1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Traffic safety holy grail: Zero deaths

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Dick Whitman, Feb 19, 2013.

  1. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Not wearing a seat belt is only victimless if the person who chooses not to use assumes all risk of injury, even when another driver is at fault.

    If I am negligent and run through a STOP sign and hit you wearing a seat belt the cost of your injuries may be $25K. But if you are not wearing your belt and die, it could be worth a million dollars in damages.

    As long as you accept that your injuries are your fault, no matter caused the accident, then be my guest and don't wear a seat belt. But if your choices cost me money, then wear the damn thing.
     
  2. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    It was an order re: airbags and automatic (passive) seat belts. In 1977 the NHTSA had ordered passive restraints (either air bags or passive seat belts) to be installed in all new vehicles by 1984. In rescinding the order (in 1981), the agency said it had assumed a 60-40 air bags/seat belts ratio, but found that on implementation it would have gone 1-99 (i.e., only 1% of cars would have had air bags), so the expected benefits (as compared to expected costs) were way out of whack. That was the agency's argument, anyway.
     
  3. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Reckon such a car will automatically flip off the $%#-hole who swipes the parking place you've been waiting on?
     
  4. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Better a thousand guilty men walk free...
     
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    The dollar costs you are assigning to various outcomes are man made. By the same man made constructs, civilly you can compensate based on whether you are wearing a seat belt. Negligence doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition. You could look at a full set of facts -- seat belt or no seat belt, behavior of the driver who caused the accident, etc. -- and assign a percentage of blame to each, based on all of the circumstances, if you wanted to. I am not a lawyer, but I believe or civil system already strives to do that.
     
  6. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Where was this when we needed it on Downton Abbey, dammit?
     
  7. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Don't tell that to the squirrels.
     
  8. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

    Oh, it'll be quicker than that. Google is developing and is pretty far along in a cars driving themselves.
     
  9. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member


    All cars to be retrofitted at government expense on the same day. Belts/airbags removed, chromium spikes installed. In just 24 hours, we'll all be traveling 4 miles an hour. No one will ever be rear-ended again.

    At 4 mph, even actors and squirrels will be safe.
     
  10. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    What if that person has a kid, and as a result, an innocent child grows up without a parent? Harm to the child, yes or no?

    Run that one thru dooleyfish and tell me what comes out.
     
  11. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    The following post:

    Becomes this when translated by Dooleyfish:

     
  12. SixToe

    SixToe Well-Known Member

    I used to believe this way. Who cares if I drive 84 mph and crash? I'm the only one who gets injured or killed and would be hurt.

    Then I realized my parents would be hurt. My close friends. Today, along with them, also my wife and children. Two co-workers who have become good friends and confidantes. My brother, with whom I've grown closer the last couple of years. Not to mention anyone involved with the crash, should I hit another vehicle or person(s).

    So this "I'm the only one it hurts" mentality is completely illogical, juvenile and, honestly, a very selfish outlook.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page