# Refuse to put on seat belt



## localuber (May 28, 2015)

I got a pax totally drunk and lie down on my back seat. I told him to put on seat belt he doesn't even listen.
But I already start the trip so I didn't refuse to take him.

I just wanna ask you guys

1. Do you check seat belt every time before you start the trip?
2. If they refuse to put on seat belt, would you guys drop off pax anywhere and cancel the trip or end the trip?

Because usually I tell pax to put on seat belt they don't have problem with that so I never check before hitting begin trip. But should I go the hard road to those undisciplined customers to put on seat belt before I drive otherwise leave this car?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

localuber said:


> I got a pax totally drunk and lie down on my back seat. I told him to put on seat belt he doesn't even listen.
> But I already start the trip so I didn't refuse to take him.
> 
> I just wanna ask you guys
> ...


Here in Houston you are required to wear a seatbelt in the front and back. I would tell him uber requires adhering yo all local laws and he must wear it. If you have that where you are use it.

Kick him out if he refuses. Tell him to cancel and if he doesn't then end trip and report to uber he would not follow local law as a serious rider concern.

if it's not local law tell him it's your car. Put it on or get out.

Or you could just hit the brakes hard a few times. Your choice.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

localuber said:


> I got a pax totally drunk and lie down on my back seat. I told him to put on seat belt he doesn't even listen.
> But I already start the trip so I didn't refuse to take him.
> 
> I just wanna ask you guys
> ...


Nahh, I don't push it, though I probably should. However, with children, no clickee no drivee


----------



## Realityshark (Sep 22, 2014)

Anyone so drunk that they lie down in your backseat has a big chance of puking. I'd kick them out. I don't drive people who are noticeably drunk off their ass. I've been lucky to not have anyone puke in my car. I plan to do everything to keep the pukers out of my car. I keep the doors locked as I watch them come to my car. If they look too drunk, I drive away.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Here in Houston you are required to wear a seatbelt in the front and back. I would tell him uber requires adhering yo all local laws and he must wear it. If you have that where you are use it.
> 
> Kick him out if he refuses. Tell him to cancel and if he doesn't then end trip and report to uber he would not follow local law as a serious rider concern.
> 
> ...


Why bother harping on it? I don't know about other states but you and I live in Texas. In Texas, the person not wearing the belt gets the ticket not the driver. If THEY want a $200.00 ticket that's on them.


----------



## ARIV005 (Mar 4, 2015)

you could have asked him if he wanted company to lay with and wink at him.... He would have sobered up and ran for the hills.


----------



## TimFromMA (Mar 4, 2015)

The car does not move unless all occupants are seat belted, PERIOD.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Massachusetts has a secondary law and the non-user receives the summons, not the driver ("No" means NO, remember? Every once in a while, the good voters of Massachusetts remember from whence they came.)

In Washington, which has a primary law, the driver receives the summons, regardless of who is not wearing his seat belt. But then, Washington has always been in competition with California and a few other places for the title of the Ultimate Nanny State. Initially, the District of Columbia enforced its seat belt law viciously. The reason was levels of Federal Funding. New Hampshire, which has no seat belt law, gets what it gets. Virginia, which has a secondary law, gets a few more bucks than does New Hampshire. Maryland, which has a primary law, passed when Ehrlich was Governour, gets a few more dollars than Virginia, because Ehrlich had directed the Constabularies not to enforce it. I was surprised that O'Malley never rescinded that, as Maryland does not enforce its primary law (I guess that Hogan has not bothered to tell Maryland's Constabulary, anything about it, either). D.C. used to get the top level, as there was a Fourth Tier of bonuses based on the number of seat belt summonses that a state wrote. Thus, you got a double payoff: one from the the person who received the summons, one from the Feds.

For whatever its reasons, Washington has backed off the vicious enforcement. Unless it is a holiday weekend, I do not use mine. If I am not using my seatbelt , how can I compel my passenger to do so?

Uber should publish a policy on it, especially for New York and the District of Columbia, as those two jurisdictions assign Traffic Points for no seat belt. My rule is if in D.C and on UberX., and mine is on, the passenger's is on. If mine is off, the passenger can do what he likes. In the taxi, even in D.C., as the vehicle is presumed to be under the passenger's direction, the passenger will receive a summons if he is not wearinghis seatbelt. This applies to taxis, only. In addition, between 1800 and 0600, if the cab driver is either transporting a passenger or pulling to the kerb to pick up a passenger, he need not wear his nanny belt. 

