Colorado Seatbelt Legislation

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, The Ancient One wrote:

> > unbelted drivers are easily knocked out of control position and/or
> > knocked unconscious by relatively minor incidents. When that happens,
> > they're unable to control the car and prevent additional, more major
> > subsequent incidents -- like hitting other cars or pedestrians or
> > cyclists.


> Total Bull****.


Nope, simple physics.
 
In article <[email protected]>, The Ancient One wrote:

> I have been driving for over 35 years, in that time I have been in several
> emergency situations, NOT ONCE would a seat belt have made a difference, NOT
> ONCE did I lose control of the vehicle, NOT ONCE have I had a wreck worse
> than a very minor fender bender, and NOT ONCE in 35+ years of driving would
> wearing a seatbelt have been anything motre than an inconvience for me.


> Perhaps if you seatbelt advicates would take the time to actually LEARN how
> to drive safely the seatbelt issue would disappear, avoiding an accident is
> the only way to insure you survive.


Find an autocross event near you. Once you are past the starter guy
remove your seat belt.


 

"Harry K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Whoop de doo...get back to us when you have survived
> a -serious-
> accident while not wearing a belt.



I'm not whomever you were replying to...you sniped them.
But...BTDT. Then again I don't drive except when there is
ice out...the rest of the time I ride a motorcycle as I
consider anything with more than 3 wheels and less that 10
less than useless.
Once lost tractions in the rear and did a VERY nasty low
side into an embankment...bruised hip that's it. I feel for
you poor deluded fools who aren't allowed to wear or even
use effective safety equipment.
I consider a 5 point harness, full face helmet and
decent Kevlar gloves a minimum when driving those damn cars
and SUV's. Damned dangerous things...can't see anything
going on around and all that insulation totally muffles all
external sounds. Not to mention you can't really control
them...all you can do is push on two pedal and turn a wheel.
That's on the most simple ones...ought to be law against
such dangerous vehicles. Can't imagine ANYONE letting their
16 y/o drive much less own such a dangerous vehicle...my
eldest is getting a nice small bike when he turns 16, when
he's 18 he can buy whatever he wants. Until then it's a bike
or die...


--
Nefarious Necrologist 42nd Degree
Some people ride, some just like to show off their butt
jewelry once in a while.
Dum vivimus, vivamus
<:(3 )3~ <:(3 )3~ <:(3 )~ <:(3 )~


 
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Motorhead Lawyer wrote:

> Ah, the old 'Slippery Slope' bull****! Don't you dinosaurs (mentally,
> not chronologically, as I believe we are very nearly the same age) ever
> get tired of trotting that one out?


They certainly don't seem to, do they?

> "If we can't have grenade launchers and automatic weapons, someday,
> they'll be taking away the kitchen knives."


"If we let gays marry, society will implode."

> Try coming up with an original thought some time
> instead of repeating all the crap you heard down at the truck stop.


Now, C.R., let's be fair and intellectually honest, here. He probably
heard it on AM talk radio.

DS
 
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Motorhead Lawyer wrote:

> I was thinking the American Legion Hall, the VFW, the bowling alley,
> and the union hall, as well, but it just messed up the sentence.


True enough. All the places they pickle their livers and barbecue their
lungs while bemoaning activist judges and goddamned communists.

> whaddya think of this 'almost-real-time' Google service


I remain highly dubious of Google's treatment of Usenet lately. Is this
something beyond the googlegroups main service?
 
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Motorhead Lawyer wrote:

> It's "Google Groups beta". Showed up a couple weeks ago out of
> nowhere. With no other regular news server easily available, it's
> pretty good. Used to take hours for my posts to show up. Now it's
> about 2 minutes.


True, that. Now wouldn't it be nice if they hadn't taken all the older
posts (the real function of googlegroups) offline in order to work the
magic? Do a search, find an old post you need to read, click it..."Sorry,
the topic is not available. Perhaps you entered an incorrect URL?".
 
