If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"You can't always get what you want."
Yes I can! You can choose to follow your government blindly. I disabled my seatbelt alarm!!!!!!! How about the foolish helmet law for kids under 12 on bicycles????? And 13 year olds are OK? "I'm in a position to see the data collected on what happens to belted vs. unbelted vehicle occupants in collisions. Mostly, the unbelted ones die. Mostly, the belted ones don't." Data is manipulated to produce what the collecter wants YOU to believe. Do you see the data from ALL accidents? Did you ever ride down the road with your hand out the window? Maybe that should be illegal ; I am in a position to see people who lost their arms and or the use of their arms...lets make a law to protect people from losing their arms, everyone must ride with their widows up!!!! Let's talk about ruptured spleens, livers, and bleeding to death due to seat belt trauma. Or pneumothorax as a result of fractured ribs from seat belts!!! "If that were as far as it went, I'd be very happy for you to stupidly eject yourself from the gene pool. Problem is, your failure to wear seatbelts affects me." Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a Harley, ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive? All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law. "Unbelted drivers are easily knocked out of control position and/or knocked unconscious by relatively minor incidents. When that happens, they're unable to control the car and prevent additional, more substantial subsequent incidents -- like hitting other cars, pedestrians or cyclists." Isn't that really what the airbag does? "What's more, belt non-using idjits like you are the reason those of us smart enough to protect ourselves have to have subpar airbags in our vehicles. Thanks a lot, asshole." Now that we have seat belt laws, perhaps they will take airbags out? umm didn't think so. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Father of the Year" > wrote in message ... > "You can't always get what you want." > Yes I can! You can choose to follow your government blindly. I disabled my > seatbelt alarm!!!!!!! And are you going to reconnect it if you ever sell the vehicle? And in any case even if you don't wear your seat belt and disable the alarm, if it's illegal to not wear seat belts then your just subject to getting a ticket. We had one woman here in Oregon that got ticketed 3 times in a row for not wearing a seat belt, on the same day, on the same street if you can believe it. As I recall it was 39th ave, she got ticketed on one end of it, drove about 10 blocks got ticketed again, drove a whopping TWO blocks, got ticketed a third time. > How about the foolish helmet law for kids under 12 on bicycles????? And 13 > year olds are OK? > Don't know about that one, here in this state all children under 18 are required to wear bicycle helmets. Sounds like a political compromise of some kind in your state. Bicycle helmet laws and motorcycle helmet laws aren't uniform across the country. > "I'm in a position to see the data collected on what happens to belted vs. > unbelted vehicle occupants in collisions. Mostly, the unbelted ones die. > Mostly, the belted ones don't." > Data is manipulated to produce what the collecter wants YOU to believe. For crash data of this sort, what possible reason is there to manipulate it? The biggest consumers of crash data in the US are the auto insurance companies. What THEIR primary motivation is, is to see fatalities in crashes reduced, and the number of crashes reduced - the more this happens the more money they make. I suppose you object to them making money so you want more crashes I guess. They have no interest whatsoever in manipulating seat belt data to artifically inflate the number of lives saved by wearing a seat belt. You probably think bleeding-heart liberals pushed through all the seat belt laws. Well if seat belts actually increased fatalities, the insurance companies - who have more money than the Pope - would have snuffed that effort out in a second. It was the insurance company money that kept the national 55Mph speed limit in effect for a generation and the only reason that finally got overturned was that just about every last driver in the country hated the double-nickel speed limit with a passion and kept screaming about it. And yet, with every driver in the country screaming regularly at their congressional representative to kill 55Mph, it took over 20 years before the insurance companies finally allowed Congress to get rid of it. And the only reason they relented is because vehicles were getting so much safer, with mandatory belt laws and air bags, crumple zones and such, that the percentage of fatalities attributed soly to exceeding 55Mph had finally got so small as to be basically unmeasurable. To presume that seat belt crash data has somehow been manipulated to show seat belts save lives when they really don't, is one of the most politically naieve things to say in the automotive field. Whatever credibility you might have you just flushed down the crapper. The insurance companies would fight any effort to skew crash data with tooth and nail. Those greedy sons of bitches only care about money, and will stop