Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JeanieK And if you become disabled after putting your head through the windshield, and the government has to support you, is it still none of our business. And I feel the same about motorcycle helmets.
I once read an article written by a man who was caring for his wife after she was brain damaged from putting her head through a windshield. He had always nagged her to wear it and she told him that it was her life. Well he was taking his wedding vows seriousy and took care of her but he resented her for needlessly putting him in that situation.
I don't blame him, I would be resentful too. The choices we make do affect other people, and we are our brothers keeper. |
So, to understand you correctly...If I am in a car accident and become disabled but am wearing my seatbelt then the government supporting me
would be OK? Whatever! This is politics and nothing else...The what if's
that everyone is claiming to be fact is pure speculation based on statistics
of government paid for studies. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure
out that if the govenment is pushing for something their statics are going
to come out in favor of their views. It's not that I don't believe in seat
belts. I just don't need someone else deciding what's in my best interest
and taking away my freedom of the right to choose.
While the use of a seat belt has saved some people in certain kinds of traffic accidents, there is ample proof that in other kinds, some people have been more seriously injured and even killed only because of forced seat belt use. In the latter case, such injuries and deaths are not given the same degree of publicity, if any, as given when people are saved by seat belt use. Such bias in compiling traffic accident data exaggerates the so-called benefit of seat belt laws which misleads the public into thinking seat belt use automatically means safety; nonuse automatically means death in all kinds of accidents, which is false.
In spite of the fact the government is forcing the use of a device that can be injurious and even lethal in certain situations, the government refuses to be held financially responsible for such injuries or deaths. Instead, the government expects the injured or survivors of those killed to obtain financial satisfaction from their own savings, or insurance, or by suing the auto makers
Some people in certain kinds of traffic accidents have survived only because a seat belt was not used &endash; injured, perhaps, but not dead. Such persons, by law, are subject to a citation and a fine for not dying in the accident using a so-called safety device arbitrarily chosen by politicians. Traffic accident data on such traffic accidents only reflect one more injury without using a seat belt, which, again, exaggerate the so-called benefit of seat belt laws.
If a person is killed while using a seat belt, law supporters claim the accident was so severe not even a seat belt could save the person. That might be true in some cases, but the severity of an accident is never mentioned in compiling a list of persons killed while not using a seat belt, which adds to the bias in compiling traffic accident data in favor of seat belt laws.
Evidence of seat belt use increasing injuries or causing a person's death in certain kinds of traffic accidents is well documented in the hundreds of successful lawsuits filed against the auto makers since the advent of seat belt laws in 1985. Court ordered settlements and punitive damage awards forced the auto makers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the injured or survivors of those killed as a result of the failure of the seat belt to save as promised. Some lawsuits were settled out of court which sealed the evidence of seat belt design defects from the public, including other lawyers with similar cases.
Hundreds of thousands of autos, vans and light trucks have been recalled as a result of discovering defects in certain seat belt designs after the fact, which means the motoring public has been forced by law to become unwilling guinea pigs, unlike how all other products in the marketplace are treated.
There is a body of law that states a person has the right to refuse any personal health care device, drug treatment, or surgery, even if such refusal might result in an earlier death or an increase in medical expenses. All seat belt laws violate that right, that is, to freely choose to use or not to use a "health care" seat belt. Any medical professional attempting to do the same would be prosecuted, yet politicians claim they can ignore the law while demanding strict compliance from the private sector.
While there is extensive publicity always given those who support seat belt laws, research published by independent professionals, that is, those not on the federal payroll, which challenges the so-called benefit of seat belt laws, is never printed in the national news media, thus the public is denied the right to know there is a legitimate contrary side to the seat belt law controversy.
At one time, it was the same with air bags until one investigative reporter decided to start printing the truth about air bag dangers in certain kinds of traffic accidents. The bureaucrats in the U.S. Dept. of Transportation were so adamant against telling the public about such dangers, which the public had a right to know, the reporter had to use the Freedom of Information Act to force the government to release its own records of air bag injuries and deaths.