The passenger can do what he likes in Virginia, as Virginia's law is secondary and the non-wearer receives the summons. Maryland's is primary, but the non-wearer receives the summons.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

In what universe would I not want my driver buckled in so his head does not hit the windshield on collision ?


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Realityshark said:


> Anyone so drunk that they lie down in your backseat has a big chance of puking. I'd kick them out. I don't drive people who are noticeably drunk off their ass. I've been lucky to not have anyone puke in my car. I plan to do everything to keep the pukers out of my car. I keep the doors locked as I watch them come to my car. If they look too drunk, I drive away.


POST # 4 /Realityshark : The Member
who puts The Bark
in Shark is C O R R E C T O M U N D O !

BTW: Your Approval Rating (Likes/Msgs.)
of 168.2% is 3rd Highest of all that have
Reached Well-Known or Notable Status.
Well done, Shark!


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

No passenger has ever asked me to put on a seat belt. Some have commented on my failure to use it, but none have ever asked me to buckle it.

I used to carry a well known National Figure, who was a Nationally known staunch advocate of seat belt laws to Friendship Airport from time to time. He always commented on my lack of seat belt use, but even he never asked me to put on the thing. We used to discuss seat belt laws, Observed Usage Rates, Traffic Fatality Rates and all sorts of other things related to seat belt laws the whole way from Washington to Friendship Airport. It was informative, to say the least. This gentleman, of course, was on top of his game, but I always held my own without having to resort to the "Man convinced against his will" argument.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> No passenger has ever asked me to put on a seat belt. Some have commented on my failure to use it, but none have ever asked me to buckle it.
> 
> I used to carry a well known National Figure, who was a Nationally known staunch advocate of seat belt laws to Friendship Airport from time to time. He always commented on my lack of seat belt use, but even he never asked me to put on the thing. We used to discuss seat belt laws, Observed Usage Rates, Traffic Fatality Rates and all sorts of other things related to seat belt laws the whole way from Washington to Friendship Airport. It was informative, to say the least. This gentleman, of course, was on top of his game, but I always held my own without having to resort to the "Man convinced against his will" argument.


They listen to that irritating warning bell the whole ride?

I also walk out if movies if they are too dire and others are too cowardly to do the same.

You wanna be dead with your head through the windshield, ok with me, but not when I'm in the backseat.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

1. The cloche in a Ford shuts up after a minute or two.

2. HUH?

3. If you come to Washington and get a black Fusion hybrid for UberX or hail a Fusion hybrid Capitol Cab, please cancel the former; wave off the latter.

Besides, with airbags, these days, assuming that they actually do deploy (which _may _ be assuming much, if you read the news), you do not bop your head on the windshield.

Back when D.C. was enforcing its primary nanny belt law viciously, I used to get pulled over in the DeSoto all the time, top up or down. It has lap belts, only. Seat belts were a rarity in 1957, as it was (cue up Charles Edward Berry, _No Particular Place to Go_). D.C. does not require upgrades: if the car did not have it when it was built, there is no requirement to add it. I have a friend that has a 1948 Ford convertible with no seat belts. We used to ride around in it just to have fun with the Police. He and I both oppose seat belt laws, so we considered that we were doing a service to the Public, as when the Police had us pulled over, they could not write revenue belt summonses for others---in a vein similar to those Good Samaritans who will run around various downtowns feeding meters for people who are about to receive a summons for an expired meter.


----------



## Clifford Chong (May 3, 2015)

My car has an indicator that goes on everytime somebody on the passenger seat doesn't put on a seatbelt. Noway to turn it off either so I'm forced to press the i-mid button everytime it pops up. :/ It annoys me too and I usually dock a whole star because of it.

So far, only 3 passengers refused to put seatbelts. They were all short trips though.

Even my dad once didn't put seatbelts on cause he had to go somewhere nearby. Still, it's pretty annoying.


----------



## berserk42 (Apr 24, 2015)

Just check your local laws. Generally, in USA, driver is only responsible for those under 16.