at nothing to get absolutely accurate data as to what can be done to make themselves more money. > Let's talk about ruptured spleens, livers, and bleeding to death due to seat > belt trauma. Or pneumothorax as a result of fractured ribs from seat > belts!!! > If that is your primary reason for not wearing a seat belt then you can fix that problem very quickly - remove your seat belt and install a 5 point harness. You can buy one from any race shop. However you don't do that simply because this ruptured spleen bullcrap is something that you use to lie to yourself so you can try to feel better about being an idiot. The real truth is that you have no interest in wearing a seat belt that would be safer and would NOT have a chance of breaking a rib or rupturing a spleen or liver - such as a 5 point belt - the real truth is that your just a buffoon that doesen't want to wear a belt for whatever idiotic and pointless reason and will manufacture a bunch of bullcrap to try to defend it to yourself and whatever other idiots out there will listen to you. > "If that were as far as it went, I'd be very happy for you to stupidly eject > yourself from the gene pool. Problem is, your failure to wear seatbelts > affects me." > Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a Harley, > ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive? > All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law. > Those other activities don't involve you driving around on a public road. You see, Foaty, the one thing you continue to fail to grasp is that the public roads are jointly owned by everyone. Therefore, my opinion of what you should be permitted to do on the public road has as much weight as your opinion. And a bunch of other people's opinions also have as much weight as you and my opinion. And it so happens that the majority of people who own that there road your driving on, believe that you and I should both be wearing a seat belt. Thus, through their elected representatives, the majority of them have decided that your going to wear a belt. If you don't like it then you can work through the same political process that was used to pass the seat belt laws, and get enough other idiots out there like yourself all lit up, and get that seat belt law overturned. The same issue applies with motorcycle helmet use. However, the one difference is that generally motorcycle riders that have accidents, whether in helmet or out of helmet, don't cause the other driver to die. A bike, after all, does not have the mass of a car. > "Unbelted drivers are easily knocked out of control position and/or knocked > unconscious by relatively minor incidents. When that happens, they're unable > to control the car and prevent additional, more substantial subsequent > incidents -- like hitting other cars, pedestrians or cyclists." > Isn't that really what the airbag does? > Absolutely correct. If in the event you are not wearing a seat belt then you will be knocked around by an air bag. Of course, the impact forces that trigger an air bag are high enough that if there was no air bag and you didn't have a seat belt on, you would still be knocked around. As such, an air bag that triggers isn't any worse from a knocking about control standpoint than driving without a belt on. > "What's more, belt non-using idjits like you are the reason those of us > smart enough to protect ourselves have to have subpar airbags in our > vehicles. Thanks a lot, asshole." > Now that we have seat belt laws, perhaps they will take airbags out? umm > didn't think so. > Actually this isn't necessary because all that is needed to do is program the air bag computer to not fire the air bag if the seat occupant is wearing a seat belt. I know such systems are in testing and development, and I believe may already be in some new cars. Ted |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Father of the Year" > wrote in message ... > Ahhh read the manual....never thought of that. The dinger is what I want to > kill. Thanks Tim, for being the only person on this newsgroup with the > ability to respond without being an arse. > BTW: I tried under the seat to jump some of the wires and it did shut off > the alarm but also the airbag light came on. > Of course, Ted, I couldn't work on it very long because my big fat ass > couldn't bend over under the seat. Now we get the truth. I always wondered, with Harley riders with big fat asses, does the extra weight help you stay balanced better on the bike? You know, with a big heavy buttcheek hanging over each side of the seat? I suppose you have to pay careful attention to make sure that each buttcheek's weight stays roughly the same when your eating all those chilidogs. > TED, I read somewhere that impotent men > and or men with extremely small genitals are 75% more likely to put other > people down on newsgroups....... Hmm, could be. Seems to me you have quite a fixation on small genitals. But it's probably only an optical illusion in your case - your genitals are probably just as big as they were before you added all that extra weight. It's just that with those fatter hambones you have now, Mr. Willie looks so much smaller in comparison. Ted |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Foaty" lol wtf is that?
