In article m,
Savageduck wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

...and sometimes unavoidable due to circumstances.

chases are *always* avoidable.

the question is whether it's worth the risk to innocent people.

it's one thing to be in pursuit of perps such as the san bernadino
shooters and something very different if the pursuit is because the
person's license is suspended and he didn't stop, thinking he could get
away.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...uits-fatal-inj
uries/30187827/
More than 5,000 bystanders and passengers have been killed in police
car chases since 1979, and tens of thousands more were injured as
officers repeatedly pursued drivers at high speeds and in hazardous
conditions, often for minor infractions, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

....

However, records from six states show that 17,600 people were hurt in
chases from 2004 through 2013 ‹ an average of 1,760 injuries a year
in those states, which make up 24% of the U.S. population.

In article m,
Savageduck wrote:

...and amazingly many of the chases I have seen which ended badly, the driver
of the fleeing vehicle isn¹t wearing a seat belt, but wishes he did.

that's an odd thing to wish for, versus wishing for just pulling over
or not have done whatever it was he did where the cops were after him.

nospam wrote:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

Pay attention. Who is to blame has absolutely nothing to do with the
fact that seatbelts make people safer.

it has everything to do with it. cops put people at risk with their
chases.

Nope. That doesn't change the fact that in generally you are safer with a
seatbelt than without.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

nospam wrote:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

Pay attention. Who is to blame has absolutely nothing to do with the
fact that seatbelts make people safer.

And it also has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that sometimes
even someone who is paying attention can be blindsided.

there are no guarantees. nothing is perfect.

the point is that if drivers were paying attention, they could avoid
collisions.

Not in every case, nope. And in the cases where it cannot be avoided.
Wearing a seatbelt is generally safer.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

nospam wrote:
In article m,
Savageduck wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

...and sometimes unavoidable due to circumstances.

chases are *always* avoidable.

Not for those not involved in the chase. And sometimes people sped through
intersections even without being chased. Wearing a seatbelt is generally
safer when you are involved in an accident.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:30:06 -0800, Savageduck commenting on

It's for nasty crashes, what else? And since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one.

wrote:

Except when you are rear-ended, or T-boned by texting fool.

There are more exceptions than that -- stopped at a light, once, behind a
city transit bus, in the right-most lane, I found the bus's back-up lights
suddenly turning on, and the bus actually backing up, right into my grille.

Seat/shoulder belt kept me from slamming into my steering wheel at the
moment of impact ... bus can't have been backing at more than 5-10 mph, but
that was enough to mangle front bumper, grille, radiator, hood, and both
front fenders.

Turns out it was a Driver Training bus with Student Bus Driver and Training
Instructor aboard, and Instructor had instructed Trainee (goodness knows
why) to back up ... . Instructor filled out accident report acknowledging
full financial responsibility, and the bus company ultimately covered full
cost of necessary repairs.

No belt, though, and I'd likely have smashed driving glasses, nose, and
teeth against my steering wheel, with manifold unpleasant consequences.

Cheers, -- tlvp



--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

tlvp wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:30:06 -0800, Savageduck commenting on

It's for nasty crashes, what else? And since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one.

wrote:

Except when you are rear-ended, or T-boned by texting fool.

There are more exceptions than that -- stopped at a light, once, behind a
city transit bus, in the right-most lane, I found the bus's back-up lights
suddenly turning on, and the bus actually backing up, right into my grille.

Seat/shoulder belt kept me from slamming into my steering wheel at the
moment of impact ... bus can't have been backing at more than 5-10 mph, but
that was enough to mangle front bumper, grille, radiator, hood, and both
front fenders.

Turns out it was a Driver Training bus with Student Bus Driver and Training
Instructor aboard, and Instructor had instructed Trainee (goodness knows
why) to back up ... . Instructor filled out accident report acknowledging
full financial responsibility, and the bus company ultimately covered full
cost of necessary repairs.

No belt, though, and I'd likely have smashed driving glasses, nose, and
teeth against my steering wheel, with manifold unpleasant consequences.

That anyone would argue that seatbelt a don't improve general safety in
this day and age strikes me as incredibly foolish.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

...and sometimes unavoidable due to circumstances.

chases are *always* avoidable.

