How to bypass seat belt alarm in 05 Town & Country?

"You can't always get what you want."
Yes I can! You can choose to follow your government blindly. I disabled my
seatbelt alarm!!!!!!!
How about the foolish helmet law for kids under 12 on bicycles????? And 13
year olds are OK?

"I'm in a position to see the data collected on what happens to belted vs.
unbelted vehicle occupants in collisions. Mostly, the unbelted ones die.
Mostly, the belted ones don't."
Data is manipulated to produce what the collecter wants YOU to believe. Do
you see the data from ALL accidents? Did you ever ride down the road with
your hand out the window? Maybe that should be illegal ; I am in a position
to see people who lost their arms and or the use of their arms...lets make a
law to protect people from losing their arms, everyone must ride with their
widows up!!!!
Let's talk about ruptured spleens, livers, and bleeding to death due to seat
belt trauma. Or pneumothorax as a result of fractured ribs from seat
belts!!!

"If that were as far as it went, I'd be very happy for you to stupidly eject
yourself from the gene pool. Problem is, your failure to wear seatbelts
affects me."
Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a Harley,
ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive?
All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law.

"Unbelted drivers are easily knocked out of control position and/or knocked
unconscious by relatively minor incidents. When that happens, they're unable
to control the car and prevent additional, more substantial subsequent
incidents -- like hitting other cars, pedestrians or cyclists."
Isn't that really what the airbag does?

"What's more, belt non-using idjits like you are the reason those of us
smart enough to protect ourselves have to have subpar airbags in our
vehicles. Thanks a lot, asshole."
Now that we have seat belt laws, perhaps they will take airbags out? umm
didn't think so.

"Father of the Year" > wrote in
message ...
> "You can't always get what you want."
> Yes I can! You can choose to follow your government blindly. I disabled my
> seatbelt alarm!!!!!!!

And are you going to reconnect it if you ever sell the vehicle? And in any
case
even if you don't wear your seat belt and disable the alarm, if it's illegal
to not wear
seat belts then your just subject to getting a ticket.

We had one woman here in Oregon that got ticketed 3 times in a row for not
wearing a seat belt, on the same day, on the same street if you can believe
it.
As I recall it was 39th ave, she got ticketed on one end of it, drove about
10 blocks
got ticketed again, drove a whopping TWO blocks, got ticketed a third time.

> How about the foolish helmet law for kids under 12 on bicycles????? And 13
> year olds are OK?
>

Don't know about that one, here in this state all children under 18 are
required
to wear bicycle helmets.

Sounds like a political compromise of some kind in your state. Bicycle
helmet
laws and motorcycle helmet laws aren't uniform across the country.

> "I'm in a position to see the data collected on what happens to belted
vs.
> unbelted vehicle occupants in collisions. Mostly, the unbelted ones die.
> Mostly, the belted ones don't."
> Data is manipulated to produce what the collecter wants YOU to believe.

For crash data of this sort, what possible reason is there to manipulate it?
The biggest consumers of crash data in the US are the auto insurance
companies.
What THEIR primary motivation is, is to see fatalities in crashes reduced,
and
the number of crashes reduced - the more this happens the more money they
make. I suppose you object to them making money so you want more crashes
I guess. They have no interest whatsoever in manipulating seat belt data to
artifically inflate the number of lives saved by wearing a seat belt.

You probably think bleeding-heart liberals pushed through all the seat belt
laws. Well if seat belts actually increased fatalities, the insurance
companies -
who have more money than the Pope - would have snuffed that effort out in
a second.

It was the insurance company money that kept the national 55Mph speed
limit in effect for a generation and the only reason that finally got
overturned
was that just about every last driver in the country hated the double-nickel
speed limit with a passion and kept screaming about it. And yet, with every
driver in the country screaming
regularly at their congressional representative to kill 55Mph, it took over
20
years before the insurance companies finally allowed Congress to get rid
of it. And the only reason they relented is because vehicles were getting
so much safer, with mandatory belt laws and air bags, crumple zones and
such, that the percentage of fatalities attributed soly to exceeding 55Mph
had finally got so small as to be basically unmeasurable.

To presume that seat belt crash data has somehow been manipulated to
show seat belts save lives when they really don't, is one of the most
politically naieve things to say in the automotive field. Whatever
credibility
you might have you just flushed down the crapper. The insurance companies
would fight any effort to skew crash data with tooth and nail. Those greedy
sons of bitches only care about money, and will stop at nothing to get
absolutely accurate data as to what can be done to make themselves more
money.

