seat belt - always -

markct · Jan 31, 2004

wow thanks for explaining that RIO switch, sounds like the dumbest idea i have ever heard, whats unsafe about operating the pto while in reverse anyhow

jdmar · Feb 1, 2004

No doubt belts save lives. I've worked at a level 1 trauma center for 7 years now. Our dead trauma team patients are either shot, not wearing belts, or on motor (?donor) cycles. (read "." as "PERIOD")

And no doubt that air bags save lives...although we do see a measurable number that malfunction (never release in significant FRONT end collision or several that have gone off seconds to minutes after the accident is over). The story that air bags kill more than they help is ridiculous. They kill when incorrectly used (and specifically against warning labels). The majority of deaths from airbags are young children in the front passenger seat. Children under twelve should not be there. If they must be (pickup, etc) the bag needs to be off--just follow the instructions (i.e. those papers we all keep "in the box" and never read! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif). Yes, air bags do cause injuries-primarily facial bruises/abrasions, occasional fractured noses, corneal(eye) abrasions. But those are all better than the alternative. The newer generation air bags are even better. And even the old ones are softer than steering wheels, dash boards, and front windshields.
Lets all be safe and smart...if you do go and hurt yourself we are all saddened and we all pay also.

Old_Hickory · Feb 1, 2004

( There is a reason farming is the most dangerous occupation )

I believe the timber industry is the most dangerous occupation.

Old_Hickory · Feb 1, 2004

( Don’t forget about putting on make-up, eating breakfast in your car while on the way to work, talking on 2-way radios, and reading a book or newspaper. )

You are so right.

Lazy · Feb 1, 2004

Hi
Fatalities per 100,000

Occupation

Timber cutters 117.8
Fishers 71.1
Pilots and navigators 69.8
Structural metal workers 58.2
Drivers-sales workers 37.9
Roofers 37
Electrical power installers 32.5
Farm occupations 28
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; survey of occupations with minimum 30 fatalities and 45,000 workers in 2002

frank_f15 · Feb 2, 2004

very interesting statistics. u would think tho that someone involved in a very dangerous occupation, would be extra careful.

keeney · Feb 8, 2004

I think fast food should be illegal since people are not cardiologists and can't be expected to understand the impact fat intake can have on their cardiovascular system. 

The food we eat is already heavily regulated. The FDA is a large government organization that is dedicated to helping ensure that the food, drugs, and medical devices we buy are produced and used in ways that are safe.

Not sure they can really justify a ban fast food because the jury is still out on exactly why people get obese and die, but they have lots of regulations that protect you from a whole lot of other bad things that could be dangerous in your food.

Yes, I think that there is a place for debating where the line is.

However, remember that there are lots of greedy big corporations whose interest is not in your health, but in convincing you its good to buy their product, healthy and/or safe or not. Things like tractors with no ROPS, cars without air bags, etc.

As far as the choosing one evil over another, that is always going to take place.

For some reason, people fear certain types of injuries. In some cases, even disproportionately to how often they occur. For example, being trapped in a burning car by a seatbelt is something people worry about. Those same people never really stop to think that the case of having their head smashed against the windshield will make them just as dead, but is ten times more likely to happen. Somehow the thought of fire is scarier than simple blunt injury.

The human mind is a strange thing.

- Rick

Junkman · Feb 8, 2004

( I think fast food should be illegal since people are not cardiologists and can't be expected to understand the impact fat intake can have on their cardiovascular system. Then once you spend all your money on hospital bills from your forth heard attack the taxpayers will have to pay your way. )

Just what this country needs...... More laws to regulate everything from what we eat, to what we think and say, down to morality and if we attend a religious event once a week!! This country was founded by people that were trying to escape that type of oppression, and we are now going in the exact opposite direction. We can't enforce the laws that we presently have and it seems that the population can't get the idea that creating laws to prevent an activity isn't the answer. Remember prohibition?? It didn't work then and it won't ever work. If the legislators ever get around to making fast food illegal, I am going to lobby to have a rider put onto the bill that all tractors be ORANGE!!!

Hambone · Feb 9, 2004

Didn't cars from 1974 require seat belt fastened before they were able to start. I think I remember this on my mom's Gremlin!

Junkman · Feb 9, 2004

( You can't be serious can you ? /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif )

As amazing as it might seem, there is a segment of the population that believes that the government should regulate all aspects of our lives, because we are not able to do so for ourselves. I don't agree with this philosophy, but I do recognize the threat that it represents to the original principles that this country was founded on. It is unfortunate, but many of these things are already under way.

Now a constitutional ammendment saying that all tractors MUST be Orange would be a good thing!! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Henro · Feb 9, 2004

As amazing as it might seem, there is a segment of the population that believes that the government should regulate all aspects of our lives, because we are not able to do so for ourselves. 

