Two wrongs does not make it right.
Why society should pay for the people voluntarily injuring themselves? If you are injured because of not wearing seat belt it is your problem, not mine.
But for some strange reason government forcibly take my money to pay for your injury. Don't you think something is wrong in this picture?
-- Andrew
"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
For as long as it is you voluntary choice, it is OK.
-- Andrew
No, not really.
The moral is the foundation of the social structure. The compassion is one of the main elements of moral. You can't divide the moral without damaging it. Besides, making moral decisions for each particular case incurs a lot of overhead.
Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
I didn't have any choice, did I? The woman who hit me head on was driving down the center of a two lane highway. I hit a patch of oil a car in front of me was spreading, on rain soaked asphalt. I had almost come to a stop when she crossed the center line, at 45 MPH.
-- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!
I thought you meant the officers said in that 1 of 10,000 accidents the people would have died if they had worn their seat belt. I didn't know you were talking about the way that your accident happened.
Anyway I just took a National Safety Council Defensive Driving Course online. It sure gets you thinking about somethings we all do that are stupid.
I hear this one all the time. First off, that cop, that couldn't read an analog watch, can't make any such prediction, because he can not roll back time and run the crash over again. Just the act of going through the motions of putting on the seat belt would have changed the timings of the rest of the events. That being said, anyone that thinks they are better off NOT wearing their seat belts during a crash are just being STUPID. Short and to the point. The FACTS are that seat belts save lives, if they didn't why would race car drivers not just shed all the strapping and just go commando? Now, that also having been said, if you are and adult there should not be a LAW requiring you to do anything of the sort. If you wish to have your family have to identify the hunk of hamburger on the chilled slab, that's your call, not mine.
Problem is, it interferes with the Darwin Effect.
Here's a car design that will never injure an innocent bystander:
Cheers! Rich
So learn to drive, and don't crash your car, STUPID!
Thanks, Rich
He said that it was a very rare accident where a seat belt would have killed me, and those acidents were about 1 in 10,000. What I meant was that I had no choice about being in the accident. Both sides of the higway had steep ditches, and the car in front of me was hanging over the edge, and the car following me ended up the same, with his front wheels hanging over the edge. The car behind him stopped inches from him.
I took the real course in 1973, in Alaska, on an iced over parking lot. It was required for anyone in the Army and driving on military bases. It was more fun on wet ice, than at a keyboard. While driving the course, your instructor would casually reach over and jerk the steering wheel. It was up to you not to hit any markers, or slide into somethng. :)
-- You can\'t have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!
I'm not saying not to wear a seat belt. I was saying that in that one instance it would have killed me. The cab of the Toyota pickup truck was crushed, and the steering wheel would have gone through my chest.
Tell that to the Florida cops, writing $105 tickets as fast as they can.
-- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!
Now you know the rest of the story.
Um, how does that stop OTHER people from crashing into me? STUPID!
to
Once again, how would you know? That end result was due to a specific unfolding of events that would not have happened IF you had done ANYTHING differently, including put on your seat belt. The fact of the matter is, one isolated incident does not a trend make.
Why? They know it too they just want that $105.
And they can't even get that right.
rights=20
;-)
I don't agree. That design looks terribly hazardous to small kids on tricycles behind the car. (with the transmission in reverse)
Where did I claim a trend?
-- You can\'t have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!
Taking money under the threat of jail is a new and enlightening definition of "moral" and "compassion". I certainly have not seen one like this before.
Any robber giving some money to charity would be moral and compassionate person, wouldn't he?
Not at all. Anyone who want to help others is free to do so on his own will and his own time and money.
Currently this is "Forgotten Man" situation.
Person A and Person B see that Person C is in trouble and needs help and they decide to do something to help him. So Person A and Person B work out a plan that involves helping Person C and having Person X pay for it. Person X is the Forgotten Man. Person X is not consulted on if he wants to help Person C or if he can even afford to.
-- Andrew
YOU didn't, but every time I hear one of "I was told if I'd a had my seat belt on Id'a been kilt" stories, it just adds one more layer of rationalization for those numb nuts that don't wear their restraints.
Darwin in action.
-- You can\'t have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.