Which one should i invest in??

[GreenRadar]

I used to always think the seat belt law was dumb, it is my life and my choice so why should I get penalized for it, but then one day it hit me, what if I am not wearing a seatbelt and get hit by someone and get killed, whether it is my fault or not, what kind of mental damage could that do to the other driver who survived with out a scratch. If your not going to wear a seat belt for your self, please do it for the person who may accidentally cause your accident

[CJR238]

Wearing a seat belt can also improve your ability to react. There has been a few times when I had to react so abruptly that if I wasn't wearing a seat belt i would of lost control or fell off my seat. Seat belts work laterally too.

Try doing 100+, get a KA alert and jam on your breaks without falling off your leather seat. Not easy to do without a seat belt.

Look into the V1, 9500ix, RedLine, Sti, that will be a good start for you. They all have there own strengths and weaknesses.

[TQUILL]

Seems like a troll to me...

[tjbender]

Seems like a troll to me...

I'm thinking more like someone who lacks a grasp on the English language.

[swarga]

I was just wondering which would be good enough, so that i dont have to wear a seat belt anymore.

You're just begging for a Darwin Award, aren't you?

[sdmills]

April 15th, I was rear-ended at 45-50 mph while stopped at a traffic signal by a person more interested in text messaging than watching where they were going. At this point in settlement negotiations, my insurance company has balked on paying my medical bills to the tune of leaving me holding the bag for some $2,400 out-of-pocket in expenses.

The lawyer says not to worry as I will recover that amount (and more) because it was established that I was wearing my seatbelt. On the flipside, he said I would have ended up in even worse financial shape had I not been wearing it. Note that I was unconscious when LEOs arrived at the scene and had to be removed from the vehicle.

I don't understand the continuing aversion to using seatbelts. I regard the "personal freedom/liberty" arguments to be totally overshadowed by common sense. It seems to me that everyone would prefer to utilize ever personal safety measure available to them while operating a motor vehicle. In practice, strapping in becomes nothing more than another thoughtless habit after a very short period.

Besides, employing speed detection countermeasures and then not wearing a seatbelt seems oxymoronic.

Regards,

Sam

[zerbey]

Not sure what you're blithering about with seat belts, but hey I'm not your Daddy. One saved my life once, I would have been a bloody mess in the middle of the road thanks to a head on smash - instead I had a nice line of bruises across my chest and walked away (well, staggered). Your choice.

Please remember that a radar detector is not a "cop detector", it detects radar which cops just happen to use occasionally. Not sure what the laws are in YOUR state but here you can get pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt even if you're not speeding to begin with.

How much money are you looking to spend? We can start there.

[supercowpowers]

I don't think the OP is seriously intending to stop using a seat belt. He was just trying to say that he wants a detector that would give him enough protection from the police that he would never be pulled over so he, theoretically, could get away without wearing one.

The only solution for that is to religiously obey the law. Don't speed at all, always turn into the closest available lane instead of skipping one or two like many people do, inspect your lights every day, don't have any dangly thingies on your rearview, always signal for whatever time or distance before your maneuver that your state's law requires, and just generally never screw up.

A radar detector is just a tool that we use while speeding to alert us when we need to slow down. Because it detects radar and not cops, it's not foolproof, and our odds of being pulled over for speeding would decrease dramatically if we would never speed.

Not even going to add to the seatbelt discussion because that's a dead end.

[languy99]

It's called natural selection people, if he does not want to wear his seat belt he does not have to, I do hope he has not has kids yet.

[Lucky225]

April 15th, I was rear-ended at 45-50 mph while stopped at a traffic signal by a person more interested in text messaging than watching where they were going. At this point in settlement negotiations, my insurance company has balked on paying my medical bills to the tune of leaving me holding the bag for some $2,400 out-of-pocket in expenses.

The lawyer says not to worry as I will recover that amount (and more) because it was established that I was wearing my seatbelt. On the flipside, he said I would have ended up in even worse financial shape had I not been wearing it. Note that I was unconscious when LEOs arrived at the scene and had to be removed from the vehicle.

I don't understand the continuing aversion to using seatbelts. I regard the "personal freedom/liberty" arguments to be totally overshadowed by common sense. It seems to me that everyone would prefer to utilize ever personal safety measure available to them while operating a motor vehicle. In practice, strapping in becomes nothing more than another thoughtless habit after a very short period.

Besides, employing speed detection countermeasures and then not wearing a seatbelt seems oxymoronic.

Regards,

Sam

Interesting, don't know where you are but most States have text like this, I'll use Calif. as an example:

CVC 27315(i) In a civil action, a violation of subdivision (d), (e), or (f)
or information of a violation of subdivision (h) does not establish
negligence as a matter of law or negligence per se for comparative
fault purposes, but negligence may be proven as a fact without regard
to the violation.

Edit: unless you mean worse shape for the fact that you'd be in worse condition if you weren't wearing a belt and/or insurance would not want to pay or something. In any event, as for the freedom arguments, they are valid. While common sense tells you and me to put our seatbelts on, which I DO, I believe it is your right to not put it on if you don't want to. The government telling you you must is every bit as valid as them telling you you must wear a helmet and knee/elbow pads when you leave your residence in case you trip, you certainly would object to something as ridiculous as that, but at the same time it is a 'valid' safety argument the government could impose on you if you go down the slippery slope of allowing them to tell you what you must do with your own property when operating it. I've highlighted part of your quote, it seems to you that everyone would want to be at their safest when operating a motor vehicle in case of a collision. That's just it tho, that's YOUR opinion, and obviously a false one as many people don't wish to wear seatbelts, and in fact some people have medical conditions that makes it rather uncomfortable for them to do so. Just because you think I should wear a seatbelt and you think you're looking out for my own good, does not mean I am required to view things from your opinion or that I should be required to do something just because you think that's how it ought to be. Now, I've made a personal decision to wear my seat belt each and every time I get in my vehicle, but that is my personal choice -- it is not something I do simply because the government barks at me to do it, nor is it something I would not do if the seat belt law was repealed. People can make their own decisions and should be able to do as they please as long as they do not infringe on the rights of other people or property, me not wearing a seatbelt in my own car is not effecting you in anyway or your property, and therefore it is not something you have a say in, nor should the government.