Saaaaaaaaaafety . . . in Case You Forgot

86
2283
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

What follows is a kind of dissection of an example of the mentality that’s been induced by 50-plus years of what you might call “safetyism.” This preoccupation with risk-avoidance to the point of pushy, peremptory absurdity.

Because, of course, you can never be too “safe.”

The video below moans about the substandard efforts of various car manufacturers to harass people sufficiently to wear seat belts. Note that I did not say their seatbelts. Which I did not say for the same reason I have never said anyone ought to wear their “masks.”

This is not pedantic. It is vitally important.

The use of “their” is very deliberate. It is meant to convey – and to assert – a kind of needful symbiosis. That a seat belt – or a “mask” is almost a part of us and heaven forbid the intimation of disassociation. What is wanted – and intended – is for the person being addressed to immediately feel obligation. And shame, for not wearing “their” seatbelt or “mask.”

But it is just a “mask” – or a seatbelt. An object, nothing more. Unless, of course, you do claim it as yours – in which case, that’s up to you. But the very last thing those who use their – or your – want is for you to make up your own mind and exercise choice, yourself.

About those seat belts.

Every has been forced by government decree to buy them since 50-plus years ago. Everyone of driving age today is familiar with them, aware of their function. But this is never enough for the acolytes of safetyism. Everyone must be required to wear them, too – which by now ought to have a more generally familiar feel to it. What else has the government recently tried to force everyone to wear, too?

If you said their – or your – “mask,” that’s what Col. Landa (from the Tarantino film, Inglorius Basterds) says is a Bingo!

Anyhow, it ought to be agreed that everyone has heard – a lot – about wearing seatbelts, asserted to be theirs. Much of it from their cars, which in many cases will not stop reminding – another obnoxiously, insufferably passive-friendly abuse of language – to wear their seatbelt even when it is ridiculously apparent they have purposely decided not to. Anyone willing to endure the repetitive chiming/dinging – often a loud and jarring chiming/dining – for the sake of not wearing the damned things clearly doesn’t need a reminder.

He knows perfectly well that he’s not wearing it – and doesn’t want to.

Civility would leave it at that. Would, in fact, have let it go well before that. But safetyism is relentless. The chiming/dinging must continue for longer, louder. Perhaps forever – or at least for long enough that the victim of this harassment cannot stand it any longer and gives in, by bucking “his” seatbelt.

Also the passengers. All of them. Shotgun, of course – but now also those in back. Safetyism has decreed chiming/dinging for everyone in the vehicle. So even the backseats are no longer safe harbor. The driver is put in the same position the government puts the store owner, who is forced to act as tax collector for the government. Just so, the driver of the cars coming off the line will be forced to become the government’s nag, pestering the people riding in back to wear their seatbelts – in order to save his nerves from the unendurable racket of all that chiming/dinging.

The cloying degradation of this business almost beggars the descriptive power of words. The driver acting as parent – of other adults – on behalf of a government that regards them all as retarded children too stupid to act in their own best interests.

But that is actually a superficial explanation. In actuality, the treating of adults as retarded children is merely the everyday etiolation of this sickness that is safetyism. What it’s really all about is using the cloying pretext of “keeping us safe” to keep us under control – by asserting that we have no say in matters that are properly no one else’s business and certainly not the government’s.

Matters so personal as the wearing or not of a seatbelt – or a “mask.”

Soon, it will be more. Heck, it already is. But it will be more than we can imagine. There will never be an end to it.

Safetyism pushes itself beyond all previously acknowledged boundaries of civility that – once upon a time – formed a kind of perimeter around the person (and property) of the individual, past which government was not allowed. Better said, beyond which government had no rightful authority.

Today, after 50-plus years of safetyism, there is no boundary beyond the reach of this inhuman doctrine, which forms the basis of what has become an inhuman society, in which no one is free to be let alone, ever – because it might not be “safe.”

And to think, it all began with a seatbelt, all those years ago.

. . .

Got a question about cars, bikes or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! Or email me at [email protected] if the @!** “ask Eric” button doesn’t work!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at [email protected] and I will send you a copy directly!

Share Button

86 COMMENTS

  1. Here’s a practical tip for ending the annoying seatbelt dinging:

    a) Get spare seatbelt buckles from a junk yard donor car and click them into your car’s seatbelt receptacle, or

    b) If you’re car is too new for junkyard donors (or if you’re not inclined to go to a junkyard), take a plastic putty knife trace your car’s seat belt buckle and make a plastic facsimile to insert instead.