Interesting concept, Junkman!

While you and I sit on the same side of the fence, I keep thinking the motivation of people trying to blame others for the results of their own decisions was more motivated by the free lunch syndrome...

I don't see the comments like made above as being a call for regulation, but more as a call for additional reasons why those so inclined can go to court to sue, trying to get some money for doing nothing.

Take no responsibility for one's own actions, be irresponsible, get a lawyer, go to court, get a settlement because you decided to be irresponsible and hurt yourself.

Then go buy those free lunches... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Guess it's time for the moderators to close this thread now! Seems well off track and thread closing/deletion is what usually happens when I finally succum to jumping on the bandwagon... /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Junkman · Feb 9, 2004

( I keep thinking the motivation of people trying to blame others for the results of their own decisions was more motivated by the free lunch syndrome... )

I see this a little bit different. I believe that it is the lawyers that are perpetuating this idea that someone else is always responsible. Our justice system has been on a run away track for a long time. If you are injured as a result of someone else's negligence, then I believe that they should be responsible. If you are injured as a result of your own stupidity, then a lawyer will try to figure out a way to make someone else responsible. If no one else can be found, and you don't have any resources, then the state will take care of you. This idea of government taking charge of people that are financially irresponsible started back in the 1960's under the Johnson administration and has continued under every administration ever since. I often wonder what this country would be like if we didn't have the social service safety net.
I will agree that we have reached the end of the line with this thread.... It is like beating a dead horse..... The people that care, aren't the people that are in office. If they were, they would try to fix the problem, rather than just keep throwing more money at it. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

NIXON · Feb 9, 2004

Junkman ..... Well said !! John

keeney · Feb 10, 2004

I think there is a difference between forcing protection on people even if they don't care and enabling people to use complex technology like cars and tractors without having to understand the statistics behind how dangerous they really are.

The real danger is that big corporations really don't care. Individual managers and executives might care, but until it hurts the bottom line, Wall Street, the stock holders, and the investment bankers don't care!

So who will protect people from dangerous and yet complex technology sold to us by greedy corporations without much concern for individual injury?

I think it is unreasonable for average people to be experts in the safety implications of every technology they use in our modern world.

I do agree that safety legislation based on political, mis-guided-feel-good-do-gooding, bad information, bad science, or any type of profiteering can be a pain-in-the-**** that should not happen.

Safety legislation based on reasonable assesment of the tradeoffs and when there is a likelyhood that the bulk of the consumers would be unable or infeasible to make the correct decision on their own makes sense to me.

Go back to that deaths per 100,000 vs occupation list. What are some of the things at the top of the list?

Logging, Farming, Truck Driving, Construction, Travelling Sales ...

I wonder if these car, tractor, and truck things are dangerous, huh?

- Rick

Junkman · Feb 10, 2004

You can lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink. You can't legislate morality, safety, or a whole lot of other activities that people undertake in life that choose to take the risks. Government should protect us against our neighbor violating us, but not from ourselves. I don't want government telling me what to eat, wear, drink, or do in the privacy of my home. We are forever having one group of people trying to force its moral stand on another that might not agree with it, and the same goes for religion..
( greedy corporations ...... ) do you really want to bring this into the mix????? are they any different than greedy workers???? Lets not go there.......
My final words..... /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Lazy · Feb 10, 2004

Hi
It seems to me that each year we have less freedom. And we own less, as we have to pay taxes on the things we have in our possession each year. How many drivers wear seatbelts for safety but drive over the safe speed limit posted? Maybe the average person shouldn’t be allowed to use complex or dangerous equipment. Or perform work they are not trained for. Where does it stop? I choose not to wear a seatbelt or have a switch on my tractor seat and still feel plenty safe operating the tractor. We just bought a new 4 wheeler and after riding it for a few minutes I can tell you it is much more unsafe than my tractors.

frank_f15 · Feb 10, 2004

have been following this thread, but only responded once. I THINK u can not make laws to guard against stupidity. i don't care what the product, be it cars, tractors. snowmobiles, hair dryers. my wiefe just got a new blowdryer, and notice on the cord it said do not use while showering! now who the heck would try to dry their hair while in the shower? but i bet someone did. and thats it i am off this thread

zuiko · Feb 14, 2004

( ( I think fast food should be illegal since people are not cardiologists and can't be expected to understand the impact fat intake can have on their cardiovascular system. Then once you spend all your money on hospital bills from your forth heard attack the taxpayers will have to pay your way. )

You can't be serious can you ? )

LOL Of course not. But it is exactly the same argument that is always used for mandatory seat belt laws etc. It's only a matter of time. They are already suing the fast food places. It's only a matter of time now.