The Ancient One wrote:
>
> "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> >> > >Motorhead Lawyer Jan 6, 9:07 am
> >> >
> >> > >No; *you're* the dumbass and our resident r.a.d troll is correct
> >> (but
> >> > only because 'it' is repeating what others have said; still no trace
> >> of
> >> > a correct *original* thought). A glancing blow can send an unbelted
> >> > driver across the seat and the car continues on its merry way,
> >> > unguided. Wanna know how I know?
> >> >
> >> > Hey stupid. You don't need to be hit a glancing blow to lose control.
> >> > An icy patch can cause it. Or maybe you swerve to avoid a deer. Lots
> >> > of ways to lose control of a car.
> >>
> >> You guys that advocate this as a reason for seatbelts don't get it.
> >> Once you lose control, it's over. By defintion, you NO LONGER HAVE
> >> CONTROL. Whether or not you're physically behind the wheel at that
> >> point is irrelavant.

> >
> > Sure it is!
> >
> > My ass has been saved several times because I was able to 'regain'
> > control due to being belted in.
> >
> > I likely saved other's lives as well by not hitting them.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

>
> The core issue is still, does the Government have the right to decide for
> you what is safe and then force you to do it.
>
> You think seatbelts are safe, so you don't argue with them, but what happens
> in the future when they pass a law you disagree with?
>
> Perhaps they decide to require you to keep your hair cut down to 1/4 inch or
> less, to avoid the possibility that it may get caught on something in the
> future.
>
> Since we've already established the precident that the government makes all
> decisions about personal safety you wouldn't have a problem with that would
> you?
>
> I am the only one responsible for my safety, because I am the one who will
> be injured or killed if I don't keep myself safe. I will not allow anyone,
> Government included, to mandate to me how to keep myself safe.
>
> They may advise, they may mandate safety devices be installed, but they will
> not dictate to me what I must do in my private life.


There is where your thinking is flawed and you missed my point about
being able to 'regain' control so I didn't hit oncoming people.

If I didn't stay in my seat because I wasn't belted, I affected 'others'
in what could be a decidedly fatal way.

You have chosen to drive on 'my' public road, therefore you are out of
your 'private' life now. If you want to drive on 'your' back 40 with no
belt on, be my guest, it will in no way affect me, otherwise.....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
 
YOU ARE ALL GETTING THE WRONG POINT! The gov. does NOT need to pass these
silly laws. The ONLY reason that they pass them is to make money.
Mark
"Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Ancient One wrote:
>>
>> "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>> >> > >Motorhead Lawyer Jan 6, 9:07 am
>> >> >
>> >> > >No; *you're* the dumbass and our resident r.a.d troll is correct
>> >> (but
>> >> > only because 'it' is repeating what others have said; still no trace
>> >> of
>> >> > a correct *original* thought). A glancing blow can send an unbelted
>> >> > driver across the seat and the car continues on its merry way,
>> >> > unguided. Wanna know how I know?
>> >> >
>> >> > Hey stupid. You don't need to be hit a glancing blow to lose
>> >> > control.
>> >> > An icy patch can cause it. Or maybe you swerve to avoid a deer.
>> >> > Lots
>> >> > of ways to lose control of a car.
>> >>
>> >> You guys that advocate this as a reason for seatbelts don't get it.
>> >> Once you lose control, it's over. By defintion, you NO LONGER HAVE
>> >> CONTROL. Whether or not you're physically behind the wheel at that
>> >> point is irrelavant.
>> >
>> > Sure it is!
>> >
>> > My ass has been saved several times because I was able to 'regain'
>> > control due to being belted in.
>> >
>> > I likely saved other's lives as well by not hitting them.
>> >
>> > Mike
>> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