How can anyone argue with you Ted? I just want the right to choose like your Momma, when for some stupid reason , she chose not to abort your argumentative ass. Or maybe she did and you are what remains. Perhaps you can use your vast knowledge, persuasiveness, and people skills to work through the same political process that was used to pass the seat belt laws and get seat belts in school busses. Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a Harley, ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive? All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law. All of those activities do affect you and I. I don't have the time nor the desire to educate you on how. My only wish is to know what Foaty means before I bang my head off the windshield and do my Terri Shiavo impersonation. "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message ... > > "Father of the Year" > wrote in > message ... > > "You can't always get what you want." > > Yes I can! You can choose to follow your government blindly. I disabled my > > seatbelt alarm!!!!!!! > > And are you going to reconnect it if you ever sell the vehicle? And in any > case > even if you don't wear your seat belt and disable the alarm, if it's illegal > to not wear > seat belts then your just subject to getting a ticket. > > We had one woman here in Oregon that got ticketed 3 times in a row for not > wearing a seat belt, on the same day, on the same street if you can believe > it. > As I recall it was 39th ave, she got ticketed on one end of it, drove about > 10 blocks > got ticketed again, drove a whopping TWO blocks, got ticketed a third time. > > > How about the foolish helmet law for kids under 12 on bicycles????? And 13 > > year olds are OK? > > > > Don't know about that one, here in this state all children under 18 are > required > to wear bicycle helmets. > > Sounds like a political compromise of some kind in your state. Bicycle > helmet > laws and motorcycle helmet laws aren't uniform across the country. > > > "I'm in a position to see the data collected on what happens to belted > vs. > > unbelted vehicle occupants in collisions. Mostly, the unbelted ones die. > > Mostly, the belted ones don't." > > Data is manipulated to produce what the collecter wants YOU to believe. > > For crash data of this sort, what possible reason is there to manipulate it? > The biggest consumers of crash data in the US are the auto insurance > companies. > What THEIR primary motivation is, is to see fatalities in crashes reduced, > and > the number of crashes reduced - the more this happens the more money they > make. I suppose you object to them making money so you want more crashes > I guess. They have no interest whatsoever in manipulating seat belt data to > artifically inflate the number of lives saved by wearing a seat belt. > > You probably think bleeding-heart liberals pushed through all the seat belt > laws. Well if seat belts actually increased fatalities, the insurance > companies - > who have more money than the Pope - would have snuffed that effort out in > a second. > > It was the insurance company money that kept the national 55Mph speed > limit in effect for a generation and the only reason that finally got > overturned > was that just about every last driver in the country hated the double-nickel > speed limit with a passion and kept screaming about it. And yet, with every > driver in the country screaming > regularly at their congressional representative to kill 55Mph, it took over > 20 > years before the insurance companies finally allowed Congress to get rid > of it. And the only reason they relented is because vehicles were getting > so much safer, with mandatory belt laws and air bags, crumple zones and > such, that the percentage of fatalities attributed soly to exceeding 55Mph > had finally got so small as to be basically unmeasurable. > > To presume that seat belt crash data has somehow been manipulated to > show seat belts save lives when they really don't, is one of the most > politically naieve things to say in the automotive field. Whatever > credibility > you might have you just flushed down the crapper. The insurance companies > would fight any effort to skew crash data with tooth and nail. Those greedy > sons of bitches only care about money, and will stop at nothing to get > absolutely accurate data as to what can be done to make themselves more > money. > > > Let's talk about ruptured spleens, livers, and bleeding to death due to > seat > > belt trauma. Or pneumothorax as a result of fractured ribs from seat > > belts!!! > > > > If that is your primary reason for not wearing a seat belt then you can > fix that problem very quickly - remove your seat belt and install a 5 point > harness. You can buy one from any race shop. > > However you don't do that simply because this ruptured spleen bullcrap > is something that you use to lie to yourself so you can try to feel better > about being an idiot. The real truth is that you have no interest in > wearing > a seat belt that would be safer and would NOT have a chance of > breaking a rib or rupturing a spleen or liver - such as a 5 point belt - > the real truth is that your just a buffoon that doesen't want to wear a > belt for whatever idiotic and pointless reason and will manufacture > a bunch of bullcrap to try to defend it to yourself and whatever other > idiots out there will listen