Fogbow

Thanks Frater I*I, that version rings a distant bell. More mellifluous. I don't recall the Unabomber connection, an interesting little snippet.

And the sequence is more appropriate, as it fits the "when it's gone, it's gone" chain of causality.

Now I want brioche, though my cholesterol level just shot through the roof typing that.

"Let them clog their arteries."

June bug wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 10:26 am Loving v. Virginia. SCOTUS outlawed Virginia’s ban on inter-racial marriages in 1967.

In Thomas’s Dobbs opinion, he called into question the constitutionality of previous SCOTUS decisions allowing gay marriage and contraception. Notably he did not include the Loving decision, but there’s been a lot of right wing discussion of that as well since Dobbs.

The doctrinal underpinnings of the abortion cases were the contraception cases, and their underpinnings were the interracial marriage cases.

The Originalists wing of SCOTUS is "surprisingly" selective as to what is actually a "states' rights" issue.

bob wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 7:55 pm The Originalists wing of SCOTUS is "surprisingly" selective as to what is actually a "states' rights" issue.

Just as religious folk tend to find that their gods or sacred texts confirm their prior prejudices and choices, so originalists tend to find the drafters and their writings confirm their prior prejudices and choices.

Surprising? Not really.

Video at link.
https://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/sta ... 15733?s=20

Heartland Signal @HeartlandSignal wrote: Ohio GOP Senate candidate Frank LaRose says that seat belt sensors are government overreach:

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions ... Like the little bell that rings when you don't buckle your seatbelt ... It goes too far."

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 5:42 pm Video at link.
https://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/sta ... 15733?s=20

Heartland Signal @HeartlandSignal wrote: Ohio GOP Senate candidate Frank LaRose says that seat belt sensors are government overreach:

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions ... Like the little bell that rings when you don't buckle your seatbelt ... It goes too far."

Isn't he about four decades late with his "protest"? It's not like one cannot start the car and drive away. Next he will call out the breath test analyzers that actually block the drunk driver

Pretty sure you can pick up a fake buckle clip on ebay if you're that anal about it. A neighbor has one for some insane reason. I always wear mine.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 8:59 pm Pretty sure you can pick up a fake buckle clip on ebay if you're that anal about it. A neighbor has one for some insane reason. I always wear mine.

Me too. Its gotten to the point that I feel naked when it is not buckled.

I was in an accident in 1974, in which my 1973 Opel Manta was rear-ended by a full sized Buick and pushed into the Cadillac in front of me. If not for my seat belt (including a shoulder belt), I would have slid forward under the steering wheel. I probably would have broken both my knees on the dash and broken several ribs when I hit the steering wheel.

If someone wants to argue that it is up to them to decide if they want to wear a seat belt, then I say fine, and not wearing one is officially declared to be contributory negligence and you give all rights to sue the other driver(s) or even file a claim on their insurance. If you don't care about your own safety, don't expect me to subsidize it through higher premiums on MY insurance, because of payouts to idiots who won't wear a seat belt.

OTOH, if you are going to wear a seat belt, you don't have to listen to the little bell or buzzer. I almost never hear the one in my car because I always buckle up before putting the car in gear.

When I was 18 my 23-yo sister was killed in a head-on collision in her VW beetle. She was not wearing a seatbelt. I don’t know whether it would have saved her (I saw the car ).

But — I have never, ever, ever ridden in a car without a seatbelt since then. Not even to move my car around in the driveway. I’d feel like a peanut in a boxcar.

A relative of mine refuses to wear a seatbelt because he heard a news story long ago. A car caught fire, seatbelt would not unlach, and the person died.

If I am driving, my car doesn't move unless everyone is buckled in. No exceptions.

Same here.

I started driving in '62 long before seat belts were ubiquitous. I went partway (thank FSM) through the windshield of my '58 FrankenChevy when I fell asleep at an unfortunate point on a hill as the road turned left. I woke up when the car hopped the curb and went back to sleep when I cut the utility pole in half. The car ended upside down over the embankment. I wished I had seatbelts for that one.

In the ensuing years I ended up shiny side down hanging from the belts twice. My scariest though was on the Interstate during an ice storm when a semi destroyed my front end as neither one of us had any traction and I was sideways in the road from trying to avoid a two car accident ahead in my lane. As the truck bore down on me I thought "Oh, shit this will not end well!" but between the airbags and the belts I made it out of that one without a scratch or even a sore body the next day.

So like Maybenaut I don't even press start till buckled in even if I'm just rearranging cars in the driveway.

My husband was t-boned and flipped by a driver who ran a red light and ended up hanging upside down by his seat belt. He walked away with a cut on his arm. Without that seatbelt, he might not have survived.

neonzx wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:51 pm A relative of mine refuses to wear a seatbelt because he heard a news story long ago. A car caught fire, seatbelt would not unlach, and the person died.

If I am driving, my car doesn't move unless everyone is buckled in. No exceptions.

Obviously fires in cars are bad, but it was claimed a few years ago that many people vastly over-estimate the probability of a crashed car catching fire because Hollywood action films often have cars jumping in the air, bouncing around then bursting into flames. Whereas very few car crashes in reality involve fire, or indeed cars leaping into the air. Crashes tend to be slide-y and crunch-y.

Idiots used to talk about people being thrown clear of crashed cars which wouldn't have happened if they had a seatbelt. Er no, your car is a fairly solid box, you'll be thrown into it. And if you're thrown clear, what are you going to hit?

Back to the fire: well, if you have a seatbelt and your car catches fire in a crash, you're far more likely to have a non-mashed brain and be able to get yourself clear, whereas being unbelted and unconscious isn't much use.