> Let's talk about ruptured spleens, livers, and bleeding to death due to
seat
> belt trauma. Or pneumothorax as a result of fractured ribs from seat
> belts!!!
>

If that is your primary reason for not wearing a seat belt then you can
fix that problem very quickly - remove your seat belt and install a 5 point
harness. You can buy one from any race shop.

However you don't do that simply because this ruptured spleen bullcrap
is something that you use to lie to yourself so you can try to feel better
about being an idiot. The real truth is that you have no interest in
wearing
a seat belt that would be safer and would NOT have a chance of
breaking a rib or rupturing a spleen or liver - such as a 5 point belt -
the real truth is that your just a buffoon that doesen't want to wear a
belt for whatever idiotic and pointless reason and will manufacture
a bunch of bullcrap to try to defend it to yourself and whatever other
idiots out there will listen to you.

> "If that were as far as it went, I'd be very happy for you to stupidly
eject
> yourself from the gene pool. Problem is, your failure to wear seatbelts
> affects me."
> Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a Harley,
> ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive?
> All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law.
>

Those other activities don't involve you driving around on a public road.

You see, Foaty, the one thing you continue to fail to grasp is that the
public
roads are jointly owned by everyone. Therefore, my opinion of what you
should be permitted to do on the public road has as much weight as your
opinion. And a bunch of other people's opinions also have as much weight
as you and my opinion. And it so happens that the majority of people who
own that there road your driving on, believe that you and I should both be
wearing a seat belt. Thus, through their elected representatives, the
majority
of them have decided that your going to wear a belt.

If you don't like it then you can work through the same political process
that was used to pass the seat belt laws, and get enough other idiots out
there like yourself all lit up, and get that seat belt law overturned.

The same issue applies with motorcycle helmet use. However, the one
difference is that generally motorcycle riders that have accidents, whether
in helmet or out of helmet, don't cause the other driver to die. A bike,
after all, does not have the mass of a car.

> "Unbelted drivers are easily knocked out of control position and/or
knocked
> unconscious by relatively minor incidents. When that happens, they're
unable
> to control the car and prevent additional, more substantial subsequent
> incidents -- like hitting other cars, pedestrians or cyclists."
> Isn't that really what the airbag does?
>

Absolutely correct. If in the event you are not wearing a seat belt then
you
will be knocked around by an air bag. Of course, the impact forces that
trigger an air bag are high enough that if there was no air bag and you
didn't
have a seat belt on, you would still be knocked around. As such, an air
bag that triggers isn't any worse from a knocking about control standpoint
than driving without a belt on.

> "What's more, belt non-using idjits like you are the reason those of us
> smart enough to protect ourselves have to have subpar airbags in our
> vehicles. Thanks a lot, asshole."
> Now that we have seat belt laws, perhaps they will take airbags out? umm
> didn't think so.
>

Actually this isn't necessary because all that is needed to do is program
the
air bag computer to not fire the air bag if the seat occupant is wearing a
seat belt. I know such systems are in testing and development, and I
believe
may already be in some new cars.

Ted

"Father of the Year" > wrote in
message ...
> Ahhh read the manual....never thought of that. The dinger is what I want
to
> kill. Thanks Tim, for being the only person on this newsgroup with the
> ability to respond without being an arse.
> BTW: I tried under the seat to jump some of the wires and it did shut off
> the alarm but also the airbag light came on.
> Of course, Ted, I couldn't work on it very long because my big fat ass
> couldn't bend over under the seat.

Now we get the truth. I always wondered, with Harley riders with big
fat asses, does the extra weight help you stay balanced better on the
bike? You know, with a big heavy buttcheek hanging over each side
of the seat? I suppose you have to pay careful attention to make sure
that each buttcheek's weight stays roughly the same when your eating
all those chilidogs.

> TED, I read somewhere that impotent men
> and or men with extremely small genitals are 75% more likely to put other
> people down on newsgroups.......

Hmm, could be. Seems to me you have quite a fixation on small genitals.
But it's probably only an optical illusion in your case - your genitals are
probably just as big as they were before you added all that extra weight.
It's just that with those fatter hambones you have now, Mr. Willie looks so
much smaller in comparison.

Ted

"Foaty" lol wtf is that?

How can anyone argue with you Ted? I just want the right to choose like
your Momma, when for some stupid reason , she chose not to abort your
argumentative ass. Or maybe she did and you are what remains.
Perhaps you can use your vast knowledge, persuasiveness, and people skills
to work through the same political process that was used to pass the seat
belt laws and get seat belts in school busses.

Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a Harley,
ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive?
All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law.

All of those activities do affect you and I. I don't have the time nor the
desire to educate you on how. My only wish is to know what Foaty means
before I bang my head off the windshield and do my Terri Shiavo
impersonation.


"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Father of the Year" > wrote in
> message ...
> > "You can't always get what you want."
> > Yes I can! You can choose to follow your government blindly. I disabled
my
> > seatbelt alarm!!!!!!!
>
> And are you going to reconnect it if you ever sell the vehicle? And in
any
> case
> even if you don't wear your seat belt and disable the alarm, if it's
illegal
> to not wear
> seat belts then your just subject to getting a ticket.
>
> We had one woman here in Oregon that got ticketed 3 times in a row for not
> wearing a seat belt, on the same day, on the same street if you can
believe
> it.
> As I recall it was 39th ave, she got ticketed on one end of it, drove
about
> 10 blocks
> got ticketed again, drove a whopping TWO blocks, got ticketed a third
time.
>
> > How about the foolish helmet law for kids under 12 on bicycles????? And
13
> > year olds are OK?
> >
>
> Don't know about that one, here in this state all children under 18 are
> required
> to wear bicycle helmets.
>
> Sounds like a political compromise of some kind in your state. Bicycle
> helmet
> laws and motorcycle helmet laws aren't uniform across the country.
>
> > "I'm in a position to see the data collected on what happens to belted
> vs.
> > unbelted vehicle occupants in collisions. Mostly, the unbelted ones die.
> > Mostly, the belted ones don't."
> > Data is manipulated to produce what the collecter wants YOU to believe.
>
> For crash data of this sort, what possible reason is there to manipulate
it?
> The biggest consumers of crash data in the US are the auto insurance
> companies.
> What THEIR primary motivation is, is to see fatalities in crashes reduced,
> and
> the number of crashes reduced - the more this happens the more money they
> make. I suppose you object to them making money so you want more crashes
> I guess. They have no interest whatsoever in manipulating seat belt data
to
> artifically inflate the number of lives saved by wearing a seat belt.
>
> You probably think bleeding-heart liberals pushed through all the seat
belt
> laws. Well if seat belts actually increased fatalities, the insurance
> companies -
> who have more money than the Pope - would have snuffed that effort out in
> a second.
>
> It was the insurance company money that kept the national 55Mph speed
> limit in effect for a generation and the only reason that finally got
> overturned
> was that just about every last driver in the country hated the
double-nickel
> speed limit with a passion and kept screaming about it. And yet, with
every
> driver in the country screaming
> regularly at their congressional representative to kill 55Mph, it took
over
> 20
> years before the insurance companies finally allowed Congress to get rid
> of it. And the only reason they relented is because vehicles were getting
> so much safer, with mandatory belt laws and air bags, crumple zones and
> such, that the percentage of fatalities attributed soly to exceeding 55Mph
> had finally got so small as to be basically unmeasurable.
>
> To presume that seat belt crash data has somehow been manipulated to
> show seat belts save lives when they really don't, is one of the most
> politically naieve things to say in the automotive field. Whatever
> credibility
> you might have you just flushed down the crapper. The insurance companies
> would fight any effort to skew crash data with tooth and nail. Those
greedy
> sons of bitches only care about money, and will stop at nothing to get
> absolutely accurate data as to what can be done to make themselves more
> money.
>
> > Let's talk about ruptured spleens, livers, and bleeding to death due to
> seat
> > belt trauma. Or pneumothorax as a result of fractured ribs from seat
> > belts!!!
> >
>
> If that is your primary reason for not wearing a seat belt then you can
> fix that problem very quickly - remove your seat belt and install a 5
point
> harness. You can buy one from any race shop.
>
> However you don't do that simply because this ruptured spleen bullcrap
> is something that you use to lie to yourself so you can try to feel better
> about being an idiot. The real truth is that you have no interest in
> wearing
> a seat belt that would be safer and would NOT have a chance of
> breaking a rib or rupturing a spleen or liver - such as a 5 point belt -
> the real truth is that your just a buffoon that doesen't want to wear a
> belt for whatever idiotic and pointless reason and will manufacture
> a bunch of bullcrap to try to defend it to yourself and whatever other
> idiots out there will listen to you.
>
> > "If that were as far as it went, I'd be very happy for you to stupidly
> eject
> > yourself from the gene pool. Problem is, your failure to wear seatbelts
> > affects me."
> > Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a
Harley,
> > ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive?
> > All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law.
> >
>
> Those other activities don't involve you driving around on a public road.
>
> You see, Foaty, the one thing you continue to fail to grasp is that the
> public
> roads are jointly owned by everyone. Therefore, my opinion of what you
> should be permitted to do on the public road has as much weight as your
> opinion. And a bunch of other people's opinions also have as much weight
> as you and my opinion. And it so happens that the majority of people who
> own that there road your driving on, believe that you and I should both be
> wearing a seat belt. Thus, through their elected representatives, the
> majority
> of them have decided that your going to wear a belt.
>
> If you don't like it then you can work through the same political process
> that was used to pass the seat belt laws, and get enough other idiots out
> there like yourself all lit up, and get that seat belt law overturned.
>
> The same issue applies with motorcycle helmet use. However, the one
> difference is that generally motorcycle riders that have accidents,
whether
> in helmet or out of helmet, don't cause the other driver to die. A bike,
> after all, does not have the mass of a car.
>
> > "Unbelted drivers are easily knocked out of control position and/or
> knocked
> > unconscious by relatively minor incidents. When that happens, they're
> unable
> > to control the car and prevent additional, more substantial subsequent
> > incidents -- like hitting other cars, pedestrians or cyclists."
> > Isn't that really what the airbag does?
> >
>
> Absolutely correct. If in the event you are not wearing a seat belt then
> you
> will be knocked around by an air bag. Of course, the impact forces that
> trigger an air bag are high enough that if there was no air bag and you
> didn't
> have a seat belt on, you would still be knocked around. As such, an air
> bag that triggers isn't any worse from a knocking about control standpoint
> than driving without a belt on.
>
> > "What's more, belt non-using idjits like you are the reason those of us
> > smart enough to protect ourselves have to have subpar airbags in our
> > vehicles. Thanks a lot, asshole."
> > Now that we have seat belt laws, perhaps they will take airbags out?
umm
> > didn't think so.
> >
>
> Actually this isn't necessary because all that is needed to do is program
> the
> air bag computer to not fire the air bag if the seat occupant is wearing a
> seat belt. I know such systems are in testing and development, and I
> believe
> may already be in some new cars.
>
> Ted
>
>

