'04 Prius involved in fatal accident

"unreasonable search and seizure?"

there is no longer such a thing in this country...why is that??

can we all say PATRIOT ACT??

 

I hate to sound cold hearted, but I also thought DARWIN when I first read the article. To me, the whole thing read like a bad SNL skit, where the participants try to do as many stupid things as possible, all at once (no license, no driving experience, no supervision, no permission to take the car, PLUS alcohol). I'm actually a bit surprised no one in the car was playing with loaded firearms. I just hope that their classmates all learn to be not-morons. God knows society needs more people who are not-morons.

I think that'd be ideal, but the problem is that accident costs extend far beyond medical costs afterward. We spend ten thousand dollars per student, each year, on secondary education. For those who went to college and grad school, the investment is even higher. That's an investment in the future, when these kids are suppose to be paying taxes and contributing back to society. That's why its in the government's interest to keep as many citizens alive as possible. As such, seatbelts should be mandatory.

Once again, in a perfect world, a drivers license test would be about 5 times harder than it currently is. I think I've said this before, but in Maryland, its a closed course road test. With a few days practice, I'm quite certain I could do it with my eyes closed. If the states actually stepped up difficulty, it would:
-get bad drivers off the road
-lower insurance and medical costs for everyone
-reduce traffic congestion
-lower demand on fuel
-reduce air pollution
-ease the burden on police, ambulance, medivac and emergency room workers
There's just so many positives; its really too bad no politician will ever have the stomach to do it.

 

They've done this for years here in Canada. The cops just sit at an intersection or on the exit from a highway and look into cars (they usually use polarized sunglasses so they can "see through" the windshield more easily).

If they see you without a belt on, they wave you over and give out a ticket.

Just for the record, I've worn a belt in a car ever since I was a child. Feels naked to drive without one. When I'm driving, I won't move the car until everyone in the car has their belt fastened.

Dave

 

Ditto. It use to feel restraining, but now its incredibly uncomfortable to drive without one; especially with the knowledge that I'd fly through the windshield if I didn't wear one. One of the two things my driving instructor taught me (the other being parallel parking) was that its the drivers responsibility to make sure everyone has their seatbelts fastened.

On another note, I'm waiting for the survivor to wake up and say: "we were trying to recreate something we saw in Grand Theft Auto," thus dumping all personal responsibility and parenting responsibilities onto the lap of the entertainment industry.

 

I seem to remember a lot of angry people last year when Massachusetts proposed (and I believe passed by a very slim margin) a law allowing officers to pull people over for not wearing seatbelts-- not as a secondary offense.

 

Unreasonable search and seizure goes back at least to the War On Drugs ™. The PATRIOT Act just widens the scope and vividness of the underlying unconstitutionality. But driving is a privilege, not a right, so seatbelt laws are perfectly fine.

Obligatory Prius content: all things considered the body of that Prius held up pretty well, didn't it?

 

The only complaint I have ever had about seat belts is that being short the belt on most cars would usually land somewhere around my neck. Thankfully, the Prius has an adjustable height for this. It is the first car that I've owned that has this feature.

 

the fact is, your seat belt usage IS IN PLAIN SIGHT that is why the law works. when you have people complaining that they were pulled over for alledgedly not wearing their seat belt when they actually were then you might have an argument.

OBTW, there have been several cases here when someone was caught by a cop using the "random vehicle check" method. This method is popular late at night when there is minimal traffic on the road. The cop will run a vehicle check on a plate just to see if the registered driver has warrants, license suspension, etc. The courts have ruled in favor of the cop in all cases even after the cop admited singling out a vehicle based solely on the registration check.

Mind you they could not pull over the vehicle based on that, but as one cop said, 95% of all drivers will do something wrong eventually. Granted it would not be something we would normally pull someone over for, but the law is the law.

 

Looking on a possible brighter side, what part did the Prius and its safety features play in saving the lives of three of the five occupants? Especially when hit by a truck, not even an SUV?

 

i think its a huge credit to Toyota that anyone survived that crash.

 

I never said that people shouldn't wear seat belts, I just said that it shouldn't necessarily be a law. The point you made is valid though. If it's going to cost the government more money to pay medical bills than it is to enforce a seat belt law, then by all means, make it mandatory. This would fall under my "only if it affects other people" theory (i.e. the taxpayer paying for bad drivers' medical bills).

