Do you buckle up? (picture link follows)

A. Morally speaking, anyone with a heart would tend to believe ambulances fall under the Hippocratic Oath.

B. Injured parties are injured parties. While responding to that accident ANY other type of emergency could happen. So what? There are other ambulances! How the H do you think things worked LONG before seat belts and invasive seat belt laws ever existed? Oh, you're not old enough to remember.

C. Insurance companies find every excuse - yes, EXCUSE - under the sun not to pay out. Along with laws allowing freedom of choice concerning seat belts, laws need to be enacted pointed at insurance companies. They should be required NOT to discriminate like that AND they should have rates capped. This Obummercare male bovine fecal material that was foisted on the American public would have had some of it's bigge$t problem$ solved had such stipulations included. Instead, you have too many folks paying extremely high premiums AND having "deductibles" of >$1,000+ and more per year.

D. What the H doe sexual preference have to do with seat belts? And, btw, sexual orientation is NOT a choice. It's a scientifically/medically proven birth defect. One that has been proven to be caused more and more by chemicals in the environment.

It has to do with James and his beliefs on "freedoms".

and something you dragged in. Have you tried the new neck belts in cars especially for Canadian drivers?

Now that's quite a claim. How about backing it up?

"It's a scientifically/medically proven birth defect. One that has been proven to be caused more and more by chemicals in the environment."

I'm curious though- why would it necessarily have to be considered a defect(?)

You have to be told?

It's because it's NOT within the realm of genetic "normalcy". It is an anomaly in the genes.

Therefore, it can be considered a genetic defect or "birth defect".

What is being studied is what causes that anomaly.

I posted links below about the subject. I strongly suggest that you check them out for yourself.

Does that mean that it's considered a birth defect when it occurs in other animals?

The insurance companies and car manufacturers didn't push seatbelts, the government did. It saves lives.

I'm glad they are there. My son hit a guard rail at 70 mph. Both he and his girl friend had their seat belts on and the airbags deployed. Neither had anything more than bumps and bruises. Of course, the car was totalled.

Yes, "birth defect" was my own way of putting it as I ran across an article some time ago that called it that. Unfortunately, I can't find that article for you, now. BUT, there is some truth to that terminology. There are several causes being studied at this time - In no particular order these are: chemical pollution, other environmental factors and genetics.

http://www.viewzone2.com/phthalates.html

http://inqueery.com/html/science_and_homosexuality.html

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors

Look what I found about the origins of "safety laws"...

http://www.motorists.org/seat-belt-laws/onslaught

That article is mostly about air bags, but it points squarely at the auto and insurance industry lobby. I remember when the seat belt debate was going on back in the 1960s. It was industry that was behind it, most definitely NOT government!! This article substantiates that for air bags, too. So, why is it so far fetched to comprehend that the exact same thing went on only 20 years earlier with seat belts???

Yes, in a LOT of cases seat belts can and do save lives. But, there are other cases where they make no difference at all. I told my story about that in another comment. If you missed it, then it may (or may not) interest you.

You throw out your Christmas tree each year?

One variable is whether or not a person is alone or amongst others. Any law should have a legitimate reason and it's not a bad idea to have supporting data for its need. The law doesn't, IMO, need to protect persons from themselves but should be designed to protect others from being victims of an individual's choice. I realize there's a lot of gray involved at times and blanket policy can overreach but, unless one lives alone on your own island, their choices should be limited. If peoples own sense of fairness was ideal, the need for man's law would be little.

trump other peoples' freedoms.

You may want to go 100 mph through a neighborhood but it doesn't trump the person trying to cross the street you just hit.

We are talking SEAT BELTS, here. Nothing to do with anything else including speeding. So stay on topic.

Yes, freedom means that you are free to be responsible. BUT, it's not for the a Nanny State Government to stick their noses into. The ONLY reason there are seal belts and seat belt laws is that greedy insurance companies lobbied for them for economic reasons. "Safety" had and has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. period.

I'm so sorry if pure and simple FACT and Logic is too far above some folks' ability of comprehension.

No rule requires that a topic can't be spun off into a sub-thread. "We" don't need to be chided by other members for what we say or how we feel either. That's freedom to speak.

I guess you didn't bother to read past my first paragraph, eh? Never mind.....

...and I say this to be constructive and not chiding. There are ways to be heard and there are ways to be listened two. It's in one's tone and how a statement is prefaced. Here's how you started:

"We are talking SEAT BELTS, here. Nothing to do with anything else including speeding. So stay on topic."

You used caps for emphasis and ended with a reprimand. What do you think that does to a readers frame of mind when you begin that way? They may certainly hear you but do you think they care to listen further? If someone starts speaking to you by saying "HEY, JERK!" do you think you care one whit what they're about to say next? Yes, my example is an exaggeration but the point is still valid.

I'm not going to stoop to arguing with you. This is not the place for it. So just drop it. period.

Why? Nobody else does.

Yes, in rollover accidents seat belts DO help keep a person IN the vehicle rather than flying all over the place. Most of the time this keep them safer. But, I've known of instances where that was a good thing, as in your case, but also went the other way. My young niece and sister-in-law died when she lost control of her car on a slick bridge, flew over the flimsy guardrail (1920s railroad bridge) and landed upside down on the railroad tracks below. They both died upon impact. They both WERE wearing their seat belts. In that case it made no difference whatsoever. My brother sued the RR and WON due to the fact that the bridge was antiquated and that suit caused the bridge to be torn down and replaced.

In addition to which, rollover accidents are in the minority as are submersion and firey accidents. The data and statistics have shown that over and over again. The data has shown that most accidents that happen are slower speed and rather than happening out on the open road, happen in town at intersections. Most of them do NOT involve rollovers, submersion or fire.