"Foaty" lol wtf is that?

How can anyone argue with you Ted? I just want the right to choose like
your Momma, when for some stupid reason , she chose not to abort your
argumentative ass. Or maybe she did and you are what remains.
Perhaps you can use your vast knowledge, persuasiveness, and people skills
to work through the same political process that was used to pass the seat
belt laws and get seat belts in school busses.

Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a Harley,
ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive?
All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law.

All of those activities DO affect you and I. I don't have the time nor the
desire to educate you on how. My only wish is to know what Foaty means
before I bang my head off the windshield and do my Terri Schiavo
impersonation.


"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Father of the Year" > wrote in
> message ...
> > "You can't always get what you want."
> > Yes I can! You can choose to follow your government blindly. I disabled
my
> > seatbelt alarm!!!!!!!
>
> And are you going to reconnect it if you ever sell the vehicle? And in
any
> case
> even if you don't wear your seat belt and disable the alarm, if it's
illegal
> to not wear
> seat belts then your just subject to getting a ticket.
>
> We had one woman here in Oregon that got ticketed 3 times in a row for not
> wearing a seat belt, on the same day, on the same street if you can
believe
> it.
> As I recall it was 39th ave, she got ticketed on one end of it, drove
about
> 10 blocks
> got ticketed again, drove a whopping TWO blocks, got ticketed a third
time.
>
> > How about the foolish helmet law for kids under 12 on bicycles????? And
13
> > year olds are OK?
> >
>
> Don't know about that one, here in this state all children under 18 are
> required
> to wear bicycle helmets.
>
> Sounds like a political compromise of some kind in your state. Bicycle
> helmet
> laws and motorcycle helmet laws aren't uniform across the country.
>
> > "I'm in a position to see the data collected on what happens to belted
> vs.
> > unbelted vehicle occupants in collisions. Mostly, the unbelted ones die.
> > Mostly, the belted ones don't."
> > Data is manipulated to produce what the collecter wants YOU to believe.
>
> For crash data of this sort, what possible reason is there to manipulate
it?
> The biggest consumers of crash data in the US are the auto insurance
> companies.
> What THEIR primary motivation is, is to see fatalities in crashes reduced,
> and
> the number of crashes reduced - the more this happens the more money they
> make. I suppose you object to them making money so you want more crashes
> I guess. They have no interest whatsoever in manipulating seat belt data
to
> artifically inflate the number of lives saved by wearing a seat belt.
>
> You probably think bleeding-heart liberals pushed through all the seat
belt
> laws. Well if seat belts actually increased fatalities, the insurance
> companies -
> who have more money than the Pope - would have snuffed that effort out in
> a second.
>
> It was the insurance company money that kept the national 55Mph speed
> limit in effect for a generation and the only reason that finally got
> overturned
> was that just about every last driver in the country hated the
double-nickel
> speed limit with a passion and kept screaming about it. And yet, with
every
> driver in the country screaming
> regularly at their congressional representative to kill 55Mph, it took
over
> 20
> years before the insurance companies finally allowed Congress to get rid
> of it. And the only reason they relented is because vehicles were getting
> so much safer, with mandatory belt laws and air bags, crumple zones and
> such, that the percentage of fatalities attributed soly to exceeding 55Mph
> had finally got so small as to be basically unmeasurable.
>
> To presume that seat belt crash data has somehow been manipulated to
> show seat belts save lives when they really don't, is one of the most
> politically naieve things to say in the automotive field. Whatever
> credibility
> you might have you just flushed down the crapper. The insurance companies
