T-shirt made to make the police think you're wearing a seatb

Page 1 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

tweety_fan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,555

16 Mar 2013, 11:43 pm

http://www.news.com.au/weird-true-freak ... 6595708194

T-shirt designed to try to fool Chinese police
Features black strap running diagonally across chest

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/weird-true-freak ... z2NljyEcIr



Rakshasa72
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 655

17 Mar 2013, 12:15 am

Is it reversible?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

17 Mar 2013, 12:24 am

Why not just wear the seat belt and save the cost of a shirt?



confusedcobra
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 1

17 Mar 2013, 3:01 am

I don't understand why any one would choose not to wear a seat belt in the first place. They save lives, and not just your own.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Mar 2013, 6:37 am

Wearing a seat belt is self preservation. My first concern is my own life. I will worry about other lives second.

ruveyn



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

17 Mar 2013, 11:23 am

I do wear my seat belt as a safety precaution BUT I don't like the fact that I'm required to by law.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Mar 2013, 12:38 pm

Raptor wrote:
I do wear my seat belt as a safety precaution BUT I don't like the fact that I'm required to by law.


Balance the annoyance against the benefit received. I started wearing a harness even before they were required by law.

ruveyn



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

17 Mar 2013, 1:44 pm

Raptor wrote:
I do wear my seat belt as a safety precaution BUT I don't like the fact that I'm required to by law.


Some cars have a "feature" that they beep when you drive without the seatbelt on. So you have to choose between the seatbelt or earplugs.



raisedbyignorance
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,225
Location: Indiana

19 Mar 2013, 9:10 pm

Fnord wrote:
Why not just wear the seat belt and save the cost of a shirt?


THIS. (It's a nice scam though.)

Maybe it's an aspie thing, but I prefer having a seatbelt on more for that snug and tight feel while in a moving vehicle (the lifesaving aspect is a bonus :D).



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

19 Mar 2013, 9:38 pm

I never wore one until it was required by law. I never even wore one as a child and neither did anyone in my family nor most of the people I rode with. Now it feels weird to drive without one on, although I do sometimes when I'm just going around town. Since all cars now have shoulder belts as well as lap belts, the cops can see if you are wearing one through the window. I'm still unsure if they can actually notice if that easily especially in traffic.

I also don't like that it's the law. If they were to change the law now, I'd still wear it and make the kids wear it but I should be able to risk my own life if I choose to do so. Just like I think motorcycle helmets should be optional, but I think you would have to be crazy to ride without one.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

20 Mar 2013, 10:41 am

Who bears the cost for drivers seriously injured, but not killed in motor vehicle accidents when they don't wear seatbelts? Motor vehicle insurers don't--they exclude themselves from liability for injuries caused or aggravated by failure to wear seatbelts. In the absence of publicly funded medical insurance or publicly provided medical services, then private insurers may pick up some of the cost, for those who carry insurance. But in those cases, the costs are passed on in the form of higher premiums to all insured.

By and large, the cost falls on the public purse. Now, one might argue that the public should be free to let such a person die on the curb, but that is a repugnant public policy, that EMTs and physicians are ethically incapable of fulfilling.

Your freedom stops at the point that you are imposing an unreasonable risk upon the public purse, or upon other people participating in your insurance pool.

Seatbelts and helmet laws aren't nanny stateism--they are a legitimate means to manage risk. If you don't want to wear a seatbelt, then ride the bus.


_________________
--James


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

20 Mar 2013, 1:05 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Who bears the cost for drivers seriously injured, but not killed in motor vehicle accidents when they don't wear seatbelts? Motor vehicle insurers don't--they exclude themselves from liability for injuries caused or aggravated by failure to wear seatbelts. In the absence of publicly funded medical insurance or publicly provided medical services, then private insurers may pick up some of the cost, for those who carry insurance. But in those cases, the costs are passed on in the form of higher premiums to all insured.

By and large, the cost falls on the public purse. Now, one might argue that the public should be free to let such a person die on the curb, but that is a repugnant public policy, that EMTs and physicians are ethically incapable of fulfilling.

Your freedom stops at the point that you are imposing an unreasonable risk upon the public purse, or upon other people participating in your insurance pool.

Seatbelts and helmet laws aren't nanny stateism--they are a legitimate means to manage risk. If you don't want to wear a seatbelt, then ride the bus.


This argument is a good chunk of the reason I'm wary of public health systems; it can be used to justify anything from mandatory seat belt and helmet use to tobacco bans to dietary restrictions and conceivably mandated exercise requirements. Personally, I'd rather pay my own doctors bills and keep my personal autonomy elsewhere.

God help us when a liberal discovers the concept of externalities (not talking about you, Visa), the mischief they can get up to is astounding.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

20 Mar 2013, 1:14 pm

Dox47 wrote:
This argument is a good chunk of the reason I'm wary of public health systems; it can be used to justify anything from mandatory seat belt and helmet use to tobacco bans to dietary restrictions and conceivably mandated exercise requirements. Personally, I'd rather pay my own doctors bills and keep my personal autonomy elsewhere.

God help us when a liberal discovers the concept of externalities (not talking about you, Visa), the mischief they can get up to is astounding.


