I heard on the radio this morning that TPD is planning to step up seatbelt enforcement.
http://www.krmg.com/news/news/seatbelt_crackdown_coming/ns2P/
Is this part of a national initiative? The story notes seatbelt use in the Tulsa area is 91% so what's the point? Failure to use a seatbelt doesn't cause a crash, but inattentive driving does. How about a crackdown on people texting or surfing the web while driving? Sure seems like a better use of resources which would raise revenue (which is all seatbelt enforcement is) while also doing something which REALLY would make a difference in public safety.
I would personally like to see a crack down on red light runners, but that would mean cops would have to stop as well.
Oh, and I love how the comments are turned off for the story
Quote from: custosnox on May 19, 2011, 09:33:28 AM
Oh, and I love how the comments are turned off for the story
Just my opinion but that would be best for all stories.
I always wear my seat belt, but it's not harming me when others don't wear theirs. Plus with the fine only being $20, what's the point? If I was staunchly anti-seatbelt, the prospect of getting a $20 fine every few years wouldn't change my behavior.
Many other kinds of crackdowns would be better:
Inattentive driving (when I go jogging I think at least a third of drivers are holding cell phones to their ears).
Crosswalk violations
Turn signals/turns on red where people barely slow down
Generally ridiculous intersection maneuvers (mostly downtown, where people think they can go whatever direction they please from any lane they please).
Left lane drivers on the rural turnpikes/four-lanes (not really a TPD issue, I realize)
Quote from: TheTed on May 19, 2011, 11:08:35 AM
I always wear my seat belt, but it's not harming me when others don't wear theirs. Plus with the fine only being $20, what's the point? If I was staunchly anti-seatbelt, the prospect of getting a $20 fine every few years wouldn't change my behavior.
While I agree that TPD has more important things to do, other people not wearing their seatbelt does affect you. When they get into a crash, they end up with more serious injuries, which ends up increasing the cost of everyone's liability insurance.
Quote from: nathanm on May 19, 2011, 11:33:37 AM
While I agree that TPD has more important things to do, other people not wearing their seatbelt does affect you. When they get into a crash, they end up with more serious injuries, which ends up increasing the cost of everyone's liability insurance.
That logic is not lost on anyone, I don't believe. However, most of those accidents would not occur without driver inattention.
Quote from: nathanm on May 19, 2011, 11:33:37 AM
While I agree that TPD has more important things to do, other people not wearing their seatbelt does affect you. When they get into a crash, they end up with more serious injuries, which ends up increasing the cost of everyone's liability insurance.
by using that reasoning then you can say that your medical insurance liability goes up because someone gets hurt while bungee jumping, so let's make it illegal to bungee jump
Quote from: Conan71 on May 19, 2011, 09:15:30 AM
I heard on the radio this morning that TPD is planning to step up seatbelt enforcement.
Is this part of a national initiative? The story notes seatbelt use in the Tulsa area is 91% so what's the point?
A special interest group gets some grant money to dangle in front of police departments,
to make certain types of arrests in keeping with their agenda.
Police are required to meet a quota to collect the grant.
The special interest group now has higher arrest numbers to justify asking for more grant money,
that they dangle in front of police departments.
Round and round.
Quote from: patric on May 19, 2011, 11:50:30 AM
A special interest group gets some grant money to dangle in front of police departments,
to make certain types of arrests in keeping with their agenda.
Police are required to meet a quota to collect the grant.
The special interest group now has higher arrest numbers to justify asking for more grant money,
that they dangle in front of police departments.
Round and round.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcToipteqfL4jd5vW2NqbBEL06Vo4iSJfX01YVmxN2TVK0fWzeOs)?
Quote from: custosnox on May 19, 2011, 11:49:24 AM
by using that reasoning then you can say that your medical insurance liability goes up because someone gets hurt while bungee jumping, so let's make it illegal to bungee jump
I was explaining, not defending. I'm pretty much all for seat belt laws that apply to children, since it's not really up to them if their dumbass parents don't belt them in. I'm much more ambivalent toward adult seat belt laws.
Now I'll get into a mild defense: Bungee jumping is not to health insurance as seat belt laws are to auto liability. Requiring people to wear a seatbelt is a minimal intrusion on their freedom. Prohibiting them from recreational activities is a much greater intrusion.
