http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/09/17/414a5a030e91d?in_archive=1
read that.

then read this:
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/01/05/local/doc41db350078259784029686.txt

or if you dont want to read; summaries

1st page:
derek kieper says "No law, or set of laws, has made the government more intrusive and ridiculous than seat belt legislation. Nothing is a bigger affront to the ideas of freedom, liberty, yada, yada, yada. Whether you are a pinko liberal or a right-wing whack job, there are plenty of reasons for just saying to hell with seat belt laws."

2nd page:
"Kieper, a 21-year-old senior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, died early Tuesday morning when the Ford Explorer he was a passenger in travelled off an icy section of Interstate 80 and rolled several times in a ditch. Kieper, who was riding in the back seat of the Explorer, was ejected from the vehicle.

Derek, who was thrown from the vehicle, was not wearing a seat belt, Lefler said. He said Havermann and Uphoff were wearing seat belts at the time."

i really shouldnt be laughing, but i am. theres nothing i can do, because he's dead, but you're a damn fool if you dont wear a seatbelt.

Comedic gold. Good enough for him. And I mean that, too. His morals are that everyone has the right to do what they want. He chose not to wear a seatbelt, and died from it. Because of that, his death is moot, and I am laughing.

JediKirby

Wow.

I'm trying to figure out if that'd qualify for a Darwin. Sadly, it probably doesn't.

I agree with him in that in a perfect world, that law sucks. On principle, he's right. In practice, he's a moron. And he got his. Buhah. Aha.

No he's not. Safety laws are not just there to protect the individual from harm, they are also there to reduce the burden on other people paying for someone's else stupidity or "rights".

Every time some moron injures himself or damages property because they were speeding, high on drugs or just doing something stupid, it costs the taxpayer money and diverts resources like police and paramedics from real emergencies and accidents.

In that guys original article he rants and raves about how it's peoples' "right" to not wear a seatbelt as it has no immediate effect on anybody else. That's BS. If you're not wearing a seatbelt while you have an accident and don't die, you're probably going to require some hefty medical treatment. Which means more needless money and resources being wasted, all the while the same people are whinging about the high rate of tax and shoddy medical systems.

This also applies to fools who smoke, eat crap, dont exercise and then expect treatment when they develop emphysema or a have heart attack. I'd probably agree with you if the rest of the community wasn't obligated to treat people when they become injured or sick due to their own stupidity, laziness or because they were asserting their right to be a knob.

The system doesn't suck because the governments are out to get you. The system sucks because people are short-sighted, selfish fools who thinks it's their to be coddled when they screw themselves over.

/rant

At least his existance served the purpose of making us laugh at him.

Well stupid is as stupid does.

I mean honestly the only reason that law really exist is apparently people are just too stupid to take care of themselves. I mean really how much of a hinderence is it to fasten your seat belt? Unless you are really fat or 8 feet tall, i don't see how it could really be such a burden.

hah. classic.

Someone please post the Tree of Irony...

Thanks Wulfay.

Beat me to it!

And yes, the man is ****tard. Even before wearing seat belts was law in the uk, my dad would fit inertia reel seat belts to our cars without a second thought.

I'll laugh with Kirby.

That's just brilliant. Still, something like wearing a seat belt should be common sense. Furthermore, if people choose not to wear them, they have to live (or not) with their decision.

Wow... That is pretty funny... And for crying out loud, what kind of a moron are you if you protest against seatbelts?

A dead one.

[australianseatbeltencouragementcommercial]

man in his 50's on screen with nasty facial injuries.

text: His son did this.

text: He didn't use his fists.

text: He didn't use a weapon.

text. He didn't use a seatbelt.

cut to flashback of accident where son (who is in mid twenties) is thrown sideways from seat and shoulders father in the face (father is wearing seatbelt, son who is driving isn't) very hard.

cut back to father.

text: when you don't wear a seatbelt, you're not just hurting yourself.

[/australianseatbeltencouragementcommercial]

harness belts (race-car style) > inertia belts > any other type of belt

taking into acount ease of use along with safty.

intia belt > harness belt > any other type of belt

note: for the above, this is assumeing you are not legaly required to use a special type of restraint.

This commercial is very shocking. I think it's English, but I'm not sure. Anyone seen it on TV in their area?

I'm not trying to cause any strife or start a flame war. In principle I agree that wearing a seat belt is common sense. But I know of someone that was DECAPITATED by their seat belt. My friend's wife is a nurse, so I get to hear horror stories and grisly tales all the time.

four questions

1. what type of belt was it

2. was the person wearing it properly.

3. was it functioning properly

4. was it a government approved type of seatbelt.

If question 2 is answered no, then it is the fault of that person for not using it properly. (or asking for help if they did not know how to use it.

If either of the questions 3 or 4 are answered no, then it is the fault of the person who is responsible for the car.

