Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

For seat belts

February 16, 2013

In late August of 1955, I sailed a troopship home from Germany where I had been defending democracy....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-17-13 5:14 AM

It seems to me that a large majority of the people killed in car crashes are reported as not wearing a seatbelt. Not saying that those who do wear them aren't killed, but it sure seems to me that it improves your chances of surviving.

School buses, I tend to agree. While you rarely hear of a school bus accident involving severe injury or death to the passengers, it does seem odd that you have to use seatbelts and booster seats for children while they are riding in a vehicle... unless you put 40 of them together in one vehicle.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 12:00 AM

JerryfromRI--Refuse to pay the ticket and sooner or later, you will get your chance for your jury trial.

Again you are wrong. A jury trial is NOT an option for simple traffic court matters.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 7:13 PM

It's hard to understand why none of the seatbelt laws in effect today deal with mandatory installation and usage compliance as regard children who ride schoolbuses.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 7:10 PM

I've personally responded to many accidents in the last 25 years with the Fire Dept. I've seen unhelmeted cyclists walk away from what appeared to be a life-ending crash, and I've seen people die from simply laying their bike down while wearing a helmet. I can say the same for the many car crashes I've been to. Some people walk away after being ejected from from a horrific crash while others have died from what many think is a simple fender-bender. No one, repeat, no one, can say that a helmet or a seatbelt will positively save your life. However; after seeing the many times that when either helmets or seatbelts have been used, and the person in the accident survived, I would highly recommend that you use them. The odds are in your favor with them.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 6:44 PM


I know several PA State Troopers and every one of them has said they have never had to cut a dead person out of their seatbelt unless the car was crushed onto them.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 2:54 PM

I figure I vote every time I get behind the wheel to drive my truck whether I want to wear my seat belt or not. Having some over zealous politician calculate out the savings to the Federal Government if I should have an accident and require a long term rehabilitation just goes against everything freedom is all about.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 2:45 PM


Refuse to pay the ticket and sooner or later, you will get your chance for your jury trial.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 2:14 PM

JerryfromRI---Refuse to pay and demand a jury trial if you like.

A jury trial is an unavailable option for simple traffic court. Try basic research sometime?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 1:59 PM

If ding dong motorcycle riders can opt out of common sense/intelligence to be organ doners via the optional helmet law, why should the seat belt law exist?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 1:33 PM

Wearing a seat belt saves lives. Period.

But if you really feel that strongly about being forced to live in a nanny state then exercise some civil disobedience and don't wear it. If you're caught the fine is $10. Refuse to pay and demand a jury trial if you like.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 12:17 PM

The papers should also report the fluke accidents, where the victim was cut in half by the seat belt, the car was submerged and the victim drowned trying to get the jammed seatbelt unhooked or the car caught fire, which spread too quickly or exploded before the victim could unhook and get out. Personal restraints should be the option of the passenger, not a government mandate.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 10:17 AM

Reeder- "the role of the government is to protect..." What, protect from everything? They can't even protect some body's kid from being shot. In your world the role of government is to protect all, provide all, and take all that's not yours. Welcome to the world of "1984".

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 10:11 AM


2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 10:02 AM

The role of government is to protect. Only the right wing would call it nanny state.

2 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 9:13 AM

I wouldn’t travel in a car without wearing a seat belt, I wouldn’t ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet and I try to eat properly, but those are personal choices.

In this day of government healthcare programs and legislated insurance rates and coverage there is a logical reason for nanny state requirements that reduce medical costs; they reduce costs that are spread around to the rest of us.

If you don’t like nanny state laws and regulations, blame the real reason we have them, government intervention into healthcare.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 8:59 AM

I was in a pretty car accident back in September. I rear ended someone on a highway because they had stopped to turn and my brakes failed. I hit them going atleast 50mph. The cops showed up and basicaly told me if I hadn't been wearing my seat belt, I would have ate my windshield and easily could have been killed. It just sad how many people choose not to wear their seatbelts but it could ultimately save their lives.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 8:37 AM

What irks me is when you pull up to a light and the toddler in the back seat of the car adjacent to you is standing up and walking around to see outside the window of the car.

And the parent's excuse is that the child didn't like to be restrained; they were fussing. It makes me wonder if that parent truly has the care and well-being of the child at heart.

I wish citizens could write up other citizens for that traffic violation.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 6:13 AM

"I wish that newspapers would voluntarily report in every accident article whether or not seat belts were in use, especially if the lack of their use would likely have avoided injury or death." - Phil Miller


There was a one-vehicle accident, recently...a man, in his 50s, who was thrown from his pick-up truck and died. I remember thinking (much like you) could someone (that age) NOT know better, and be belted-in??!!!!

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 6:12 AM

Phil, Where have you been? The government does mandate seatbelt use and in most accidents the paper does report whether the occupants were wearing seatbelts. Try and keep up.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-16-13 5:36 AM

Seatbelt laws are nanny-state ideas.

I favor reporting accidents, injuries and deaths from not wearing seat belts.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 20 of 20 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web