• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

Cell phone/ Seat belt sting

Using the same logic, if you have so little concern for oneself and others you should not:
Ride a motorcycle, bicycle, skateboard, ATV, Ski, waterski, own a gun, cross the street, use rollerskates, hangglide, it goes on and on, and on.

We have so many regulations in this country, we have no freedom left. I don't wear a seatbelt because I have been in 3 automobile accidents during my lifetime that would have killed me had I been wearing one. So it's my CHOICE not to wear one. Remember when we used to have choices ?

Ken

+1. Thank you for that, Ken.
 
Using the same logic, if you have so little concern for oneself and others you should not:
Ride a motorcycle, bicycle, skateboard, ATV, Ski, waterski, own a gun, cross the street, use rollerskates, hangglide, it goes on and on, and on.

We have so many regulations in this country, we have no freedom left. I don't wear a seatbelt because I have been in 3 automobile accidents during my lifetime that would have killed me had I been wearing one. So it's my CHOICE not to wear one. Remember when we used to have choices ?

Ken

Ken, could you describe in some detail those three auto accidents where a wearing a seat belt would have killed you? I'm sure you know that the general take (with lots of statistics) is that seat belts, especially with air bags, has lead to a much lower death total in auto accidents. You clearly have experienced exactly the opposite and I am sure I am not the only one who would like your take on this matter.

BTW, I was not supporting the BC seat belt law. I just found it strange they found so many more drivers in violation of this law than the hand-held cell phone law.

I also agree with another poster that "hands-free" cell phones are almost as distracting as the hand held ones. Just another badly written law (I'm sure intentionally) and only occasionally enforced.
 
We have all (or most of us anyway) railed against the use of cell phones by drivers, those folks distractedness, etc.- so I won't be the one to disagree with a "sting" that targets cell phone users. On the contrary, I applaud such an effort.

Seatbelt use? Right up there with the argument for helmet use. Smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, and other potentially unhealthy lifestyle choices all sorta fall under the same category- but I'll leave all the above to another thread or time.
Everyone has an opinion and the right to make their own choices about these things. Their rights and freedoms MAY come into question or under scrutiny IF their CHOICE leads to the death of another. Yet I agree most of all that we NEED to have the choice... Often, these laws are written and enforced by those who either have no idea what it's like down here in the "real world", or those who abuse the laws themselves because they ARE The Law.

Mojo Nixon once sang:
"Psychedelic mushrooms, chain saws, and guns... Gotta make your own reg-u-la-SHUNs"
There's an old bumper sticker that says it more succinctly-
"Keep YOUR laws off MY body".
 
In the minority?

I guess I may be. While I would prefer everyone choose to wear a seat belt or helmet, it doesn't happen. As said above, not a big deal if the rest of us did not have to pick up the tab of unnecessary severe trauma care or long term care due to those decisions. But, here we are, sharing the cost so that such costs do not totally wipe any one individual out financially. Hence, the requirement for a safety belt or helmet if you Choose to operate the associated vehicle, which as also stated is not a right but a privilege. Another way to deal with the cost issue that I might be okay with would be to allow insurance companies to have a different statistically validated rate for those who choose not to wear a helmet or a seat belt. And with that, if a person with a safety device use policy is in an accident and found NOT using the device (helmet or belt) called for in their insurance policy/contract, then the policy can be voided. The problem with that would be to drastically increase the suddenly uninsured, so probably not acceptable either. I guess I look at these two particular requirements for legalling operating a vehicle to be an effort to protect us from other people and their stupidity, not as protecting me from my own stupidity. Protecting me from my neighbor's stupidity, whether I want it or not, helps keep all of our insurance rates lower than they otherwise would be, or so the reasoning goes.
 
health care expenses

If the Canadian seat belt law was enacted in order to reduce health care expenses
then I worry for the future. I suppose the next step will be to deny treatment to anyone who is OVERWEIGHT
as they are the greatest drain on the entire system. Starting with a myriad of intestinal disorders and moving on to damaged and worn out joints and muscles, not to mention the HUGE cardiac issues.
Life is not fair.....then you die.
 