The one issue with seatbelts is that they are still, I believe, designed around the average adult male and could do with a better appreciation of other anatomies.

All four of my door pockets have one of those window breakers/seatbelt razor blade things in them. As for being thrown clear, my friend’s son was in an unbelted accident and he was thrown from the car, right into a stop sign that severed his leg.

Worried about the seatbelt not opening or the windows not rolling down in a car crash? Get one of these for yourself and your family members. Four for only $13 at Amazon. We always have one and made sure that our daughters had one in their cars when they started driving.

When she was in high school, my niece was riding with three other friends on an Iowa country road. The driver ended up under the car when it rolled. She died. My niece was the only passenger wearing her seat belt. She was fine.

Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 9:19 am

neonzx wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:51 pm A relative of mine refuses to wear a seatbelt because he heard a news story long ago. A car caught fire, seatbelt would not unlach, and the person died.

If I am driving, my car doesn't move unless everyone is buckled in. No exceptions.

Obviously fires in cars are bad, but it was claimed a few years ago that many people vastly over-estimate the probability of a crashed car catching fire because Hollywood action films often have cars jumping in the air, bouncing around then bursting into flames. Whereas very few car crashes in reality involve fire, or indeed cars leaping into the air. Crashes tend to be slide-y and crunch-y.

Idiots used to talk about people being thrown clear of crashed cars which wouldn't have happened if they had a seatbelt. Er no, your car is a fairly solid box, you'll be thrown into it. And if you're thrown clear, what are you going to hit?

Back to the fire: well, if you have a seatbelt and your car catches fire in a crash, you're far more likely to have a non-mashed brain and be able to get yourself clear, whereas being unbelted and unconscious isn't much use.

The one issue with seatbelts is that they are still, I believe, designed around the average adult male and could do with a better appreciation of other anatomies.

There may be a few (very few) cases in which a seatbelt increases your likelihood of being injured. There are also some accidents that are so bad that nothing will adequately protect you, but, in 99% of accidents, a seatbelt will reduce your injuries. So, why would you give up protection in 99 percent of accidents, just in case you are involved in one of those 1% of accidents?

And I don't buy the personal freedom argument, either. There are lots of things that are required for automobiles that one could argue are an infringement on individual freedom: insurance, license plates, headlights, hydraulic brakes, taillights, safety glass, safe tires, emissions requirements, crash safety requirements, not to mention traffic laws.

We carry one of those safety devices in the car.

My husband, who was a mechanical engineer with a master's in combustion, always used to pick apart the car crashes and fires in movies, mostly saying it's impossible for that to happen. And in his forensic consulting business, one of his specialties was car fires and crashes. Very few car fires were crashes; they were much more likely to happen to a car when it was sitting in a garage. That doesn't make for heart-stopping viewing, though.

I know; off topic.

If you're not wearing a seatbelt, what's holding you back?

I used to tell my kids that the car had a system that wouldn't let it start till belts were buckled. Our newer cars (we buy cars relatively infrequently - every 7-10 years, and in that time LOTS of tech advances are made!) have had seat belts that tighten on you when you reach a certain speed. My younger son (I think he was in college at this point) says he feels the seatbelt "hug" him when we hit that speed. I love that description!

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 12:51 pm If you're not wearing a seatbelt, what's holding you back?

I used to tell my kids that the car had a system that wouldn't let it start till belts were buckled. Our newer cars (we buy cars relatively infrequently - every 7-10 years, and in that time LOTS of tech advances are made!) have had seat belts that tighten on you when you reach a certain speed. My younger son (I think he was in college at this point) says he feels the seatbelt "hug" him when we hit that speed. I love that description!

When I was growing up, my uncle wired his cars with a kill switch so they wouldn't be stolen. The switch? It was the driver's seat belt getting plugged in. The car literally would not start without the seat belt buckled. He figured anyone attempting to steal his car probably wouldn't put on their seat belt, ergo no theft. I suppose it worked, in as much that he never had a car stolen. Ensured his kids wore their seat belts as well. I always thought that was kinda clever.

That IS clever!

Our car theft deterrent/can't borrow the car for our first kid to go to college was to give him a bright orange Honda Element with manual transmission. So ugly no one would steal, his friends couldn't borrow because it had a stick shift. It worked.

Our second kid got a Civic with stick shift in high school but then inherited a hand me down truck when we got a newer truck. So we all know how to drive a stick shift.

And we are't all border states BTW. So tired of hearing that. There are a handful of states that abut the southern border and are being affected by this. Kansas isn't one of them. Abbott is doing his best to make it everyone's problem, but Kansas is NOT one of the places he is bussing migrants to! <insert juvenile insult>

Heartland Signal @HeartlandSignal wrote: Kansas State Rep. Trevor Jacobs (R-Fort Scott) goes on an unhinged immigration rant, falsely claiming that the United Nations is involved in order to start at war.

"The world is organizing an army against the United States of America ... To me, this is not a laughing matter."

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:49 pm And we are't all border states BTW. So tired of hearing that. There are a handful of states that abut the southern border and are being affected by this. Kansas isn't one of them. Abbott is doing his best to make it everyone's problem, but Kansas is NOT one of the places he is bussing migrants to! <insert juvenile insult>
https://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/sta ... 25910?s=20

Heartland Signal @HeartlandSignal wrote: Kansas State Rep. Trevor Jacobs (R-Fort Scott) goes on an unhinged immigration rant, falsely claiming that the United Nations is involved in order to start at war.

"The world is organizing an army against the United States of America ... To me, this is not a laughing matter."

Not, it's not a laughing matter, the state of the US education system that (a) produces such members of Congress and (b) voters that elect said representatives.