Seatbelt clampdown

[KBear]

Seatbelts make a significant difference in an accident. Seatbelts also hold you in place if the car is bumped around enabling you to stay in control. People who don’t wear seatbelts are showing a lack of concern for themselves and the people around them and should not be driving. They are simply bad uninformed drivers. The fine for not wearing a seatbelt should be significantly higher, or should result in the suspension of the driver’s license.

The people who don’t wear seatbelt and are injured in an accident is one issue because we pick up the bill for the medical costs, but there is also the chance they could injure someone else because of their lack of concern.

 

[basketcase]

...
Why don’t school buses have seat belts for our children? Seems a little hypocritical, doesn’t it?

1st, it on it's way, just too expensive to retrofit all the old ones. Second, they are designed so that a padded seat back will safely stop any child in a head on collision (that and the buses have huge inertia and tend to not stop as fast as a miata in a collision). Any t-bones by a mac truck or a roll over, they're fucked though.

 

[Quest4Less]

Choice...

There have been cases where a seatbelt has TRAPPED someone... in a burning or sinking car... granted it is rare... but it has happened.

Motorcylces don't have them... should those who ride also be barred from health care?

What about cops... they don't wear them (most anyway), for quick and easy exit...

Not as black and white as some make out...

 

[fuji]

the same could be said about smokers, drug addicts or alcoholics

I do agree. No free healthcare for people who attempt to naturally select themselves out of the population by smoking, alcoholism, or getting into an accident without a seat belt on.

 

[Esco!]

Because the "government" picks up the tab for your health care.

No they dont, its the large corporations that fund OHIP

 

[fuji]

It's a bullshit law. How many millions of people ride the TTC every day unrestrained -- taking the same or more risks? If it's legal and acceptable for them, then why not allow private drivers and passengers the right to choose?

Your ignorance doesn't make it a bullshit law.

What you are ignorant of is first and foremost the laws of physics. Namely, the bus has so much mass that in a typical collission the passengers are just going to get bashed around a bit. Unlike car drivers, who will eject through the windshield. Cars are about the lightest thing on the road, whereas busses are around the heaviest. That makes car crashes much more likely to eject you than bus crashes.

There are other lesser factors as well, like the bus passengers are in seats without windshields in front of them, and so on.

 

[Esco!]

Anyone who doesnt wear a seat belt nowadays is a dumb farking idiot!!

Thats all I have to say.

 

[Hamilton_Guy76]

1. Have you ever picked a face out of a windshield?
2. We had a university student working for us one summer who was killed because she was not wearing a seatbelt. She went in the ditch and was thrown from the car - unto some rocks.
3. At one time and I presume it still applies the Court would reduce by 25% any awards that you might receive for injuries even though the accident was not your fault.

 

[mediaguy]

Agreed

enforcing the seat belt law is a waste of time if you think about it. instead it should just invalidate your access to healthcare.

I've always thought this. Why should we pay the medical bills for someone who doesn't care about their own personal safety and could do something simple like fasten their seatbelt. My father instilled the buckle-up habit in me when I first started to drive and it's stuck with me forever.

 

[Never Compromised]

No they dont, its the large corporations that fund OHIP

Want to guess why the Liberals imposed a Health Care tax on corporations? Guess who the largest employer is in Ontario!

If you said Ford, you would be wrong. If you thought GM, you would be wrong. But if you said the Federal Government, you would be on target.

Which means that one level of government is taxing another level of government. Which means that the money is coming from the tax base.

 

[Esco!]

But if you said the Federal Government, you would be on target.
Which means that one level of government is taxing another level of government. Which means that the money is coming from the tax base.

It doesnt really matter cause in the end the consumer pays for health care anyways. Large corporations simply pass it down to us in the form of product costs.

 

[thompo69]

Motorcylces don't have them... should those who ride also be barred from health care?

They have helmets instead...

 

[Ref]

Yes, and a motorcycle at 65mph.

I used to have an old Ford pick up, and an old Bronco, and they only had a lap belt. Stupid cops tried giving me a ticket several times for not being properly belted. I laughed when a rookie or young female cop pulled me over. They were younger than what I was driving. They don't know their way around vehicles. Actually, I hate the restriction more than anything. My ass falls asleep on long trips, because I can't move around enough. Time to find another old classic.

Yeehaw!

Does your ass fall asleep when you are sitting on the couch watching TV?

I have been on some long drives with a seatbelt designed within the last 5 years and seldom have I experienced a sleeping ass due to the limitations of a seat belt.

If your ass has a tendency of falling asleep and you are unable to manoveur enough within the confines of a modern day seatbelt, then I would suggest that you maybe pull over to the side of the road and do some stretching.

