Bad, Sad, News

[Todd Rothrauff]

Denise,

The last belt minder disabling I performed involved something similar, only I had to buckle/unbuckle the appropriate belt 9 times, and didnt have to do anything with the headlamps.  However, this was on a new F150, not a Grand Marquis.

Generally, I dont like to disable the belt minder, because I hate to assist people in their own stupidity (not wearing the belt).  However, I will do it if asked.  Your service dept. should disable it for you without a problem.

If they cant do it with the proceedure in the owners manual, they should be able to use WDS (the diagnostic computer).

Todd

[Bruce Reynolds # 18992]

Well, I have said it before, and I will say it again.

SEAT BELTS DO SAVE LIVES.

SEAT BELTS DO SAVE INJURIES.

But, granted, some people dont like being told to do things, but this is one case where people shouldnt have the option.

I am sure that if someone was killed, or seriously injured, and it was found that the Seat Belt Warning device had been de-activated, then the Laywers would have a field day.

In Australia, the compulsory fitting of Seat Belts to new Automobiles and the Wearing of those Seat Belts has been in law since 1969, and the vehicles have been constructed with these laws in mind.

Bruce,
The Tassie Devil(le),
60 CDV (with no belts)
70 Ranchero Squire (with belts)
97 Falfon Fairmont Ghia Sedan (with belts and twin SRS air bags)

[Michael Stamps 19507]

But Bruce my 60 has seatbelts.  Although they do have Chevy emblems on them.

Stampie

[Johnny]

Well, I have said it before, and I will say it again.

SEAT BELTS DO SAVE LIVES.

SEAT BELTS DO SAVE INJURIES.

But, granted, some people dont like being told to do things, but this is one case where people shouldnt have the option.

I am sure that if someone was killed, or seriously injured, and it was found that the Seat Belt Warning device had been de-activated, then the Laywers would have a field day.

In Australia, the compulsory fitting of Seat Belts to new Automobiles and the Wearing of those Seat Belts has been in law since 1969, and the vehicles have been constructed with these laws in mind.

Bruce,
The Tassie Devil(le),
60 CDV (with no belts)
70 Ranchero Squire (with belts)
97 Falfon Fairmont Ghia Sedan (with belts and twin SRS air bags)

No question they do SAVE LIVES.  As a guy that started driving in the 50s, I initially fought the wearing of seat belts, until I witnessed a very bad accident, and how seat belts and air bags prevented serious injury to a person.  It made a believer out of me.  I say if a person dont wont to wear a seat belt, because they think it imposes upon their freedom, then fine!  By the same time if they are involved in an accident and its shown they broke the law and didnt have their seat belt on, then the insurance company should have the option of not paying!  While we are at it, lets get stiffer cell phones laws!

[Bruce Reynolds # 18992]

Gday Johnny,

Stiffer Cell Phone Laws, well, in Australia, it is against the law to use a cell phone in a Motor Vehicle, (and even whilst riding a bicycle), whilst seated behind the wheel, even whilst sitting at the lights, or stationary in traffic.   Hands-free is allowed though.

It is also illegal to consume food, and that includes drinking coffee or soft drink whilst driving.   Cup Holders in a vehicle isnt a priority over here.

Over here, we treat driving as a full time effort that requires full time concentration.

"Quote: No question they do SAVE LIVES. As a guy that started driving in the 50s, I initially fought the wearing of seat belts, until I witnessed a very bad accident, and how seat belts and air bags prevented serious injury to a person. It made a believer out of me. end Quote".

Yes, in my 32 years as a Police Officer, I have seen more than my fair share of "Accidents" and damaged vehicles, and it is surprising just how many people "walk" away from a wreck where, in the old days, they would have been another statistic.   I have also seen a lot of converts who come along afterwards and see for themselves.

Bruce,
The Tassie Devil(le),
60 CDV

["kook"CLC#15000]

05-06-05
Damn, Rob, I agree with you!
I think most States have a law(s) forbiden drivers from usuing their seat-belts AND turn signals.
One thing is for sure, if you buy a used car, most likely the "turn signals and seat belts" will be in good-unused, condition.
I, for one, wont drive across the/a parkn lot with-out connecting my seat belts.
The one who must be obeyed once got on my case about something, my reply was "if you are concerned about your bode, best wear your seat-belts".
It must have made an impression on her, havent had to remind her any-more. (dam, and I throught I was a "good" driver).
I once told my Grand-Son that he might detect me speeding a little, but he would never see me drive with-out useing my seat belts and useing the turn signals.
As a foot-note, WA now "fines drivers $101.00 for not wearing seat belts, and the same for failure to use turn signals.
Good Luck, Jim, the "kook"

[Randall McGrew CLC # 17963]

At what point did I say it was a liberal or conservative issue?  That is YOUR slant on it.

At what point did I say I would not wear seat belts?  I did not...I said I do wear them and like them.

At what point did I say they do not save lives?  I did not.  However, if you do your homework, you would also see how many severe to serious injuries they do cause from twisting the spine to breaking ribs.  Of course, you survive so they did their job.  The alternative is to be impaled on the stearing column or thrown through the windshield.  Not pretty. It is an acceptable trade off.

