Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 16:55:46 -0700
Reply-To: BenT Syncro <syncro@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: BenT Syncro <syncro@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Don't forget your seatbelt
In-Reply-To: <4DE03223.7000002@charter.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I've done that in a car. Us, 55mph. The other vehicle, 85mph. Other driver, intoxicated. He punted the tiny little 911 Targa so corkscrewed twice before hitting a small tree which flipped it end over and upside down. Everything in the car was destroyed. Not a scratch in yours truly. I did take care to hold my hand 'up' before releasing the belt whilst upside down.
Seatbelts? Yep, "...good stuff, Maynard."
BTW, this was during the 55mph period in our freeway's history. Had we been disobeying the posted speed limit like we did on the outbound drive, we wouldn't have gotten hit. Lack of speed sometimes kills. :-)
BenT
On May 27, 2011, at 4:22 PM, John Rodgers <inua@CHARTER.NET> wrote:
> If, like I have, you ever experience in an airplane, an unexpected,
> uncontrolled outside loop down between the treetops - then you will
> never ever fail to remember to put on your seatbelt - EVER! no matter
> what kind of vehicle you are in!
>
> John
>
> John Rodgers
> Clayartist and Moldmaker
> 88'GL VW Bus Driver
> Chelsea, AL
> Http://www.moldhaus.com
>
>
> On 5/27/2011 5:28 PM, Dave Mcneely wrote:
>> fwiw, the insurance industry pushed the seat belt and (where applicable) helmet laws through. In states that passed, then repealed, helmet laws, the insurance industry strongly opposed the repeals. The insurance industry pushed for air bags, and has pushed for other safety related laws. Big Brother? A safety belt not only protects the person belted in, but gives drivers an added margin of control when they are not pelted by passengers flying about, and when they are still secured while engaged in emergency maneuvers. Thus, the seat belt protects not only the occupants of the car where they are belted in, but the lives and property of others.
>>
>> If I were an insurer, I would insert a clause to the effect that if a driver and passengers were not wearing safety belts when an accident occurred, the insurance would not apply except for liability, and then only at the minimum level required by law, regardless of the stated value of the policy. That would be clear up front at the sale of the policy.
>>
>> Society really does have a stake in protecting its citizens from the misbehavior of others.
>>
>> mcneely
>>
>> ---- Jeff Schwaia<vw.doka@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>> Before I rant, let me say that I always wear my seatbelt, just like I always
>>> wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle. That being said...
>>>
>>> I really hate the fact that big brother feels the need to legislate this
>>> crap. Perhaps it's the Libertarian in me, but I think it's BS. If I want
>>> to ride without a helmet, I should have every right to do so. The life I
>>> risk is my own. Same goes for seat belts.
>>>
>>> I know, I know, people love to chime in with who pays for your medical
>>> expenses, etc., if you get hurt. That's another issue altogether.
>>> Personally, I believe it's nothing more than another way to generate a
>>> revenue stream for our local governments.
>>>
>>> If it were really all about safety, then why not mandate helmets for cars?
>>> I can guarantee it would reduce the number of head injuries that occur in
>>> bad accidents (with or without seat belts).
>>>
>>> How about a Hans Device? That would sure take care of all those whiplash
>>> injuries!
>>>
>>> Four (or five) point harnesses? Left shoulder separation is common in car
>>> accidents due to the 3 point safety belt.
>>>
>>> END OF RANT
>>>
>>> Happy 3 day weekend!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Jeff
>> --
>> David McNeely
>>
>>
| 