    Problem solved!

      • Hi Krista,

        This is what I do – buckle the belts and sit on them. In every new car I test drive. Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety! Here’s mud in their eyes. My blessed-be-its-little-self ’02 Frontier doesn’t do more than meekly illuminate a dashboard light, easily ignored. I loves that truck for this and other reasons; a column about it is on deck…

        • As an added bonus, the “sit on it” technique (which I also practice), gives the “triangle outline” that the GeStaPo look for as they don’t mind their own business. It’s easier to avoid the bastards and the courts are corrupt, so why not. I’m too old to run and don’t want to fight on terms not of my choosing, so this works.

    • My husband knows some trick to cease the bell ringing in Fords. He’s done it in my past and present Mustangs (2006, 2016) his 2001 Cobra and two F150 trucks, one of which is his work truck. It’s got something to do with the fob. The dash light comes on, but no bell sounds. I think he found the method online, so someone else could, too.
      I usually wear it anyway, but sometimes I just don’t feel like it. If I’m wearing a silky shirt, it’s always sliding up against my neck. It also catches my hair and necklaces.
      But my main complaint with them is it’s so tight and I feel pinned to the seat. I solved that issue by fastening an old brooch (ladies lapel pin) into the fabric so it can’t retract all the way. I put it on and have a couple of inches of give. The only issue, besides maybe faceplanting the airbag, which I guess will happen anyway, it when you’re not wearing the belt, it won’t neatly retract into its housing. It’s just laying there on the seat.

    • There’s a small piece shaped like a T that can be bought on the mighty amazon that one simply clicks into the receiver and that’s that. I use ’em in my work van and they work like a charm. Ten bucks if memory serves.

  2. I am very glad that you (or anyone) notices these manipulative word tricks that are being used. The thing about YOUR… mask, shot, seatbelt, vax pass, etc. That has bugged me to no end from the beginning.

    I have said forever, “there is no *my* shot”.

    That and the thing about whatever behavior (verb) followed by “up”. Mask up, vax up, team up, buckle up, wash up, grow up…. shut up! Get out of here with the “up”! My default answer… NO! Nothing… up! Get out of here with “up”!

    It just has the folksy “we’re all in this together” fallacy thing. I’m on the other side of the political “room” in this country. What is popular to… “up”… leave me out. I want nothing to do with it. Put me *down* as not upping anything!

    I learned from a clinically psychotic family member about manipulative word tricks. In that sense I was done a favor from the experience. The govt’s Jedi mind tricks, don’t work on me.

    While other people generally cooperate, agree with, and believe the govt. — my first thought is “it’s a lie, you’re lying to me, even if I can’t figure out what the lie is yet” whenever I hear any of the establishment noise.

    These people are the devil.

  3. “Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments.” Ludwig von Mises

  4. First, rational conversations with people who think seatbelt laws and speed limits are good ideas are impossible, because in their minds, opposition to seatbelt laws means opposition to seatbelt use.

    They are completely in capable of separating those two ideas.

    Second, if you want the noise to stop, just disconnect the wiring harness at the buckle.

    • Morning, John –

      You’re right about the impossibility of rational conversation with such people. It’s the same with “masks” – and other such things. It’s not that they’re stupid, per se. Well, not always. Some are just broken, in terms of their cognitive functions. They never learned to reason – or else that capacity was stunted. Instead, they emote – like little children.

      • As was the goal of mandatory public education from its beginning. As was clearly stated by those who promoted it.

    • You’re absolutely correct.

      “Socialism, like the old policy from which it emanates, confounds Government and society.  And so, every time we object to a thing being done by Government, it [i.e., socialism and socialists] concludes that we object to its being done at all.  We disapprove of education by the State — then we are against education altogether.  We object to a State religion — then we would have no religion at all.  We object to an equality which is brought about by the State then we are against equality, etc., etc.  They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat because we object to the cultivation of corn by the State.” Frederic Bastiat, The Law

  5. Not to mention the fact that you have to buckle up your case of beer you sit on the seat because the idiot car thinks it’s a human which isn’t heavy enough to be in the front seat in the first place because of the Claybrook Claymore in the dash.