----------



## MrsUberJax (Sep 2, 2014)

Better to have them buckle up regardless of local laws. Especially if they are so hammered that they are laying down. You stop too fast, they roll off the seat and bump their head, they are filing a lawsuit against Multi Million Dollar Uber Company... but we know what that means... you lose your arse. So, don't move if they don't buckle up. PERIOD.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

Sacto Burbs said:


> I also walk out if movies if they are too dire and others are too cowardly to do the same.





Another Uber Driver said:


> 2. HUH?


When you get into a cab, and need to get somewhere, you put up with a lot. In your case, a driver obviously ignoring a warning signal on his car. Most people are too cowardly to get out of the cab. They are intimidated by the driver, and put up with a lot just so they can get out of the cab as fast as possible. One reason is that they have no idea what the cabbie will do if they say they want out.

They also sit through to the end of a movie they should have walked out of because of the unacceptable content, but they "don't want to bother anyone". I submit that either your passengers 1. They don't notice, 2. They are afraid to say anything, 4. They notice too late and the cab is already on the road 3. Or they don't care.

I'm guessing you don't have a sign stating your views about seatbelts and let them read it before you start driving - especially if there is a child with them.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

^^^^ Had you read the reply, you would have seen that I had typed that in a Ford, the cloche shuts up after a while. "Cloche" is French for "bell". By the time I pick up my first passenger, the bell/signal/cloche/dingdonger/DINGDINGDINGDINGDING/warning signal is no longer making any racket. Thus, I am not ignoring any "warning signal". I can not ignore something that does not exist.

Your statement that "in [my] case, a driver [sic] obviously ignoring a warning signal on his car" has no substance, as there is no "warning signal" for me to ignore. As much of your argument depends on that statement, the argument fails. I will pass over the obvious assumptions and presumptions in it.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

The red engine light comes on in my car. I ignore it. Or cover it with a piece if tape. I dont look at at anymore-therefore the warning is gone ! Hey presto.

I've never read the warning on a pack if cigarettes so - hey presto - it isn't there.

My dog makes little whining noises at the back door cause she has to pee. Hey presto-she stops whining so the warning no longer exists.

I wonder what your passengers would say if you turned off the engine at each pickup and they could hear the warning "cloche" (did I say that right or did the folks at ford take a good French word and bastardise the pronunciation)

But great, it is working for you mon ami buckwheat. But, shhh, don't tell the pax. Keep that warning cloche 
étranglé.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Sacto Burbs, in this case who cares WHAT he does? Wearing a seat belt is for HIS safety not mine. Its not like drinking and driving where it impares his ability to control a large piece of moving metal that could kill me or someone else. His driving ability remains the same and when/if he wrecks HE is the one who will pay for the choice to not wear a seat belt. He's a big boy and knows the risks so why even fight that battle? We all knowingly do reckless crap here and there in our lives.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

*WHERE* did I state that I turned off the cloche? The cloche stops ringing on its own. If the cloche, the "warning signal", is not ringing, then you do not hear it, because it is giving no signal or warning for you to hear. This is simple: no DINGYDINGYDINGY, no noise, no "warning signal", nada, rien, niente, zippo, zilcho. Why is this so difficult? On the Ford, the cloche will ring for a little bit, then stop. I have already stated that by the time that I pick up my first passenger, the ringydingy period for the cloche has expired, therefore it is not ringing, therefore there is no signal, therefore there is no "warning", therefore there is nothing for either driver or passenger(s) to hear.

Oh, and can we can the name calling and act as if we might actually be civilised adults? I used to live in California, so the meaning of "buckwheat" is not lost on me, Sirrah.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

D Town said:


> Sacto Burbs, in this case who cares WHAT he does? Wearing a seat belt is for HIS safety not mine. Its not like drinking and driving where it impares his ability to control a large piece of moving metal that could kill me or someone else. His driving ability remains the same and when/if he wrecks HE is the one who will pay for the choice to not wear a seat belt. He's a big boy and knows the risks so why even fight that battle? We all knowingly do reckless crap here and there in our lives.


One of the reasons you should care about EVERYONE, even those in surrounding cars is that in the event of a multi car pileup and multiple critically injured people triage may become necessary. If less people are injured, and less severely which will be the case if everyone is belted in you are less likely to be deemed too time consuming to save.