to you. > > > "If that were as far as it went, I'd be very happy for you to stupidly > eject > > yourself from the gene pool. Problem is, your failure to wear seatbelts > > affects me." > > Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a Harley, > > ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive? > > All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law. > > > > Those other activities don't involve you driving around on a public road. > > You see, Foaty, the one thing you continue to fail to grasp is that the > public > roads are jointly owned by everyone. Therefore, my opinion of what you > should be permitted to do on the public road has as much weight as your > opinion. And a bunch of other people's opinions also have as much weight > as you and my opinion. And it so happens that the majority of people who > own that there road your driving on, believe that you and I should both be > wearing a seat belt. Thus, through their elected representatives, the > majority > of them have decided that your going to wear a belt. > > If you don't like it then you can work through the same political process > that was used to pass the seat belt laws, and get enough other idiots out > there like yourself all lit up, and get that seat belt law overturned. > > The same issue applies with motorcycle helmet use. However, the one > difference is that generally motorcycle riders that have accidents, whether > in helmet or out of helmet, don't cause the other driver to die. A bike, > after all, does not have the mass of a car. > > > "Unbelted drivers are easily knocked out of control position and/or > knocked > > unconscious by relatively minor incidents. When that happens, they're > unable > > to control the car and prevent additional, more substantial subsequent > > incidents -- like hitting other cars, pedestrians or cyclists." > > Isn't that really what the airbag does? > > > > Absolutely correct. If in the event you are not wearing a seat belt then > you > will be knocked around by an air bag. Of course, the impact forces that > trigger an air bag are high enough that if there was no air bag and you > didn't > have a seat belt on, you would still be knocked around. As such, an air > bag that triggers isn't any worse from a knocking about control standpoint > than driving without a belt on. > > > "What's more, belt non-using idjits like you are the reason those of us > > smart enough to protect ourselves have to have subpar airbags in our > > vehicles. Thanks a lot, asshole." > > Now that we have seat belt laws, perhaps they will take airbags out? umm > > didn't think so. > > > > Actually this isn't necessary because all that is needed to do is program > the > air bag computer to not fire the air bag if the seat occupant is wearing a > seat belt. I know such systems are in testing and development, and I > believe > may already be in some new cars. > > Ted > > |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Foaty" lol wtf is that?
How can anyone argue with you Ted? I just want the right to choose like your Momma, when for some stupid reason , she chose not to abort your argumentative ass. Or maybe she did and you are what remains. Perhaps you can use your vast knowledge, persuasiveness, and people skills to work through the same political process that was used to pass the seat belt laws and get seat belts in school busses. Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a Harley, ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive? All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law. All of those activities DO affect you and I. I don't have the time nor the desire to educate you on how. My only wish is to know what Foaty means before I bang my head off the windshield and do my Terri Schiavo impersonation. "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message ... > > "Father of the Year" > wrote in > message ... > > "You can't always get what you want." > > Yes I can! You can choose to follow your government blindly. I disabled my > > seatbelt alarm!!!!!!! > > And are you going to reconnect it if you ever sell the vehicle? And in any > case > even if you don't wear your seat belt and disable the alarm, if it's illegal > to not wear > seat belts then your just subject to getting a ticket. > > We had one woman here in Oregon that got ticketed 3 times in a row for not > wearing a seat belt, on the same day, on the same street if you can believe > it. > As I recall it was 39th ave, she got ticketed on one end of it, drove about > 10 blocks > got ticketed again, drove a whopping TWO blocks, got ticketed a third time. > > > How about the foolish helmet law for kids under 12 on bicycles????? And 13 > > year olds are OK? > > > > Don't know about that one, here in this state all children under 18 are > required > to wear bicycle helmets. > > Sounds like a political compromise of some kind in your state. Bicycle > helmet > laws and motorcycle helmet laws aren't uniform across the country. > > > "I'm in a position to see the data collected on what happens to belted > vs. > > unbelted vehicle occupants in collisions. Mostly, the unbelted ones die. > > Mostly, the belted ones don't." > > Data is manipulated to produce what the collecter wants YOU to believe. > > For crash data of this sort, what possible reason is there to manipulate it? > The biggest consumers of crash data in the US