    I always wear a seatbelt when driving more than 30mph. However, I would NEVER insist anyone wear one at any time if it was their preference. Same with helmets. I don’t ride but, if you want to ride without one that’s your choice. About 5 years ago I saw a biker riding sans helmet in NC which mandates. Seconds later I saw a cop going after him. Now for the irony, it was July 4th.

    The Long March Through the Institutions has led this country to reject the reasons for its founding. Now we’re nothing but a putrid rotting corpse of a once great ideal.

    • If you drink enough of the beer, the light should go off. Or at some point you will no longer care that the light is on.

  6. The IIHS (the group pushing for more intrusive seatbelt alarms; see: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/many-suvs-struggle-in-first-iihs-seat-belt-reminder-evaluations) may have at one point been a useful entity. I remember as a kid seeing then IIHS president Brian O’Neill on Dateline pushing for, what at the time seemed reasonable, improvement in crash safety—namely in moderate offset crashes, which also seemed to be more representative of actual crashes than the government’s mandated 100% overlap. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaiMUM0XVZk However, over the last decade, due to the ubiquity of automotive passive safety, the IIHS is pushing for things that make little sense to me in an attempt to stay relevant. The IIHS supports red light cameras, automated braking, LED and other expensive headlights costing hundreds (sometimes thousands) more than regular halogens and sealed beams, etc. Even their relatively new small overlap crash test seems disconnected from reality; cars with demonstrably low driver death rates can perform poorly, See: 2010-2013 Mercedes C-Class which earned a “poor” rating in this test—yet the IIHS found the driver death rate of the 2011 Mercedes C-Class to be 10 deaths per million registered vehicle years versus the overall 2011 vehicle death rate of 28. As their mission to improve passive vehicle safety was essentially accomplished long ago, the new IIHS leadership must find creative ways to justify their continued existence: hence seat belt reminder evaluations. I can only guess the next thing on the IIHS’ radar will be pedestrian standards like in Europe (How about look both ways like every toddler is (should?) be taught!) or maybe rating the annoying simulated sounds of electric cars. (Anyone else notice the annoying chimes and faux motor sounds many electric cars make to ensure people can hear them coming and going?) The IIHS as far as I know never mandated improvements in crash safety; automakers responded to poor results of early tests because they knew they could use a good rating as a selling feature. Will any car buyer actively seek out a car with a good seat belt reminder? I probably will find a “good” rating as a negative for any particular model—who wants to be nagged more? And by an inanimate object no less!

    • James,
      I HATE the ultra-bright LED headlights of today’s cars. I think they make driving MORE dangerous, as they blind everyone in front of you. I have a hard time tolerating such cars behind me, and usually opt to slow down in order to force them to pass.

      • +1,000,000,000,000 on the ‘ultra’ LED headlights. God forbid one of those cars crests a hill going down towards you, as for 3-6 seconds you are completely blinded.

        But they look cool to the dudes who own them, and they help the awful driving granny see. f*** everyone else.

        • I’ll add my “amen” to the rest, Andrew –

          There is always a delay, too, between the LED/super bright-light car coming at you with automatically dimming lights and the actual dimming. This is what comes of automating the brights. And if you can’t see well enough to drive a night without brights, then it’s time for a visit to the eye doctor.

          Sartre was right…

  7. Hi Eric,

    I remember getting a seat belt ticket in college (late 80s – early 90s) and here in Ohio at that time you could waive the ticket by watching a “safety film” shown at a local school, church, etc.

    I went to the film and it was so childish it was unbelievable — like it was made for 5-year-olds. There was some Mr. Rogers-type guy talking about how you could get “hurt real bad” and how the government would have to take care of you; therefore you were “burdening all of society” by not wearing a seat belt. 🙄

    Looking back, although I view the 1980s as being much “freer” than today, I can see the beginnings of the “safety cult” even back then in the days of the Gipper and Shrub 41 — of course we were promised “seat belt laws will never be a primary offense”, which was of course just another official lie. That era also was, IIRC, was when “sobriety checkpoints” came into common use — “but if you aren’t drunk, what do you have to fear?” the government pontificated. 🤨

    I can look back ruefully as ask, myself included, why didn’t we stand up then and say the hell with all that? It’s too late to change that now — but that was a big reason I was so hateful of the face diapers and vax mandates — I just got fed up with being pushed around and bullied by so-called “public servants” who really serve only themselves and their personal agendas of control.😡

  8. C.S Lewis quote that has stuck with me..

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

  9. Volvo invented the three-point safety seat belt and then donated the technology to all other auto manufacturers. Didn’t want the money, didn’t need the money, the information was free because it was it was going to be a great help to the entire industry.