Not for those not involved in the chase.

yes it is. either party can end the chase at any time.

sometimes the cops call it off because it is too dangerous for both the
cops and innocent people and sometimes the thug gives up and pulls
over.

And sometimes people sped through
intersections even without being chased.

which is why it's important to pay attention to what's going on so that
evasive maneuvers can be taken if needed.

Wearing a seatbelt is generally
safer when you are involved in an accident.

nobody said otherwise.

the key is to *avoid* the collision in the first place.

In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

Pay attention. Who is to blame has absolutely nothing to do with the
fact that seatbelts make people safer.

And it also has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that sometimes
even someone who is paying attention can be blindsided.

there are no guarantees. nothing is perfect.

the point is that if drivers were paying attention, they could avoid
collisions.

Not in every case, nope.

i never said every case.

there are a *lot* of situations where paying attention means being able
to avoid a collision.

And in the cases where it cannot be avoided.
Wearing a seatbelt is generally safer.

nobody said otherwise.

the key is to *avoid* the collision in the first place.

In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

Pay attention. Who is to blame has absolutely nothing to do with the
fact that seatbelts make people safer.

it has everything to do with it. cops put people at risk with their
chases.

Nope. That doesn't change the fact that in generally you are safer with a
seatbelt than without.

nobody said otherwise.

the point is that your scenario was due to cops chasing someone. had
they not done that, there wouldn't have been vehicles going through a
red light and endangering others.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 22:37:19 -0500, nospam wrote:

However, records from six states show that 17,600 people were hurt in
chases from 2004 through 2013 ‹ an average of 1,760 injuries a year
in those states, which make up 24% of the U.S. population.

I doubt that "17,600 people" can "make up 24% of the U.S. population."

But have it your way :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

In article , tlvp
wrote:


However, records from six states show that 17,600 people were hurt in
chases from 2004 through 2013 ? an average of 1,760 injuries a year
in those states, which make up 24% of the U.S. population.

I doubt that "17,600 people" can "make up 24% of the U.S. population."

that's a quote from usa today. read the entire article.

nospam wrote:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

...and sometimes unavoidable due to circumstances.

chases are *always* avoidable.

Not for those not involved in the chase.

yes it is. either party can end the chase at any time.

Those uninvolved in the chase have no control over it. And they would be
generally better protected by seat belts.

And sometimes people sped through
intersections even without being chased.

which is why it's important to pay attention to what's going on so that
evasive maneuvers can be taken if needed.

Again, even the most attentive driver can be blindsided by another reckless
driver. Fact of life.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2016-01-24 03:37:15 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

Pay attention. Who is to blame has absolutely nothing to do with the
fact that seatbelts make people safer.

it has everything to do with it. cops put people at risk with their
chases.

most of the time, the chase is for something minor that doesn't justify
putting tens of thousands of people across multiple cities and towns at
risk. had the cops not given chase, those people would be safer.

So, the aware driver is going to be safer with his/her seat belt
buckled in anticiption of that inevitable dangerous and irresponsible
police pursuit meeting him/her at some intersection on the route he/she
is driving.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In message
tlvp wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 22:37:19 -0500, nospam wrote:

However, records from six states show that 17,600 people were hurt in
chases from 2004 through 2013 ‹ an average of 1,760 injuries a year
in those states, which make up 24% of the U.S. population.

I doubt that "17,600 people" can "make up 24% of the U.S. population."

That's not what that (poor) sentence says. It says the six states make
up 24% of the US population.


--
"He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the
dictionary." - William Faulkner (about Ernest Hemingway).

On 2016-01-24 03:37:18 +0000, nospam said:

In article m,
Savageduck wrote:

seat belts don't matter in a rear-end collision because a person will
be pulled back into the seat.

with a t-bone side collision, it could go either way. a seat belt would
hold a person in place which could make things worse, or it could
prevent an ejection, preventing a worse outcome.

a driver who is paying attention would be able to avoid either scenario.

You are stopped at a light or in line at a toll booth. Drunk or sleepy
driver plows into your rear end. Please explain how an attentive driver
can avoid that.

always be aware of what's going on around you at all times and always
leave space for an evasive maneuver just in case it might be needed,
whether stopped or moving.

if someone is approaching that does not appear to be stopping, move out
of the way.

sometimes that might be impossible, but much of the time, a collision
can be avoided.

All very nice in theory. However, if that is your only means to avoid a
potential impact and injury that is totally out of your control, good luck to
you.

it's more than theory.

i once had to make a very sudden screeching right-hand turn when
proceeding through a green light to avoid someone who had zero
intention of stopping at his red light. he whizzed right past me to my
left.

Aah! Dumb luck is a game of inches and near misses.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-01-24 03:37:15 +0000, nospam said:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Pay attention. Who is to blame has absolutely nothing to do with the
fact that seatbelts make people safer.

cops put people at risk with their
chases.

most of the time, the chase is for something minor that doesn't justify
putting tens of thousands of people across multiple cities and towns at
risk. had the cops not given chase, those people would be safer.

So, the aware driver is going to be safer with his/her seat belt
buckled in anticiption of that inevitable dangerous and irresponsible
police pursuit meeting him/her at some intersection on the route he/she
is driving.

Bingo.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2016-01-24 03:37:19 +0000, nospam said:

In article m,
Savageduck wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

...and sometimes unavoidable due to circumstances.

chases are *always* avoidable.

the question is whether it's worth the risk to innocent people.

it's one thing to be in pursuit of perps such as the san bernadino
shooters and something very different if the pursuit is because the
person's license is suspended and he didn't stop, thinking he could get
away.

So it is OK if the subjects are very, very naughty, and of Middle
Eastern descent, and are shooting back.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...uits-fatal-inj
uries/30187827/
More than 5,000 bystanders and passengers have been killed in police
car chases since 1979, and tens of thousands more were injured as
officers repeatedly pursued drivers at high speeds and in hazardous
conditions, often for minor infractions, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

...

However, records from six states show that 17,600 people were hurt in
chases from 2004 through 2013 ‹ an average of 1,760 injuries a year
in those states, which make up 24% of the U.S. population.

Well, all right then. So what precautions are you, the perfect driver,
going to take to prevent becoming a victim of one of these frivolous
police chases, or at least minimize your injuries when you interact
with one at an intersection when you are right, and the chased subject
is driving recklessly and dangerously?
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-01-24 03:37:20 +0000, nospam said:

In article m,
Savageduck wrote:

...and amazingly many of the chases I have seen which ended badly, the driver
of the fleeing vehicle isn¹t wearing a seat belt, but wishes he did.

that's an odd thing to wish for, versus wishing for just pulling over
or not have done whatever it was he did where the cops were after him.

Now did anybody accuse any of the individuals being chased as being
rational, or capable of thinking anything other than, "I have to get
away!"?
--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:

On Jan 23, 2016, Mr Macaw wrote
(in article ):

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:36:04 -0000, 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.

There are others on the road who might not be limited by your 30MPH ideal.

Not to mention it is perfectly possible to have a nasty crash at 50KPH.
Especially if you hit an object moving towards you, which greatly
increases the kinetic energy released. But you forget, Savageduck -
Macaw is a special snowflake. His life and physics itself works
different for him.

--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

nospam wrote:

In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

Pay attention. Who is to blame has absolutely nothing to do with the
fact that seatbelts make people safer.

And it also has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that sometimes
even someone who is paying attention can be blindsided.

there are no guarantees. nothing is perfect.

the point is that if drivers were paying attention, they could avoid
collisions.

what's a common excuse after a crash? "i didn't see you" or "he came
out of nowhere". had they been paying attention, they would have seen
the other vehicle *before* the crash.

I often groan when I hear 'he came out of nowhere', as if a car
magically materialised out of nothing.

But attention won't help when the unexpected happens too quickly for the
average person to spot it and react. And sometimes even if they've time
to react, there are only less awful options, with no good options
available.

--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:47:22 -0000, Your Name wrote:

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:06:08 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:
Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:40:28 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:
Mr Macaw wrote:

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Most people (there are thickos like
you who can't) multitask well, as I just said, it's required to drive,
driving in itself requires several things to be done at once. Adding
one (the phone) to that makes **** all difference.

