would still wear mine. I have in the past had trouble with a seat belt retracting while the vehicle is moving choking the passenger and the seat belt had to be removed and the vehicle stopped so that the seat belt could be put back on to avoid a ticket. "

gkc wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:19 PM:

" We are in a country with laws. So what other laws do all of you people think should be choices? who gets to determine that? Don't wear your seat belt - see if I care - if you get a ticket then it doesn't even go on your insurance, you just have to pay the $75. As an added note - my husband refuses to wear his seat belt because he says that he has heard of seat belts injuring people in crashes. I told him that if he wants to take that risk then fine but don't expect me to take care of you when you are injured because you didn't wear your seatbelt! "

Liquid Toast Man wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:59 PM:

" Seat Belts: Not only the law, but a great life insurance policy. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:38 PM:

" Modulation:
I really think that shows what kind of person you are to tell another person the world is better off without them. Nice job.

You have not stated facts any different than anyone else so you have proven nothing as well. Fact: seat belts are NOT the ROOT cause of taking OR saving a life but CONTRIBUTES to one or the other.

After your comment to mdorf4 I think it is safe to say you have not only proven your the real loser but also you have totally discredited yourself. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:36 PM:

" That is Correct! This article was about one thing only and that was government taking away more and more of our freedom. The sealt belt law was just stated as ONE EXAMPLE!

Quote:

"Seat belt law shows we're not really free

I am a seventh-grader here in Bloomington and until yesterday I thought I was free. Why do I say that, you ask? I say that because every single day the government is taking a little bit of our freedom away.

For "EXAMPLE", the safety belt law."

The government is taking away our freedom.....For EXAMPLE the safety belt law! "

boyles55 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:11 PM:

" people people its not about if wearing one is safer or not its about big brother aka(government) telling individuals what to do. i understand making kids wear them their to young to decide on there own but a perfectly grown adult no thats where they cross the line "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:10 PM:

" IWU83Titan74: The accident itself seat belts or not will cause your insurance to go up. Cars are very expensive to be fixed or paid for due to being totalled. There are also studies that show this seat belt law has caused more accidents because people that never wore them are now wearing them and feel more secured because of it which causes some of them to drive more recklessly causing more accidents. This law is far from being cut and dry where it saves money. It is costing us more money and it has also become a huge income stream for police departments to be able to generate more income by stopping people just over a seat belt. Also, all those tickets are costing you more in premiums as that creates another lame excuse for insurance companies to raise premiums! If you haven't noticed, vehicles today are safer than ever, more people do wear seat belts, yet insurance premiums are the highest ever! Now what is wrong with that picture??? Shouldn't rates be way down? "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:03 PM:

" IWU83Titan74: There is no doubt sealt belts can and do save lives. There is also no doubt they can and do cost people their lives. The issue has no bearing on whether more or less can or does save more lives over the other. The issue is IF it can cost someone their life then that should be a choice made by the individual as to whether they choose to take the risk by wearing or not wearing a seat belt. You are at risk either way if you are in an accident. Therfore the government has no business getting involved telling people they have to choose which risk they have to take!

As for not running up premiums, what about those that did wear a seat belt and lost their life because of that? Who is going to support their family and kids if they lost their life because the government forced them to wear a seat belt by passing this law? "

IWU83Titan74 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:52 AM:

" Before I grew up and started wearing my seatbelt, I came minutes from dying in an accident in which I put my head through the windshield of my car. As I was not wearing a seatbelt, the only thing that kept me from being ejected through the windshield, was the steering wheel. Unfortunately, in doing so the steering wheel cut my liver in half, crushed my spleen and cut my gall bladder off clean. I am reasonably sure I would have walked from my vehicle had I been wearing a seatbelt and not impacted the steering wheel. Now, the engine in my car does not get started until ALL occupants have fastened their seatbelts.

