new government regulations

[carnuted]

Last time I was through there was 2001, and it was still 70. I never heard that it changed. What I thought was nice at that time was that it was 70 even on 2 lane highways, and not just on the interstates like most states seem to be. If you are ever in the area, we were driving backroads to Beaumont, and it took us through this little town called Cut-N-Shoot. Beautiful drive, strange town. If I remember right, it had 3 combination fireworks/snowcone stands, an elephant farm, and their one stall firehouse had the firetruck sitting outside with a for sale sign in the window.

[AZhitman]

Brilliant post, Ed. Good stuff.

[smockers83]

80 during the day, 65 at night.

Why? Makes no sense. What time is "night"?

Here it's just 70, whether it's 1230 or 0230.

[seang]

Texas has been at 80mph for years.

Everyone would pass me on that highway. The HB likes it best at about 62mph in 5th gear. 4.6325:1 gearing makes long freeway trips a chore. Terminal velocity is 97mph, but it sounds busy at that speed, especially with the straightpipe exhaust.

[seang]

Just read how the government is going to start requiring a whole bunch more stuff on cars, which is going to make them heavier and more expensive.

Indeed, the gap between a track car and a road car is getting ever wider. Behold, the tyrants of progress.

[srellim234]

Nightime is dusk to dawn. It has a lot to do with visibility and looking out for critters in the dark. Not that they're easy to avoid, but I guess they figure people's survivability is a little better hitting a deer at 65 instead of 80. During the day most of the time you can see them. I can't imagine many other reasons for it.

[WDRacing]

I can't believe that people in the year 2009 are arguing that seatbelts aren't an awsome safety device. Worn vs not worn comparisons are being made, statistics are quoted etc.

Holy crap...how can anyone think a seatbelt is a bad idea.

THIS is exactly why we have rules for stupid people.

[carnuted]

I'm guessing you are a big fan of all that is legal or not, seeing as you have a stoned Micky Mouse as your pic. Does it make sense the weed is illegal and cigarettes aren't? Not for an instance in my opinion. So why is it? Money. We don't import cigarettes, so there is all kinds of local money at play. That is the reason we have seatbelts, because the insurance lobby thought they could save a bunch of money if people had to be buckled in because, perhaps more often than not, wearing a seatbelt will cost them less money. They do not care about saving lives. Everything they consider when making a decision involves decimal points and dollar signs. My complaining about the seat belt laws is simply an extension of my resentment for the way our government as a whole is being run, and I used to work in DC, and yes, it is that bad. In fact, it is much, much worse.

If the government passed a law stating that insurance companies would not be liable for any damages if the occupants in the covered automobile were not buckled in, or were speeding, or listening to the radio to loud, do you think they would still be in favor of seatbelts? NO, for them it would be a win-win. Think this is crazy? These bills are introduced during every session of congress. They never make it out of committee unless it is as a rider to a larger bill. Thankfully they have never got this type of legislation buried far enough into a legitimate bill for it to pass, but it is not for lack of trying. It would save the industry millions per year, but do you think for a moment they would pass any of those savings onto the consumers? If you do, tell your dealer you want your money back, he sold you some bad stuff.

BTW, if you think I'm blowing smoke, read this. http://www.motorists.org/seatb...inues/

[smockers83]

Again, this argument is stupid and your article does nothing to prove your point. In the article itself, it says no one denies the fact that seat belts and airbags save more lives.

Why would the insurance industry not want to save lives? When lives are lost, those are the most expensive claims. It's the difference between $20,000 vs. $3,000,000+ for a major non-fatality crash vs. a fatality crash, respectively (those are real numbers, I didn't just make those up). If they reduce the amount of lives lost, the lower the claims they pay out. It's simple math really. Which is why that's a stupid argument as well, because I just tied dollars and cents to it and proved you wrong.

There was another point I was going to make, but it's slipped my mind.

Oh, actually it was about insurance premiums. If insurance premiums have doubled and quadrupled, what have prices of other products done? The price of milk, loaf of bread, gasoline, cars themselves, wages? Premiums may have quadrupled, but that is only nominally. What is the real increase taking into consideration inflation? You also have to remember that the price of cars has gone up, which makes them more expensive to cover for insurance companies, and wages have also gone up, which makes it more expensive to cover people. There is also healthcare expenses that have gone up when someone goes to the ER due to an accident. All of these things tie into your premiums, among other things such as property values when you destroy private property or hit a parked car.
Modified by smockers83 at 5:31 PM 10/29/2009

[carnuted]

No one denies that they can take a life as well. The fact that they save more than they take is not enough for me to think the government should make everyone wear them. Of course the insurance companies want to save lives IF it saves them money. When they tale about premiums increasing, they are talking about its real cost, as in accounting for inflation, as in using a larger % of our income to pay for it. The article makes perfect sense if you read the whole thing, and not just the parts that fit your personal feelings. Ephedrine killed 100 people over 10 years, so the FDA banned it. Nicotine kills more than that every HOUR, yet it is perfectly legal. If you don't think the special interest groups are running this country and using us as their pawns, then you are not intelligent enough to be driving in the first place.

[WDRacing]

I suggest you never wear a seatbelt.

[carnuted]

And I suggest you never reproduce, though I'd bet your stunning charm pretty much takes care of that possibility for you.

[smockers83]

When they tale about premiums increasing, they are talking about its real cost, as in accounting for inflation, as in using a larger % of our income to pay for it.

You know that for a fact? Because it doesn't say so in that article and hardly ever are authors intelligent enough to know the difference between nominal and real changes. When one doesn't specify, it is assumed that they are talking in nominal terms.

Just because you lived in DC doesn't mean you're a know-all source about the government. Your feud with the government and how they control us extrapolated to seatbelts is pretty out there.

We could even talk about the requirement for the amount of air in ice cream saying the government forces us to have gas after eating ice cream.

The article I think speaks to the idea that European manufacturers say airbags in cars would bar them from the US market, but we look at European cars today and some of them have the most state-of-the-art safety systems in any vehicle on the road (case in point, the new MB that can tell if a driver is dosing off).

[WDRacing]

We could even talk about the requirement for the amount of air in ice cream saying the government forces us to have gas after eating ice cream.

Truly an LOL moment...