NationStates Jolt Archive

WARNING: These links contain NO photos of anything gross.

Read this link first:
http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/09/17/414a5a030e91d?in_archive=1

And then read this link:

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/01/04/local/doc41db350078259784029686.txt

Wow, the irony is really...ironic.

Although I am an atheist, it is none the less comforting to think that any God that existed could have a sense of humour.

I guess you could say he died for his cause.

Although I am an athiest, it is none the less comforting to think that any God that existed could have a sense of humour.
A really creative one none the less...

First mistake was getting in a ford explorer, what a dumass, at least he has not spread his genes into the world at large

Dead guy really does have a good point though. Seat belts should be personal choice.

well. well. well. there should be some wise Confucious - type saying for that-
like, he who says he needs no protection from others, should realize he needs protection from himself

it could be better, but i am tired

I especially liked this part:

Erica Rogers, opinion page editor at the Daily Nebraskan, said Derek's brains and intensity would be missed.


Yeah, I bet his brains were all over the highway.

Dead guy really does have a good point though. Seat belts should be personal choice.

they should, but its the special interest groups, mainly ATTORNEYS, who , with the lawsuit game have forced this into law. and, if the govenment "afford" that 100 million payoff to 49 states, think of the grease money the are getting from the lawyers groups. sick.

Dead guy really does have a good point though. Seat belts should be personal choice.

Only if you have private medical insurance. Not every accident kills, and those who suffer injuries throuigh not using a seat belt, should not be treated at the public expense. Then they can do what they like. :)

Dead guy really does have a good point though. Seat belts should be personal choice.The irony of this little series of real life events was completey lost on you, wasn't it?

Dead guy really does have a good point though. Seat belts should be personal choice.
why? do you think the other person in the car who gets severly injured or killed by your body flying about in a crash will thank you for choosing not to wear a seatbelt?

First mistake was getting in a ford explorer, what a dumass, at least he has not spread his genes into the world at large

Good point. What do you think are his chances of getting a Darwin Award?

Ah, evolution in action...

The issue is not whether or not wearing a seatbelt makes sense (it absolutely does), but should government be in the business of enforcing common sense?

Here in Florida the legislature rescinded the mandatory helmet law a couple of years ago so helmetless idiots riding motorcycles can test the tensile strength of the cranium when it encounters pavement at 60 mph, HOWEVER they are now looking to make not wearing a seatbelt an offense for which people can be stopped and issued a ticket (you can currently be ticketed only if stopped for another offense).

So, they enforce common sense for car drivers, but not for motorcycle riders.

The government is not always right, either. One might surmise, for example, that making everyone wear a helmet would lower the fatality rate.

Here are some statistics from the State of Maryland:

http://www.abate-of-maryland.org/MarylandMotorcycleStatistics.htm

As soon as helmets became mandatory, fatalities went up.

The government is not always right, either. One might surmise, for example, that making everyone wear a helmet would lower the fatality rate.

Here are some statistics from the State of Maryland:

http://www.abate-of-maryland.org/MarylandMotorcycleStatistics.htm

As soon as helmets became mandatory, fatalities went up.

It all depends on how you interpret the statistics. You're arguing that the percentage of deaths went up. However, the number of accidents and fatalities also went down, no?

Ahh i get it its like the Titanic i say it cant be sunk so the big Guy sinks it hmmm Irony is great

The government is not always right, either. One might surmise, for example, that making everyone wear a helmet would lower the fatality rate.

Here are some statistics from the State of Maryland:

http://www.abate-of-maryland.org/MarylandMotorcycleStatistics.htm

As soon as helmets became mandatory, fatalities went up.

Maryland may be an anomaly. The GAO did a meta-study of 46 reports and studies on the impact of helmet laws published between 1975 and 1990. The GAO found twenty studies that compared motorcycle rider fatality rates under universal helmet laws with rates during periods before enactment or after repeal of these laws.

"These studies consistently showed that fatality rates were lower when universal helmet laws were in effect; most rates ranged from 20 to 40 percent lower. Several of these studies compared periods before a helmet law was enacted, while it was in effect, and after it was repealed. They showed that the decreases in fatality rates when laws were enacted were matched by comparable increases when the laws were repealed" (GAO, 1991, p. 4)].

GAO found thirteen studies with data on some aspect of the societal costs of motorcycle accidents.

"These studies indicated that nonhelmeted riders were more likely to (1) need ambulance service, (2) be admitted to a hospital as an inpatient, (3) have higher hospital charges, (4) need neurosurgery and intensive care, (5) need rehabilitation, and (6) be permanently impaired and need long-term care" (GAO, 1991, p. 4).

"Universal laws reduce motorcycle fatalities, fatality rates, and severe head injuries. The studies also confirm that helmets reduce the probability of injury, of head injury, and of fatality for crash-involved motorcyclists."


http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/kentuky-la03/Background.html

I started riding motorcycles several decades ago when I was 12. You wouldn't catch me on a bike without a full face helmet.

It all depends on how you interpret the statistics. You're arguing that the percentage of deaths went up. However, the number of accidents and fatalities also went down, no?

True. But I'm figuring that unless there's a really obvious difference between letting people have their way and forcing them to do something, the government should stay out of things. Not because it's not worth saving that one or two lives, but because we get foggy statistics like these.

Show me something that makes a substantial difference, and I'm all for it.

In The Land OF The Long White Cloud seat belts are compulsary so compulsary to what the guy says it would actually be a money spinner for the local governments.
The Police have Quotas to met so if their not up to the demanded levels theyll ping you for going a couple of Km's over the limit when theirs no one else on the road :confused:

What is the reason why Americans drive of the right is it to confuse charging enemy Cavalry?

Show me something that makes a substantial difference, and I'm all for it.

Well, the number of deaths and accidents both practically halved when helmet laws were introduced, according to your statistics.

Well, the number of deaths and accidents both practically halved when helmet laws were introduced, according to your statistics.

But how many total deaths is that? How many people were killed by falling in their homes in the same time period?

Maybe we would save more lives if we forced people to wear helmets at all times in the home.

Oh another thing for all you back seat passengers if you value the lives of the guys and dolls in the front seat youll buckle-up as your body becomes a missile and the back of the head is fairly weak so youll crack the skull quite easily going from 0 to 80K's+ in 1/2 second.

But how many total deaths is that? How many people were killed by falling in their homes in the same time period?

Maybe we would save more lives if we forced people to wear helmets at all times in the home.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that 2002 motorcycle fatalities increased for the fifth year in a row; 3,244 riders died in 2002, up from 3,197 in 2001.

By the way, about the same number of people die each year in fires. We have many laws, regulations and building codes concerning fire safety.

Only about 600 people a year die from drowning in swimming pools, yet we also have all kinds of regulations (at least here in Florida) requiring pools be fenced off and enclosed.

Do we do away with all safety regulations? When does government cross the line from protecting the public good to being the public's nanny.

I don't know that I have an answer to that.

they should, but its the special interest groups, mainly ATTORNEYS, who , with the lawsuit game have forced this into law. and, if the govenment "afford" that 100 million payoff to 49 states, think of the grease money the are getting from the lawyers groups. sick.

No, it is more the insurance companies that pushed this one.

Why?

Because too many guys like this preached one thing, and then went for the gravy when they got injured instead of killed and blamed the companies for not warning them strongly enough to change their mindset about seatbelts.

I've wondered why in parks in the UK where I see cliffs, there are so few railings - railings that I know would be present in a US park, complete with park ranger and warning signs.

People here are often saying that European countries are the "nanny state", but I feel that some places in the US are way ahead in that regard.

The British seem to be fine with the idea that if you're a complete idiot who can't recognize a 200ft cliff when you see one, then you deserve to fall off and die before you can contaminate the gene pool.

Of course, that's not the way they put it...

There is a school of thought (probably) that says that anything dangerous but easily avoidable should be made much more dangerous to kill of all the idiots.

I've wondered why in parks in the UK where I see cliffs, there are so few railings - railings that I know would be present in a US park, complete with park ranger and warning signs.

People here are often saying that European countries are the "nanny state", but I feel that some places in the US are way ahead in that regard.

The British seem to be fine with the idea that if you're a complete idiot who can't recognize a 200ft cliff when you see one, then you deserve to fall off and die before you can contaminate the gene pool.

Of course, that's not the way they put it...

I noticed that, as well. It is a good point.

I once taught at a school that had a rather small reflecting pond in front with a statue of the school mascot in the middle. It had been there for decades. Then one day some bureaucrat from the county decided it was a safety hazard and mandated a 7 foot high chain link fence be erected around it. Now when you drive up the first thing you see is this monstrosity of chain link enclosing a pond that is filled with garbage and algae (being closed off it is now mowed and cleaned less regularly).

I've wondered why in parks in the UK where I see cliffs, there are so few railings - railings that I know would be present in a US park, complete with park ranger and warning signs.

People here are often saying that European countries are the "nanny state", but I feel that some places in the US are way ahead in that regard.

The British seem to be fine with the idea that if you're a complete idiot who can't recognize a 200ft cliff when you see one, then you deserve to fall off and die before you can contaminate the gene pool.

Of course, that's not the way they put it...


Nope, it is the difference between punitive damages in the US versus most of the rest of the world that makes the difference. The moment something is foreseeable, it is actionable in your country.


I still don't understand why it is always "forseeable" for the other guy but not for the idiot that hurts/maims/kills themselves, but that seems to be the way it goes.


"Hey! I fell down this 200-foot cliff and snapped my spine! Why didn't somebody warn me that this place was not a natural anomoly where gravity didn't function? Because I thought it might have been! It's NOT MY FAULT!!!!"


They don't call it the "Litigation Lottery" for nothin!


Canada is getting almost as bad for regulations too, although in many cases we still differentiate. i.e) Children have to wear a halmet on their bicycles, adults are deemed qualified to make up their own minds. But mandatory seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws exist.

I can see a few reasons for mandatory seat belt laws, mainly in the interests of insurance companies and police departments that need even more reasons to write tickets. It's easy for judges to throw out lawsuits against insurance companies and automobile manufacturers if they can prove the crash victim didn't have a seat belt on. Laws are made in the interest of groups who have the clout to affect the law.

That said, I read an editorial awhile back where they argued that seat belt laws should only apply to those under 18. Although I myself am a seat belt wearer, I can't really disagree too much with that, since people who don't want to wear seat belts and are sentient enough to make that decision should be allowed to. I don't think children are capable of making that decision, and parents who don't buckle their children up should be punished.

Another chlorine therapy for the gene pool it looks like.

This guy should get one of the 2005 Darwin Awards.

:D

Another chlorine therapy for the gene pool it looks like.

This guy should get one of the 2005 Darwin Awards.

:D

I don't think so. Just a tragedy with an ironic twist. His argument against a nanny-state is not necessarily wrong, even though he most certainly had a lapse in judgment (he was 21 - who among us hasn't made stupid, even potentially fatal, mistakes?).

Of course it's worse if someone sits in the back without a seatbelt - instead of going through the windscreen, they'll just crush the person in front of them.

Of course it's worse if someone sits in the back without a seatbelt - instead of going through the windscreen, they'll just crush the person in front of them.

Though I believe that laws on seat belts, at least here in Ohio, apply only to those in the front seat. In the back seat, people probably just smack into the back of the front seat, harmless ly bouncing off at best and snapping some semi-important bones at worst.

Dead guy really does have a good point though. Seat belts should be personal choice.Except the fact that he's DEAD because of his opinion does kind of deminish the effectiveness his arguement.

now if only we can get more people with stupid opinions to die

Did you ever notice that it seems the majority of people seem to think that the majority of people are stupid?

That means some of us are doing double duty - both playing the part of the stupid people AND the part of those who shake our heads at stupid people.

Did you ever notice that it seems the majority of people seem to think that the majority of people are stupid?

That means some of us are doing double duty - both playing the part of the stupid people AND the part of those who shake our heads at stupid people.
Zing!

now if only we can get more people with stupid opinions to die
Its best to start off with something simple, like building an autobahn network.

Though I believe that laws on seat belts, at least here in Ohio, apply only to those in the front seat. In the back seat, people probably just smack into the back of the front seat, harmless ly bouncing off at best and snapping some semi-important bones at worst.
Actually what happens more often is the person in the back seat causes the seat back to break loose and crush the front seat passenger against the seatbelt. After working a few years in hospital emergency bays and talking to the medical staff, it became apparent that the person not wearing the seatbelt caused more injuries to the other passengers than to themselves. IOW, the person that doesn't buckle up is a threat to everyone else in the vehicle (and in my vehicle is treated as such.)

Worthy of a Darwin I'd say! LOL

why? do you think the other person in the car who gets severly injured or killed by your body flying about in a crash will thank you for choosing not to wear a seatbelt?
Unless you have evidence of this happening more than once, shut up.

Actually what happens more often is the person in the back seat causes the seat back to break loose and crush the front seat passenger against the seatbelt. After working a few years in hospital emergency bays and talking to the medical staff, it became apparent that the person not wearing the seatbelt caused more injuries to the other passengers than to themselves. IOW, the person that doesn't buckle up is a threat to everyone else in the vehicle (and in my vehicle is treated as such.)
What cars?

Worthy of a Darwin I'd say! LOL

Yeah, a 21 year old kid gets killed in a car accident. That is a real knee slapper.

Irony is not necessarily humor.

Yeah, a 21 year old kid gets killed in a car accident. That is a real knee slapper.

Irony is not necessarily humor.

Not irony....pure stupidity. The kid was a moron. You get in a car you wear a seat belt. End of story. If you don't you are a moron.

You are not only endangering yourself but also others in the car.

Notice the other occupant had minor injuries.

In a country that has national or universal healthcare, universal seatbelt and helmet laws make a lot of sense. They reduce the number and cost of injuries in automobile accidents, and thus the cost of an accident to the healthcare system is reduced. Frankly, I am happy that medical care is available to everyone in Canada, and don't mind paying the extra tax to ensure that. However, minimizing the number of people accessing expensive medical care because they were too stupid or thoughtless to take care of themselves is all good in my books. If the possibility of a fine is the only thing that motivates them to wear a seatbelt/helmet and keeps them out of the hospital, I have no complaints.

Seatbelt and helmet laws make less sense in a nation that has private insurance only for healthcare, since it is individual choice and individual cost. Unless of course, their not wearing a seatbelt endangers other people in the car.

I personally love it when Republicans are wasted by their moronic beliefs, which reminds me.

Republicans!

Are you ready for the Bush economic EXPLOSION? Have you hocked yourself to your eyeballs to dump every last dime you own or could owe to somebody else into the market?

What are you waiting for?!

Make money money money!


This message is brought to you by your karma. :p

Not irony....pure stupidity. The kid was a moron. You get in a car you wear a seat belt. End of story. If you don't you are a moron.

You are not only endangering yourself but also others in the car.

Notice the other occupant had minor injuries.

How fortunate to have never yourself done anything stupid.

Worthy of a Darwin I'd say! LOL
not normally, but considering he wrote a whatever on why wearing a seatbelt is stupid, yeah he might qualify, at least for an honorable mention

:confused: Where do I go to sue the creator of the gene pool for not offering swimming lessons before tossing me in? I am way over my head and sinking fast! Come to think of it, I wasn't offered a life preserver either...

I really don't understand why people don't just wear the seatbelt. It doesn't matter how good of a driver you are, there are plenty of bad drivers to make up for your good driving. Maybe it's like an X-Sport? X-TREEM DRIVING!!! WICKED DANGEROUS!!!!111one

People make choices and live by them.

He made a choice....and did not.

How fortunate to have never yourself done anything stupid.

Oh I don't know...I replied to you :)

not normally, but considering he wrote a whatever on why wearing a seatbelt is stupid, yeah he might qualify, at least for an honorable mention

Well seeing that you more likely to die if you don't wear a seat belt...let alone being a danger to those with you in the vehicle.....and tempting fate.....well...yeah...at least an honourable mention...

True. But I'm figuring that unless there's a really obvious difference between letting people have their way and forcing them to do something, the government should stay out of things. Not because it's not worth saving that one or two lives, but because we get foggy statistics like these.

Show me something that makes a substantial difference, and I'm all for it.

look at the actual data then
# Change %Change
-8,364 -53.95% = Accidents Decreased
-185 -43.33% = Fatalities Decreased
0.64% 23.08% = Fatality Rate Increased

ok, the *actual* increase in the fatality rate is 0.64%... so now for every 100 people injured, 0.64 more of them will die...

but the number of people injured goes down by 8,364 (eight THOUSAND, three hundred and sixty four)...

and one hundred and eighty five less people in the morgue...

185 lives saved isn't a substantial difference to you?


there's an important point to be made here - fuck percentages, when we're talking about people's lives, don't tell me that 0.64% more of all people in accidents will die, tell me about the 185 people that wont

btw, t'is very ironic.... and I'm done being ranty :D

Though I believe that laws on seat belts, at least here in Ohio, apply only to those in the front seat. In the back seat, people probably just smack into the back of the front seat, harmless ly bouncing off at best and snapping some semi-important bones at worst.

and oh-so harmlessly crushing to death the person who is sitting in the seat directly in front

Unless you have evidence of this happening more than once, shut up.

it happens more than often enough..... thats the thing with flying debris, no matter if its a piece of collapsing building or a persons body, it has the effect of maiming those it impacts on

What cars?

the kind with wheels and an engine and seats and windows and all those out-dated kinds of things, only found in those ancient death-trap cars

Personally I think seatbelt laws are a good idea.

However, the simple fact is that if I ever drive in a country where they're fitted in cars but it's not mandatory to wear them, then anyone who sits behind me is going to put theirs on or walk!

Give this man the Darwin Award!

Posthumously o'course. :D

Though I believe that laws on seat belts, at least here in Ohio, apply only to those in the front seat. In the back seat, people probably just smack into the back of the front seat, harmless ly bouncing off at best and snapping some semi-important bones at worst.
I guess you haven't heard about passengers that have been ejected from vehicles and then the vehicle rolling on top of them, and in the process, killing them?

Give this man the Darwin Award!

Posthumously o'course. :D

Motion seconded!!!

Motion seconded!!!
Motion minor thirded!

Thank you!

Now where were you people when I made that suggestion and got attacked for it! ??? grrrrr LOL :)

did any of you guys notice he was sitting in the back seat? How many of you have worn a seat belt in the BACK SEAT???? I know that I never have, even in drivers ed.

In fact, I dont think I even know anybody who wears a seat belt in the back seat.

An unfortunate coincidence doesn't by itself make him an idiot nor wrong.

did any of you guys notice he was sitting in the back seat? How many of you have worn a seat belt in the BACK SEAT???? I know that I never have, even in drivers ed.

In fact, I dont think I even know anybody who wears a seat belt in the back seat.

I do, I don't use cars much but when I do I always wear a seatbelt in the back seat... does this make me boring or geeky? To be honest I don't give a shit, I respect the lives of those giving me a lift and in the unlikely event of an accident I'm not a huge fan of crushing them to death.... unless its a taxi & I can't afford the fare :p


An unfortunate coincidence doesn't by itself make him an idiot nor wrong.

if you routinely refuse to wear a seatbelt, death isn't a coincidence - its destiny

Yes, wearing a seatbelt is smart. One saved my life. But the government should not be in the business of protecting us from ourselves. If someone wants to be stupid, let them.