I was always under the impression that this allows the officer to stop someone with cause in order to make a bigger bust.
ie drugs, drunk driving, possession of stolen goods, corpse in the trunk, hooker on the floor board...you know, a thursday night
Quote from: Townsend on May 19, 2011, 11:59:49 AM
I was always under the impression that this allows the officer to stop someone with cause in order to make a bigger bust.
ie drugs, drunk driving, possession of stolen goods, corpse in the trunk, hooker on the floor board...you know, a thursday night
Thread winner
Quote from: custosnox on May 19, 2011, 11:49:24 AM
by using that reasoning then you can say that your medical insurance liability goes up because someone gets hurt while bungee jumping, so let's make it illegal to bungee jump
Lousy example. Estimates are about 18 deaths since the 70's. Wouldn't even show up on actuarial table.
While driving still kills 30,000+ per year. And the percentage is heavily stacked toward the side of not wearing seat belt as the main causative factor (especially percentage wise). Which WOULD show up on same table.
Quote from: patric on May 19, 2011, 11:50:30 AM
A special interest group gets some grant money to dangle in front of police departments,
to make certain types of arrests in keeping with their agenda.
Police are required to meet a quota to collect the grant.
The special interest group now has higher arrest numbers to justify asking for more grant money,
that they dangle in front of police departments.
Round and round.
Damn. Will they be looking for unused condoms?
Damn those special interest groups! :D
Quote from: nathanm on May 19, 2011, 11:54:40 AM
I was explaining, not defending. I'm pretty much all for seat belt laws that apply to children, since it's not really up to them if their dumbass parents don't belt them in. I'm much more ambivalent toward adult seat belt laws.
I can agree with that
Quote
Now I'll get into a mild defense: Bungee jumping is not to health insurance as seat belt laws are to auto liability. Requiring people to wear a seatbelt is a minimal intrusion on their freedom. Prohibiting them from recreational activities is a much greater intrusion.
Minimal or not, it is an intrusion.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 19, 2011, 12:43:25 PM
Lousy example. Estimates are about 18 deaths since the 70's. Wouldn't even show up on actuarial table.
While driving still kills 30,000+ per year. And the percentage is heavily stacked toward the side of not wearing seat belt as the main causative factor (especially percentage wise). Which WOULD show up on same table.
No, it's not a lousy example, it's a hyperbole meant to point out that the idea of the government protecting us from ourselves is really stupid.
Quote from: nathanm on May 19, 2011, 11:33:37 AM
While I agree that TPD has more important things to do, other people not wearing their seatbelt does affect you. When they get into a crash, they end up with more serious injuries, which ends up increasing the cost of everyone's liability insurance.
I think statistically that not only is an unbelted driver more likely to be injured, but they are also more likely to lose control of their vehicle in an accident.
Quote from: Townsend on May 19, 2011, 11:59:49 AM
ie drugs, drunk driving, possession of stolen goods, corpse in the trunk, hooker on the floor board...you know, a thursday night
I gotta party with you.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 19, 2011, 02:41:10 PM
I gotta party with you.
You were there last night...you must've ducked out early
Quote from: dbacks fan on May 19, 2011, 02:08:40 PM
I think statistically that not only is an unbelted driver more likely to be injured, but they are also more likely to lose control of their vehicle in an accident.
Can anyone really think of a plausible scenario where a seatbelt has already restrained you in a potentially deadly crash, and you still somehow have enough control over your vehicle to put others at risk?
FYI, I consciously decided to use seatbelts long before any career politicians decided I wasnt smart enough to make that choice.
Quote from: patric on May 19, 2011, 03:43:21 PM
Can anyone really think of a plausible scenario where a seatbelt has already restrained you in a potentially deadly crash, and you still somehow have enough control over your vehicle to put others at risk?
FYI, I consciously decided to use seatbelts long before any career politicians decided I wasnt smart enough to make that choice.
Ditto. Since I started driving.
Quote from: patric on May 19, 2011, 03:43:21 PM
Can anyone really think of a plausible scenario where a seatbelt has already restrained you in a potentially deadly crash, and you still somehow have enough control over your vehicle to put others at risk?
I believe the issue is more of maintaining control. A sudden swerve to miss something in the road could cause you to lose control of the vehicle if you find yourself in the passenger seat rather than the driver's seat. Of course most drivers would just slam on the brakes and hit whatever.