    He never reached much further
    Than his lonely arms would go
    He wore a seatbelt around his heart
    And they called him Safety Joe

    Safety Joe, Safety Joe
    (Safety Joe, Safety Joe)
    What do you say? What do you know?
    If you don’t loosen up the buckle
    On your heart and start to chuckle
    You’re gonna die of boredom, Safety Joe
    – John Prine, Safety Joe

    John Prine was interviewed about his music and talent many years ago. It was revealed in the interview that he flunked all four years of high school English. John could write lyrics that make you cry tears of joy amidst all of the sadness.

    Glen Campbell could pick guitar, he couldn’t read music.

    If you don’t wear the gov seatbelt, you can still drive your car.

  10. I have been a voluntary seatbelt user since I was a little kid in the mid fifties. I don’t know what IQ level is required to realize that seat belt usage is a good idea, but the number seems to go up when usage is demanded by edict or interlock.

    • Hi ft,

      Your insinuation that those of us who choose not to wear a seat belt – and would like our wishes to be respected – are low IQ is both obnoxious as well as small-minded.

      This isn’t about the wisdom of wearing a seat belt. It is about the being forced to. I work out a lot. It is a wise thing to do, if you’re interested in being healthy and strong. Do you think everyone should be forced to work out? That if you don’t work out, you have a low IQ?

      I’m being harsh – because it’s necessary. The whole point here is about other people – and that’s all “government” is – interposing themselves and their value judgments in between you and yours. That if you accept it here, you have accepted it, there. You may like it that “edicts and interlocks” exist with regard to seatbelts. Maybe not so much when it comes to other things that you may consider your rightful business and none of mine.

      Just asking that you think about it.

          • Eric, your position is clear and correct. My statement was less clear. You need not apologize. Your efforts to fight off the offal generated by the nanny state are commendable. Keep up the good work.

          • Eric, anyone who has given any real thought to the matter of government, is likely to come to the same conclusion that Rothbard did; “Government is a gang of thieves writ large”. To which I have always added and murderers. I’m much less charitable than Rothnard was.

            Most of the endless books and debates about government, seldom if every address the key issue. That being, do we need it at all? Should it even exist? The honest answer all things considered, is that no, we do not need it. One can have rules without rulers.

            Those who worship the state, in its various guises, do so to use its collective power. Of course, that is always for the “Greater Good”… In reality, the very structure of government is about the use of collective power, in the service of the goals of those who control that power. No matter the form of the government, it always ends up being a system to reward ones friends, and punish ones enemies.

            What we are currently victims of is the result of a literal Nanny State. Women are hard wired (in general) to have different priorities than men. Mixing state power with those priorities has been demonstrated to be a tragic mistake.

            Entire civilizations have fallen, when the pillars of stability have been damaged/destroyed. Ours will be no different.

            • Morning, BJ –

              In re: “What we are currently victims of is the result of a literal Nanny State. Women are hard wired (in general) to have different priorities than men. Mixing state power with those priorities has been demonstrated to be a tragic mistake . . .Entire civilizations have fallen, when the pillars of stability have been damaged/destroyed. Ours will be no different.”

              As the years go by and events unfold I more and more come around to the same conclusion. Without stable relationships between men and women, strong families and communities based on the foregoing, there can be no civilization. Or, the one that existed decays into nihilistic depravity, as now.

            • Once again I will point out that every single “government” is and always has been founded on its authority to kill you if you disobey. They cannot function without that authority. The are founded on murder.

  11. Great argument. Back when seat belt laws went into effect in the 1980s and the libertarians complained, I thought this was a strange “hill to die on.” I always wore mine, because I didn’t want to go flying through the windshield head-first in the event of a crash.

    Back then, the seat belt law only affected the driver and front passenger, and, more importantly, was not legal grounds for a “primary stop.” In other words, the cops couldn’t pull you over just for the seat belt violation, you had to be doing something else (e.g., speeding) and they would write it as a “secondary” infraction.

    Over the last several decades the seat belt laws have metastasized. Now they are a primary infraction, and once you are pulled over for that the cops can manufacture probable cause to search your vehicle (the Supreme Court has ruled that “acting suspicious” and “anonymous tips” are sufficient for a search). Now all occupants of the vehicle must be “belted,” not just the driver.