Heap it on as one more damned-if-you-do situation that is dragging us down. I am all for freedom of choice, but if individuals in our society continue to make terrible choices we are just going to continue sinking. I'm kind of torn on the subject, since living in California I feel the constant need to protect my gun rights while acknowledging that the proliferation of guns in our country DOES make it easier for psychos to get their hands on one. What is the solution? Concise and appropriate legislation and regulation. Do I think that is possible in our political system? No.

As for seatbelts and helmets, I do believe you should have a choice...and you do. I think an occasional fine for possibly taking up an ICU bed for two weeks on life support before your family finally pulls the plug and the expense gets passed onto the next patient due to lack of insurance isn't so bad. Maybe we can come up with some convoluted scheme where you have to show proof of a certain level of medical insurance or otherwise a DNR/DNI in order to get permission to go without your helmet or seatbelt.

Like most debated issues, I feel the best path is the middle of the road. California is interesting with mandated helmets and seatbelts while having legalized lane splitting for us motorcycles. I always wear my seatbelt, helmet, etc., but I also always lane split. I know that it is inherently more dangerous, but I just can't help myself. I assume others have the same feeling towards wearing their seatbelt or popping on a helmet. To each their own. I think the best investment is in teaching good morals, common sense and critical thinking.
 
I think it boils down to those folks think they should have the freedom to choose wether they wear a seatbelt or not.

I'd much rather see a stricter punishment for drinking and cell phone use than for seat belts. If you don't wear your seatbelt it does not affect me. Honestly I'd rather see people who don't want to wear them not wear them. No skin off my nose and it might help cleanse the gene pool. But drunk driving and cell use can directly affect me when you slam into me cause you didn't see me due to your cell phone usage or you passed out at the wheel while driving drunk.


Mull this over: My wife who is known for her many great attributes is a reluctant seatbelt wearer.We have tried pads,clips,etc. to make them more comfortable yet she only wears them to avoid the bell. I've tried it all to get her to be an automatic wearer. Were it not for the really obnoxious bell alarm in our latest SAV she would avoid them often. One of my cousins(not particularly known for his mental gifts) worked on an ambulance for a few yrs after returning from the war as a medic & he was one of the non believers in seat belts-claimed it was safer to be thrown from the car rather than trapped inside where the damage occurred.
I'm not ticked off at your statement r.e., "cleansing the gene pool" but it is a clearly obnoxious way to make your point about using a safety device that does in fact affect us all via personal loss and/or insurance rates. Find a better way to make your point. I'm exactly the same on cell use,seat belts & helmets-I think it ought to be the law. Your right about passive devices vs. active safety devices/practices not being the same thing- until your dead!
 
Last edited:
It comes to mind, how did our forebearers ever get to where they needed to be without great overseers telling them what to do, where to go, what eat etc.? We may have smoked plenty in the past, ridden our pants off through the middle of the night, took risks in hand, buried our dead without oncologists hovering, and never thought twice about cell phones and PSAs. Never had a seat belt until my brother installed a set in our '63 Chevy. Never used one until '68 in my Volvo. Natural selection used to be a way of life. Had to look out for yerself in the not too distant past. Just a thought or two.

Running ones "beltless car" into a tree while drunk is "natural selection"? :banghead Our forebears had short life expectancies based on lots of things & machines & phones not even in the mix of dangers then.:banghead
I'm one of those lucky ones too, like several that have posted here while alluding to behaviors(and other dangerous experiences) of the past that we & our society tolerated,etc., & I can go the religious route now to explain my still being around(not allowed here) or I can say it's my luck of the draw(allowed here) and I'm thankful either way. I've done my share of looking out for myself & will continue.:) Arrest them all!
 
California is interesting with mandated helmets and seatbelts while having legalized lane splitting for us motorcycles. I always wear my seatbelt, helmet, etc., but I also always lane split. I know that it is inherently more dangerous, but I just can't help myself. .