are the auto insurance > companies. > What THEIR primary motivation is, is to see fatalities in crashes reduced, > and > the number of crashes reduced - the more this happens the more money they > make. I suppose you object to them making money so you want more crashes > I guess. They have no interest whatsoever in manipulating seat belt data to > artifically inflate the number of lives saved by wearing a seat belt. > > You probably think bleeding-heart liberals pushed through all the seat belt > laws. Well if seat belts actually increased fatalities, the insurance > companies - > who have more money than the Pope - would have snuffed that effort out in > a second. > > It was the insurance company money that kept the national 55Mph speed > limit in effect for a generation and the only reason that finally got > overturned > was that just about every last driver in the country hated the double-nickel > speed limit with a passion and kept screaming about it. And yet, with every > driver in the country screaming > regularly at their congressional representative to kill 55Mph, it took over > 20 > years before the insurance companies finally allowed Congress to get rid > of it. And the only reason they relented is because vehicles were getting > so much safer, with mandatory belt laws and air bags, crumple zones and > such, that the percentage of fatalities attributed soly to exceeding 55Mph > had finally got so small as to be basically unmeasurable. > > To presume that seat belt crash data has somehow been manipulated to > show seat belts save lives when they really don't, is one of the most > politically naieve things to say in the automotive field. Whatever > credibility > you might have you just flushed down the crapper. The insurance companies > would fight any effort to skew crash data with tooth and nail. Those greedy > sons of bitches only care about money, and will stop at nothing to get > absolutely accurate data as to what can be done to make themselves more > money. > > > Let's talk about ruptured spleens, livers, and bleeding to death due to > seat > > belt trauma. Or pneumothorax as a result of fractured ribs from seat > > belts!!! > > > > If that is your primary reason for not wearing a seat belt then you can > fix that problem very quickly - remove your seat belt and install a 5 point > harness. You can buy one from any race shop. > > However you don't do that simply because this ruptured spleen bullcrap > is something that you use to lie to yourself so you can try to feel better > about being an idiot. The real truth is that you have no interest in > wearing > a seat belt that would be safer and would NOT have a chance of > breaking a rib or rupturing a spleen or liver - such as a 5 point belt - > the real truth is that your just a buffoon that doesen't want to wear a > belt for whatever idiotic and pointless reason and will manufacture > a bunch of bullcrap to try to defend it to yourself and whatever other > idiots out there will listen to you. > > > "If that were as far as it went, I'd be very happy for you to stupidly > eject > > yourself from the gene pool. Problem is, your failure to wear seatbelts > > affects me." > > Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a Harley, > > ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive? > > All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law. > > > > Those other activities don't involve you driving around on a public road. > > You see, Foaty, the one thing you continue to fail to grasp is that the > public > roads are jointly owned by everyone. Therefore, my opinion of what you > should be permitted to do on the public road has as much weight as your > opinion. And a bunch of other people's opinions also have as much weight > as you and my opinion. And it so happens that the majority of people who > own that there road your driving on, believe that you and I should both be > wearing a seat belt. Thus, through their elected representatives, the > majority > of them have decided that your going to wear a belt. > > If you don't like it then you can work through the same political process > that was used to pass the seat belt laws, and get enough other idiots out > there like yourself all lit up, and get that seat belt law overturned. > > The same issue applies with motorcycle helmet use. However, the one > difference is that generally motorcycle riders that have accidents, whether > in helmet or out of helmet, don't cause the other driver to die. A bike, > after all, does not have the mass of a car. > > > "Unbelted drivers are easily knocked out of control position and/or > knocked > > unconscious by relatively minor incidents. When that happens, they're > unable > > to control the car and prevent additional, more substantial subsequent > > incidents -- like hitting other cars, pedestrians or cyclists." > > Isn't that really what the airbag does? > > > > Absolutely correct. If in the event you are not wearing a seat belt then > you > will be knocked around by an air bag. Of course, the impact forces that > trigger an air bag are high enough that if there was no air bag and you > didn't > have a seat belt on, you would still be knocked around. As such, an air > bag that triggers isn't any worse from a knocking about control standpoint > than driving without a belt on. > > > "What's more, belt non-using idjits like you are the reason those