However, if the person was under 18, it was the fault of the person driving as it is their responisbility to make sure any passenger under 18 is safe.

a fifth question, when was this. If it was more than 20 years ago, then you cannot blame the types of seatbelt in use today.

Actually, you're more likely to get hurt in most accidents wearing a seat belt than not wearing one. Just more likely to die without one.

Just because seatbelts SHOULD work doesn't mean they always WILL work. Also, government approval in that sort of thing is laughable, and wearing it properly is almost never an issue (most people wear their seatbelts properly just relaxing).

I mean government approved, as in the type of seatbelt has undergone safty tests in labs and has been proved safe and meets safty standards.

In Australia, if someone got decapitated by a seatbelt, there would be a national recall on the type of car that was involved in the incident, or a national recall on that type of seatbelt if the the seatbelt was installed by the owner of the car.

And finaly, massive deceleration will always cause injury, even if the parts of the car and the seatbelt don't injure you, the sudden stopping will.

Most people involved with car safty will tell you that a car crash is actualy three crashes, the first is the actual car, the second is all the people and objects in the car, the third is the movement of the internal organs of the people in the car, and of course, there is the shock of the accident that can make injuries worse.

The fact is, you will be injured in almost any crash except for the minor non-pileup fender-benders.

Seatbelts are for saveing lives and REDUCING injuries, not removing injuries alltogether.

So, *insert the "your oppinion is wrong" pic here*.

:p

Not quite. You just described what happened in an accident, you didn't disprove anything that he said.

He gave the impression that wearing a seatbelt causes more injuries than not wereing one. that is because people that would have died only get injured. Also, he was off track about my comment about the seatbelts being government approved.

Yes, let's all say my opinion is wrong without showing any proof, shall we?

Also, have you ever seen Fight Club? What he said about the recalls was true. Not to mention something like a decapitation of someone via seatbelt can happen even if it's government approved and used properly. The world isn't a perfect little orb where everything is happy and shiny and fallls into place--**** happens.

If a seatbelt decapitates a person, and th seatbelt was properly used, that person must have needed a special type of seatbelt as there is no way that an approved, fully functioning, properly used seatbelt should be able to decapitate someone. If it can, then America must have far lighter standards on seatbelts than Australia.

Crashes don't always happen the same way. If you crash right, the seatbelt could chop you into pieces--that doesn't mean it's defective.

Just to clear things up, I know what it takes to governmentally approve a seatbelt.

alpha1 - No I didn't.

Again with the "AUSSIES PWN YANKEES" crap.

If the force of the impact was strong enough to have decapitated someone with a seatbelt, then, had he not been wearing a seatbelt, his brain would've been completely smashed anyways after he'd been projected 50 meters through the windshield of the car.

Probably :p

ummmm...

No, I was stating that I have never heard of any accidents where the injuries infliced on a person were worse that if they had not been wearing one. (except where the seatbelt was used improperly.). which shows that the decapitation accident was caused by either a freak accident, or lax seatbelt standards.

Also, if it was just an extremly freak accident, the way the car hit/got hit would have killed or seriously maimed that person anyway. also, seatbelts are not designed to protect from the billion to one chance of a certian type of collision.

addtion to my previous post,

or the accident could have been caused by recclessly high speeds. :p

Stop talking while you're ahead, alpha. You seriously only make yourself look worse and worse with each post.

1) There are many other ways that accident could have happened, you just like to bring up the 'superiority' (not to insult you other aussies) of australia whenever you can. Quit it, it's annoying and makes you seem like an arrogant ***.

2) Seatbelts can create worse injuries in truly horrible crashes/rolling the car. They can also help. It's pretty much a 50/50 chance. That's all I'm saying.

Not to mention I don't know what recclessly is or means. Same with addtion

I was not bringing up superiority (why is an american complaing about someone from another nation having a superiority complex when the american government seems to think itself to be the most superior organisation on earth), also, in any acident where someone wearing a seatbelt might die, it would take a miricle to survive if you were not wearing a seatbelt.

Also, don't be a smart ***, you know very well that reccessly was me typing recklessly without thinking and addtion is just addition where I did not press the "i" key hard enough the first time I pressed it. they were just typos)

(don't give me that crap you gave me in the chat a few days ago about it not being a typo and the inability to read the whole post because of one spelling mistake. /me also glares at zully)

[edit] typo corrected for dj-yoshi who seems to have a dissorder that makes him unable to determine what a misspelled word is by looking at the word and looking at how it is used and working out what the word is. :p

Sorry I only understand the english language as it is typed and written normally?

And stop dissing America. It's getting old. We realize that you think Australia is the obviously superior nation. We don't care.



So I have a dissorder, eh?

No, I'm just trying to get you to use more effort when you type. It makes you come off as decently intelligent, though I guess that's not your forte.