Hijack:
Um, what evidence do you have lane splitting is more dangerous? When I lived in LA I took a safety class run by motor cops, and they taught us to lane split. They said it was safer, and they had some sort of stats to support that. In a nutshell, when you lane split, your main task is negotiating a (somewhat) obstacle course at a relative speed of 10-15mph to the "obstacles", with almost zero chance of being rear ended. On the other hand, riding in accordion-like stop-and-go traffic leaves you bored out of your mind staying off the car in front of you. At the same time you have ZERO chance to know at which time the cage behind you isn't gonna stop because they are messing with their music, eating, dropping a roach, grabbing a lighter, putting on makeup, having intimacies, changing clothes, reading a book, texting, etc etc , all the things I have seen people do (while lane splitting!) to make efficient use of their (usually lengthy) commute time. You have no active defense against the main risk. And if your response to all that is to futiley watch your mirror more and more, then you will rear end someone!
Please do lane split; don't become the ham in a metal and plastic automobile sandwich. Count your blessings; here in NV it is illegal, with chances of a law change just about nil. And remember, lane splitting is not expressly legal in CA; it is just not expressly prohibited. The legality of it stems from the apparently passing basic idea that free people do what they wish unless it is specifically prohibited; the "new" thinking being fostered is moving towards a slave mentality, where we must seek explicit permission before doing something.
Hijack off:
In practice the cell phone is a much greater risk to others than the lack of a seat belt. The statistics are there that the "cell" drivers are just as impaired as the drunks. There would be a very good case to require the CA firearm transport laws be applied to cell phones: locked and disabled in the trunk.
As to the seat belts, sometimes I wish that were the only safety device in the cages; no air bags. The act of using it perhaps puts one in a more "safety oriented" frame of mind. And the prolifertion of passive safety air bags quite frankly seems to make the current crop of cage left front seat occupants increasingly lazy and sloppy, relying more and more on devices and regulations, to the exclusion of their own (too puny?) skills . Safety is becoming "someone else's" job.
 
...I always wear my seatbelt, helmet, etc., but I also always lane split. I know that it is inherently more dangerous, but I just can't help myself...

The articles/studies I've seen have found that lane splitting is safer, not more dangerous. So enjoy it with a clear conscience. I wish we could here in Missouri.
 
From the recently released CHP lane splitting "guidelines" ( http://www.chp.ca.gov/programs/lanesplitguide.html ):

- At just 20 mph, in the 1 or 2 seconds it takes a rider to identify a hazard, that rider will travel approximately 30 to 60 feet before even starting to take evasive action. Actual reaction (braking or swerving) will take additional time and distance.

I believe this is fairly accurate. Combine this with the amazing ability cars have to swerve in the worst possible direction at the last second and I think that does make lane splitting more dangerous than moving at the speed of traffic. In stopped traffic I also believe sitting behind a car is asking to be rear ended. These all fall into the dangers of riding a motorcycle in general, and I don't believe they are dramatically riskier than driving a car. I tend to ride just above the speed of traffic and I lane split and I commute approx 80 miles a day four days a week. So far in my mind this seems to be the safest way to ride, combined with choosing a route with the least traffic. Every time I lane split I recognize the possibility of a car jumping out directly in front of me in a situation where I have nowhere to go and no time to stop. I guess that's on par with being rear ended as it's usually from a driver who is paying no attention and not looking in their mirrors before they change lanes.

I agree that cellphones are a huge cause of distracted driving and accidents, but I think they are in a different class from seatbelts. While cellphones may cause more accidents, seatbelts are a limiter of damages in an accident, very similar to wearing a helmet on a motorcycle and the statistics really back it up. Just googling a random study (ironically one about the dangers of airbags) gave a 67% reduction in fatalities from seatbelt usage. Airbags generally seem to help, but also cause damage at low speeds and need refinement. The other big factor in modern cars are their crumple zones. Wearing seatbelts combined with the crumple zones has allowed people to walk away from accidents that in the past would have been guaranteed deadly. No seatbelt, and you typically get hurled out a window and thrown to the pavement at whatever speed you were travelling (imagine getting tossed out of a building from 50 yards up). I have been pulling people out of wrecked cars for about 10 years now and usually the dead ones were the ones with no seatbelt on.
 
Killem' ALL!