of us > > smart enough to protect ourselves have to have subpar airbags in our > > vehicles. Thanks a lot, asshole." > > Now that we have seat belt laws, perhaps they will take airbags out? umm > > didn't think so. > > > > Actually this isn't necessary because all that is needed to do is program > the > air bag computer to not fire the air bag if the seat occupant is wearing a > seat belt. I know such systems are in testing and development, and I > believe > may already be in some new cars. > > Ted "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message ... > > "Father of the Year" > wrote in > message ... > > "You can't always get what you want." > > Yes I can! You can choose to follow your government blindly. I disabled my > > seatbelt alarm!!!!!!! > > And are you going to reconnect it if you ever sell the vehicle? And in any > case > even if you don't wear your seat belt and disable the alarm, if it's illegal > to not wear > seat belts then your just subject to getting a ticket. > > We had one woman here in Oregon that got ticketed 3 times in a row for not > wearing a seat belt, on the same day, on the same street if you can believe > it. > As I recall it was 39th ave, she got ticketed on one end of it, drove about > 10 blocks > got ticketed again, drove a whopping TWO blocks, got ticketed a third time. > > > How about the foolish helmet law for kids under 12 on bicycles????? And 13 > > year olds are OK? > > > > Don't know about that one, here in this state all children under 18 are > required > to wear bicycle helmets. > > Sounds like a political compromise of some kind in your state. Bicycle > helmet > laws and motorcycle helmet laws aren't uniform across the country. > > > "I'm in a position to see the data collected on what happens to belted > vs. > > unbelted vehicle occupants in collisions. Mostly, the unbelted ones die. > > Mostly, the belted ones don't." > > Data is manipulated to produce what the collecter wants YOU to believe. > > For crash data of this sort, what possible reason is there to manipulate it? > The biggest consumers of crash data in the US are the auto insurance > companies. > What THEIR primary motivation is, is to see fatalities in crashes reduced, > and > the number of crashes reduced - the more this happens the more money they > make. I suppose you object to them making money so you want more crashes > I guess. They have no interest whatsoever in manipulating seat belt data to > artifically inflate the number of lives saved by wearing a seat belt. > > You probably think bleeding-heart liberals pushed through all the seat belt > laws. Well if seat belts actually increased fatalities, the insurance > companies - > who have more money than the Pope - would have snuffed that effort out in > a second. > > It was the insurance company money that kept the national 55Mph speed > limit in effect for a generation and the only reason that finally got > overturned > was that just about every last driver in the country hated the double-nickel > speed limit with a passion and kept screaming about it. And yet, with every > driver in the country screaming > regularly at their congressional representative to kill 55Mph, it took over > 20 > years before the insurance companies finally allowed Congress to get rid > of it. And the only reason they relented is because vehicles were getting > so much safer, with mandatory belt laws and air bags, crumple zones and > such, that the percentage of fatalities attributed soly to exceeding 55Mph > had finally got so small as to be basically unmeasurable. > > To presume that seat belt crash data has somehow been manipulated to > show seat belts save lives when they really don't, is one of the most > politically naieve things to say in the automotive field. Whatever > credibility > you might have you just flushed down the crapper. The insurance companies > would fight any effort to skew crash data with tooth and nail. Those greedy > sons of bitches only care about money, and will stop at nothing to get > absolutely accurate data as to what can be done to make themselves more > money. > > > Let's talk about ruptured spleens, livers, and bleeding to death due to > seat > > belt trauma. Or pneumothorax as a result of fractured ribs from seat > > belts!!! > > > > If that is your primary reason for not wearing a seat belt then you can > fix that problem very quickly - remove your seat belt and install a 5 point > harness. You can buy one from any race shop. > > However you don't do that simply because this ruptured spleen bullcrap > is something that you use to lie to yourself so you can try to feel better > about being an idiot. The real truth is that you have no interest in > wearing > a seat belt that would be safer and would NOT have a chance of > breaking a rib or rupturing a spleen or liver - such as a 5 point belt - > the real truth is that your just a buffoon that doesen't want to wear a > belt for whatever idiotic and pointless reason and will manufacture > a bunch of bullcrap to try to defend it to yourself and whatever other > idiots out there will listen to you. > > > "If that were as far as it went, I'd be very happy for you to stupidly > eject > > yourself from the gene pool. Problem is, your failure to wear seatbelts > > affects me." > > Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a Harley, > > ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive? > > All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law. > > > > Those other activities don't involve you driving around on a public road. > > You see, Foaty, the one thing you continue to fail to grasp is that the > public > roads are jointly owned by everyone. Therefore, my opinion of what you > should be permitted to do on the public road has as much weight as your > opinion. And a bunch of other people's opinions also have as much weight > as you and my opinion. And it so happens that the majority of people who > own that there road your driving on, believe that you and I should both be > wearing a seat belt. Thus, through their elected representatives, the > majority > of them have decided that your going to wear a belt. > > If you don't like it then you can work through the same political process > that was used to pass the seat belt laws, and get enough other idiots out > there like yourself all lit up, and get that seat belt law overturned. > > The same issue applies with motorcycle helmet use. However, the one > difference is that generally motorcycle riders that have accidents, whether > in helmet or out of helmet, don't cause the other driver to die. A bike, > after all, does not have the mass of a car. > > > "Unbelted drivers are easily knocked out of control position and/or > knocked > > unconscious by relatively minor incidents. When that happens, they're > unable > > to control the car and prevent additional, more substantial subsequent > > incidents -- like hitting other cars, pedestrians or cyclists." > > Isn't that really what the airbag does? > > > > Absolutely correct. If in the event you are not wearing a seat belt then > you > will be knocked around by an air bag. Of course, the impact forces that > trigger an air bag are high enough that if there was no air bag and you > didn't > have a seat belt on, you would still be knocked around. As such, an air > bag that triggers isn't any worse from a knocking about control standpoint > than driving without a belt on. > > > "What's more, belt non-using idjits like you are the reason those of us > > smart enough to protect ourselves have to have subpar airbags in our > > vehicles. Thanks a lot, asshole." > > Now that we have seat belt laws, perhaps they will take airbags out? umm > > didn't think so. > > > > Actually this isn't necessary because all that is needed to do is program > the > air bag computer to not fire the air bag if the seat occupant is wearing a > seat belt. I know such systems are in testing and development, and I > believe > may already be in some new cars. > > Ted > > |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Father of the Year" > wrote in message ... > "Foaty" lol wtf is that? > > How can anyone argue with you Ted? I just want the right to choose like > your Momma, when for some stupid reason , she chose not to abort your > argumentative ass. Or maybe she did and you are what remains. > Perhaps you can use your vast knowledge, persuasiveness, and people > skills > to work through the same political process that was used to pass the seat > belt laws and get seat belts in school busses. > > Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a Harley, > ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive? > All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law. > > All of those activities DO affect you and I. I don't have the time nor > the > desire to educate you on how. My only wish is to know what Foaty means > before I bang my head off the windshield and do my Terri Schiavo > impersonation. And you also allowed your childeren not to wear there seatbelt, or sit in a carseat while you drive. Yes, you are brilliant! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
They wear their seatbelt. Thank you for your concern DAVE.
Do you have children? Do you drive the speedlimit? Do you talk on your cellphone while driving? Dave, do you put on makeup while driving? Are you overweight? Are you underweight? Do you smoke? Do you smoke in the car with children? Do you choose to overeat or does the government tell you what you can eat or weigh. Do you chose to wear a condom or do you do what the govt. recommends? Do you give your children cancer, asthma, stunt their growth etc. by smoking in their presence? Are you that perfect DAVE? Would you like to debate me on being a man, a father, an intelligent productive human being? Gees, I choose not to wear my seatbelt, and I don't want to listen to the damn ding, and YOU people condemn me?????? I thought this was rec.autos.maker.chrysler not rec. miserable.