But did you at least appreciate his use of the word "damn"?

 

My man made his point very well. We just disagree.

I would think the insurance companies would just assume people are killed in car wrecks versus long term injuries that cost thousands in treatment. Or even to be left alive to sue.

 

I don't work in auto insurance, but I would imagine that it would all depend on who it is that is killed. The value of a claim on the death of an 82 year old man would not be the same as say a 29 year old man with 3 kids. Also the death of the injured party doesn't prevent a lawsuit. Widows, children, etc. could file suit over an accident.

The seatbelt law is the result of a strong insurance company PAC. IMO, it is should never be sufficient reason to pull a driver over.

 

Follow the money - as usual.

 

Also, without the seatbelts the airbags can become decapitation machines - as was found out early on. So because of the 'safer' airbags it caused the need to wear seatbelts all the time or die a gruesome death in even a low speed crash that would lead to a....lawsuit that some insurance company would likely have to cover.

The scribe rules.

Meaning unless you are a criminal , the unlawful traffic stop mean nothing other than 10 lost minutes , or less

The victim sure was calm after being hit.

The victim sure was calm after being hit.

 

Ha....that was honestly my first thought as well.

Ha....that was honestly my first thought as well.

 

He was extremely polite for having taken a bullet.

He was extremely polite for having taken a bullet.

 

Yeah...was there even ONE f-bomb in there??

Yeah...was there even ONE f-bomb in there??

 

I know I sure wouldn't have had that restraint.

He was extremely polite for having taken a bullet.

 

You know, life is about maximizing the 'after the comma' for your introduction. You know, Cris Carter, Hall of Fame WR, for example. The after the comma portion of who you are is a pretty good thing to strive for. Like: LRCW, all around great guy (see what I did there?). Or: Clyde, a true and loyal friend. Or: Watusi, as genuinely good a person as you could have in your life. Or: Guru, a message board visionary. The after the comma matters.

 

Joe Schmo now can go through life like this: Joe Schmo, extremely polite for having taken a bullet. Pretty good after the comma stuff there Mr. Schmo. Pretty good indeed.

You know, life is about maximizing the 'after the comma' for your introduction. You know, Cris Carter, Hall of Fame WR, for example. The after the comma portion of who you are is a pretty good thing to strive for. Like: LRCW, all around great guy (see what I did there?). Or: Clyde, a true and loyal friend. Or: Watusi, as genuinely good a person as you could have in your life. Or: Guru, a message board visionary. The after the comma matters.

 

Joe Schmo now can go through life like this: Joe Schmo, extremely polite for having taken a bullet. Pretty good after the comma stuff there Mr. Schmo. Pretty good indeed.

 

:lol2::thumb:

I would think the insurance companies would just assume people are killed in car wrecks versus long term injuries that cost thousands in treatment. Or even to be left alive to sue.

 

I didn't have my facts completely straight:

 

 

The Onslaught Continues

by T. Patrick O'Malley

 

In the 1980's, auto manufacturers were faced with a federal mandate to install "passive restraint" safety devices to protect vehicle occupants in the event of a collision. Also known as the "air bag mandate," this requirement was vigorously opposed by all the major vehicle manufacturers.

 

Claims of tremendous expense, dubious reliability, and impracticality were amplified by dealers and even auto enthusiast groups. Some foreign manufacturers implied that the air bag mandate would preclude them from staying in the U.S. market. To the rescue came the U.S. Dept. of Transportation (USDOT) in the persona of Elizabeth Dole.

 

A deal was cut and it went like this: If the auto industry could get mandatory seat belt laws passed in enough states such that 80% of the population would be covered by such laws, the air bag mandate would be put on indefinite hold.

 

Therein followed a 100-million-dollar auto industry campaign to pass mandatory seat belt laws. It was a lobbyist-safety organization feeding frenzy.

 

The insurance industry, a major proponent of air bags, opposed the USDOT/auto company deal and set out to muddy the water.

 

The general public had not been sufficiently "softened up" to accept the idea that the government should dictate personal safety decisions (a belief still held by some of us recalcitrant extremists), and straightforward seat belt mandates were a hard sell.

 

The insurance industry and related minions came up with the perfect solution -- secondary enforcement.

 

Secondary enforcement would not meet the D.O.T. requirement for the air bag trade-off but it would still start the process of putting seat belt mandates on the law books.

I didn't have my facts completely straight:

 

 

The Onslaught Continues

by T. Patrick O'Malley

 

In the 1980's, auto manufacturers were faced with a federal mandate to install "passive restraint" safety devices to protect vehicle occupants in the event of a collision. Also known as the "air bag mandate," this requirement was vigorously opposed by all the major vehicle manufacturers.

 

Claims of tremendous expense, dubious reliability, and impracticality were amplified by dealers and even auto enthusiast groups. Some foreign manufacturers implied that the air bag mandate would preclude them from staying in the U.S. market. To the rescue came the U.S. Dept. of Transportation (USDOT) in the persona of Elizabeth Dole.

 

A deal was cut and it went like this: If the auto industry could get mandatory seat belt laws passed in enough states such that 80% of the population would be covered by such laws, the air bag mandate would be put on indefinite hold.

 

Therein followed a 100-million-dollar auto industry campaign to pass mandatory seat belt laws. It was a lobbyist-safety organization feeding frenzy.

 

The insurance industry, a major proponent of air bags, opposed the USDOT/auto company deal and set out to muddy the water.

 

The general public had not been sufficiently "softened up" to accept the idea that the government should dictate personal safety decisions (a belief still held by some of us recalcitrant extremists), and straightforward seat belt mandates were a hard sell.

 

The insurance industry and related minions came up with the perfect solution -- secondary enforcement.

 

Secondary enforcement would not meet the D.O.T. requirement for the air bag trade-off but it would still start the process of putting seat belt mandates on the law books.

 

That's interesting, especially considering all new cars have air bags now. Does the law now require that? Or was it the market that dictated the need for air bags?

He was extremely polite for having taken a bullet.

 

Is there any wonder about that Clyde? I mean, the cop shot the guy for just reaching into his car. Imagine what the cop would have done to him if he started dropping F-bombs all over.:idunno: