Anti-seat-belt law advocate dies in car crash, not wearing belt
Not funny, just sad: A senior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, who had written an editorial for the school paper arguing that “Uncle Sam is not here to regulate every facet of life no matter the consequences” and that mandatory seat-belt laws “are incongruous with the ideals of both parties”, was killed four months later in a car crash in which he was not wearing a seat belt. He was killed as a result of being thrown from the vehicle, the type of accidental death that seat belts have been most effective at preventing.
|
11 Responses to “Anti-seat-belt law advocate dies in car crash, not wearing belt”
Submit your own story hereMore Irony:
(Check out our archives for even more irony!)
January 27th, 2006 at 8:49 am
“Not funny”??? I think its friggin hilarious!! What an idiot. Now if we could just get a MADD member busted for drunk driving - my year would be made.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:24 am
Hillarious. But, I still don’t wear mine. Oh, and the MADD deal? Happened here a few
years back. Turns out the best people to find good drinking spots go to AA meetings.
One of them got a Sgt, (who was in a group similar to MADD) to drive him to a bar, at which point they both got trashed. They got busted coming back on base, where he figured he would drive, as the other guy would get in trouble, on account of being in AA and all…
January 30th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
He was an idiot, but he was still right. I wear a seatbelt simply because its smart to do, not because the law
requires it. Since wearing a seatbelt does not protect anyone else though, its ridiculous to have it as a law. People
should be free to put themselves at as much risk as they want. Laws to save people from themselves are asinine.
The only exception to this rule would be minor children, who have no idea of the dangers of a crash.
January 30th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Actually I think that most people under 18 know that you can get killed in a car crash. Whether a person is *acutely* aware of it, probably depends on how many car wrecks they’ve been in themselves, not how old they are.
But even if that were true for minors, I still don’t see why it would justify seat belt laws for minors but not for adults. If minors are less aware of the dangers, then that’s a reason why you would expect that more minors than adults would ignore the seat belts. However, it’s NOT a reason why the law should intervene for those minors not wearing seat belts, but not for the adults. If it’s worth the government intervention to save the minor, why isn’t it worth the government intervention to save the adult as well? Is the adult’s life worth any less?
January 31st, 2006 at 9:04 am
Seatbelt laws are there not because you might hurt someone else by not wearing a seatbelt, but to protect the government and the american taxpayers from having to help foot the bill for your medical treatment which could have been prevented if only you had worn your seatbelt.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:00 am
Viv — I don’t know about that, there are laws against driving without a seatbelt even if you have full medical insurance, in which case your medical treatment wouldn’t cost taxpayers anything. And there are also laws against things like playing Russian roulette or skydiving without a parachute (I haven’t looked that one up, but I assume), even though there’s no chance that the government would have to foot the bill in those cases because if you screw up, you’ll be dead. It seems that the laws exist partly to preserve human life, even the lives of idiots, which seems legitimate enough.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Hahahaha, Yeah, and why can’t we choose whether the bars are locked on roller coasters or the pin is inserted in the zipper cage..hahaaha. Why can’t I choose to just hold on real tight. Man, more big brother tryin to keep us down broseph.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Yeah, well it IS the law and for good reason. During initial impact a seatbealt may
prevent you from hitting your head on the windshield and losing consiousness so you can
still have some control and avoid a secondary impact which could be deadly to someone else
you friggin simple minded morons!!!
February 1st, 2006 at 9:16 pm
“there are laws against driving without a seatbelt even if you have full medical insurance, in which case your medical treatment wouldn’t cost taxpayers anything.”
Not wearing a seatbelt gives the insurance companies an “out”. If you get injured in a wreck while not wearing a seatbelt, even though you’re fully insured, the insurance company then is under no obligation to cover your expenses.
So… If there is ever a law which appears to make no logical sense whatsoever; ALWAYS look for the insurance company interest. A good 75% of our laws exist SOLELY for their benefit, NOT ours! The governments of this world couldn’t care less about wasting human life. Check your history books.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Yeah, but wear one anyway you idiot, so your secondary impact doesn’t kill me.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:35 am
I am one of the unlucky people to get a 50 dollar ticket over this law.
Mario Cuomo, I have a ball-bat with your name on it you SOB…