> would fight any effort to skew crash data with tooth and nail. Those
greedy
> sons of bitches only care about money, and will stop at nothing to get
> absolutely accurate data as to what can be done to make themselves more
> money.
>
> > Let's talk about ruptured spleens, livers, and bleeding to death due to
> seat
> > belt trauma. Or pneumothorax as a result of fractured ribs from seat
> > belts!!!
> >
>
> If that is your primary reason for not wearing a seat belt then you can
> fix that problem very quickly - remove your seat belt and install a 5
point
> harness. You can buy one from any race shop.
>
> However you don't do that simply because this ruptured spleen bullcrap
> is something that you use to lie to yourself so you can try to feel better
> about being an idiot. The real truth is that you have no interest in
> wearing
> a seat belt that would be safer and would NOT have a chance of
> breaking a rib or rupturing a spleen or liver - such as a 5 point belt -
> the real truth is that your just a buffoon that doesen't want to wear a
> belt for whatever idiotic and pointless reason and will manufacture
> a bunch of bullcrap to try to defend it to yourself and whatever other
> idiots out there will listen to you.
>
> > "If that were as far as it went, I'd be very happy for you to stupidly
> eject
> > yourself from the gene pool. Problem is, your failure to wear seatbelts
> > affects me."
> > Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a
Harley,
> > ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive?
> > All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law.
> >
>
> Those other activities don't involve you driving around on a public road.
>
> You see, Foaty, the one thing you continue to fail to grasp is that the
> public
> roads are jointly owned by everyone. Therefore, my opinion of what you
> should be permitted to do on the public road has as much weight as your
> opinion. And a bunch of other people's opinions also have as much weight
> as you and my opinion. And it so happens that the majority of people who
> own that there road your driving on, believe that you and I should both be
> wearing a seat belt. Thus, through their elected representatives, the
> majority
> of them have decided that your going to wear a belt.
>
> If you don't like it then you can work through the same political process
> that was used to pass the seat belt laws, and get enough other idiots out
> there like yourself all lit up, and get that seat belt law overturned.
>
> The same issue applies with motorcycle helmet use. However, the one
> difference is that generally motorcycle riders that have accidents,
whether
> in helmet or out of helmet, don't cause the other driver to die. A bike,
> after all, does not have the mass of a car.
>
> > "Unbelted drivers are easily knocked out of control position and/or
> knocked
> > unconscious by relatively minor incidents. When that happens, they're
> unable
> > to control the car and prevent additional, more substantial subsequent
> > incidents -- like hitting other cars, pedestrians or cyclists."
> > Isn't that really what the airbag does?
> >
>
> Absolutely correct. If in the event you are not wearing a seat belt then
> you
> will be knocked around by an air bag. Of course, the impact forces that
> trigger an air bag are high enough that if there was no air bag and you
> didn't
> have a seat belt on, you would still be knocked around. As such, an air
> bag that triggers isn't any worse from a knocking about control standpoint
> than driving without a belt on.
>
> > "What's more, belt non-using idjits like you are the reason those of us
> > smart enough to protect ourselves have to have subpar airbags in our
> > vehicles. Thanks a lot, asshole."
> > Now that we have seat belt laws, perhaps they will take airbags out?
umm
> > didn't think so.
> >
>
> Actually this isn't necessary because all that is needed to do is program
> the
> air bag computer to not fire the air bag if the seat occupant is wearing a
> seat belt. I know such systems are in testing and development, and I
> believe
> may already be in some new cars.
>
> Ted

