Mustang Parts
   Carrying Saleen wheels and Bullitt wheels.

Thursday, May 05, 2005

He Practiced What He Preached

He practiced what he preached, and it came back and bit him.

Automuse relates the story of a college senior, who editorialized against wearing seatbelts, and was killed when he was ejected from a rolling SUV.

His two friends, who were belted in, survived with minor injuries.

10 comments:

GTL said...

All of the auto manufacturers have literally spent 100s of millions of dollars in R&D to keep you safe in an accident. If you don't wear your seatbelt all that money, time and effort is worthless. One might think of this incident as evolution in action.

Anonymous said...

I think wearing seatbelts will save lives, but it is still a choice. It's your life. I know accidents that people who were ejected from the car survive and those who remained died of a horrible burning death.

The point is, if it is your time to go, seatbelt or not, you're going.

Anonymous said...

I agree, it's a personal choice to wear a seat belt and not one that should be dictated by the government. I also believe that govenments should be free to decline emergency care for individuals that choose not to wear a seat belt. If an individual doesn't value their life, why should anyone else? Put'em in a body bag and call the morgue. That ought to save the tax payers a few dollars.

Anonymous said...

Should they decline emergency care for the majority of Americans that are overweight? Since they obviously don't value their lives either.

People should be free to live/die the life they choose as long as no one else gets hurt. It isn't the government's business to tell people how they should live.

Anonymous said...

But other people do get hurt--financially. The public often winds up subsidizing or paying outright the cost of emergency care for people who are severely injured, who don't have insurance.

Anonymous said...

but the public pays for the care of some obese people too...and a LOT more than people who are not wear seatbelts. Should our government "require" people to eat healthier? Or maybe the government should ban unprotected sex? You can use that financial argument to ban anything and everything. Here lies the danger of over-regulation.

Okay, I'm not against seatbelts (as a matter of fact, I wear it religiously), but I'm against government regulating life.

Anonymous said...

You're confusing "banning" with "not supporting". I see no reason why the government should offer medical care to people who don't value their lives. That goes for seatbelts and unprotected sex. AIDS for the most part is an entirely preventable disease. Should the government provide medical care for a disease that can be avoided by common sense? This isn't the same as "banning unprotected sex". You're free to have it and free to not wear seatbelts, but that is a choice. When you make that choice you MUST accept responsibility for that choice.

Anonymous said...

Should the government decide who gets medical care and who doesn't? Who gets to decide? The doctor? An government agent stationed at every emergency room?

You can use the "cost" issue to deny service to anyone for anything. If this was the case, then only the most boring Americans on earth would get medical care. LOL

Rick said...

The government already regulates every aspect of your life. All the food you eat is inspected by the state. The roads you drive on, the car you drive, electricity you use, all of it is maintained by the state. WEll maybe not the electricity. To argue that you don't want the state to regulate your life is absurd. It already does. If you don't like it, move to a 3rd world country where the state is too weak to do anything.

The Angry Engineer said...

I'm looking forward to the inevitable court trial, where a jury full of mothers will surely find the SUV OEM manufacturer guilty of some sort of imagined gross negligence - you know, the manufacturer should have installed safety nets or something like that.