Gun rights people always seek to quote other causes of death, as if that has any bearing at all on the arguement..IT DOESNT..we shouldnt do anything about guns, because people drown? Thats fucking retarded. we shouldnt regulate guns, because people smoke? How fucked up is your thinking process? Hey, we shouldnt have seat belt laws ! Because, you know,,,people also overdose !! I have heard this line of bullshit repeated over and over, and it has to be one of the stupidest fucking arguements...ever......

Put on the seat belts, you guys! I want to see them riding too!

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYu2oLkyzaA8tLKfq8KJkOQ/videos has more too!

OK, then his elderly wife. That part wasn't important to my point.

Please note that it's NOT buckled at all. That's why I said it must be fake, he had to squeeze into it that way. it could be he put the belt around himself without fastening it, and the ratchet tightened on him, but who puts on a seat belt like that in the first place? If that's the case, he just needs to lean over a bit and it will come off.

By his age, he should know how to put on a seat belt, no?

Where I come from, it is pretty common in an older married couple for a husband to refer to his wife as "mom". He sounds like he's from Massachusetts to me, dunno if that convention is common there or not.

As for the seat belt, he's a large guy sitting in the back seat of a vehicle, where the width between belt and buckle can be pretty narrow. Could be that when he sat down with plenty of slack he could get the thing buckled, but then after riding the belt ratcheted down on him to such an extent that it placed him over the buckle so he can't just easily unbuckle it. The retractor that keeps the belt tight in modern cars often seems very overzealous to me, often making it hard to pull out some slack even when the car is parked and turned off.

...So, maybe you're right and the guy is just dumb as a post. To me, it sounded like a slightly grumpy/annoyed dude stuck under a seat belt that had locked in a very tight configuration that didn't allow for much movement. A situation made worse (to him) because it sounded to me like he didn't want to be in the car at all and the person who I interpreted to be his wife probably ordered him to wear his seat belt when he would have to just go without...

I dunno. I could certainly be wrong.

This MUST be fake. There's no way a person could live as long as he has and be this dumb. He would have drowned looking up at a rain storm by now.
It's looking like leaning slightly to the left would let him out of the situation which must have been difficult to get him into. I don't believe for a second that he's really 'stuck' in any way. How is his elderly mom supposed to have strapped him in without clicking the seat belt in the first place?

If this is real, it's a terrible concept.
For this to work, it needs a seriously powerful industrial robot arm, which cost tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. That means it's only feasible for amusement rides, if that. because it flips upside down and relies completely on seat belts to keep you in it, they'll never put it in a setting where they'll be liable if you fall out, so won't be in amusement parks. To me, that means they have no client that would purchase this device, if it even exists. Looks fun, but also looks unrealistic.

The thing is, even with the mistakes, you're still better off trusting the system.

When wearing seat belts became a legal requirement in the UK a lot of people argued that in some crashes not wearing a seatbelt allowed the person to escape the car faster and not get burned to death, or that it allowed them to be thrown from the vehicle to land safely while the car flew over a cliff and so on and so on. Yes, there will be some cases where the seat belt kills you. Every crash is different. That's not a reason to not wear a seatbelt though. In the vast majority of cases it will be beneficial to you and you don't know what type of crash you're gong to have before you have it.

Doctors make mistakes, yes. But the very fact that people are living longer and longer, and survival rates for just about all diseases are increasing shows that they make way more good calls than bad.

I understand your point that we probably shouldn't just blindly trust what a person in power tells us, but the media (ever keen for controversy) have put across this idea that the doctors have their opinion and you have yours, and they're equally valid. They aren't.

Question the doctors by all means, that's fine, but when you get an answer backed up with mountains and mountains of real evidence you need to accept it. Unless of course you can produce good quality peer review evidence to counter their evidence, then you have my attention.

The big issue here is scientific illiteracy amongst the general population. People are mislead by the press at every turn and don't understand how scientific research works. The fact that in America chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee wrote a book denying climate change is mindblowing. The message it sends about ignoring science is horrific.

I can't help but think things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. Until the press stop creating problems like the antivax movement and start reporting science properly we're just going to go further and further down the rabbit hole.

(My post is written to the world at large, I'm pretty sure Digitalfiend understands my point. I just used his post as a bit of a jumping off point for my rant!)

Yes, millions of unvaccinated peopled did survive, and still do. Congratulations to you and your son for being among those.

But millions have also died. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, about 2.6 million people died of measles. [1] In 2013, about 145,000 people still died from measles globally, most under the age of 5.

I know people who smoked but did not get lung cancer. I know people who do not wear a seat belt but have not died in a car accident. These anecdotes do not bring back the millions of people whose early death could have been prevented. Easily prevented.

[1] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

Term insurance pays out about 4% of their policies. Of course, that's why term is so cheap.

Most people don't understand insurance. Saw on another board some dope who thought insurance companies would want risk increased. That makes no sense at all. The reason we all have to wear seat belts is because of insurance companies.

could've jumped out real quick, not wearing a seat belt might have been an advantage

When you make ridiculous claims like "he was just being a good guy cop trying to help", I see nothing wrong or argumentative in pointing out where you made your mistake in logic thinking that might be the case.

"Huge dissertations of bullshit arguing into thin air."
Well! If that's not the pot calling the kettle black! LOL!!!!

You must have replied without reading the entire post. I thought my last paragraph illustrated clearly why THIS cop was not 'being a good guy helping' as you wish to think. That does not mean it doesn't happen, or even that it's not the norm, it means it wasn't happening this time. I'm sorry if that's a difficult concept for me to properly illustrate.

It is a cop's job to find crime. They often find it where none exists. In order to protect yourself AND honor your ancestor's sacrifices, intelligent and patriotic people exorcize their rights and remain silent. Every time. My grandfather, the successful lawyer, taught me that. It's not paranoid any more than wearing your seat belt is paranoid.


Bad day?

Congratulations! Your comment on Seat belt violatiation ends w/ Police Smash Window and Taser has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!

Stopped for Seat belt violation. As far as i can tell they wouldn't get out of the car when asked to. Passenger did nothing as far as i can tell. He gave them id from what it seems when they asked.

So many things wrong with this argument...

A. I don't see politicians going around shooting people with guns, so what on earth does this have to do with the topic?!
B. Yes, yes, we have an epidemic of children getting killed with explosives right now. No, that's right... we have school SHOOTINGS... you know... WITH GUNS! And what do we do about crazy people with explosives?! Have everyone else carry explosives?!
C. Yes, you are correct... not everyone just wants your TV. Yes, in some cases, they're psychopaths, and you'd be better off with a gun than society having sweeping gun control. Also, in a small fraction of car accidents, wearing a seat belt could actually kill you, too.

Do you see the problem with your argument? The very fact that we all can get guns so easily, and the fact they are so pervasive increases the chances of someone having a gun who would like to attack you, and you having a gun doesn't make up for that increased chance. So you can site individual situations all you want, but statistics are readily available that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that sweeping gun control does overall make you safer.
D. Pretty sure his argument wasn't that we need gun control with our military.
E. It's naive of you to believe you're "protecting yourself" by owning a gun, when we know society is safer with sweeping gun control.