"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Father of the Year" > wrote in
> message ...
> > "You can't always get what you want."
> > Yes I can! You can choose to follow your government blindly. I disabled
my
> > seatbelt alarm!!!!!!!
>
> And are you going to reconnect it if you ever sell the vehicle? And in
any
> case
> even if you don't wear your seat belt and disable the alarm, if it's
illegal
> to not wear
> seat belts then your just subject to getting a ticket.
>
> We had one woman here in Oregon that got ticketed 3 times in a row for not
> wearing a seat belt, on the same day, on the same street if you can
believe
> it.
> As I recall it was 39th ave, she got ticketed on one end of it, drove
about
> 10 blocks
> got ticketed again, drove a whopping TWO blocks, got ticketed a third
time.
>
> > How about the foolish helmet law for kids under 12 on bicycles????? And
13
> > year olds are OK?
> >
>
> Don't know about that one, here in this state all children under 18 are
> required
> to wear bicycle helmets.
>
> Sounds like a political compromise of some kind in your state. Bicycle
> helmet
> laws and motorcycle helmet laws aren't uniform across the country.
>
> > "I'm in a position to see the data collected on what happens to belted
> vs.
> > unbelted vehicle occupants in collisions. Mostly, the unbelted ones die.
> > Mostly, the belted ones don't."
> > Data is manipulated to produce what the collecter wants YOU to believe.
>
> For crash data of this sort, what possible reason is there to manipulate
it?
> The biggest consumers of crash data in the US are the auto insurance
> companies.
> What THEIR primary motivation is, is to see fatalities in crashes reduced,
> and
> the number of crashes reduced - the more this happens the more money they
> make. I suppose you object to them making money so you want more crashes
> I guess. They have no interest whatsoever in manipulating seat belt data
to
> artifically inflate the number of lives saved by wearing a seat belt.
>
> You probably think bleeding-heart liberals pushed through all the seat
belt
> laws. Well if seat belts actually increased fatalities, the insurance
> companies -
> who have more money than the Pope - would have snuffed that effort out in
> a second.
>
> It was the insurance company money that kept the national 55Mph speed
> limit in effect for a generation and the only reason that finally got
> overturned
> was that just about every last driver in the country hated the
double-nickel
> speed limit with a passion and kept screaming about it. And yet, with
every
> driver in the country screaming
> regularly at their congressional representative to kill 55Mph, it took
over
> 20
> years before the insurance companies finally allowed Congress to get rid
> of it. And the only reason they relented is because vehicles were getting
> so much safer, with mandatory belt laws and air bags, crumple zones and
> such, that the percentage of fatalities attributed soly to exceeding 55Mph
> had finally got so small as to be basically unmeasurable.
>
> To presume that seat belt crash data has somehow been manipulated to
> show seat belts save lives when they really don't, is one of the most
> politically naieve things to say in the automotive field. Whatever
> credibility
> you might have you just flushed down the crapper. The insurance companies
> would fight any effort to skew crash data with tooth and nail. Those
greedy
> sons of bitches only care about money, and will stop at nothing to get
> absolutely accurate data as to what can be done to make themselves more
> money.
>
> > Let's talk about ruptured spleens, livers, and bleeding to death due to
> seat
> > belt trauma. Or pneumothorax as a result of fractured ribs from seat
> > belts!!!
> >
>
> If that is your primary reason for not wearing a seat belt then you can
> fix that problem very quickly - remove your seat belt and install a 5
point
> harness. You can buy one from any race shop.
>
> However you don't do that simply because this ruptured spleen bullcrap
> is something that you use to lie to yourself so you can try to feel better
> about being an idiot. The real truth is that you have no interest in
> wearing
> a seat belt that would be safer and would NOT have a chance of
> breaking a rib or rupturing a spleen or liver - such as a 5 point belt -
> the real truth is that your just a buffoon that doesen't want to wear a
> belt for whatever idiotic and pointless reason and will manufacture
> a bunch of bullcrap to try to defend it to yourself and whatever other
> idiots out there will listen to you.
>
> > "If that were as far as it went, I'd be very happy for you to stupidly
> eject
> > yourself from the gene pool. Problem is, your failure to wear seatbelts
> > affects me."
> > Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a
Harley,
> > ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive?
> > All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law.
> >
>
> Those other activities don't involve you driving around on a public road.
>
> You see, Foaty, the one thing you continue to fail to grasp is that the
> public
> roads are jointly owned by everyone. Therefore, my opinion of what you
> should be permitted to do on the public road has as much weight as your
> opinion. And a bunch of other people's opinions also have as much weight
> as you and my opinion. And it so happens that the majority of people who
> own that there road your driving on, believe that you and I should both be
> wearing a seat belt. Thus, through their elected representatives, the
> majority
> of them have decided that your going to wear a belt.
>
> If you don't like it then you can work through the same political process
> that was used to pass the seat belt laws, and get enough other idiots out
> there like yourself all lit up, and get that seat belt law overturned.
>
> The same issue applies with motorcycle helmet use. However, the one
> difference is that generally motorcycle riders that have accidents,
whether
> in helmet or out of helmet, don't cause the other driver to die. A bike,
> after all, does not have the mass of a car.
>
> > "Unbelted drivers are easily knocked out of control position and/or
> knocked
> > unconscious by relatively minor incidents. When that happens, they're
> unable
> > to control the car and prevent additional, more substantial subsequent
> > incidents -- like hitting other cars, pedestrians or cyclists."
> > Isn't that really what the airbag does?
> >
>
> Absolutely correct. If in the event you are not wearing a seat belt then
> you
> will be knocked around by an air bag. Of course, the impact forces that
> trigger an air bag are high enough that if there was no air bag and you
> didn't
> have a seat belt on, you would still be knocked around. As such, an air
> bag that triggers isn't any worse from a knocking about control standpoint
> than driving without a belt on.
>
> > "What's more, belt non-using idjits like you are the reason those of us
> > smart enough to protect ourselves have to have subpar airbags in our
> > vehicles. Thanks a lot, asshole."
> > Now that we have seat belt laws, perhaps they will take airbags out?
umm
> > didn't think so.
> >
>
> Actually this isn't necessary because all that is needed to do is program
> the
> air bag computer to not fire the air bag if the seat occupant is wearing a
> seat belt. I know such systems are in testing and development, and I
> believe
> may already be in some new cars.
>
> Ted
>
>