This post reminds me of those jack-asses I see in factories who feel that safety rules are for wimps. All you need to do is wait for some tough mother-fucker who likes to show how tough he is by not wearing the proper safety equipment and then wham! The poor slob is crying like a baby when he is injured.

My advice, ditch the macho heroism and do yourself and perhaps the people who actually care about you a favour and follow the proper safety procedures. You may actually live long enough to enjoy those special moments with them.

 

[RTRD]

Ummm...

I strongly believe drivers should not wear seat belt. The reason being is that it create an illusion of safety, which might motivate the driver to drive dangerously.

I mean, if you know your car doesn't have seat belts, no airbags, and nothing to protect you if you crash, you may be more cautious when you drive. You may think twice before speeding pass that yellow light.

...no.

Only a moron takes risks driving because he has those things - first of all, you still have a damaged car...secondly who wants to be in accident.

The people who I notice driving most dangerously / erratically are those in older cars without air bags...the sort of older car you don't give a shit about so you (might) be less inclined to stay out of a wreck.

People drive how they drive....I doubt seriously if it matters what safety protections they have ("Oh, I'm in a Volvo...I’ll just run this stop sign...I'll be safe if I get hit). And for those who DO think this way (perhaps yourself?), that number of idiots is not large enough to justify losing the number of people (men, women, children) whose lives have been saved by airbags and seat belts.

So...the 7 year old kid who gets ejected from the car when it gets broadsided by a drunk because he wasn't wearing seatbelts...his parent were doing the right thing, right? They were motivated to drive more safely...right?

Ok...I'll just cut to the chase....this was a fucking stupid notion...

 

[4uimcrazy]

Not in the us

Because the "government" picks up the tab for your health care.

Only in Canada. In the US, where this law is popular they don't.

 

[4uimcrazy]

I disagree

1st, it on it's way, just too expensive to retrofit all the old ones. Second, they are designed so that a padded seat back will safely stop any child in a head on collision (that and the buses have huge inertia and tend to not stop as fast as a miata in a collision). Any t-bones by a mac truck or a roll over, they're fucked though.

As an engineer, I seriously doubt the padded seat back will safely absorb enough energy from a young body being thrown into it so no injury occurs. Whereas a safety restraint usually does.

I do agree that it has always been a cost decision to exclude them. The government is concerned for it's citizens safety only when it is cost effective or cost sifted to the citizens.

 

[KBear]

It is odd that busses do not have seatbelts. It could be a cost/benefit issue. It would also be a project to ensure that all the kids buckled themselves up. If there were an emergency on the bus, like a fire, it would also be a project to unbuckle all the kids and get them off the bus.

There was a problem with seatbelts in that if the vehicle is not designed to absorb the impact by crushing and folding then the impact being felt by the passenger with a lap belt would be too extreme and could potentially cut them in half.

 

[hyperbole]

As an engineer, I seriously doubt the padded seat back will safely absorb enough energy from a young body being thrown into it so no injury occurs. Whereas a safety restraint usually does.

I do agree that it has always been a cost decision to exclude them. The government is concerned for it's citizens safety only when it is cost effective or cost sifted to the citizens.

Great thread, btw. While the whole "seat belts in buses" thing is about cost-effectiveness to a certain degree, it bears saying that it is that way because they found the risk of injury is statistically the same with or without belts in a school bus. As such, why spend more money for no real extra protection? Studies showed that lap belts in buses only induced higher rates of concussion and head trauma instead of when children were unbelted and the whole body went forward and absorbed the impact more evenly (and yes, that's why they are padded like that). I've been in an accident between two buses and it was much less trauma than when I was in a back seat for a car crash with a full shoulder/lap belt. A great deal more engineering went into designing school buses than people give credit for. Even so, it bears noting that drivers and front passengers typically have to be belted due to risk of windshield ejection.

Saying that, though, I would also say that that engineering was primarily done 20-30 years ago and we have the technology to make them safer but installing lap belts wouldn't be it and I personally don't see shoulder belts being a real option for school buses. Of course, the same cost-effectiveness is designed into all cars as well because obviously we could install racing harnesses into cars to make the restraint of the body in a crash completely even as well as eliminating the internal damage done by lap belt components worn improperly (as the vast majority of fattening North Americans do).

hyperbole

 

[fuji]

It WOULD be really funny to see all the airbags go off on a schoolbus full of annoying kids. There's likely risk of injury there too, since if you've ever seen kids on a schoolbuss, they are probalby not sitting in the "proper" position, but instead likely climbing over and under the seats.

 

[hyperbole]

That'd actually be kinda neat. A school bus interior that goes from normal to padded room in microseconds! And little kids flying through the air as a result!

hyperbole