You're special,

No, I'm normal. People can multitask easily, that's a fact. If you
cannot, you're retarded and unlikely to have passed your driving test, you
couldn't control speed and direction and gears and watch for hazards and
use indicators and operate the wipers etc etc.

People can quickly switch attention easily. They do not multitask well.
It amazes me people still confuse the two. But you're a special
snowflake. Normality doesn't apply to you.

It's s grey area. Does a computer multitask or switch tasks very very fast?
In fact both computers and brains can truly multitask as different parts of
the brain (or different CPU cores and the GPU) can be working simultaneously
on different things. For example, if you're walking along, you can have a
conversation with the person walking next to you, and still manage to make
your footsteps correctly, and avoid any lampposts.

Which helps prove the original point, since many people stupidly using
their cellphones while walking *do* walk into lamposts, into the
street, etc. because they're distracted and so not paying enough
attention to where they're going.

It's not "many", it's just those are the only ones you notice.

so you can multitask perfectly. And even be unaffected
by adding another task to the mix, this one requiring removing a hand
from driving duties and occasional looking away from driving :-D

So does changing gear.

You have to look for the gearstick?

I was of course referring to your hand, which is the main reason they allow
"handsfree" phones.

Do you also believe you don't need to wear a seatbelt?

I never wear a seatbelt unless I'm driving fast in deep snow. The chances
of a bump big enough to need one are remote.

And the world stands shocked, both at your arrogance, and ignorance of
what a seatbelt in a car is primarily for :-D

It's for nasty crashes, what else? And since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one.

Ahh, a moron without a clue ... at least natural selection will weed
such fools out of the gene pool.

An accident has a certain percentage of happening. I just don't fuss over the very small ones. For example, do you wear a hi vis jacket while walking your dog? Some people do and most don't. Are all the ones that don't morons?

--
While most Americans believe that getting rid of religion is an impossible goal, much of the developed world has already accomplished it. Any account of a €�god gene€œ that causes the majority of Americans to helplessly organize their lives around ancient works of religious fiction must explain why so many inhabitants of other First World societies apparently lack such a gene. The level of atheism throughout the rest of the developed world refutes any argument that religion is somehow a moral necessity. Countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in
terms of human development are unwaveringly religious.
--Sam Harris (An Atheist Manifesto)

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:39:37 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

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

Hopefully natural selection will do it's thing sooner rather than later
:-)

At town speeds it isn't nasty.

--
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!"

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!"

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 02:07:54 -0000, Tony Hwang wrote:

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.

At 30mph, one cn get killed. Depends what the driver runs in to.

What do you think happens at 70mph?

--
I used to not get along with my mother-in-law, but over the last few
months, I've developed quite an attachment for her. It goes over her
head, and a strap comes down under her chin to keep her mouth shut.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 07:17:16 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

On Jan 23, 2016, Mr Macaw wrote
(in article ):

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:36:04 -0000, 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.

There are others on the road who might not be limited by your 30MPH ideal.

Not to mention it is perfectly possible to have a nasty crash at 50KPH.
Especially if you hit an object moving towards you, which greatly
increases the kinetic energy released. But you forget, Savageduck -
Macaw is a special snowflake. His life and physics itself works
different for him.

The kinetic energy is doubled, but halved again as it's dissipated into both cars.

--
A Woman's Rule of Thumb: If it has tyres or testicles, you're going to have trouble with it.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 19:07:54 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

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.

At 30mph, one cn get killed. Depends what the driver runs in to.


For example, if you have a head-on collision with another car going
30mph, that's a 60mph crash.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:56:30 -0000, Ken Blake wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 19:07:54 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

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.

At 30mph, one cn get killed. Depends what the driver runs in to.

For example, if you have a head-on collision with another car going
30mph, that's a 60mph crash.

Oh no not another idiot who flunked physics. 30mph into an identical car doing 30mph in the opposite direction is the same, PRECISELY the same, as a 30mph car into an immovable concrete wall. You decelerate from 30mph to 0mph in the same time. Your kinetic energy loss is the same. The other car has the same kinetic energy, but that goes to damaging him, not you.

--
The remarkable thing about my mother is that for 30 years she served us nothing but leftovers. The original meal has never been found. -- Calvin Trillin

On 1/24/2016 12:53 AM, nospam wrote:


the key is to *avoid* the collision in the first place.