 

:argue: :argue: :argue: :argue:
ENOUGH ALREADY :!:
Ya all have lost it :!:
Is it not bad enough that people have lost their lives! Can we just agree to disagree and let it go :?: :!:
:computer: :wave:

 

bad history , i've lost some frinds in car accidents and i khow with difficoult it's.
so , they are in 5 in the car and the driver have 15 years ? but , but in Usa you can drive at 15 years age ?
I knew that limit is 16 years , not 15 !|
Here in italy at 14 years you can drive 50cc motorcycles , at 16 years you can drive 125 cc motorcycles with a maximum output of 15 Hp , at 18 years you have the driving licence.
Now we have a new road code and if the police catch you driving without safety belt you lost 5 points on your driving licence. We now have 20 points , every infraction cause a point defiance. 10 points for driving drunk , 5 points for driving without safty belts etc etc . when you lost all points you must sustain another driving course and driving exame.

 

Dang! sorry i got here late! good discussion. even with the rants..

i grew up and got my driver's license (at 17 in NJ in 1962) before seatbelts were even standard or mandated in cars at all.

when i got my first car of my own in '69, it had lap and shoulder belts. it also had a side-beam in the door (one of the first) and a roll-bar integral with the chassis.

i got so comfortable with the seatbelt/shoulderbelt combination, it felt "naked" to move the car from the driveway into the garage without buckling up!

i've used them ever since, was even won over to the idea that airbags were a good idea, rather than just another gummint intrusion into my life, and sought out a car with at least ABS, let alone other active compensation stuff, before i chose the Prius.

again, as many have said, pulling in front of a tractor trailer and having anyone survive is quite a testimonial to Toyota, though i don't remember any comment about how fast the truck was traveling at the time. i witnessed someone being killed by a tractor-trailer when they pulled in front of one going nearly 50mph, and probably not more than 30 feet in front of the truck. the driver of the car was killed; his wife was seriously injured but lived (they were "older folks", probably in their 70s or 80s), and the truck driver was acquitted. i was the guy who phoned 911. i'd taught myself to "run the other way" from an accident to get help, and it paid off for the woman in the passenger's seat. the ambulance arrived very quickly after the accident.

finally, as to laws and patriot acts, and things like that, maybe we should have a thread in one of the other areas...

imnsho, most of the arguments about costs, responsibility, burden, etc., for seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, drunk driving, etc., could be solved with the stroke of a pen:

any person who can be proved to have not worn a seatbelt, helmet, or proven to have above-limit alcohol in their body automatically grants their insurance company a waiver of having to pay for any of their after-accident expenses. victims can sue for damages, restitution, etc., but insurance companies can choose to be "off the hook."

would that be a motivator to 1) not do those stupid things, 2) have insurance paid by the rest of the family to an insurance company to cover their own needs if one of the other family members is injured, killed, or put out of work due to the actions of another?

i'm coming from the "take responsibility for your own actions and their results" side, obviously, but who would drink and drive or not wear protective gear if they knew their insurance wouldn't cover them ?!

ps.
it's probably folklore or urban legend, but as the story goes, the Swedish Police was/were quoted as saying that "they never had to cut off the seatbelt from someone who was killed in an auto accident."

and i hope the other kids recover fully. it's going to be a painful loss to everyone involved, from the driver to the person who was in the front passenger's seat.

 

I have a friend who was in one of those unlikely accidents where (according to himself) he'd have been killed had he been wearing a seat belt. (The seat of the car came loose from the floor!)

So one day we were going to go somewhere and we got into my car, and I said cheerfully, as I always do, "Buckle up, please." He refused. I told him I don't start the car until everyone is buckled up. We sat there for about 5 minutes, and finally agreed that we weren't going anywhere. He got out of the car and we went our separate ways.

I only ever rode in his car once. I felt he did not drive safely, and refused ever to get in his car again. So taking his car was not an option.

I was glad when ND finally passed a seat belt law, because when I demand that my passengers buckle up I can give the excuse that I don't want to get a ticket. But what I really don't want is a dead passenger in case of an accident.

I'm not certain, but I think it's only a secondary law here in ND. But still, the fact that there is a law gives the consciencious driver an added argument when faced with a reluctant passenger.

My friend is still alive. He is a skilled but reckless driver.