>>
>> The core issue is still, does the Government have the right to decide for
>> you what is safe and then force you to do it.
>>
>> You think seatbelts are safe, so you don't argue with them, but what
>> happens
>> in the future when they pass a law you disagree with?
>>
>> Perhaps they decide to require you to keep your hair cut down to 1/4 inch
>> or
>> less, to avoid the possibility that it may get caught on something in the
>> future.
>>
>> Since we've already established the precident that the government makes
>> all
>> decisions about personal safety you wouldn't have a problem with that
>> would
>> you?
>>
>> I am the only one responsible for my safety, because I am the one who
>> will
>> be injured or killed if I don't keep myself safe. I will not allow
>> anyone,
>> Government included, to mandate to me how to keep myself safe.
>>
>> They may advise, they may mandate safety devices be installed, but they
>> will
>> not dictate to me what I must do in my private life.

>
> There is where your thinking is flawed and you missed my point about
> being able to 'regain' control so I didn't hit oncoming people.
>
> If I didn't stay in my seat because I wasn't belted, I affected 'others'
> in what could be a decidedly fatal way.
>
> You have chosen to drive on 'my' public road, therefore you are out of
> your 'private' life now. If you want to drive on 'your' back 40 with no
> belt on, be my guest, it will in no way affect me, otherwise.....
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's



 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

>Total Bull****. The only reason the government has pushed the seatbelt issue
>is so the cops can find your body easier after a crash, it will still be
>strapped into the seat.


That's a new one I had not heard before.

> My wearing a belt or not does not affect you AT ALL, except in those
>delusions you have, and I do not grant you the right to decide for me what
>is safe or not safe, because in the end, it's still your opinion over mine.


It is not an opinion but a fact that during a crash a seat belt will probably
lessen your injuries. There has been plenty of research done on the subject.
You may want to take a peek at the work done by others. Don't interpret this
to mean that I am for mandatory seat belt laws, because I am not. I'm against
the law, but I'm all for wearing a belt.

>I have been driving for over 35 years, in that time I have been in several
>emergency situations, NOT ONCE would a seat belt have made a difference, NOT
>ONCE did I lose control of the vehicle, NOT ONCE have I had a wreck worse
>than a very minor fender bender, and NOT ONCE in 35+ years of driving would
>wearing a seatbelt have been anything motre than an inconvience for me.


Great news. Let's hope it stays that way.

>Perhaps if you seatbelt advicates would take the time to actually LEARN how
>to drive safely the seatbelt issue would disappear, avoiding an accident is
>the only way to insure you survive.


Not quite. Safe driving is important and should be your primary defense
against serious injuries while driving, but having a seatbelt as a back up
is not a bad idea. There are times when you have no control over getting
hit by someone else. That is when a seatbelt comes in handy.
--------------
Alex




 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

>The core issue is still, does the Government have the right to decide for
>you what is safe and then force you to do it.


Unfortunately many folks have been raised with the belief that the government
should be making all of the important decisions for them.

>You think seatbelts are safe, so you don't argue with them, but what happens
>in the future when they pass a law you disagree with?


That's the problem, these folks don't think. If they did, they would realize
that you don't need a law to tell you to do the right thing. I was wearing
a seat belt, and encouraged my passengers too, well before there were laws
mandating it.

>Perhaps they decide to require you to keep your hair cut down to 1/4 inch or
>less, to avoid the possibility that it may get caught on something in the
>future.
>Since we've already established the precident that the government makes all
>decisions about personal safety you wouldn't have a problem with that would
>you?


sounds ridiculous but this is the kind of example you need to cite to make
some people understand what could happen.

>I am the only one responsible for my safety, because I am the one who will
>be injured or killed if I don't keep myself safe. I will not allow anyone,
>Government included, to mandate to me how to keep myself safe.
>They may advise, they may mandate safety devices be installed, but they will
>not dictate to me what I must do in my private life.


If things keep up the way they are now, you may not have that choice in the
future.