If one is doing the math, that is more than $138 million spent on seat belt laws. But the kicker is this: It is estimated, by researchers for Congress, that only 6,100 lives are saved per year because of new seat belt wearers. Moreover, the increase in the percentage of those who wear seat belts has leveled off.

Hmm, with a little math of my own, this logic implies that he thought human lives were worth less than $22622.95 a piece.

I'm all for the whole "do as you please if no one is harmed" idea he proposed in the beginning of the article, but I also believe that one self should be included in that. Here, he chose not to wear a seat belt, and died.

Also, as stated before, the people who disregard seat belts and DON'T die cost the public health care system a lot of money that could be used for much better causes.

Therefore, yay for seat belt laws!

Dead people are sooo stupid XD


ok....


Yeah, this guy was definently and idiot, deserved what happened to him. I also don't think that his death was quite spectacular enough for a Darwin Award, sorry to any who think so.

Yeah. That's my opinion.

did any of you guys notice he was sitting in the back seat? How many of you have worn a seat belt in the BACK SEAT???? I know that I never have, even in drivers ed.

In fact, I dont think I even know anybody who wears a seat belt in the back seat.
Every hour someone dies in America simply because of not wearing a seat belt. Failure to buckle up contributes to more fatalities than any other single behavior.

http://www.acep.org/1,399,0.html

Seat belts are estimated to save nearly 12,000 lives and prevent 325,000 serious injuries in America each year. They are the most effective means of reducing deaths and serious injuries in traffic crashes.

Seat belt use climbed from 58 percent in 1994 to 75 percent in 2002.

While the back seat is the safest place to ride in a car, unbelted back-seat passengers risk serious injury and pose a potentially fatal threat to others during a crash.

Adults who don't buckle up are sending children a deadly message it's all right not to wear a seat belt. When a driver is unbuckled, 76 percent of the time children will be unbuckled. When a driver is belted, 87 percent of the time children will be also.

Nationwide, more than 8,000 people ages 15 to 20 years old were killed or seriously injured in traffic crashes in 2001, nearly twice as many who died in 2000 (4,600), according to data compiled by NHTSA. Two-thirds were not wearing seat belts.

Everyone pays for those who don't buckle up, because the costs go beyond the loss of lives and result in higher taxes, health care costs, and insurance costs. On average, hospital costs for an unbelted crash victim are 55 percent higher than those for a belted crash victim (National Safety Council 2001).

Society bears 85 percent of the costs of crashes. Every American pays about $580 a year.

The needless deaths and injuries that result from not using seat belts cost society an estimated $26 billion annually in medical care, lost productivity, and other costs (NHTSA, 2002).

Read them and weep. I think the fine for not wearing a seat belt should be minimum $200 and if you allow children not to wear seat belts, the fine should be minimum $1,000.

Except the fact that he's DEAD because of his opinion does kind of deminish the effectiveness his arguement.
He's dead because his driver crashed and he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. He's not dead because he was against seatbelt laws. I'm against seatbelt laws too, but I wear them.

I personally love it when Republicans are wasted by their moronic beliefs, which reminds me.

Republicans!

Are you ready for the Bush economic EXPLOSION? Have you hocked yourself to your eyeballs to dump every last dime you own or could owe to somebody else into the market?

What are you waiting for?!

Make money money money!


This message is brought to you by your karma. :p
*PLONK*

I guess you could say he died for his cause.


can we call him a martyr?

It all depends on how you interpret the statistics. You're arguing that the percentage of deaths went up. However, the number of accidents and fatalities also went down, no?
you do realize fatalities cant go down if deaths go up, yes?

you do realize fatalities cant go down if deaths go up, yes?

Wrong.

The number of deaths can fall, yet the percentage of injuries causing death can rise simultaneously. The percentage of fatalities is the number of injuries divided by the number of deaths.

Which is why that particular percentage is meaningless, without knowing that the number of *real deaths* actually dropped.