I personally took a trip through a deep but gradual enough shoulder on Memorial just north of 81st before the road was improved with curbs. I was north bound and had gone through the intersection. The southbound line of traffic hadn't totally started moving and someone came from the stores on the west side of the street, through the small hole in the traffic and positioned themself directly in front of me. No time to stop so I went for the shoulder, down through the dip, up the other side of the dip, back through the dip and onto the pavement. I don't think I would have been successful without wearing a seatbelt.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 19, 2011, 03:57:30 PM
I believe the issue is more of maintaining control. A sudden swerve to miss something in the road could cause you to lose control of the vehicle if you find yourself in the passenger seat rather than the driver's seat. Of course most drivers would just slam on the brakes and hit whatever.
I personally took a trip through a deep but gradual enough shoulder on Memorial just north of 81st before the road was improved with curbs. I was north bound and had gone through the intersection. The southbound line of traffic hadn't totally started moving and someone came from the stores on the west side of the street, through the small hole in the traffic and positioned themself directly in front of me. No time to stop so I went for the shoulder, down through the dip, up the other side of the dip, back through the dip and onto the pavement. I don't think I would have been successful without wearing a seatbelt.
You did extend a middle finger of gratitude, didn't you?
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 19, 2011, 03:57:30 PM
I believe the issue is more of maintaining control. A sudden swerve to miss something in the road could cause you to lose control of the vehicle if you find yourself in the passenger seat rather than the driver's seat. Of course most drivers would just slam on the brakes and hit whatever.
I personally took a trip through a deep but gradual enough shoulder on Memorial just north of 81st before the road was improved with curbs. I was north bound and had gone through the intersection. The southbound line of traffic hadn't totally started moving and someone came from the stores on the west side of the street, through the small hole in the traffic and positioned themself directly in front of me. No time to stop so I went for the shoulder, down through the dip, up the other side of the dip, back through the dip and onto the pavement. I don't think I would have been successful without wearing a seatbelt.
Tough to stay in a wet leather seat.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 19, 2011, 04:13:24 PM
You did extend a middle finger of gratitude, didn't you?
After I was done with the excursion. I did get a flat tire out of it by about 46th St. The other driver was going the same way as I was and stopped when I did. He offered to pay to get the flat fixed so that defused the situation somewhat.
Quote from: Townsend on May 19, 2011, 04:18:43 PM
Tough to stay in a wet leather seat.
Surprisingly enough, the seat stayed dry. Also, vinyl - not leather.
Another reason to wear seatbelts:
In 1967, my father was in NY state in the spring. There was snow on the road. A driver coming from the other direction didn't negotiate the curve in the road and hit my dad's car head on at about 25 mph. Totaled a 65 Buick LeSabre. Dad got two bruised elbows and that's all. The 65s didn't have shoulder belts. Wearing his seatbelt protected dad from the other guy.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 19, 2011, 03:57:30 PM
I believe the issue is more of maintaining control. A sudden swerve to miss something in the road could cause you to lose control of the vehicle if you find yourself in the passenger seat rather than the driver's seat. Of course most drivers would just slam on the brakes and hit whatever.
I personally took a trip through a deep but gradual enough shoulder on Memorial just north of 81st before the road was improved with curbs. I was north bound and had gone through the intersection. The southbound line of traffic hadn't totally started moving and someone came from the stores on the west side of the street, through the small hole in the traffic and positioned themself directly in front of me. No time to stop so I went for the shoulder, down through the dip, up the other side of the dip, back through the dip and onto the pavement. I don't think I would have been successful without wearing a seatbelt.
I had three excursions between '95 and '97. Twice into the grass median on 169 north of Pine, the third was in the rain on the BA. Just got onto the BA going west from I44, and had a guy run me off just past the Sheridan exit sign. Went down the embankment headed for the little cluster of trees and tried to steer to the right and go up the other side. Had tu steer again to avoid someones back yard and wound up sliding back down into the trees. Only had to replace a fender instead of hitting the trees head on.
Quote from: dbacks fan on May 19, 2011, 05:27:41 PM
Only had to replace a fender
And a pair of briefs, I'd imagine.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 19, 2011, 09:13:17 PM
And a pair of briefs, I'd imagine.
No, it was more of getting the drivers seat removed from my donkey each time. I think it's called the "pucker factor". ;)
Apparently "Click It or Ticket" is aimed at juveniles, and was part of a campaign to get states to pass "primary" seat belt laws and institute roadblocks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_It_or_Ticket