Should you have the right to drive or ride without a seatbelt if you choose? It's ok with me, but don't drive up my insurance rates because of your ingnorance. If you are injured in a crash and are not wearing a seatbelt, your medical costs should come out of your own pocket.....not mine and your neighbors. "

IWU83Titan74 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:41 AM:

" I'm sure most everyone has heard a story in which someone wearing a seatbelt died, but may have survived if they hadn't been. This probably does happen. I'm sure we've all heard stories of people who died when thrown from their vehicles, but would have survived had they been wearing a harness and not been thrown from the vehicle......many more of the latter stories, than the former. I doubt anyone's actually run a test to accumulate the "eye witness statistics" some of you are insisting you must have, but I feel quite confident in saying, if you staged the same 100 accidents twice each....one with the occupants wearing seatbelts and one without seatbelts.....their would be fewer total deaths in the accidents in which the occupants were wearing their seatbelts. (continued) "

ican'tfindmyshoeee.. wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:32 PM:

" Modulation, I generally provide a source when attempting to validate a comment. And let the reader decide if it is of a biased nature, a kook, or something credible to consider. Sometimes they are "allowed", but in my original attempt, it was'nt. And, after suggesting a few key search words, i myself "then" went back to see what they would pull up. And, well, had to dig pretty deep.

I have had on file for awhile now two very in depth sites on this subject that list "several cases", documenting the history of this issue. Had they been allowed to post, could have provided much more insight.

In the battle of information, it is the common citizen that has been purposefully targeted. Unaware of where to look, to find a true credible source, on much of "anything".

The authoritarian tone that has been used, should serve as a glimps, of what purpose lies in store. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:04 PM:

" Modulation: You lost little runt. "

Modulation wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:28 PM:

" To mdorf4: Hey buddy please do all those things and more. It will be better without one more whiney cry baby that thinks everyone is out to get them. Maybe it is you that has a problem conforming with all those people that do not whine about seat belts, or smoking restrictions, or other issues. Maybe just maybe it is you and your pathetic little world that you feel is invaded when laws are passed. SO little man please continue to degrade your life and live the lifestyle that you mentioned because we will be better off with out you. "

Modulation wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:25 PM:

" Sorry little man but I di not lose it is you that lost. You have failed to provide ANY evidence that seat belts cause deaths. You have mentioend a few statistics but those prove nothing in your argument. Again loser you make statements about supposed accidents but those deaths were NOT the direct result of a seat belt. However, as YOU have stated seat belts do save lives and YOU all have admitted that FACT so that is all the proof that I need. Case closed losers. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 5:44 PM:

" Modulation: Your ignorance just keeps showing more and more as you keep typing. One accident will not cause a manufacturer to issue a recall. The Jetta is a cheaply made piece of tin. The hood didn't shear off because of a defect, it sheared off because of how thin the sheet metal is and even a slight impact would be enough to cause that.

Based on your continous dumb arguments over the accident itself is the cause and not the SB then that would also hold true whether you were wearing a SB or not! You say it's the accident when they are wearing a SB but it is the SB that causes the death or injury if they weren't wearing it? LOL Stop contradicting yourself!

So based on your dumb analogy SB have nothing to do with the cause of death whether you are wearing one or not! If SB's have nothing to do with it then there is no need to have SB's at all! Because even by not wearing one it is the accident that caused it, not by not wearing a SB! What a trip!

Stop embarrassing yourself! Please! LOL "

mdorf4 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 5:15 PM:

" He thinks he is a good debater simply because he refuses to listen to the other side. Modulation has not done or said anything that would lead me to change my mind. I think seat belts save lives, but I don't care. It should be my choice, just as I am allowed to smoke, drink, eat fast food, or anything else that could possibly endanger my life. I do not need a babysitter. "

mdorf4 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 5:07 PM:

" Modulation
Fine, the seat belts didn't cause the deaths in those accidents. Then not having a seat belt on doesn't kill people either. It's the cars hitting them. You can't have it both ways. The concrete after being thrown from the vehicle is no different than strangulation from a seatbelt. It is not about whether they save lives or not. It is about the government protecting us from ourselves, which I have a problem with. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:21 PM:

" Modulation: You cried you wanted statistics and facts. I gave you plenty that cite the sources of the studies taken and sources of the statistics. So stop being such a sore loser and go look them up and verify it for yourself. Isn't that what you kept telling others to do? Practice what you preach. Again, I'm sorry you lost, but everyone loses now and then. LOL "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:17 PM:

" Modulation: So you are saying it is OK for the government to pass laws that cost you your life as long as it merely CONTRIBUTES to the loss? You're a trip!