    Naturally, the cops are exempt from seat belt laws.

    Today, I understand that the government has no business telling me what to do, even if it is for my own good. When I am in a car, I must wear a seat belt — but I ride motorcycles without any seat belt, and statistically it is far more injurious if you get into a motorcycle accident. Should the government ban motorcycles to keep me safe? Why not? if the seat belt laws are a valid precedent, they can — and should!

    Of course the seat belt laws are not valid precedent. In a free country, the government takes orders from me, I do not take orders from it. If I choose to engage in actions that have an elevated risk to me, that is my business, not theirs. If it is the business of the government to “keep me safe,” then they need to ban ladders, chain saws, guns, boats, motorcycles, swimming pools, bathtubs, knives, barbecue grills and stoves, mountain climbing, and skydiving. The need to ban foods that cause obesity. And certainly they need to ban anal sex so gays don’t get AIDS, too.

    Where does it end? It doesn’t. You’re either free, or you’re not. There isn’t much “in between.”

  12. ‘Civility once formed a kind of perimeter around the person (and property) of the individual, past which government was not allowed.’ — eric

    Ronald Reagan promised to get Big Gov off our backs.

    But yesterday, all but three R-party members in the House voted to keep locking people in cages for using cannabis (and thus, absurdly, continuing to classify the demon weed as Schedule 1 along with heroin and fentanyl).

    Respect for liberty doesn’t exist among the two putrid legacy parties, both of which worship illegitimate intrusions of government in their own sordid ways.

    • The ONLY difference I have ever noted between the two parties is that the Rs prefer to drive this handcart to hell just a bit slower than the Ds. The destination remains the same, though the Rs would have us hit the bottom a bit closer to the base of the cliff.

      • John, both aspects of our uniparty are just there for the show. Elections are a farce, meant to keep the rabble in line. That was openly rubbed in peoples face in 2020. They have reached the point that they can’t even be bothered to give lip service to the foundational principles. Generations of public “education” and control of the mass/social media have added to the damage. The last two years have been instructive in just how far they can go, before push back starts. As the die off gains speed, this is going to get very ugly. Couple in some false flags, food shortages and run away inflation, and the m asses will be begging to be “saved”.

  13. Just wait! Soon the cars probably won’t go in gear when it detects an occupied seat unbuckled.
    Short story: My sister recently got a scare at the gas station in her new honder passportly. She pulled in a gas station and opened her door enough to notice the concrete post was in the way and “closed” the door but it wouldn’t go in drive. She squeezed out and filled up anyway. When she got back in to leave the car went into gear without a hitch. I had to educate her on this new “feature” honder foisted on all of us toddlers so we don’t run over ourselves. Can’t wait to get stranded by a faulty door switch. This trash has gone too far.

    • 1974 seat belt starter interlock systems. Was federally mandated for 1974 cars. It didn’t even it make the entire model year due to the problems that resulted and popular backlash.

      I’ve likely said this before, but when I was maybe 7 years old the first automotive thing I did was to disable the annoying seatbelt buzzer system in a 1974 Chevy Vega. It must have been a later model year car as I don’t recall it having any starter interlock system. It was just a very annoying buzzer that buzzed even though we wore the seat belts.

      • I worked for a rental car company in 1974, we got several calls a month where the car wouldn’t start even with the belt buckled. Great for customer relations. Fortunately our rental outfit was part of a West Seattle Buick dealership and word finally came down on how to permanently bypass this “feature” but “don’t talk about it” since the law was still in effect.

        Your “Vegrant” probably had the bypass performed.

      • My 1974 Plymouth Duster has that ridiculous seat belt interlock feature too… although it was long since disabled when I bought the car years ago. Someone disconnected it under the driver’s seat.

        • Hi Bill,

          In re the Duster: Those “cheap” muscle cars were their own special thing. I have an Ertl model of a Duster 340 Wedge, yellow with the matte black hood and side panel stripes. This car and others like it are totems of a time when V8-powered/RWD performance cars were available – and affordable – to average young guys, brand-new or slightly used. Such a time being unimaginable in our time, to those who weren’t around to experience what was, once.