For instance: 2 injured. One (you) will die without immediate and intensive treatment. You require a first responder to work exclusively on you. You may still die but you will CERTAINLY die without immediate and exclusive treatment. You were belted in but very unlucky.

The other will die if not treated but his injuries are not as severe. He is almost certain to survive with treatment. It's a shame he is so badly injured as a seatbelt would have prevented severe injury in his case. There is no other responder close.

Who do you think is getting treated? You will both die without treatment but the other person is much more likely to survive with treatment.

People injured and injured more severely because they don't wear seatbelts place extra strain on resources and can cause others to not get the treatment they need resulting in further injury, worse disability and even death.

This is especially true of children. An infant not in a car seat and therefore badly injured (when they may have had NO injuries otherwise) is going to likely get a lot of attention for his injuries while Granny next to him succumbs to an injury that was treatable. Granny may even contribute to that by downplaying her issues with worry for the child.

You don't JUST endanger yourself when you don't wear a seatbelt and get injured because of it.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> One of the reasons you should care about EVERYONE, even those in surrounding cars is that in the event of a multi car pileup and multiple critically injured people triage may become necessary. If less people are injured, and less severely which will be the case if everyone is belted in you are less likely to be deemed too time consuming to save.
> 
> For instance: 2 injured. One (you) will die without immediate and intensive treatment. You require a first responder to work exclusively on you. You may still die but you will CERTAINLY die without immediate and exclusive treatment. You were belted in but very unlucky.
> 
> ...


Wow...I'm FOR wearing seat belts but you actually make me want to NOT wear one. That is honestly so far beyond the realm of a reasonable worry its not even worth considering. If I'm seat belted and still end up more injured than the guy who was just jettisoned from his car to pin ball off of guard rails and end in a bloody crumpled mess on the highway then it was just my time to go and I'll have to accept that. You can make your same argument for people who choose to do ANY dangerous activity. The very fact that other people live on this Earth with you and aren't tied to a bed and locked in a cell means their activities are a threat to your life in some form or fashion. When I calculate the odds of someones activity killing or harming me as being less likely than being struck by lightening then I generally don't worry about it.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

D Town said:


> Wow...I'm FOR wearing seat belts but you actually make me want to NOT wear one. That is honestly so far beyond the realm of a reasonable worry its not even worth considering. If I'm seat belted and still end up more injured than the guy who was just jettisoned from his car to pin ball off of guard rails and end in a bloody crumpled mess on the highway then it was just my time to go and I'll have to accept that. You can make your same argument for people who choose to do ANY dangerous activity. The very fact that other people live on this Earth with you and aren't tied to a bed and locked in a cell means their activities are a threat to your life in some form or fashion. When I calculate the odds of someones activity killing or harming me as being less likely than being struck by lightening then I generally don't worry about it.


It does occur with other activities. Everything we do can affect others' wellbeing. How many rescuers die trying to save idiots who got themselves in trouble in the first place? All the folks who drove into high water in Houston this week and had to be rescued put others' lives in danger. Sometimes you're unlucky and need help but to do something foolhardy (like not wearing a seatbelt or driving into high water) is something you can control, and should, or you have no regard for others.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> It does occur with other activities. Everything we do can affect others' wellbeing. How many rescuers die trying to save idiots who got themselves in trouble in the first place? All the folks who drove into high water in Houston this week and had to be rescued put others' lives in danger. Sometimes you're unlucky and need help but to do something foolhardy (like not wearing a seatbelt or driving into high water) is something you can control, and should, or you have no regard for others.


That is a weak argument. Having to scrape someone off the highway is likely to leave mental scars but its not endangering a first responder and the likely hood of it causing a seat belted person their lives is less likely than this poor old bastard actually dying because his seat belt trapped him in a burning - or since we're talking about Houston sinking - car.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Oh, and even first responders can get caught off guard by flood waters.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

D Town said:


> That is a weak argument. Having to scrape someone off the highway is likely to leave mental scars but its not endangering a first responder and the likely hood of it causing a seat belted person their lives is less likely than this poor old bastard actually dying because his seat belt trapped him in a burning - or since we're talking about Houston sinking - car.


http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isl...-trillo-says-30000-people-have-died-because-/


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

D Town said:


> That is a weak argument. Having to scrape someone off the highway is likely to leave mental scars but its not endangering a first responder and the likely hood of it causing a seat belted person their lives is less likely than this poor old bastard actually dying because his seat belt trapped him in a burning - or since we're talking about Houston sinking - car.


