Because they have seatbelts to stop drivers flying out the windscreen and airbags to try and prevent their head hitting things it can still reach.

Obviously racing is far riskier, the same reason that no sensible motorcycle or mountain biker would fail to use suitable head protection.

Away from heavy traffic, I think a cycle helmet is probably not needed for a regular bicycle. However, I wouldn't be without one when sharing a road with vehicles (*shakes fist at evil buses*).

>> ^Deano:
Man's got a point about cars - why aren't they wearing helmets if it improves safety in the event of a crash? Racing drivers have them.

I have quite a few cyclist friends here in the UK, and all of them wear a helmet and it's never an issue. I always wear one too, and feel wrong being on a bike without one in just the same way as I feel uncomfortable in a car without a seatbelt on. This really does seem to be a culture thing, and a local culture thing at that.

>> ^Kofi:

I love how he thinks that all laws come from some abstract evil power not to reflect changing social values. The same power that draws people to him is the same power that drew people to the civil rights act and the Jim Crow laws ... appeasing the vocal masses(not always the majority) to create stability.


This is the problem I have with Paul. If one person is wronged by a law but it helps thousands he will scrap it. It's just illogical, like driving without a seatbelt.

Dumbass. Seatbelt.

Oh, so that's why they make you wear your seatbelt till you arrive at the terminal!

are they not wearing seatbelts? in a convertible? ... god this is so fucking metal

Tags for this video have been changed from 'cowboy bebop, tank, anime, Yoko, Kanno, SeatBelts' to 'cowboy bebop, tank, anime, Yoko Kanno, SeatBelts' - edited by kronosposeidon

And I find it interesting that DFT chose to list the very base things that government in the US was supposedly created to defend as his reasons for justifying our current big government. Murder, slavery, robbery, rape, child molestation, etc. all fall within our basic rights of life and liberty.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" (U.S. Declaration of Independence)

But if this was only what government was currently protecting (only our lives and our liberties), then you'd not hear a word from me. Not a peep. But what part of "preventing" rape, murder, slavery, theft, etc. comes from me paying for unjust wars, paying for bombing women and children, paying to militarize the domestic police, seatbelt laws, interstate border patrol, DUI laws, etc.?

And if I do NOT consent, then it's "get the hell out" from the apologists.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, gambling is a shitty metaphor for credit default swaps.

The only thing that credit default swaps do is create a mechanism for transferring risk. To state the obvious to obscenity, it doesn't force anyone to take that risk, certis parabis it doesn't inflate the overall amount of risk that banks or lenders take on and then resell unless there are willing 3rd parties people to take on that risk from them.

The fact is, credit default swaps were a financial innovation. Anyone who makes any form of investment from 'risk-free' government bonds to venture capital is exposed to some degree of risk, and just like how most industries producing physical goods specialise in products, it makes sense that those who are particularly good at analyzing risk would be given the opportunity to analyse good investments and take on that risk for them if they were confident that they would not fail, or vice versa.

THAT was where the problem started. Simply put, the likes of AIG did not correctly factor in the probability of house prices falling. They sucked at what they were supposed to specialise in. In the end moral hazard, ultimately the critical importance of a massive international insurer among other financial firms in keeping the world economy puttering along was what required them to be bailed out.

Ironically though it turned out that while companies like AIG were terrible at risk management - government regulation, prudential supervision and policies for dealing with delinquent banks were worse, which ultimately meant the buck was passed down to taxpayers and so on ...

Now, how you can turn those simple facts on their head and blame a financial instrument that is designed to manage risk is beyond me.

It's like blaming a seatbelt you didn't use in a car accident.

Upvote. This is a PSA for wearing your seatbelt.

Is it wrong that I noticed, the "helpful" driver isn't wearing his seatbelt?

Someone wasn't wearing their seatbelt.

Seatbelts - Use one next time!

I think they build the cars to crumple up like that and absorb the impact instead of coming to a complete and instant halt - and flinging the passengers even further. >> ^zeoverlord:

>> ^radx:
Do they build the A-pillar on the passenger side out of pudding or why does it collapse this easily? Might be preferable to not wear a seatbelt and be ejected from this death trap after all ...

it could be that the entire car is coming down on it, but if you take a looksie again you will notice that it didn't completely collapse, in fact if you take a look at the clips from inside the card you will see that it's not that bad, save for the whole ejecting of the passengers due to them not having seat belts.

^yeah, they failed to try seatbelts.