Okay, I really haven't been paying much attention to this thread. That changed about forty minutes ago. I am now a foaming-at-the-mouth-hunt-them-down-kill-them-and-eat-them supporter of cell phone bans while operating a motor vehicle.

Rant: ON
rant.gif


I was on the way home on my /5 and passed under the freeway overpass headed to the freeway on-ramp. There is a left turn lane under the overpass, and I had the left turn arrow. My path is shown by the green line in the photo.

Soccer-cow (represented by the red line in the photo) comes down the hill toward the intersection in the turn lane, catches a GREEN light (#1), makes a right turn, and proceeds to head under the overpass. Problem is, she doesn't see the RED light (#2) that controls the intersection between light #1, and the over pass. You can just see the white limit line in front of the white car in the photo (not her).

I'm leaned over and committed to the turn, tailing behind a the car in front of me (also entering the freeway) and my maneuvering space is restricted. I glance up in time to see soccer-cow, displaying the classic gesture of oh-my-God-I'm-going-to-die!, throw up both hands (off of the steering wheel) as if to protect her head and proceed (now out of control (unless she's steering with her knees)) through the intersection ... and what is that that she has in her right hand? Why, it's acell phone. I'm sure she must have been talking on it, why else would she have it in her hand? Her yakking friend, in the right seat, is clueless to what going on outside the windshield. I catch an opening and manage to narrowly avoid her right front fender.

If there had been no children in the van I would have followed her home and given her a very healthy piece of my mind. She was obviously thoroughly distracted by kids in the back, her girlfriend in the right front seat, while talking on her bloody cellphone. She's endangering the public, her children, and is a bad influence on them; they will grow up thinking they too can drive while not thinking about it. I don't talk on the phone when I drive my POV, I don't use a hands-free device while on my bike, and I sure as h3ll don't use either while I'm behind the wheel of a 75,000 pound semi (I have a Class A license).

In California it is against the law to drive a motor vehicle while talking a handheld cellphone. Period. I think it should be illegal to talk on any device while driving. What more of an example of why it is illegal can there be? Texting... don't even go there.

Google Earth is great!

Intersection_zps0ebcecb5.jpg


As an aside, this type of road design has perplexed me since I moved to CA in 1978; Frontage/access roads are developed into arterial thoroughfares. Odd "short-coupled" intersections like this one are the result with little room for proper traffic control measures. But it no excuse for not paying attention.

Rant:OFF
 
Well, in answer to you perplex-ation, this is NOT a standard freeway interchange design. Yes there are some out there like this, but as a former Highway Design Manual editor and Design Coordinator for CT, this is NOT standard and is frought with minimum intersection spacing concerns as you noted..... I denied approval of several similar designs in that job but don't know the specifics of this non-standard situation. I do see a what appears to be a State route sign in the shot, that is unfortunate. But, as I said, that was a former position, don't do that no more, but it certainly is not considered 'standard'. (I think standard min spacing is 70')
 
Using the same logic, if you have so little concern for oneself and others you should not:
Ride a motorcycle, bicycle, skateboard, ATV, Ski, waterski, own a gun, cross the street, use rollerskates, hangglide, it goes on and on, and on.

We have so many regulations in this country, we have no freedom left. I don't wear a seatbelt because I have been in 3 automobile accidents during my lifetime that would have killed me had I been wearing one. So it's my CHOICE not to wear one. Remember when we used to have choices ?

Ken

So Ken, how many crashes have you been in where you were wearing a seat belt ? Or do you not wear one at any time.

Scotty
 
Scotty,

I do not usually wear them, and have never been in a crash while wearing one. If I'm going to sleep with someone else driving (on a trip) I will usually put one on.

Sorry for not responding to Bck rider, I just saw his post. I'm not going to post too many details, or make each story too long, but here you go:

The first was in about 1972 falling asleep and running off of Raton Pass headed North in Northern N.M. The road went straight for several miles while climbing a large hill. The road made a gradual left turn, and having nodded off, I did not. We flew probably 3-400 feet through the air, and hit a boulder easily as big as a house head on, throwing us both into the footwells. After hitting the boulder the car rolled over and over crashing on down the mountainside, smashing the top completely in past the top of the doors. Had we both not been "hiding" in the footwells, we would both have been killed.