I can certainly understand your rationale. And I think it is important to distinguish between an acceptable intrusion (like seatbelt and helmet laws) and an unacceptable intrusion (like mandated diet and exercise). We need to understand the characteristics of intrusions that make them demonstrably justifiable (the least intrusion possible to achieve a clear public policy goal that is within the jurisdiction of government), and the lines that separate the justifiable from intrusions that are not.

It's good to be wary. But I would be loath to see wariness cause us to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Public health and safety are important aspects of a prosperous and free society. It has been amply demonstrated to us that a failure to provide universal health care leads to significant inequalities, that are strongly linked to crime and more specifically to violent crime.

So, keep universal public healthcare systems honest--but keep them nonetheless.


_________________
--James


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

20 Mar 2013, 1:35 pm

visagrunt wrote:
I can certainly understand your rationale. And I think it is important to distinguish between an acceptable intrusion (like seatbelt and helmet laws) and an unacceptable intrusion (like mandated diet and exercise). We need to understand the characteristics of intrusions that make them demonstrably justifiable (the least intrusion possible to achieve a clear public policy goal that is within the jurisdiction of government), and the lines that separate the justifiable from intrusions that are not.

It's good to be wary. But I would be loath to see wariness cause us to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Public health and safety are important aspects of a prosperous and free society. It has been amply demonstrated to us that a failure to provide universal health care leads to significant inequalities, that are strongly linked to crime and more specifically to violent crime.

So, keep universal public healthcare systems honest--but keep them nonetheless.


You're articulating a lot of what's frustrating to me, as I'm fully aware of the positives associated with public health, especially those relating to crime, but at the same time we've got Michael Bloomberg trying to stomp out tobacco and soda in NYC and other cities and states trying to regulate everything from salt to foie gras, so I have to remain skeptical of the execution if not the concept. I have no doubt of the good intentions and real benefits that drive the idea of public healthcare, but I'm also aware of the food and health Nazis we have in this country, and I'm loath to give them any leverage over my personal life.

Let me go out on a tangent for a second, to progressives and the drone war the US is waging. Too many of them seem to use the rationale that Obama is a good guy and they trust him with the power to order strikes without any process or oversight, without thinking it through to the fact that he won't always be the president, and the next one might not use this new power quite so responsibly. I think of a massive new program like government healthcare in the same way, I don't like giving up power, even if it's to people who I personally trust, when I know the potential for grave misuse is there. I might by allayed on this one specifically if massive preemptions were included in the law protecting personal consumption habits, including alcohol and tobacco, but I've yet to see anyone propose such a thing.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Zodai
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,023
Location: Walnut Creek/Concord, California

20 Mar 2013, 2:08 pm

Back when I was a kid, I would always put the part that went across the torso behind my back; I found it quite uncomfortable ;p


_________________
If you believe in anything, believe in yourself. Only then will your life remain your own.

Author/Writer


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

20 Mar 2013, 2:16 pm

Dox47 wrote:
You're articulating a lot of what's frustrating to me, as I'm fully aware of the positives associated with public health, especially those relating to crime, but at the same time we've got Michael Bloomberg trying to stomp out tobacco and soda in NYC and other cities and states trying to regulate everything from salt to foie gras, so I have to remain skeptical of the execution if not the concept. I have no doubt of the good intentions and real benefits that drive the idea of public healthcare, but I'm also aware of the food and health Nazis we have in this country, and I'm loath to give them any leverage over my personal life.

Let me go out on a tangent for a second, to progressives and the drone war the US is waging. Too many of them seem to use the rationale that Obama is a good guy and they trust him with the power to order strikes without any process or oversight, without thinking it through to the fact that he won't always be the president, and the next one might not use this new power quite so responsibly. I think of a massive new program like government healthcare in the same way, I don't like giving up power, even if it's to people who I personally trust, when I know the potential for grave misuse is there. I might by allayed on this one specifically if massive preemptions were included in the law protecting personal consumption habits, including alcohol and tobacco, but I've yet to see anyone propose such a thing.


I maintain my faith in the ability of a system of courts to use the rule of law to keep government honest. I believe that the City of New York was out of line on the soda issue, just as I believe that cities in Canada are out of line on the shark's fin issue. The consumption of vast amounts of HFCS or Aspartame had clear health impacts, but it's not the City's job to regulate food additives. The harvesting of sharks for their fins is rephrehensible, but it's not the job of cities to enunciate fisheries policy.

But if these were enacted by competent levels of government, would I be more sanguine? I would love to see Health Canada come down hard on glucose-fructose. Jury's still out on Aspartame. I would love to see shark's fin banned on conservation grounds, but I don't see the same argument for foie gras--especially as there are plenty of Canadian duck and goose farmers who are turning to more acceptable methods of fattening up their birds. Salt's always a medical worry, but a cheap food policy is always going to look to salt as the preservative of choice. In these cases, the courts aren't much help--if a government with proper jurisdiction over food, food additives, the purchase and sale of food, and the regulation of food service enacts policy, it's the court's job to enforce that, not frustrate it.

So how do we stand in the way of government acting excessively within its proper jurisdiction. Where there is a meaningful liberty argument to be made, there is still room for the courts to act--but I think we hopelessly trivialize liberty when we take about the freedom to order shark's fin soup at a chinese restaurant. In truth the real pressure on government is political. Why haven't we banned shark's fin? Because of the size of the Chinese vote.

But I'm not at all sure if I am happy with that as the last bastion.


_________________
--James