You contradict yourself. You post garbage YOU find on other websites and claim it to be gospel as facts. Then cry over others that post facts that contradict your garbage.

Don't be suich a sore loser! Even you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how far off base it may be and how wrong you are. But at least for now, anyway, you are still entitled to it until the government takes that away from you as well.

Sorry you lost. It must be very hard for you, I'm sure. LOL "

udawgn wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:04 PM:

" TO: Modulation

You have spewed more ignorance in one post than anyone in history. You sir, are a stand up guy, picking on a kid. It is one thing to disagree with a kid but to attack them in the manner you have, is another. It is people like you that help the government keep us down. This letter was about FREEDOM being taken away from us not about wearing a stupid seatbelt. I commend Ryan for having the guts to say what he is thinking. Who cares if his parents might have given him the idea...how many ideas have you had in your life because of your parents. Start thinking before your start speaking. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:50 PM:

" It goes both ways. No where will you find factual documentation that a seat belt was the root cause of saving a life. "

Modulation wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:46 PM:

" Wow FollowTheConsitution: What a line of crap. First if a minor accident caused a hood to shear off of a car and cause a death such as this there would be a recall on all VW cars with that type of hood. Secondly, the seat belt DID NOT cause the death it was a front end accident. Without the other car causing the damage and providing the energy to move the hood there would have been nothing happen. Again IT IS YOU THAT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND PHYSICS AND ACCIDENT CAUSATION. YOU HAVE PROVEN TIME AND AGAIN HOW FOOLISH YOU ARE BY REGURGITATING THE BS THAT THESE WEBSITES POST and you are foolish enough to believe. I sure hate to see the outcome of these laws as an overall decrease in the number of deaths driver per mile. Your right we should repeal these laws and let natural selection take over, OH WELL FOR YOU. "

isabelle wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:32 PM:

" Okay people this is not a therapy session here! It is getting a little overwhelming to follow the conversation with the extensive floods of posts from single people. "

Modulation wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:23 PM:

" This just proves FollowTheConsitution. That you can not coherently put together an argument to save your life. You have done nothing but copy and paste a website full of garbage written by others. Way to Go!!! You have really put that post outh there. Now for the issue of the person dying in the car, the primary reason for drowning was not the seat belt. It "CONTRIBUTED" to her drowning but was not the ROOT cause. Again burned by your own copying and pasting. WAY TO GO!!!! You need to look up the work CONTRIBUTE. Maybe this will help "contribute to to be partly responsible (for)." That does not mean FULLY responsible. "

noone wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:18 PM:

" seat belt laws like many other laws in this country are nothing but money makers. Our government has overstepped it's boundries so many time, no one know what those limits are any more. For the people by the people. I'd like to take your letter a step further and comment on other stupid laws. how about requiring a helmet, thank you IL for not passing this one yet. Or gun control laws. gun control should be the ablity to hit your target not a restriction on my right to bear arms. how about drugs. cigarett companies lobbies decades ago to make pot illegal because they couldn't sell smokes with a better product on the market. my point is that i'm proud of you for being so young and so aware that your rights are being taken away long before you were born. i hope you are able to get your drivers license when you are 16, but you will have to jump through many hoops to get it. become a politician and make changes. good luck little buddy. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:10 PM:

" Modulation. I was there and witnessed that accident. The impact was not major. The front of the car had minor damage. It was the HOOD that sheared off and went through the windshield. You are only SPECULATING what should of happened because you just refuse to acknowledge you don't know what you are talking about! You choose to believe the garbage you read on the internet that uses the excuse of people that did died wearing a SB was only because the accident was so bad it would not have mattered. WRONG! That is true in SOME cases, bit not ALL cases.