****ing.knowitall.bashers Let he who is without sin cast the first stone TED, DAVE, DAN. Do you give your children cancer, asthma, stunt their growth etc. by smoking in their presence, but your seatbelt is on right? By the way, the reason y'all can't get it up isn't cause your wife/sister is so ugly but because you smoke! Look up those statistics TED So how many packs a day do you smoke boys? How much tax do you pay per pack???????Maybe you ought to go through the same political process as the seatbelters did to remove the tax, or perhaps the VOTERS? know best??? Yep the voters enacted that tax just like the seatbelt law, right ted! "David" > wrote in message news:5nyte.9841$iG5.934@fed1read05... > > "Father of the Year" > wrote in > message ... > > "Foaty" lol wtf is that? > > > > How can anyone argue with you Ted? I just want the right to choose like > > your Momma, when for some stupid reason , she chose not to abort your > > argumentative ass. Or maybe she did and you are what remains. > > Perhaps you can use your vast knowledge, persuasiveness, and people > > skills > > to work through the same political process that was used to pass the seat > > belt laws and get seat belts in school busses. > > > > Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a Harley, > > ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive? > > All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law. > > > > All of those activities DO affect you and I. I don't have the time nor > > the > > desire to educate you on how. My only wish is to know what Foaty means > > before I bang my head off the windshield and do my Terri Schiavo > > impersonation. > > And you also allowed your childeren not to wear there seatbelt, or sit in a > carseat while you drive. > > Yes, you are brilliant! > > |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Father of the Year wrote:
> They wear their seatbelt. Thank you for your concern DAVE. > > Do you have children? Do you drive the speedlimit? Do you talk on your > cellphone while driving? Dave, do you put on makeup while driving? Are you > overweight? Are you underweight? Do you smoke? Do you smoke in the car with > children? Do you choose to overeat or does the government tell you what you > can eat or weigh. Do you chose to wear a condom or do you do what the govt. > recommends? Do you give your children cancer, asthma, stunt their growth > etc. by smoking in their presence? Are you that perfect DAVE? Would you > like to debate me on being a man, a father, an intelligent productive human > being? > Gees, I choose not to wear my seatbelt, and I don't want to listen to the > damn ding, and YOU people condemn me?????? I thought this was > rec.autos.maker.chrysler not rec. miserable.****ing.knowitall.bashers > > Let he who is without sin cast the first stone TED, DAVE, DAN. > > Do you give your children cancer, asthma, stunt their growth etc. by smoking > in their presence, but your seatbelt is on right? > By the way, the reason y'all can't get it up isn't cause your wife/sister is > so ugly but because you smoke! Look up those statistics TED > So how many packs a day do you smoke boys? How much tax do you pay per > pack???????Maybe you ought to go through the same political process as the > seatbelters did to remove the tax, or perhaps the VOTERS? know best??? Yep > the voters enacted that tax just like the seatbelt law, right ted! > > "David" > wrote in message > news:5nyte.9841$iG5.934@fed1read05... > >>"Father of the Year" > wrote in >>message ... >> >>>"Foaty" lol wtf is that? >>> >>>How can anyone argue with you Ted? I just want the right to choose like >>>your Momma, when for some stupid reason , she chose not to abort your >>>argumentative ass. Or maybe she did and you are what remains. >>>Perhaps you can use your vast knowledge, persuasiveness, and people >>>skills >>>to work through the same political process that was used to pass the > > seat > >>>belt laws and get seat belts in school busses. >>> >>>Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a > > Harley, > >>>ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive? >>>All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law. >>> >>>All of those activities DO affect you and I. I don't have the time nor >>>the >>>desire to educate you on how. My only wish is to know what Foaty means >>>before I bang my head off the windshield and do my Terri Schiavo >>>impersonation. >> >>And you also allowed your childeren not to wear there seatbelt, or sit in > > a > >>carseat while you drive. >> >>Yes, you are brilliant! >> >> > > > I don't wear seatbelts in my 1940 Royal Coupe! I have been waiting for the cops here in FL to stop me and then explain to them it is a restored antique in original form. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Actually that would not be a good idea.
In Europe (anywhere outside North America?) the concept is that seats and air bags are complementary. I believe the bags are smaller than in the US because they are not obliged to assume that the person is unbelted. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message ... [...] the > air bag computer to not fire the air bag if the seat occupant is wearing a > seat belt. I know such systems are in testing and development, and I > believe > may already be in some new cars. > > Ted > > |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe this was covered in another part of this post, but why do you chose to not
wear your belt? Just curious. Father of the Year wrote: > snip > Gees, I choose not to wear my seatbelt, and I don't want to listen to the > damn ding, and YOU people condemn me?????? I thought this was > rec.autos.maker.chrysler not rec. miserable.****ing.knowitall.bashers > > >snip |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1999 Caravan Serpentine Belt Issue | Jim Candela | Dodge | 85 | December 27th 05 09:05 PM |
Chrysler Town and Country front seats too tall. | texasksufan | Chrysler | 3 | February 23rd 05 05:50 PM |
Seat change for Town & Country? | [email protected] | Chrysler | 24 | December 21st 04 05:53 PM |
Accord: Need to bypass AirCon Compresser Belt | afterglow | Honda | 4 | October 18th 04 08:58 PM |