Yes, but often when stopped there is no place to go. A few years ago an
entire family was killed at a toll booth. Last year two kids were
killed in the car stopped at a light.They were not belted in. May have
made a difference.

Mr Macaw wrote:

I'm British

Another dimwit ******. It all makes sense now.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:35:04 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

I'm British

Another dimwit ******. It all makes sense now.

It's well known that the Americans and Irish are stupid, the Aussies and Jamaicans and French are laid back, the Italians and Spanish are hot headed, etc, etc.

--
A bird in the hand is always greener than the grass under the other guy's bushes.

On 2016-01-24, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:35:04 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

I'm British

Another dimwit ******. It all makes sense now.

It's well known that the Americans and Irish are stupid

....said the blow hard troll as he posted on the internet, which was
created by Americans... **** off to your pathetic little podunk
Queen-worshiping island where you belong, idiot ******.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:49:32 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-24, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:35:04 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

I'm British

Another dimwit ******. It all makes sense now.

It's well known that the Americans and Irish are stupid

...said the blow hard troll as he posted on the internet, which was
created by Americans... **** off to your pathetic little podunk
Queen-worshiping island where you belong, idiot ******.

Who invented the television?

--
The symbol # is called an octothorpe.
(A whimsical creation based on the idea that the symbol looks like a village surrounded by eight fields)

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:39:37 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

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

Hopefully natural selection will do it's thing sooner rather than later
:-)

At town speeds it isn't nasty.

That must be why people die from crashes in town.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:49:32 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-24, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:35:04 -0000, Jolly Roger
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

I'm British

Another dimwit ******. It all makes sense now.

It's well known that the Americans and Irish are stupid

...said the blow hard troll as he posted on the internet, which was
created by Americans... **** off to your pathetic little podunk
Queen-worshiping island where you belong, idiot ******.

Who invented the television?

Who invented the magical special snowflake life? You did! :-)
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:16:32 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:39:37 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

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

Hopefully natural selection will do it's thing sooner rather than later
:-)

At town speeds it isn't nasty.

That must be why people die from crashes in town.

How many, expressed as a percentage? And don't include cyclists and pedestrians as they don't wear seatbelts.

--
The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:16:32 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:39:37 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

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

Hopefully natural selection will do it's thing sooner rather than later
:-)

At town speeds it isn't nasty.

That must be why people die from crashes in town.

How much worse do you think a 70mph crash is than a 30mph one? If you think 70mph with a seatbelt is ok, you must think 30mph without one is ok too.

--
It's called "Windows XP" because its full name, "The Repair Shop and Help-Desk Full Employment Act of 2006", won't fit on the box.

In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

...and sometimes unavoidable due to circumstances.

chases are *always* avoidable.

Not for those not involved in the chase.

yes it is. either party can end the chase at any time.

Those uninvolved in the chase have no control over it. And they would be
generally better protected by seat belts.

they can't stop the chase, the but the point you keep missing is that
everyone would be even better protected if cops didn't chase people
with minor infractions and/or where it puts innocent people at risk.

also, police chases are rare. fixating on something that's rare is
silly.

And sometimes people sped through
intersections even without being chased.

which is why it's important to pay attention to what's going on so that
evasive maneuvers can be taken if needed.

Again, even the most attentive driver can be blindsided by another reckless
driver. Fact of life.

nothing is perfect, but an attentive driver can often avoid collisions
that otherwise would have occurred.

In article , Ken Blake
wrote:


For example, if you have a head-on collision with another car going
30mph, that's a 60mph crash.

wrong.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:19:26 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:49:32 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-24, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:35:04 -0000, Jolly Roger
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

I'm British

Another dimwit ******. It all makes sense now.

It's well known that the Americans and Irish are stupid

...said the blow hard troll as he posted on the internet, which was
created by Americans... **** off to your pathetic little podunk
Queen-worshiping island where you belong, idiot ******.

Who invented the television?

Who invented the magical special snowflake life? You did! :-)

Either you're smoking weed, drinking alcohol, or American.

--
"Last night I played a blank tape at full blast. The mime next door went nuts."