You can believe whatever you want. You are wrong, you know you are wrong, but you just like to believe you are right. You should run for office. You would fit right in with the other morons that pass BS laws like this. Then we can have them repealed like we have done with many of the laws this State passed and where repealed. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:50 PM:

" The insidious nature of seat belt laws is further shown in the April 2001 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which foolishly ruled that it is legal for a police officer to arrest, handcuff and jail a woman for not using a seat belt in the Atwater/Lago Vista (Texas) case, including impounding her vehicle.

You are free to make copies of this information to spread support for seat belt law repeal efforts. Send copies to your governor, state legislators, the U.S. president and members of Congress, as well as local newspaper editors. Contact any local radio talk-show host and bring up the question of repeal. Also, only vote for candidates for elected office who promise to support repeal if elected and vote out elected officials who refuse to support repeal efforts. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:49 PM:

" The hundreds of millions of tax dollars spent on seat belt law support and enforcement would be better spent on road improvements and repairs. "The Road Information Program" (TRIP), a Washington, D.C. non-profit organization, estimated that every #100 million invested in highway safety improvements will result in approximately 145 fewer traffic fatalities over a 10 year period. Their 9-19-04 website, www.tripnet.org, list 12 kinds of road and bridge improvements along with the resulting percentages of reduction in fatality rates. Seat belt laws or seat belt law enforcement were not listed.

In a free society, if a person is injured or killed in a traffic accident because he/she freely choose to use or not to use a seat belt, that is a personal tragedy, as it is with all other kinds of freely chosen risks in a person’s employment, recreation and daily life. That is freedom working. However, if a person is injured or killed in a traffic accident because the government forced that person to use a seat belt, that is tyranny working, and reflects injury and death by government. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:49 PM:

" Conclusion

Politicians have no authority to willingly and knowingly force some people to maim or kill themselves in some traffic accidents just because they hope others will be saved in other accidents merely by chance. The Constitution forbids the government from taking chances with a person’s body, the ultimate private property. The government has no right to play Russian roulette with a person’s life.

Also, the fact is, not one penny of the hundreds of millions of tax dollars spent in support of seat belt laws since 1985 has ever prevented even one accident. Conversely, because we feel safer wearing our seat belts, studies have shown that we tend to drive more recklessly. This is known as "risk compensation,." which is covered in more details in the 1995 book, "Risk" by Dr. John Adams, University College London, England. The book also gives other reasons against seat belt laws. The book is available through amazon.com "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:48 PM:

" "A 1995 NHTSA study, Safety Belts Use Laws: An Evaluation of Primary Enforcement and Other Provisions, indicates that states with primary enforcement safety belt laws achieved significantly higher belt use than did those with secondary enforcement laws. The analysis suggests that belt use among fatality injured occupants was at least 15 percent higher in states with primary enforcement laws."

In other words, while primary enforcement does increase forced seat belt use, there is also a 15 percent increase in fatalities as compared with states with secondary enforcement laws. That is, the very purpose of forcing seat belt use is defeated by an increase in highway fatalities in states with primary enforcement laws according to this study. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:48 PM:

" 10. Primary enforcement is promoted as saving lives, however, stopping vehicles for non-seat belt use is only an excuse to arbitrarily and capriciously accuse people of traffic violations of one kind or another, thus issuing citations as a means of easily increasing revenue, as well as providing easy lucrative overtime income for the police. Primary enforcement has nothing to do with saving lives; has all to do with revenue enhancement at the expense of fleecing the motoring public.

11. While seat belt law supporters want the public to believe that passing a primary enforcement law will reduce highway fatalities, the government’s own 1998 report documented just the opposite. In the federal publication "Traffic Safety Facts 1998," under the heading "Occupant Protection," is the following information: "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:47 PM:

" 9. If you are medically exempted from seat belt use, your vehicle could still be stopped since an officer cannot know until you are stopped. This applies to drivers who are using a seat belt but a passenger is not using one because of an exemption. Even with a medical exemption, once the vehicle is stopped, the officer can begin routine interrogation, testing and visually looking for any kind of a violation of the law. Persons with medical exemptions are also subject to being stopped repeatedly during any travel route by other officers along the way. Also, providing an officer with your confidential medical records and exemption is a violation of your right of privacy. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:47 PM:

" 7. Some insurance companies target seat belt law violations as an excuse to increase rates even for drivers without an accident or moving violation record. In fact, even if you habitually use a seat belt but forget just once, that might be the time an officer stops your vehicle, thus your driving record is unjustly marred.