Getting hit while scraping someone off the highway is an occupational hazard for first responders.

I don't know what that guy was doing since the belt doesn't appear to be belted. Looks like he was putting it on wrong in the first place but in any case he doesn't appear to be on fire or sinking...


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isl...-trillo-says-30000-people-have-died-because-/


Noootttt exactly sure what your pointing out here...is...is it random post time? Cool.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

D Town said:


> Noootttt exactly sure what your pointing out here...is...is it random post time? Cool.


Try reading it.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

D Town said:


> Noootttt exactly sure what your pointing out here...is...is it random post time? Cool.


Since you can't follow links here's the article:

R.I. Rep. Trillo says 30,000 people have died because they used seat belts

By C. Eugene Emery Jr. on Wednesday, July 13th, 2011 at 8:00 a.m.

During the June 29, 2011, Rhode Island House debate over legislation to allow the police to stop motorists who are not wearing seat belts -- a bill that has now become law -- supporters said it would encourage more people to belt themselves in. Critics countered that the proposal was one more attempt to chip away at our personal freedoms and could encourage racial profiling.

Few will disagree that seat belts save lives. But this was one instance where House Minority Whip Joseph Trillo, who said he regularly uses his seat belt, couldn't restrain himself.

"There are 30,000 people that have been killed with seat belts, where they've gotten into accidents, the cars were on fire, they've been knocked out, they haven't been able to get out of the vehicle," he said. "My point is, even if the majority of people are saved, why do we keep forcing people to do things that they feel it's their own individual right to make a decision?"

When we saw him make that comment on Capitol TV, we were intrigued. Thirty thousand people have lost their lives because they wore their seat belts?

We were driven to call him that evening to ask him for the source of that statistic. A few emails and another phone call later, he reported that he couldn't find the source.

"I know that I got it in an email. It brought me to a credible site. I don't remember what it was though," he said. "I'm not sure whether it's cumulative or on a yearly basis."

Undaunted, he cited a page on the website of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- which we checked -- saying that in 2002, 2004 and 2006, the number of people who died while wearing a seat belt was 12,000, 13,000 and 12,500, respectively.

When we pointed out that being killed while wearing a seat belt doesn't mean they would have survived if they had been unbelted, Trillo argued that "if 12,000 to 13,000 are dying with seat belts every year on a national level, even if 2,000 couldn't get out of the car, it still could cumulatively add up to 30,000."

We tried to find the source of Trillo's statement. A Google search came up blank. But we did find a website that talked about "23,000 people who run the risk of being trapped and fatally killed by a seat belt each year!" It also warned against seat belt use because "psychiatrists say that exposing young children to practices such as bondage from an early age can cause confusion during puberty." Needless to say, it was a humor website.

So we decided to go the extra mile to look for some real data.

Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Consumer Product Safety Commission sent us to the NHTSA.

Its most recent estimate is that 12,713 lives were saved in 2009 by people wearing seat belts, and another 3,688 fatalities would have been prevented if every driver had used one. (In Rhode Island, 11 lives were saved because of seat belt use and 10 died because they were not belted in, according to that report.)

When we asked them for the number of deaths in which the use of seat belts was a contributing factor, they came up empty.

NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database of motor vehicle fatalities logs lots of causes of death, listed as "most harmful event." Wearing a seat belt isn't one of them.

After Trillo's comment about being trapped in a burning car, we searched the database and found there were 157 fire- or explosion-related fatalities in passenger vehicles in 2009 where the victims were using their seat belts. If you add people who died by immersion in water, the number jumps to 243.

Even if seat belts trapped the occupants in every case, that would represent less than one percent of fatalities and it would take 123 years (at the 2009 rate) to match Trillo's 30,000 figure. (Lap belts have only been mandatory in U.S. cars since the 1960s.)