>All arguments about society, or dangers to others are nothing more than
>smoke screens to try and force compliance.


This is the really scary part that many people miss. As I mentioned before,
these seat belt laws go beyond the safety aspect. They are used by some
cops as an excuse to go snooping around your car.
--------------
Alex


 

"Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]
> says...
>
>>Total Bull****. The only reason the government has pushed the seatbelt
>>issue
>>is so the cops can find your body easier after a crash, it will still be
>>strapped into the seat.

>
> That's a new one I had not heard before.


I have many friends, some cops, some First responders on the Fire
Department, I heard it straight from them.

>
>> My wearing a belt or not does not affect you AT ALL, except in those
>>delusions you have, and I do not grant you the right to decide for me what
>>is safe or not safe, because in the end, it's still your opinion over
>>mine.

>
> It is not an opinion but a fact that during a crash a seat belt will
> probably
> lessen your injuries. There has been plenty of research done on the
> subject.
> You may want to take a peek at the work done by others. Don't interpret
> this
> to mean that I am for mandatory seat belt laws, because I am not. I'm
> against
> the law, but I'm all for wearing a belt.


I agree wearing a seatbelt increases your chances of surviving a crash,
but it's benifits are limited.
I have a cousin, 20 now but 16 at the time of the crash who will spend
the rest of her life a total quadraplegic. She wore her seatbelt, it may
have saved her life, but what kind of life does she have now?
She is not only paralyzed for life below the neck, she has lost all
feeling, she does not even know if she is to hot or to cold, her father has
to check her temperature regularly and maintain it for her.
He was ready to retire, now with the medical bills that never stop he
will work until he drops, and when he isn't at work he has to see to her
every need for the rest of her life.
In my opinion, were it me, I would have preferred dying on impact.
Seatbelts are not guaranteed protection from injury or death, so I will make
the decision for myself.
I actually used to wear seatbelts, but I stopped that the day they
passed the law mandateing it. I will not obey an illegal law, and the
seatbelt law IS an illegal law.

>
>>I have been driving for over 35 years, in that time I have been in several
>>emergency situations, NOT ONCE would a seat belt have made a difference,
>>NOT
>>ONCE did I lose control of the vehicle, NOT ONCE have I had a wreck worse
>>than a very minor fender bender, and NOT ONCE in 35+ years of driving
>>would
>>wearing a seatbelt have been anything motre than an inconvience for me.

>
> Great news. Let's hope it stays that way.


It will. I'm a professional truck driver, I know how to drive safely, I
know how to avoid the other drivers when they screw up, which happens
several times a day. If I drove as poorly as the typical driver I encounter
daily they would be dead, it's always on my shoulders to avoid them and
their poor idiotc maneuvers.
Assuming the other vehicle will hit yours is simple survival on the
road.Planning in advance how to avoid them when they do it takes skill and
experience.

>
>>Perhaps if you seatbelt advicates would take the time to actually LEARN
>>how
>>to drive safely the seatbelt issue would disappear, avoiding an accident
>>is
>>the only way to insure you survive.

>
> Not quite. Safe driving is important and should be your primary defense
> against serious injuries while driving, but having a seatbelt as a back up
> is not a bad idea. There are times when you have no control over getting
> hit by someone else. That is when a seatbelt comes in handy.


All accidents are avoidable if you are alert. It's when you drop your guard
at the wrong instant that they occur.
I'm not against people wearing seatbelts, I agree they are a good safety
device. But the laws requuiring them are illegal and plain wrong.
Check out the National Motorists Association, they champion drivers rights,
including the right to decide for yourself whether or not to wear seatbelts.
They need more members to gain the clout to effectively fight these
oppressive, illegal laws.


 
X-No-archive: yes

Alex Rodriguez wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>
>
>>Total Bull****. The only reason the government has pushed the seatbelt issue
>>is so the cops can find your body easier after a crash, it will still be
>>strapped into the seat.

