On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:44:51 -0000, Your Name wrote:

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:36:04 -0000, tlvp wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:16:49 -0000, Mr Macaw wrote, re seatbelts:

... nasty crashes ... since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one ...

... until just as a nasty crash takes place :-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Can't, not at 30mph.

You obviously have no understanding of physics

I have a degree in it.

nor the purpose of a seatbelt

Same as an airbag, crumple zone, countless other pessimistic protection devices, etc, etc, ad nauseum. You don't need them unless you're going fast. If you feel safe at 70mph with a seatbelt, you should feel safe at 30mph without one.

... likely because you're a stereotypical stubborn dumbass and
American.

I'm British and consider all Americans stupid. Why did you use an American insult if you're not an American?

BUT, that's your choice and if you don't want to wear a seatbelt that's
up to you (depending on local laws). The only person who will get hurt
is you.

It SHOULD be up to me. The law stupidly thinks people must be protected form themselves.

There should be a "means test" in emergency medicine. Anyone who
decides to do something silly (not wear a seatbelt, climb a mountain,
etc.) either doesn't get treated for for injuries due to that silliness
*OR* has to pay the full expense of such treatment and rescue.

I agree. In fact I don't think there should be ANY free medicine. Healthy people shouldn't pay for others' misfortune. But if we are going to have a fee health service, then charge for things which you could have avoided.

If the stupidity involves injuring someone else (e.g. hitting someone
because you're fiddling with a cellphone or driving drunk), then the
driver should not only have to pay for all services for themselves and
the other person, but also *permanently* lose their driving licence.

Agreed, as long as they DON'T get any punishment for driving while drunk and NOT hitting anyone.

Instead of doing people for speeding, why don't we do people for crashing? Consider two people:
Mr Smith drives at 90mph on the motorways and has zero accidents in his whole driving life.
Mr Jones sticks to the sped limit everywhere, never breaks any laws, but isn't so observant and has a crash every few years.
Which person would you rather be removed from the road or punished? That's right, it's Mr Jones, he is clearly more dangerous, and has inconvenienced many people. Yet the law has probably given Mr Smith countless speeding fines and could have removed his license if he did it enough, yet Mr Jones gets nothing but an insurance premium rise.

--
Paddy calls Easyjet to book a flight.
The operator asks "How many people are flying with you?"
Paddy replies "I don't know! Its your flipping plane!"