8. Some states level points against a driver’s license for not using a seat belt in addition to a fine, which means a person is being punished twice for the same offense. Also, it means a driver’s license could eventually be suspended for repeated offenses even if the driver has been a careful driver for years with no accident or moving traffic violation. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:46 PM:

" 5. Some states issue a seat belt violation fine against the driver even if the driver is using a seat belt but a passenger is not, and even if the driver did not know about it. Drivers, therefore, could easily become distracted while driving by a constant watch of passengers, both adults and children in the rear seat.

6. Primary enforcement is an easy way to enhance state revenue through fines. Also, additional income comes from the federal government in the form of grants (bribes) to pay the police to enforce the seat belt law. Such grants are used by the police as lucrative overtime pay while enforcing the seat belt law, which is why the police support primary enforcement laws. Such lucrative overtime pay helps relieve pressure for a police salary increase. And in some areas where job performance standards include a citation quota, seat belt violations offer easy compliance. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:46 PM:

" 4. You are subject to an officer’s misinterpretation of your answers, your attitude, or what the officer sees in your vehicle. You could become the victim of a corrupt act, such as planting drugs in your vehicle by an officer. You could be accused of using drugs because the cash in your possession has the odor of drugs. Officers can confiscate your cash and vehicle if there is some drug residue without proving you knew about or caused the residue to be there. Courts have recognized most currency in circulation has some discernible drug residue. It is reported that 80% of the assets confiscated by law enforcement do not lead to a criminal charge, but only a small percent is ever returned. Confiscation of assets has become a lucrative business for some police agencies and offers big incentives to increase roadblocks and speed traps. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:46 PM:

" 2. Primary enforcement encourages the use of random roadblocks. In a 1994 statewide campaign, North Carolina conducted 2,038 roadblocks in just two weeks under the pretext of checking for seat belt use. In spite of further use of random roadblocks that year, which the governor boasted increased seat belt use to 80%, total highway fatalities actually increased in the state for 1994 over the record of each of the preceding 3 years.

3. If not using a seat belt, you could be stopped for a minor traffic violation that otherwise would be ignored if using a seat belt. You may also be targeted because of a bumper sticker, your license plate, your age, race, or gender. Primary enforcement opens the door for police harassment, stalking, intimidation and profiling. Young people, women, and minorities are vulnerable, especially when traveling alone and at night, or in certain neighborhoods. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:45 PM:

" Primary enforcement states

The insidious nature of seat belt laws is shown even further in states with primary enforcement of the law. The following is what can happen in states with primary enforcement:

1. Your vehicle can be stopped anytime, day or night, by the police merely under suspicion a seat belt is not being used. And even if mistaken, once the vehicle is stopped the officer can begin routine interrogation and testing – force occupants to exit – visually check out the contents of the inside of the vehicle looking for any kind of a violation of the law, all without the right of legal counsel; all under the pretense of not using a seat belt. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:44 PM:

" 8. Hundreds of thousands of autos, vans and light trucks have been recalled as a result of discovering defects in certain seat belt designs after the fact, which means the motoring public has been forced by law to become unwilling guinea pigs, unlike how all other products in the marketplace are treated. In a letter published in the September/October 1990 edition of AAA World, a publication of the Chicago Motor Club, Jerry Curry, NHTSA Administrator, said: We opened 213 new defect investigations in 1989, the highest one-year figure in the agency’s history. A total of 6.8 million vehicles were recalled that year, a million more than the national average. While Mr. Curry did not say how many such recalls involved seat belt defects, such recalls, again, reflect how the public is being used as guinea pigs for automotive products. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:30 PM:

" Jury rules seat belt caused death

GALVESTON Ð Flaws in Honda's motorized seat belt trapped a nurse in her car and contributed to her 1992 drowning death, a jury has decided.