>
>
> That's a new one I had not heard before.


I heard the earlier variant.

The ambulance drivers are too lazy to look for the bodies. Bringing
this one out and dusting it off was always a sure fire way to get a
rise out of the state and fed DOT engineers.

--
Mark Johnson, Ft. Worth, TX
http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org
"Never be afraid to try something new. Remember; amateurs built the
Ark - Professionals built the Titanic." -Anonymous
 

"Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,

[email protected]
> says...
>
> >Total Bull****. The only reason the government has pushed the seatbelt

issue
> >is so the cops can find your body easier after a crash, it will still be
> >strapped into the seat.

>
> That's a new one I had not heard before.
>
> > My wearing a belt or not does not affect you AT ALL, except in those
> >delusions you have, and I do not grant you the right to decide for me

what
> >is safe or not safe, because in the end, it's still your opinion over

mine.
>
> It is not an opinion but a fact that during a crash a seat belt will

probably
> lessen your injuries. There has been plenty of research done on the

subject.
> You may want to take a peek at the work done by others. Don't interpret

this
> to mean that I am for mandatory seat belt laws, because I am not. I'm

against
> the law, but I'm all for wearing a belt.
>
> >I have been driving for over 35 years, in that time I have been in

several
> >emergency situations, NOT ONCE would a seat belt have made a difference,

NOT
> >ONCE did I lose control of the vehicle, NOT ONCE have I had a wreck worse
> >than a very minor fender bender, and NOT ONCE in 35+ years of driving

would
> >wearing a seatbelt have been anything motre than an inconvience for me.


Well you were lucky then. What you don't address is what will happen to you
when a DUI or someone losing control for some unknown reason ends up
smashing into you. It would probably be best if you died at the scene,
because you'll never fess up to how seatbelts save your life.

>
> Great news. Let's hope it stays that way.
>
> >Perhaps if you seatbelt advicates would take the time to actually LEARN

how
> >to drive safely the seatbelt issue would disappear, avoiding an accident

is
> >the only way to insure you survive.


Or simply stayed off the roads because someone in another vehicle might kill
them.Want to avoid a car accident? Don't get on the road.

>
> Not quite. Safe driving is important and should be your primary defense
> against serious injuries while driving, but having a seatbelt as a back up
> is not a bad idea. There are times when you have no control over getting
> hit by someone else. That is when a seatbelt comes in handy.
> --------------
> Alex
>
>
>
>



 

"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected]
> > says...
> >
> >>Total Bull****. The only reason the government has pushed the seatbelt
> >>issue
> >>is so the cops can find your body easier after a crash, it will still be
> >>strapped into the seat.

> >
> > That's a new one I had not heard before.

>
> I have many friends, some cops, some First responders on the Fire
> Department, I heard it straight from them.


This is a truism. I spent 16 years in fire-rescue. unbelted people have a
tendency to leave the car uncerimounisly. AKA - ejected. However, most of
the people that are ejected from vehicles are dead right about the time that
they leave the car. So what we end up looking for is a dead body. Even if
they weren't dead when they were ejected, they will be when they land. Like
we've all heard, "It's not the fall that will kill you. It is the sudden
stop."

Many people who are ejected land somewhere that they can be a)hit by their
own car; b) hit by someone else's car; c) get up and wander into traffic
seeking help.

I'd like to address air-bags for a moment. Air bags are a placebo. Most
heavy duty accidents involve more than one smash point. Rolliing over is
popular with SUVs and pickups.
If you relied on an air bag instead of a seatbelt then you might as well
have shot yourself before you put the key in the ignition.
You have an accident; your air bag inflates; you're saved. Now your car
rolls down an embankment or is hit by another car because you ended up in
the oncoming lane, or you rolled over. You are now in the washing machine.
Unbelted, you will continue to sustain more injuries because there's no air
bag to save your scrawny ass.