"Father of the Year" > wrote in
message ...
> "Foaty" lol wtf is that?
>
> How can anyone argue with you Ted? I just want the right to choose like
> your Momma, when for some stupid reason , she chose not to abort your
> argumentative ass. Or maybe she did and you are what remains.
> Perhaps you can use your vast knowledge, persuasiveness, and people
> skills
> to work through the same political process that was used to pass the seat
> belt laws and get seat belts in school busses.
>
> Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a Harley,
> ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive?
> All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law.
>
> All of those activities DO affect you and I. I don't have the time nor
> the
> desire to educate you on how. My only wish is to know what Foaty means
> before I bang my head off the windshield and do my Terri Schiavo
> impersonation.

And you also allowed your childeren not to wear there seatbelt, or sit in a
carseat while you drive.

Yes, you are brilliant!

They wear their seatbelt. Thank you for your concern DAVE.

Do you have children? Do you drive the speedlimit? Do you talk on your
cellphone while driving? Dave, do you put on makeup while driving? Are you
overweight? Are you underweight? Do you smoke? Do you smoke in the car with
children? Do you choose to overeat or does the government tell you what you
can eat or weigh. Do you chose to wear a condom or do you do what the govt.
recommends? Do you give your children cancer, asthma, stunt their growth
etc. by smoking in their presence? Are you that perfect DAVE? Would you
like to debate me on being a man, a father, an intelligent productive human
being?
Gees, I choose not to wear my seatbelt, and I don't want to listen to the
damn ding, and YOU people condemn me?????? I thought this was
rec.autos.maker.chrysler not rec. miserable.****ing.knowitall.bashers

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone TED, DAVE, DAN.

Do you give your children cancer, asthma, stunt their growth etc. by smoking
in their presence, but your seatbelt is on right?
By the way, the reason y'all can't get it up isn't cause your wife/sister is
so ugly but because you smoke! Look up those statistics TED
So how many packs a day do you smoke boys? How much tax do you pay per
pack???????Maybe you ought to go through the same political process as the
seatbelters did to remove the tax, or perhaps the VOTERS? know best??? Yep
the voters enacted that tax just like the seatbelt law, right ted!