The company could have to pay as much as $80 million to the family of Karen Norman.

A nurse at the University of Texas Medical Branch, Norman died when she was unable to escape from her car, which was slipping off a boat ramp and into the Galveston Ship Channel. "

Modulation wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:13 PM:

" Hey Buddy sorry but you can not read and follow directions. I did not ask for unsubstaniated accounts by you. I asked for documented proof. Oh and by the way seat belts did not cause the death of that girl it was a person hitting someone head on, take a look at the death certificate and it does not indicate that. Also due to the impact of the accident there is NO POSSIBLE way that she could have reacted quick enough to avoid the supposed hood of the car. Also without the seat belt she very likey would have been thrown from the car due to the impact of the other car hitting hers. So in this instance there would have been death in any case, but alas you fail to see the total picture. Again PROOF not SECOND hand unsubstaniated statements from the likes of you. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:09 PM:

" Modulation: Your problem is you rely on everything you read being posted on the internet. You look up some BS statistics that only give one side without details of the other side. One sided statistics mean nothing! Statistics show 60% of those wearing a SB did not die in a crash! Whoopie! What about the other 40% that did? Your statistics don't give detailed information on that, so you just ASSUME it was because of how severe the crash was and it would not have mattered. WRONG!

Exactly how many of those that were killed was a result of being restrained by a SB and they could not get out of the way in time because of that? Oh, they don't tell you that! Because they don't want you to know that! That would contradict their BS law that was only passed to generate more revenue for the State! Hello!!! "

JimmyChooGirl wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:07 PM:

" Mod -I'll play ball with you (excuse me followtheconstitution)

My best friend was killed in a car accident, the cause of death was strangulation from the seatbelt. This was only 8 years ago and in a newer car with both belts that you are talking about. The family was told that if he had not been wearing his seatbelt, he more than likely would have lived. So there is your fact! Will you shut up now? "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:59 PM:

" Now vision the same thing but you are restrained by your SB. You see it coming but you don't have enough time to react fast enough to release your SB and dive down to avoid the hood coming through the windshield. BAM! YOUR DEAD! ONLY because you were restrained by your SB.

That is two accidents I have first hand knowledge of where one was killed ONLY because of being restrained by a SB and the other was my Uncle who was not restrained by a SB and was able to dive to the floor in time before impact getting hiit by a truck head on. Had he been restrained he would not have had time to dive to the floor and he would have been killed instantly! FACT!

Now again, WHAT right does the government have to take that right away from the people to be forced to risk their life by being restrained? We know SB's CAN save lives, but we also know being restrained by a SB CAN cost you your life as well! That freedom of CHOICE belongs to the individual, NOT the government. GET IT YET??? "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:59 PM:

" Modulation: I watched as a teenage girl was killed in an accident. She was just sitting at a light waiting for it to turn green and struck head on. She was in a VW Jetta. The impact caused for the hood of her Jetta to shear off the bolts and went right through the windshield decapitating her from the chest.

Now vision this. You are in the same situation. You are not wearing a SB. You see it coming and are able to react quick enough and dive down in the seat or onto the floor. The hood goes over the top of your dash missing you because you dove down into the seat in time.

continued.... "

Modulation wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:55 PM:

" To mdorf: Hardly a comparrison and if you want in this discussion by all means. In looking at the post and the letter NOT ONLY me but several others on here have said the same thing. Misspelled words due to typing fast is one thing but illiterate grammer is another and that is what the post proved. Funny how there were only one post each supposedly from Ryan and his supposed mother. When asked to defend their postion they ran from the discussion, why because they could not defend their position and the reasoning behind said letter was exposed. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:52 PM:

" Fantastical is a word but it is not the one she used. Perhaps she should sweep her own back door before cleaning someone elses. "

mdorf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:48 PM:

" Modulation
I think the funniest thing about your posts is that you attacked Ryan about him not possibly being able to write both his letter and his post. Are you saying that you couldn't write a letter to the editor with decent spelling and grammer? There is very little difference between the structure of your posts and youngandwise's. The bottom line is: Do we want the government protecting us from ourselves? If you do, then the seat belt law is for you. "