Belt up or die - your choice for sure. Do we need a law to 'force' us? Not
what I want my taxes to pay for. How about some personal responsibility?
While thinking about your responsibility, think about how others will feel
for the rest of their lives after you die in a accident that they were in
with you? Why burden others with your independence from safety?
Want to be independent? Stay off the roads.

paul tiger


 
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!!

The Big Biker wrote:

> Once again, our Colorado Legislature is going to make another attempt
> to make our seatbelt law primary enforcement instead of the current
> secondary enforcement of being required to be stopped for another
> violation before the seatbelt law can be enforced.
>
> Since 1996, this issue has come up just about every year and so far,
> has been rightfully squashed. I would figure that our esteemed social
> benefactors in the State House would give up but apparently, they
> don't get it. We don't want an enhanced primary seatbelt law just like
> we don't want a helmet law. If this passes, how long before a helmet
> law is pushed for ?
>
> This information came from the Greeley Tribune.
> http://www.greeleytrib.com/apps/pbc...216/NEWS/112160054&template=printartReference
>
> The article mentioned that the town of Greeley had a primary seatbelt
> law in the town back in 2001 but then it was voted on by the people
> and the people proclaimed no primary belt law. The law was repealed at
> the ballot box. The new state representative, Jim Reisberg thinks he
> know better than the citizens of Greeley and so do the other city
> officials like the Police Chief Branham. These people ought to know
> they serve the interest of their citizens and they should know better
> than to go against the wishes of their constituents.
>
> As adults, the decision to wear a seatbelt should be our choice and in
> fact, there should be no seatbelt law in Colorado. We are currently
> allowed to decide to wear a helmet or not with a motorcycle, we should
> have the same choice with a seatbelt.


 
rlmcneil <[email protected]> wrote in news:LhSJd.15202$wZ2.11670
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

>> As adults, the decision to wear a seatbelt should be our choice and in
>> fact, there should be no seatbelt law in Colorado. We are currently
>> allowed to decide to wear a helmet or not with a motorcycle, we should
>> have the same choice with a seatbelt.


of course, you'll then see nothing wrong with sponging off the taxpayers
when medicare has to be used to provide your long term care. funny how it
become's society's responsibility then
 
I live in NJ and their rationale is the same as motorcycle helmets.If
you have a severe accident,and live,you could become a ward of the
state.Thus the state has a vested interest in you not getting injured in
the first place.But there is a very,very slight possibility, as a
revenue generator, in giving tickets to the unbelted.But that can't be
if you ask the authorities.

 
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:56:16 -0500, [email protected] (Time Traveler)
wrote:

>:|I live in NJ and their rationale is the same as motorcycle helmets.If
>:|you have a severe accident,and live,you could become a ward of the
>:|state.Thus the state has a vested interest in you not getting injured in
>:|the first place.But there is a very,very slight possibility, as a
>:|revenue generator, in giving tickets to the unbelted.But that can't be
>:|if you ask the authorities.


that logic is inherently flawed, at least as far as motorcycles go as
you are far more likely to die and *NOT* become a ward of the state
while not wearing a helmet than if you are wearing one.
it's a revenue generator, just like here in maine. the governor
is trying to get the law changed to a primary offense *and* more than
doubling the fine from ~$100 to almost $250. all of this is because
his driver sent the governors state owned 'burb through the woods on a
icy night because he was driving about twice as fast as he should
have. I wear my seatbelt, but I don't think it should be a primary
offense, just like I think the states child restraint law (8 years old
or 100lbs in some type of car seat)) is stupid.

-Bret
 
NJ originally had it as a secondary offense.Now it is a primary
offense.When towns were cut back on state funds they were told to raise
their motor vehicle fines and parking ticket fines.Local police use the
seat belt law to fill out their quota of tickets SUGGESTED by their
superior officers.Parking tickets that were once under $10 are now
$44.The ole deep pockets theory and who has them.

 
Back
Top