We even put out a message to the 32,000 people who follow PolitiFact National on Twitter, asking people to email us if anyone had any reliable information on the question. One response led us to Sgt. William Mahoney, an accident scene investigator for about seven years with the Kansas City, Mo., Police Department, which handles about 65 to 75 traffic fatalities per year.

"I've never seen a death that's been classified as having been caused by a seat belt," he said. "I'm not saying they don't exist. I've never seen one."

When we asked Lt. Col. Raymond White of the Rhode Island State Police if, in his 28 years in law enforcement, he has ever seen an instance where someone probably would have survived a crash if they hadn't been wearing their seat belt, he said, "That's never been the case."

And William Hall, who manages the occupant protection program at the University of North Carolina's Highway Safety Center, said that in the 30 years he's been with the center he hasn't seen any estimate comparable to Trillo's.

"I have no clue as to where he may have gotten it," he said, noting that it's "quite likely" that, if the number was real, he would be aware of it.

Hall said that "less than one half of one percent of all crashes involve a post-crash fire or going in the water. So that's a very low probability event. There are probably some extremely rare, rare circumstances where someone might have not been killed if they had been unbelted, but that's very, very hard to substantiate. It could mean it's just a non-survival crash and you're not going to make it, seat belt or no seat belt."

In summary, when Trillo asserted that 30,000 people "have been killed with seat belts," the context of his statement made it clear that he was saying that seat belts contributed to their deaths, not simply that 30,000 people who died happened to be wearing seat belts.

When we asked him for the source of his information, he couldn't produce it. "When we're doing all those bills, I'm trying to assimilate a lot of information. I'm not taking notes on it. I'm just reading stuff," said Trillo.

In fact, when we suggested it might be wise to take note of his sources in case someone -- like PolitiFact, for example -- wanted to know where his facts came from, his response was, "I could care less."

But we care because, if seat belts are really that dangerous, we want to know. And if a politician is exercising his right to be fooled by an email, we want to know that as well.

With more than 30,000 fatal traffic accidents in the United States each year, we suspect there must be at least a few in which victims might have survived had they not been wearing a seat belt.

But a search of Google, a question to the 32,000 readers who get our Twitter feed and queries to three federal agencies, two law enforcement agencies and others with an interest in tracking the dangers of seat belts produced no evidence that 30,000 people have died from wearing seat belts. Ever.

Trillo's statement deserves to be strapped in for a one-way ride to Ridiculousville.

We award his inflammatory claim a Pants On Fire!


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Getting hit while scraping someone off the highway is an occupational hazard for first responders.
> 
> I don't know what that guy was doing since the belt doesn't appear to be belted. Looks like he was putting it on wrong in the first place but in any case he doesn't appear to be on fire or sinking...


You're purposely missing my point. You made up a far-fetched scenario about me being in a wreak with someone who wasn't seat belted and yet some how this non seat belted person is LESS hurt than I - a knock on seat belts in this scenario - and that we're in a wilderness area where there are so few resources they can only treat ONE accident victim and since he's less injured and more likely to survive he gets treated and I die. If YOU can make up a scenario so outlandish as that why can't I make one up that's actually far more likely as grandpa there getting stuck in a seat belt and dying because of it? When you step into a realm this outlandish it stops being viable arguments and starts being propaganda.

I think everyone SHOULD wear seat belts but if you don't that ticket or that trip through the windshield is all for you. The likely hood of it affecting me are near nil so I really don't care past the fact that it saddens me when a human life is lost because of a foolish choice. But its THEIR choice to make.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Since you can't follow links here's the article:
> 
> R.I. Rep. Trillo says 30,000 people have died because they used seat belts
> 
> ...


Trying to force me to read an irrelevant article isn't going to make it relevant. Neither is being smart ass about it. I never said seat belts cause more deaths than they prevent or even that they cause 30,000 but I'd bet cash money that my scenario where a fat person died from some secondary cause after getting stuck in one - or one gets wrapped around a kids neck which I have personally seen and had to cut the kid free - happens way more than the bizarre triage scenario you came up with. By that I mean mine happens maybe 10 times or less a year yours happens 0-1 times a year if that.


----------



## ReviTULize (Sep 29, 2014)

I require it in the front only, since that's the law. I have a dash cam with audio; so if they refuse, I would have some sort of defense in court.