And at what point did I ever say a driver should be less than 100percent involved in driving?  Never.  In fact, that is where most accidents occur, from bad decisions made in reaction not from observation.  Each and every accident I have been in was caused by another drivers inattention or felonious imbibing of alcohol.
The seat belts protected me (while wrenching my spine out of place, separating 3/4 of my ribs and permanently injuring my neck) and the air bag kept me in place so I did not hit the windshield. (it simply knocked me out and burned my arms).  They did what they were intended to do.  

And no one has yet answered the question of DWIs. You dont have to give them jail time, but a drinker who is unable or unwilling to keep his/her habits from threatening others should be removed from driving, permanently, with the threat of serious jail time if EVER caught behind the wheel.  

My friends father was reduced to a vegetable by a drunk business man in Texas.  The court found the man guilty of DWI but not guilty of his fathers injuries.  The judge was concerned with his being able to work and provide for his family.  The poor victem was already wasted so that was too bad.  Its better not to kill two familys just because of one (one of many) DWI mistake.  We will forget that the DWI was a member of the same country club.

So dont lecture me about the social responsibility of wearing seat belts for the good of others insurance premiums and tax dollars.  

[robert p millian]

Sorry Bruce

But I dont agree with you re: seat belts save lives. I would rather be thrown out of the car then be crushed in it in a serious accident. There have been many situations where passengers were traped inside and unable to get out. Sounds to me that you are one of millions who were brain washed by the media and your local politians to pass this law. The fact is that the insurance lobby pushed this law thru to pass. Common sense tells you why they were behind it,to save on injury claims. Period. Who the hell is kidding who. Hey,if it makes you comfortable to wear your seat belt,then by all means,do so. As for me,it will be my desision whether to wear it or not,which I dont. Let me put it another way. If my head goes thru a winshield in a accident,its my head,my injuries. Who the hell are you, meaning the law, to look out for me.I say screw you and your damn law. I dont like the thought of being a prisoner in my own car and dont like being told what I have to do. I have always believed that America was supposed to be the land of the free. Well,are you?

bob

[John Tozer #7946]

Hey Bob,

What bits of this post would you like to appear on your headstone???

JT

[Lou 19058]

First of all,Driving a car in America is a privilege NOT a right.. You wont have to worry about your head going thru the windshield because if you dont wear your seatbelt the air bag will practically rip your head off! Being thrown out of a car thru the air..Hmmmm NOPE Anyone that drives a motorcycle will tell you thats their worst nightmare. I have a retired police officer employed with me and over his 25 year career ,he has NEVER unbuckled a dead person from a car accident.. The good news is your in luck...if your an American you have the RIGHT not to drive..

Regards,Lou

[Johnny]

Sorry Bruce

But I dont agree with you re: seat belts save lives. I would rather be thrown out of the car then be crushed in it in a serious accident. There have been many situations where passengers were traped inside and unable to get out. Sounds to me that you are one of millions who were brain washed by the media and your local politians to pass this law. The fact is that the insurance lobby pushed this law thru to pass. Common sense tells you why they were behind it,to save on injury claims. Period. Who the hell is kidding who. Hey,if it makes you comfortable to wear your seat belt,then by all means,do so. As for me,it will be my desision whether to wear it or not,which I dont. Let me put it another way. If my head goes thru a winshield in a accident,its my head,my injuries. Who the hell are you, meaning the law, to look out for me.I say screw you and your damn law. I dont like the thought of being a prisoner in my own car and dont like being told what I have to do. I have always believed that America was supposed to be the land of the free. Well,are you?

bob

Being a right wing conservative, I also dont like government intrusion in my life.  But sometimes the laws that may seem to be taking away our freedom are for our own good, especially ones that can keep us safe.  I have no documentation to back me up, but I assume that statistics would show we are safer with out seat belts on then if they arent.

Sure its your head that goes through the windshield, but its me that has to suffer through higher insurance premiums because of what the insurance companys have to pay out!

Lets not confusing driving as a "right", remember it is a priviledge.

Putting all this aside, I think the reality of the situation is that not many citations are issued for not wearing a seat belt.

[Rob Gerace #16100]

Why is it that cant complain about high insurance rates due to other peoples laziness and stupidity.  

Yes, there are cases where it would have been better not to have worn the seatbelt.  But, in general, the seatbelt will save you from injuries much more often than causing more injuries.  So, more often than not, people who are in an accident will receive more serious injuries and require more medical treatment, translating to more money that someones insurance company will have to pay, translating to that company raising rates for everyone.  Do I not have the privelege of pointing that out?  

I wasnt trying to lecture you or anyone on here.  Im not the authority on that or any other issue here.  Pleast dont take that personally.  But, what I dont understand is how you could be mad at the fact that a law requires you to do something you prefer to do anyway.  We do NOT live in a free country, contrary to popular belief.  We dont even live in a democracy, technically.  If you cant accept the fact that your elected government is making decisions that you dont like, you have to accept that, or be miserable.  Its your choice.  Personally, I have a lot more important things to get mad at.    