"David" > wrote in message
news:5nyte.9841$iG5.934@fed1read05...
>
> "Father of the Year" > wrote in
> message ...
> > "Foaty" lol wtf is that?
> >
> > How can anyone argue with you Ted? I just want the right to choose like
> > your Momma, when for some stupid reason , she chose not to abort your
> > argumentative ass. Or maybe she did and you are what remains.
> > Perhaps you can use your vast knowledge, persuasiveness, and people
> > skills
> > to work through the same political process that was used to pass the
seat
> > belt laws and get seat belts in school busses.
> >
> > Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a
Harley,
> > ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive?
> > All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law.
> >
> > All of those activities DO affect you and I. I don't have the time nor
> > the
> > desire to educate you on how. My only wish is to know what Foaty means
> > before I bang my head off the windshield and do my Terri Schiavo
> > impersonation.
>
> And you also allowed your childeren not to wear there seatbelt, or sit in
a
> carseat while you drive.
>
> Yes, you are brilliant!
>
>

Father of the Year wrote:
> They wear their seatbelt. Thank you for your concern DAVE.
>
> Do you have children? Do you drive the speedlimit? Do you talk on your
> cellphone while driving? Dave, do you put on makeup while driving? Are you
> overweight? Are you underweight? Do you smoke? Do you smoke in the car with
> children? Do you choose to overeat or does the government tell you what you
> can eat or weigh. Do you chose to wear a condom or do you do what the govt.
> recommends? Do you give your children cancer, asthma, stunt their growth
> etc. by smoking in their presence? Are you that perfect DAVE? Would you
> like to debate me on being a man, a father, an intelligent productive human
> being?
> Gees, I choose not to wear my seatbelt, and I don't want to listen to the
> damn ding, and YOU people condemn me?????? I thought this was
> rec.autos.maker.chrysler not rec. miserable.****ing.knowitall.bashers
>
> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone TED, DAVE, DAN.
>
> Do you give your children cancer, asthma, stunt their growth etc. by smoking
> in their presence, but your seatbelt is on right?
> By the way, the reason y'all can't get it up isn't cause your wife/sister is
> so ugly but because you smoke! Look up those statistics TED
> So how many packs a day do you smoke boys? How much tax do you pay per
> pack???????Maybe you ought to go through the same political process as the
> seatbelters did to remove the tax, or perhaps the VOTERS? know best??? Yep
> the voters enacted that tax just like the seatbelt law, right ted!
>
> "David" > wrote in message
> news:5nyte.9841$iG5.934@fed1read05...
>
>>"Father of the Year" > wrote in
>>message ...
>>
>>>"Foaty" lol wtf is that?
>>>
>>>How can anyone argue with you Ted? I just want the right to choose like
>>>your Momma, when for some stupid reason , she chose not to abort your
>>>argumentative ass. Or maybe she did and you are what remains.
>>>Perhaps you can use your vast knowledge, persuasiveness, and people
>>>skills
>>>to work through the same political process that was used to pass the
>
> seat
>
>>>belt laws and get seat belts in school busses.
>>>
>>>Do you wear a condom if you have sex, jump on a trampoline, ride a
>
> Harley,
>
>>>ride a Harley without a helmet, drive in the snow, hang glide, sky dive?
>>>All of these things could negatively impact me too. Let's pass a law.
>>>
>>>All of those activities DO affect you and I. I don't have the time nor
>>>the
>>>desire to educate you on how. My only wish is to know what Foaty means
>>>before I bang my head off the windshield and do my Terri Schiavo
>>>impersonation.
>>
>>And you also allowed your childeren not to wear there seatbelt, or sit in
>
> a
>
>>carseat while you drive.
>>
>>Yes, you are brilliant!
>>
>>
>
>
>
I don't wear seatbelts in my 1940 Royal Coupe! I have been waiting for
the cops here in FL to stop me and then explain to them it is a restored
antique in original form.

Actually that would not be a good idea.

In Europe (anywhere outside North America?) the concept is that seats and
air bags are complementary. I believe the bags are smaller than in the US
because they are not obliged to assume that the person is unbelted.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
[...]
the
> air bag computer to not fire the air bag if the seat occupant is wearing a
> seat belt. I know such systems are in testing and development, and I
> believe
> may already be in some new cars.
>
> Ted
>
>

Maybe this was covered in another part of this post, but why do you chose to not
wear your belt?

Just curious.


Father of the Year wrote:
> snip

> Gees, I choose not to wear my seatbelt, and I don't want to listen to the
> damn ding, and YOU people condemn me?????? I thought this was
> rec.autos.maker.chrysler not rec. miserable.****ing.knowitall.bashers
>
>
>snip