Modulation wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:47 PM:

" Since it is a FACT FollowTheConsitution. Then put your big mouth to the test. Provide a link or proof in an article that this is what happened in the accident. That the ROOT cause of the deth was a seat belt and not blunt force trauma or other injuries. Then and only then can you call that a fact. So the ball is in your court, put up or shut up. Oh by the way we are talking current seat belts with a combined shoulder and lap belt. "

Modulation wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:41 PM:

" Wrong Again FollowTheConsitution. The fact is that human error can be traced to nearly 100% of all accidents in one or the other. Given that fact again without an accident as the ROOT cause of the death there is no way that a seat belt can be the ROOT cause of the death. It is the accident itself. You can not comprehend this because you fail to see the light and understand accident causation. That is a fact. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:33 PM:

" Modulation: The primary cause of the accident is irrelevant. The issue is, CAN being restrained by a seal belt cost you your life? Absolutely! There are plenty of cases that show HAD someone been wearing a sealt belt they would have been killed. The fact they were not saved their life. FACT! There are cases where people died because they were restrained by a seat belt and had they not been restrained by one they could have survived. FACT!

The cause, who was at fault, etc, has the bearing on the matter. ALL accidents happen because mechanical error, driver error, or whatever. The bottomline is very simple. CAN being restrained by a sealt belt cost someone their life? Yes or No? Absolutely YES!

So who is the government to take that right away from someone by forcing them to put their life at risk by passing some BS law?

So you are saying since driving is a privilege that gives our government the right to put your life at risk by taking that freedom of choice away from you? Don't be such a moron! "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:31 PM:

" Copied from you post:
In your fanatastical theory there is NO way that you could come to the conclusion that the seat belt caused your death. Again your perception of accident causation and resulting injury or death is pathetic

it says FANATASTICAL.

again you owned yourself on that one. LOL

Everyone knows you cant tell a self proclaimed know it all anything because..well..according to them they know it all.

I find it humerous that you constantly ignore people that ask you why resort to name calling and insults like a kid would do. "

cocoa wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:28 PM:

" Sweetcheeks ~ I don't want to get involved in the peeing contest some of you have going on in these comments, but I do wish to point out that "fantastical" actually IS a word. Look it up on dictionaryDOTcom. "

thero wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:22 PM:

" LMAO, can't believe you people are still going at it over this. Ever hear of the phrase "agree to disagree?" "

JimmyChooGirl wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:17 PM:

" I hate to say this but...Mod is right about fantastical being a word; let me use it in a sentence...

I think it is fantastical that a grown person like Modulation is able to release his inner child through immature comments. It reminds me of "I know you are but what am I" *L* I wish we could all be as smart and mature as he/she is. "

Modulation wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:57 PM:

" Wow Sweetcheeks sure sounds like you admit your failure to read and understand simple math and basic numbers. Proves you are just a hot head with a big mouth and that the two can not communicate. Sorry but maybe you need to Google Fantastical. I did and found 8210 hits. Well I guess there is another zero for you, BIG SURPISE GIVEN YOUR TRACK RECORD ON HERE. hahahahahahaha "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:41 PM:

" HAHA!!!!!!!!
Wow it must be terrible to be in the presence of so many that are not nearly as "smart" as you are. It must really suck to never find another person with your level of intellegence. I sure wished I could do that and make my own dictionary as you have. That would be soooo COOOOOL!!!!

LOL no one here can own you better than you own yourself. "

Modulation wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:24 PM:

" You Talk about rights but you forget that driving again is a privaledge and not a right. You want to drive there are laws and those have been proulgated, debated, passed and signed into law. So you have issues too bad, I do not look at this as a rights issue but rather something that is for the betterment of society. It is all you feel good lunatics that scream rights everytime a law is passed, you do not like it leave the country then and you will see how good you have it here. "

Shiyane wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:45 AM:

" The point behind t

Ads by Yahoo!

Online Degrees

Weekly New Car Bargains

See Today's Mortgage Rates