One thing I am very adamant about is the headrest. My car is XL, so I have center ones in the 2nd & 3rd row. I usually drive with them down for better visibility. When a group gets in, I make it a point to raise the headrests for anyone sitting in the middle. I usually say "pardon my reach(careful not to touch their person), I just wanna make sure you're all set if the unexpected happens". Some(not all) will comment on how they appreciate the attentiveness. If you think about it...that small detail could make a huge difference in someones life...should something really bad happen.


----------



## KGB7 (Apr 23, 2015)

D Town said:


> Noootttt exactly sure what your pointing out here...is...is it random post time? Cool.


ROFL!!!

We have a dog and two cats. And my dog dominates the cats. She(dog) herds the cats by chasing them home(on my command) when cats are out side wondering around on the street.
I just say; " Get that kitty.. GO GET IT!!"
The two cats are more familiar with dogs command, that they run home before the dog reacts.

Dog power!


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

ReviTULize said:


> I require it in the front only, since that's the law. I have a dash cam with audio; so if they refuse, I would have some sort of defense in court.
> 
> One thing I am very adamant about is the headrest. My car is XL, so I have center ones in the 2nd & 3rd row. I usually drive with them down for better visibility. When a group gets in, I make it a point to raise the headrests for anyone sitting in the middle. I usually say "pardon my reach(careful not to touch their person), I just wanna make sure you're all set if the unexpected happens". Some(not all) will comment on how they appreciate my attentiveness. If you think about it...that small detail could make a huge difference in someones life...should something really bad happen.


If the law requires it and puts the liability on the driver if it doesn't happen by ALL means insist. Anything else is courtesy.


----------



## Choochie (Jan 4, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> 1. The cloche in a Ford shuts up after a minute or two.
> 
> 2. HUH?
> 
> ...


So you're okay with being ejected then?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Choochie said:


> So you're okay with being ejected then?


.......that would be my business. It is the business of neither the Gubbamint nor the passenger to protect me from myself. I do not need my life micromanaged by people or entities who have all that they can do to manage their own affairs.


----------



## KGB7 (Apr 23, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> .......that would be my business. It is the business of neither the Gubbamint nor the passenger to protect me from myself. I do not need my life micromanaged by people or entities who have all that they can do to manage their own affairs.


Don't be so selfish. Think of the people that will have to bury you.


----------



## Choochie (Jan 4, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> .......that would be my business. It is the business of neither the Gubbamint nor the passenger to protect me from myself. I do not need my life micromanaged by people or entities who have all that they can do to manage their own affairs.


Personally I couldn't care less. I'm not suggesting you change your MO, just asking if you don't mind being ejected? I guess I already know the answer. If you like to push the envelope - that's clearly your free right!


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

^^^^^^^^^ "No" means NO!!!!! Every once in a while, the Good Voters of Massachusetts still remember from whence they came.


----------



## DrJeecheroo (Feb 12, 2015)

I couldn't imagine being ejected by the choocher. Please don't do it.


----------



## Choochie (Jan 4, 2015)

DrJeecheroo said:


> I couldn't imagine being ejected by the choocher. Please don't do it.


He's pushing the envelope DrJ. Eject him!


----------



## DrJeecheroo (Feb 12, 2015)

Sacto Burbs said:


> In what universe would I not want my driver buckled in so his head does not hit the windshield on collision ?


Saturn?


----------



## DrJeecheroo (Feb 12, 2015)

Choochie said:


> He's pushing the envelope DrJ. Eject him!


I got on the wrong side of the Coochier.


----------



## UberLou (May 5, 2015)

In the state of Georgia only the front seat passengers are required to wear a seat-belt. I don't care if my back seat passengers have them on or not, maybe I should however because in the event of a wreck they will probably be hitting me in the back of the head.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

UberLou said:


> I don't care if my back seat passengers have them on or not, maybe I should however because in the event of a wreck they will probably be hitting me in the back of the head.


This is a good point. Perhaps I should reconsider caring if the passenger is right behind me.