Another was in 1970, driving a VW Greenhouse bus on Hiway 1 North of Big Sur. Car ran a stop, hit the passengers side front door which threw me to about the middle of the cab, but was able to hang onto the steering wheel. as the bus rolled on it's side then was hit by another car coming from the other direction. Again, had i been belted in the drivers seat, the second car to hit the bus would have smashed me.

The third was in a 1959 Austin Healey 100-6. Spun it going around a corner, hit a curb, climbed a telephone pole, and ended up sliding on top of a concrete retaining wall upside down. Had i stayed in the car, I'd be dead.

I don't deny that in certain situations, a seat belt may save your life, however I feel equally as strongly that in other situations, staying put will kill you. I choose not to wear one.

Ken
 
I do see a what appears to be a State route sign in the shot,

Arroyo Grande, California; Highway 101 @ Brisco Road. A problem intersection for years. You should see it at 5:00p.m.

North bound is to the upper left.

101BriscoRd_zps33a12afc.jpg
 
3 replies from the OP

#31 Natrab - I've never ridden or driven in California. All I know about lane-splitting is what I have read. I THOUGHT the idea was to ONLY lane-split when traffic was so jugged up, either stopped or moving so very slowly, that it would be impossible for a vehicle to swerve in front of you because there was no lane to which they could move. When the speed starts to pick up, you signal and somebody lets you back into a lane. Do I have that wrong? I've also read of a motojournalist who did it for 16 years in Washington DC and only received one ticket. This kind of commute would be "hell on earth" for me, but I can see how lane-splitting could make it a little better. (Better idea: Move!)

#32 Lew Morris - the "google earth" thing was great! And I'm so glad you came out OK. As the next poster with professional experience said, this looks like the kind of really badly designed intersection which WILL lead to crashes, even from fairly attentive motorists. Can you find a route which avoids this very dangerous intersection? But I'm completely with you on all kinds of cell phones. Don't use any kind on the road, tell your friend to shut up, and ignore the kids. MOMMY HAS TO CONCENTRATE NOW, even if she knows this weird road.

#35 Ken F - I thank you for your reply. Beyond that I'm, for once, speechless.
 
We have all (or most of us anyway) railed against the use of cell phones by drivers, those folks distractedness, etc.- so I won't be the one to disagree with a "sting" that targets cell phone users. On the contrary, I applaud such an effort.

Seatbelt use? Right up there with the argument for helmet use. Smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, and other potentially unhealthy lifestyle choices all sorta fall under the same category- but I'll leave all the above to another thread or time.
Everyone has an opinion and the right to make their own choices about these things. Their rights and freedoms MAY come into question or under scrutiny IF their CHOICE leads to the death of another. Yet I agree most of all that we NEED to have the choice... Often, these laws are written and enforced by those who either have no idea what it's like down here in the "real world", or those who abuse the laws themselves because they ARE The Law.

Mojo Nixon once sang:
"Psychedelic mushrooms, chain saws, and guns... Gotta make your own reg-u-la-SHUNs"
There's an old bumper sticker that says it more succinctly-
"Keep YOUR laws off MY body".
As an e.g., your saying chainsaws should not have anti kick back chains on consumer models nor chain brakes required by law but it's OK to build them that way? Guns same thought,different parts?
 
I'm with Lew all the way on this one. See this crap all the time; people are stupid and the guv'mint is too pansy to let Darwin do what's right. Sheeple and drones are the result.

Around here, the cops are also talking on their cell phones while driving. Maybe it's easier or less crowded than the radio, or better for local coordination of their tasks, but it ain't exactly comforting.

Even when I'm walking or riding my bicycle, there have been a more than few times when other pedestrians just walked right in to me, clearly because they are not paying attention. Just for fun, I've stopped ten feet away from them and watched as they walk toward me. "Duh??" It doesn't help any that parents and schools around here obviously don't teach kids how to cross a street either.
 
Seat belts are dangerous and can severely injure a person. I flat refuse to use them and have been cited by cops twice and gone to court and won. I believe helmets should be optional too. :banghead
 
Back
Top