Seat Belt: Will You Get Ticketed If You Show Medical Exemption?
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Turning around in neighbor's driveway
Next: How many treadwear miles do we REALLY get for every 100 UTQG points?
From: DYM on 21 Jul 2007 15:43 Harry K <turnkey4099(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:1184937522.829526.38160 @q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > On Jul 19, 9:45 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) > wrote: >> In article <5sc0a3tdef1psjg8q1vhf6399rh44me...(a)4ax.com>, >> Scott en Aztl�n <newsgroup> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>Yes, they are. >> >> >I probably wouldn't mind if people refused to wear seat belts. Like >> >motorcycle helmets, not wearing them tends to be a self-curing >> >problem. However, the costs associated with your "rescue" and medical >> >care are borne by the rest of us who DO take proper precautions, and I >> >find that very objectionable. >> >> Then object to those imposing the costs. Once such costs become a >> valid reason for restricting activities, there is no limit on what can >> be restricted. > > ??? Somebody doesn't wear a belt, ejects, major injuries and you > expect the rescue units and medical facilities not to charge for their > time/equipment? Weird. > > Harry K > We've got local ambulance units that are closing thier squads because they are not getting paid by the insurance companies. So, yes, they charge, but it's difficult to collect. BTW, most are voluntee like the FDs. Doug
From: Harry K on 22 Jul 2007 15:05 On Jul 20, 7:26 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <1184937522.829526.38...(a)q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >On Jul 19, 9:45 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) > >wrote: > >> In article <5sc0a3tdef1psjg8q1vhf6399rh44me...(a)4ax.com>, > >> Scott en Aztl=E1n <newsgroup> wrote: > > >> >>Yes, they are. > > >> >I probably wouldn't mind if people refused to wear seat belts. Like > >> >motorcycle helmets, not wearing them tends to be a self-curing > >> >problem. However, the costs associated with your "rescue" and medical > >> >care are borne by the rest of us who DO take proper precautions, and I > >> >find that very objectionable. > > >> Then object to those imposing the costs. Once such costs become a > >> valid reason for restricting activities, there is no limit on what can > >> be restricted. > > >??? Somebody doesn't wear a belt, ejects, major injuries and you > >expect the rescue units and medical facilities not to charge for their > >time/equipment? Weird. > > Rescue units? Medical facilities? If they can't pay for them, sweep them off > the road and bury them in a pauper's grave. Don't like that? Fine, > provide rescue and medical -- but don't try to use your squeamishness > as an excuse to control other's behavior. > -- > There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can > result in a fully-depreciated one.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Squeamishness? I have no problem with your approach but you might note the "not charge" bit above? If they don't charge how can they know they won't be paid? Or do you expect them to collect on the scene somehow? Logic not one of your strong points? Harry K
From: Harry K on 22 Jul 2007 15:07 On Jul 21, 12:43 pm, DYM <d...(a)enter.net> wrote: > Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:1184937522.829526.38160 > @q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 9:45 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) > > wrote: > >> In article <5sc0a3tdef1psjg8q1vhf6399rh44me...(a)4ax.com>, > >> Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote: > > >> >>Yes, they are. > > >> >I probably wouldn't mind if people refused to wear seat belts. Like > >> >motorcycle helmets, not wearing them tends to be a self-curing > >> >problem. However, the costs associated with your "rescue" and medical > >> >care are borne by the rest of us who DO take proper precautions, and > I > >> >find that very objectionable. > > >> Then object to those imposing the costs. Once such costs become a > >> valid reason for restricting activities, there is no limit on what can > >> be restricted. > > > ??? Somebody doesn't wear a belt, ejects, major injuries and you > > expect the rescue units and medical facilities not to charge for their > > time/equipment? Weird. > > > Harry K > > We've got local ambulance units that are closing thier squads because > they are not getting paid by the insurance companies. So, yes, they > charge, but it's difficult to collect. BTW, most are voluntee like the > FDs. > > Doug- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yep, even with tax revenue they are having a hard time keeping head above water. Dunno about out where you are but here there are tax districts to pay part of the cost but patients (or their insurance) are also charged. Harry K
From: Harry K on 22 Jul 2007 15:09 On Jul 21, 7:05 am, Scott en Aztlán <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> said in rec.autos.driving: > > >>If I had some sort of medical condition which prevented me from > >>wearing a seat belt, I wouldn't drive. No sense getting dead over a > >>medical condition. > > >Wouldn't _drive_? You couldn't even ride in a car - passengers are just as > >liable to get killed as the driver. > > Depends. For example, if I ride in the back of an ambulance, AFAIK I > don't even have the option of wearing a seatbelt, yet I wouldn't > refuse to ride in one if I needed to. > -- > MFFYCam Videos Galore:http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/http://slothkills.blip.tv/ Not a seatbelt as such but as a patient you would be strapped to the gurney which is locked to the floor. Granted not very safe in a crash. Harry K
From: Rob on 22 Jul 2007 15:29
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:06:44 -0700, Scott en Aztl�n <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in ca.driving: > >>>I really never understood why many people prefer driving without using >>>their seat belt. Modern car seat belts are not uncomfortable to use >> >>Yes, they are. > >I probably wouldn't mind if people refused to wear seat belts. Like >motorcycle helmets, not wearing them tends to be a self-curing >problem. However, the costs associated with your "rescue" and medical >care are borne by the rest of us who DO take proper precautions, and I >find that very objectionable. > >If you refuse to wear a seat belt, you should also lose all rights to >publicly-funded emergency services and/or publicly-funded medical >care. As long as it doesn't increase my costs, feel free to give >Darwin a helping h Something I've always wondered about. Taken from the below link. "It�s been proved that while seat belts save lives they can also cause injuries! Since the introduction of Seat Belt Legislation the incidence of Soft Tissue injury has increased an astonishing 21% " http://ezinearticles.com/?Low-Speed-Impact-Injury-Facts&id=9207 Since low impact crashes are substantially more numerous than high speed collisions, it makes me wonder what really does cost more when all is said and done. I wonder if there has ever been a truly unbiased and non-politcally motivated study done on this. ------------------------------------------------- Instead of wasting your free time on the Internet. Make a little free cash while your at it. http://www.topgetpaid.com/ |