142

Probably to reduce government funded medical costs. It’s a fiscal protection more than anything. I bet insurance won’t cover head injuries if a helmet isn’t worn.

First it’s not about injuring someone else… an injury is not only result we are looking to avoid. We are attempting to lower the “blast radius” of a car accident. Keeping humans in the car is lowering the “blast radius” just like having crumple zones. The primary function of these safety measure are occupant focused. A secondary function is peripheral to the car.

143

Great legendary story about motorcycle helmets. Guy riding in New Hampshire (Live Free or Die! No helmet law) crossed the state line. He put his helmet on his knee to fulfill the requirement of wearing a helmet. Cop pulled him over. Guy argued that he was wearing a helmet. Cop made him put it on his head and sent him on his way. A mile up the road the cyclist got cut off and crashed. Cop came upon the accident scene. In the crash the guy broke his knee.

1 Like
144

I agree. I also believe that the benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risks.

To me, the insistence on MANDATES have caused people to dig in their heels – even in the face of ample data showing the effectiveness of the vax.

The PUSH shouldn’t have been government force, but rather a more insistent promotion of the cost-benefit of the vax. Once the mandate line was crossed, liberty proponents cut off their noses to spite their faces, and we are at the impasse we face today. I don’t see a way to bridge the gap now.

1 Like
145

“The researchers studied more than 70,000 motor vehicle that crashed between 1988 and 2000. The researchers found that the risk of death was 20 percent greater for a belted person in front of an unrestrained rear passenger, compared with a belted person in front of a restrained rear passenger. The risk of death for a rear occupant was increased about 22 percent if someone in front was unrestrained, compared with having someone in front who was restrained.”

146

Yup…and no one ever breaks the law.

147

There should have been zero lockdowns. Had the average Joe been frightened enough, he easily could have opted out of everything from his usual preventive care to that restaurant meal and those businesses either would have adapted on their own—curbside pick up or delivery, for example—or gone bellyup.

Now small businesses have gone bellyup and larger ones are having staffing problems’cause potential workers wanna stay safe, God, the language of the pandemic is moronic.

If someone dies in traffic on the way home, but tests negative for a virus that for most isn’t fatal, has he “stayed safe”?

148

You mean like this.

Allan

149

Actually yes. I dont want government telling me whatishoukd or should not do. Edit not eliminate seatbelts. Just the law imposing seatbelts

1 Like
150

That’s a sign of a backwards society, one that tosses the lives of the young out the window to protect those who have lived into the 60s, 70s and even 90s.

Many elderly survive. I remember hearing of a 60-something symptom free positive woman being quarantined on a ship, saying she was a danger to other passengers.

She—the patient—was hardly affected by this novel virus. A 90-some patient at our local hospital survived both Spanish flu & COVID-19.

Physicians are pushing HOV vax for 12 year old girls when HPV positive, much less cervical cancer histories, are nowhere near the majority for unvaccinated adult patients. I’m sick of having my health care decisions and business transactions regulated by a perverse society’s desire to preserve a tiny numerical minority of its inhabitants.

2 Likes
151

I’ll never understand the rationale behind seatbelt mandates, unless it involves reducing serious injuries that increase Medicaid spending. If it’s something like that, I may or may not agree, but do understand.

Does the absence of a mandate mean one CANNOT wear a seatbelt? That’s absurd!

1 Like
152

Exactly right. I feel the same.

153

not every mandate are equal.

seatbelt mandate i support. others…not so much.

154

I dont see why its anyone’s business if I wear a seatbelt or not. The risk i choose only effects myself. Just like taking the vaccine.

2 Likes
155

I would agree with the seatbelt. Maybe we can take the same reasoning for doing drugs. If you smoke crack or do PCP, you don’t harm anyone but yourself.

156

I dont see the problem with the person doing drugs. I believe in that instance its the dealers pushing drugs would be the problem. Selling to minors being a big problem.

157

COVID deaths have greater political value.

3 Likes
158

Actually it isn’t, in most states you can post a cash bond in the amount of the minimum coverage instead.

159

Want to go tell my nephew, and adult who was a crack baby when he was adopted and is now institutionalized because he has the intellect of a four year old, that crack is a victimless crime?

1 Like
160

Very sad indeed. My point is any action you take can impact others.

161

Incorrect. Your decision could also affect passengers in the event of a crash. It could also affect other drivers if you fly through the front window onto a busy street. It could impact healthcare if the person who chose not to wear a seatbelt doesn’t have insurance (hell wearing a seatbelt today is required for insurance to payout)