----------



## Jjkhawaiian (May 31, 2015)

If I was a rider, I would insist on it or I get out. No reason I should get hurt by your stupid arse flying around the car when you get us into an accident. I'm surprised you haven't been flagged, ticketed, or dropped from Uber. It's not only for his safety, but the safety of his passengers. If he can't control the car, assuming he is speeding (if he doesn't obey the rules/laws of the road, what other rules/laws does he NOT obey? Speeding, driving recklessly? God, him and his passengers only know.), he is sure to lose his seat and balance to control the car. Too each their own. Go kill yourself. and be ready to get your arse sued and lose your license and insurance when you get sued by your PAX when they get hurt over your driving because you didn't wear your seat belt. You trying to prove something? All you're showing is your non-concern for yourself, pax and other drivers on the road.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Jjkhawaiian said:


> If I was a rider, I would insist on it or I get out. No reason I should get hurt by your stupid arse flying around the car when you get us into an accident. I'm surprised you haven't been flagged, ticketed, or dropped from Uber. It's not only for his safety, but the safety of his passengers. If he can't control the car, assuming he is speeding (if he doesn't obey the rules/laws of the road, what other rules/laws does he NOT obey? Speeding, driving recklessly? God, him and his passengers only know.), he is sure to lose his seat and balance to control the car. Too each their own. Go kill yourself. and be ready to get your arse sued and lose your license and insurance when you get sued by your PAX when they get hurt over your driving because you didn't wear your seat belt. You trying to prove something? All you're showing is your non-concern for yourself, pax and other drivers on the road.


Who are you directing this at?


----------



## Jjkhawaiian (May 31, 2015)

D Town said:


> Who are you directing this at?


Another Uber driver - I apologize if that wasn't clear


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Jjkhawaiian said:


> Another Uber driver - I apologize if that wasn't clear


I didn't think it was me I just asked because who ever your directing it at might not know unless you insert a quote from them. Helps keep things a little more tidy. Welcome to the forum btw and if that's you in your avatar I'd lose it. Anonymity is generally a good idea.


----------



## Jjkhawaiian (May 31, 2015)

D Town said:


> I didn't think it was me I just asked because who ever your directing it at might not know unless you insert a quote from them. Helps keep things a little more tidy. Welcome to the forum btw and if that's you in your avatar I'd lose it. Anonymity is generally a good idea.


I understand. And thx for the welcome and tip on my anonymity.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

........then get out. I would rather not have a passenger who micromanages my driving as it is. I have all that I can do to deal with a gubbamint that micromanages my life for me. I could get into the qualifications for being a micromanager, but let that be for another time. Let it be sufficient to state that when a passenger starts to micromanage me, I inform him that in my vehicle, we have a policy for the Division of Labour: I drive, he rides.

Let us consider a few things about collisions.

1. These days, airbags deploy. You do not smack your head on the windshield anymore. The airbag deploys and hits you pretty hard. You can not see where you are going and it will cause you to let go of the wheel, anyhow.

2. If you hit another vehicle head-on or in the side, if you do not come to an immediate stop, you stop pretty quickly. No question about control or loss thereof. If the vehicle _ain't movin', there ain't no worry about no control.
_
3. If you collide with another vehicle and start to spin, especially if it is at high speed, the odds of your re-gaining control of it under the best of circumstances _ain't none too good_. In fact, I would bet on the Redskins' winning the Stupid Bowl in 2016 before I bet on someone's regaining control of a spinning vehicle. Anyone who knows anything about football knows that the former _ain't gonna' happen._

4. If the vehicle becomes airborne, the driver has already lost control. The vehicle will stop when it is going to stop and not before.

5. If the vehicle overturns, there will be no regaining control.

6. If the vehicle goes down a defile, there will be no regaining control.

If you want to use a seat belt, that is your business. Use the thing and have a nice day. If I do not want to use a seat belt, that is my business. You mind your business, I will mind mine. I do not need to mind your business, as I have all that I can do to mind my own. I suspect that similar applies to most.

Oh, and can the profiling. I understand the need for speed limits, traffic lights and other such things. I do not understand the Nanny State's telling me to wear a seat belt. Simply because I will not use a seat belt does not mean that I treat this a s the Indianapolis Speed Trials.


----------



## Jjkhawaiian (May 31, 2015)

To each their own...just a big safety factor that could be avoided. Believe me, I'm not a big fan of the idiot gubbernment, but I do know the odds of clicked vs not clicked, not to mention the ticket costs. Slipping it on as you're being stopped doesn't work. Cops can spot it.


----------

