Boat seat belts

[captain]

Reading this only makes me wonder exactly how many dashboards you have bounced your cranium off of. Denouncing seatbelts and claiming them more dangerous than not wearing them is laughable at best, odd that virtually everyone you know is alive because they chose not to wear a seatbelt, I cry BS.

:bs:

Probably 80 to 90 percent of the people here on the board have never seen much less driven a car without seatbelts. The first 10 years of my driving life were in cars without seat belts and the first 25 years of my life was riding in cars without seat belts or baby seats. The worst accident I ever had was in a car without seat belts, car was totaled I didn't receive a scratch. That said I now always ware a seat belt, I feel naked without it. Probably in the greater percentage of accidents seat belts prevent serious injuries or death but there are some where a seat belt can do more harm than good.
I think a lot of the situation where a car is on fire or went into the water panic sets in and the ability to calmly release the belt goes out the window.
As a Navy aircrewman we did training getting out of a sinking plane. The Dilbert Dunker is a mock up of an airplane that slides on a rail into the water then flips over with you strapped inside. You must free yourself and swim out.

 

[TMHeimer]

How about this: If you are driving your car, a seat belt should be required to be there (as it has since what, 1980), but you should not be required by law to wear it (the insurance companies would not like that, would they--going back to 1975). Minors (under 18,19 in most of Canada or 21 in US) should be required to wear them as they are not considered real adults yet--can't vote, drink, etc. Small children must be in car seats as they obviously don't have the comprehension to decide anything about this. If you are in a boat, on a bus, a train, plane, or anything that somebody else owns and runs you have to do what they say, period.

 

[novicediver]

No, because whether you wear a seatbelt or not has absolutely zip to do with civil rights and has everything to do adhering to the conditions applied to having the privilege of driving. This is less an issue about rights and more an issue about being told what to do. To put it bluntly, too damn bad! If you were so concerned about your precious civil liberties, complain about domestic wiretaps, facial recognition software, big brother's presence on every street, etc.

 

[AfterDark]

How about this: If you are driving your car, a seat belt should be required to be there (as it has since what, 1980), but you should not be required by law to wear it (the insurance companies would not like that, would they--going back to 1975). Minors (under 18,19 in most of Canada or 21 in US) should be required to wear them as they are not considered real adults yet--can't vote, drink, etc. Small children must be in car seats as they obviously don't have the comprehension to decide anything about this. If you are in a boat, on a bus, a train, plane, or anything that somebody else owns and runs you have to do what they say, period.

You have the heart of an American. What you posted is how it should be. I'd add education about seatbelts so people can make an informed choice. Someone asked why I went through the trouble of making a fake seatbelt. No trouble at all really, took less than 10 min. and 2 pieces of Velcro. The reason? To avoid the $85.00 fine and still live my life my way. Like the captain I’m old enough to have ridden in cars without seatbelts as a youngster and lived for years not being compelled by law to wear one, and not hurting anyone. Then one day my government turned me into a law breaker.

By the way I drive 1000 miles per week on the interstates and have been for the past 12 years. Darwin is no match for me.

 

[TMHeimer]

After Dark, Thanks. I am an American also! When I met my wife 16 years ago she asked me to wear my seatbelt as a good example for her two kids. Agreeing she was right, I did so. Since, of course, the kids are now adults, and that no longer applies. But, I almost always (not if I'm going 2 blocks) continue to wear it, because I just feel safer doing so, particularly since like 85% of drivers today speed (they ought to address that as much as they do drunk driving, but being against speeding is not an "in" thing). However, I still and always will think the seatbelt LAWS are toally wrong. Interesting how these started in one province and spread to all of Canada. Same as in the U.S., I recall. Monkey see monkey do. I do however recall that back then in the U.S. I believe the Federal Govt. told each state to comply with it's own law or fed. money would be cut off for Interstate Highways maintenence in said non-complying state..

 

[Paladin]

"I believe the Federal Govt. told each state to comply with it's own law or fed. money would be cut off for Interstate Highways maintenence in said non-complying state.."

The Federal Government's blackmail threat is the only reason my home state adopted a seat belt law. However, the law was written as a secondary offense and can only be applied if the motorist is stopped for some other, legitimate, reason. Even then, it is left up to the police officer whether or not to add it to the ticket, if there is one.

 

[TMHeimer]

"I believe the Federal Govt. told each state to comply with it's own law or fed. money would be cut off for Interstate Highways maintenence in said non-complying state.."

The Federal Government's blackmail threat is the only reason my home state adopted a seat belt law. However, the law was written as a secondary offense and can only be applied if the motorist is stopped for some other, legitimate, reason. Even then, it is left up to the police officer whether or not to add it to the ticket, if there is one.

Yeah, 30+ years ago New York was that way. Don't think it is still secondary. At least secondary is better than primary. I always was puzzed by that--either it's bad and totally illegal or not(?).... What other laws are secondary? Here's something interesting--In driving through N.H. I was told at a toll booth that seat belts are only required if a driver is under 18 (think it's 18). If that's true, how did they get away with that? Any NH locals out there?

 

[DandyDon]

Yeah, 30+ years ago New York was that way. Don't think it is still secondary. At least secondary is better than primary. I always was puzzed by that--either it's bad and totally illegal or not(?).... What other laws are secondary? Here's something interesting--In driving through N.H. I was told at a toll booth that seat belts are only required if a driver is under 18 (think it's 18). If that's true, how did they get away with that? Any NH locals out there?

It seems the first seatbelt law was in Victoria, Australia, "which experienced approximately a 40% decrease in road deaths and injuries by 1974." Seat belt legislation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New York State passed the first seat belt law in the US in 1984 under the leadership of John D. States, an orthopedic surgeon who dedicated his career to improving automotive safety.[10] In the USA, seatbelt legislation varies by state. Depending on which state you are in, not wearing a seatbelt in the front seat is either a primary offense or a secondary offense, with the exception of New Hampshire, which does not have a law requiring people over age 18 to wear a seat belt.

Also see Seat Belt Law: Will New Hampshire Buckle? - ABC News

 

[novicediver]

I don't see how wearing a seat belt has anything to do with civil liberties. Last time I checked, driving was a privilege not a right. As with any privilege, there are things called rules that you must abide by. Little things like driving on the correct side of the road, stopping at crosswalks, obeying traffic signals, and not driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. For some of you it is less an issue of your precious "rights" and more an issue of not wanting to be told what to do. That just isn't a legitimate reason especially when your actions put yourself and others at risk. By not wearing a seat belt, you have now increased the likelihood of being ejected and becoming a projectile that may very well cause a secondary crash. Also you increase the overall insurance carrier rates and now many companies are refusing to pay claims on those that wantonly choose to disobey traffic laws.

 

[Paladin]

Yeah, 30+ years ago New York was that way. Don't think it is still secondary. At least secondary is better than primary. I always was puzzed by that--either it's bad and totally illegal or not(?).... What other laws are secondary? Here's something interesting--In driving through N.H. I was told at a toll booth that seat belts are only required if a driver is under 18 (think it's 18). If that's true, how did they get away with that? Any NH locals out there?

Also, back seat passengers here (18 yo and older) are not required to wear a seat belt. In addition, the law states that seat belts are required when available. Vehicles made before seat belts became standard equipment are exempt, as are pickups with passengers in the bed.