I am sorry that you were in an accident that left you with an injury.  Thats not something that I have been through, so I cant completely understand.  But, I do feel for you though.  At the same time, anyone who gets in a car has to accept the risk that driving/riding in a car or motorcycle is a very dangerous thing to do regardless of driving habits and safety equipment.  Human bodies were not meant to withstand the forces that they do from crashing at such high speeds.  While newer cars are doing a better job of minimizing those forces, NO CAR is going to be safe in ANY given accident at ANY given speed.  The possibilities are infinite, so they cant cover everything, but they are getting gradually better.

Oh, and by the way, I personally think that people who commit a DUI should be shot in the face.  No one has any business endangering anyone else by driving intoxicated.  

No offense to anyone on here.  Things are the way they are, so just try to forget about it and enjoy the life you have.  

Rob
 

[Randall McGrew CLC # 17963]

LOL  Rob you are so right.    No offense taken...seriously we both have good points. And you are absolutely right about the insurance angle.  The really funny thing is that while I may be a Democrat (and thereby not eligable for membership in that small Baptist Church in Virginia) I feel the same as many Republicans!  I do not like being policed.  I feel each person should police themselves and do so myself.  

Anyway, I wear my belts and drive defensively, and politely.  I love driving and have since I was so small I could bearly hold the little Matchbox car.  

And I too loathe and abhorr the drunk driver. Having lost a valuable car to one, and injured minorly, I can say he barely escaped with his health because I could not take advantage of him in his inebriated condition.    Fortunately for me I abstained and allowed the State Patrol to handle the driver.  Sigh.  Neither would return my lost 69 Olds.

[robert p millian]

JT

Another liberal

[robert p millian]

Johnny

You make a very good point.however,as you know, the passing of this law was to save lives and personal injuries. But unfortunetly it hasnt reduced auto premiums.In fact my auto insurance just keeps going up every year.and I have a perfect driving record. Youre getting screwed big time and you just dont realize it. Please dont tell me if that law didnt pass my insurance would be higher. Its all b/s and the insurance companies are making a bundle on us suckers. I rest my case.

bob

[Porter 21919]

Just passing on the cost of the ambulance chasing lawyers, they like car accidents, big money.

[Bruce Reynolds # 18992]

Actually, it is cheaper to be killed in an accident than to be severely injures and then go through years of operastions, legal issues, then all the associated living costs incurred, just to survive.

But, people hate going to funerals.   Dont mind visiting hospitals, etc, but dealing with death is so hard.

Plus, cars cost so much to repair these days than in the past.

Bruce,
The Tassie Devil(le),
60 CDV

[denise 20352]

  Actually, the insurance companies will reduce the settlement if the passenger wasnt wearing a seat belt.

  Everyone knows that seat belts can save lives, but we have to be able to make our own decisions.  Were free adults, not slaves.  If I owned a slave who drove a car, naturally I would make him wear his seat belt because I wouldnt want to have to pay his medical bills, but free people decide for themselves.

  As for what a president "signed", that means nothing. What matters is who introduced the bill, and who voted for it.   Most of the time, what presidents sign is a bill that is full of pork, which contains some issues that must be passed (like a budget), and so he has to put up with so much of the pork and the BS to get it through.

-denise

[denise 20352]

  Thanks, Lou.  I never realized that I had that freedom.

  At city driving speeds, shoulder belts are extremely dangerous.  At highway speeds, they may be a necessary evil.  At 35 mph, a shoulder belt ripped my shoulder apart, and the prognosis is that it will never heal.  I will be in pain the rest of my life.  A shoulder belt allows one side of your body to accelerate and use your neck as a fulcrum, snapping your other shoulder like a whip crack and pulling the rib bones away from the spine.  This is why I now have a note from my doctor requiring that I wear lap belt only.

  When I am travelling on the highways, my husband drives, and I wear a shoulder belt in the passenger seat.  Ive weighed the risks and decided that, in a serious collision, a shoulder belt is safer, if for no reason that it keeps me from going head first into an explosive device.

  You may disagree with my decision, but the important thing is that I made the decision that I was comfortable with.  The government wouldnt have been any help either way.

-denise

[Randall McGrew CLC # 17963]

You and I had the same experience.  The pain is tolerable but has made life less enjoyable.  At least I can still get around.  Unfortunately that was not the only physical damage to occur.  Trauma as severe as you suffered is but the beginning of problems.  Arthritis, and other opportunistic problems arise to take over as the immune systems crashes.  Two years after my accident, my health crashed and has been declining steadily ever since.  And all this was with seat belts and an air bag.  

I agree that they work.  They save your life.  But it does not end there.  The best way to keep safe and healthy is to drive defensively.  Dont rush, and keep your attention on driving. Period. I find it very relaxing...many may not...but by following the rules, being very defensive and careful, and being a polite driver, you have a much better chance of not being involved in an accident.  That is the best way.  Seat belts, and air bags are last a ditch technology.  Do not rely on them unless there is nothing left to do.
And pray the idiot at the light waiting to turn left has not had too much to drink ot isnt too anxious to get home to watch the reruns of Gilligans Island.

Happy driving.