  14. I know a very large lady who can’t be bothered with seat belts, it’s almost impossible for her to put one on. So the solution? She leaves the seat belt buckled and just sits on top of it. The safety systems think it’s buckled, and so, no alarms. Ha!

    In my Ford Focus RS, putting anything in the passenger seat trigger the seat belt alarm. It’s freaking annoying.

    • Here in Eastern WA our transplants from south of the border don’t wear seatbelts. Combined with their consumption of adult beverages and spirited driving style makes for quite a body count on the evening news. “Driver and passenger ejected from the vehicle neither wearing seatbelts”. I feel bad when kids are involved, dead from the stupid of the parents.

      • Well, Spark, what do you expect- they are free people coming from a free country. They understand corrupt government, all it means is you have to be prepared to pay it off.

        Also, I case you aren’t aware, the news media lies (unless it gets it wrong). I’ve personally been on multiple gut rolls where the deceased were wearing their suicide straps, and it was reported otherwise. Likewise they NEVER report on the many who survived because they were unstrapped and were ejected.

        The simple fact is that in a highly kinetic event like a high speed wreck, or a gunfight, your survival is a matter of God’s will/luck.

  15. When my wifie and I are out on a drive and she gets a hot flash and has to take off her sweater, I tell her the bells that are chiming are not seat belt alarms by *hot flash* alarms.

  16. ‘treating of adults as retarded children is merely the everyday etiolation of this sickness that is safetyism’ — eric

    ‘Safetyfication’ induces more risk-seeking outside of regulated environments.

    National parks once required permits for technical climbs. Rangers decided whether climbers were taking on too much personal danger.

    Fast forward to today, where Alex Honnold free-climbed El Capitan solo, with no protection. One slip and he would’ve died.

    Plenty of examples of extreme sports can be cited. Also extreme sexual behavior, including gender transition which objectively involves many health risks including depression and suicide.

    Big Gov seems to understand that one way to induce apathy and mass psychosis is to simultaneously promote extreme safety measures in some areas, while encouraging risk taking in others.

    Unable to process the cognitive dissonance, the populace throws up its hands and concludes that nothing makes sense, and nothing matters.

  17. I leave the passenger seat belt buckled all the time, otherwise it keeps dinging at me every time I put a bag of groceries there.

  18. Why is it anyones business what risks I decide to mitigate and which ones I don’t? Seat belts are just another law to be ignored. I stoped wearing seatbelts ten years ago (except when my wife is driving the sports car, at night.) In that time Ive talked my way out of one ticket and received one ticket.

    The time I was ticketed I think the officers name could have been Hugh Jassol. He was OK until he saw we were using cheaters, then he became irate, giving me the ticket, and lecturing us on the laws of physics. Kind of made me nostalgic for my high school drivers ED teacher.

    • When govt mandates things for a person’s own safety, what they are saying is that they own you and will not tolerate you damaging their property.

      What legitimate business of a 3rd party is it that a person does or does not do to themself?

  19. “Safetyism” is indeed a cult, with no correlation with reality. Safety does not exist. People die slipping in their bathtub or shower. People die tripping on their stairs. NO ONE gets out of this circus alive. Whether they die from “climate change” or sneezing while stepping out in traffic. The only real safety is the grave.
    I do wear a seatbelt while driving, and insist anyone sitting in the passenger seat do so as well. For the simple reason that I might drive out of a situation, if I remain behind the wheel, and the passenger is not in my lap. But that’s my business, and none of any one else’s.

  20. Actually it started long before seatbelts, with asbestos. Asbestos was a miracle fire retardant. It was in everything. And right from the start the health issues it caused were known. But that didn’t matter, full steam ahead with requiring it in buildings.

    In the wake of such disasters as the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, the Peshtigo, Wisconsin firestorm, and the fires started by ruptured gas lines during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, city occupants clamored for a solution, and city councils throughout America began instituting building codes requiring the use of asbestos or its equivalents.

    https://www.theasbestosinstitute.com/wp2017/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/History-of-Asbestos-At-a-Glance-3.pdf

    I’m not going to debate the health effects of asbestos. I’m fairly certain the whole thing has been blown out of proportion due to Californians’ unhealthy fears, but it does illustrate the problems with central authority mandataing solutions to whatever they think is dangerous. By requiring the use of asbestos, other safer soutions were eliminated from consideration. And because large municipal governments could afford to write up lawsuit-resistant building codes, they’d become boilerplate for many other towns.

    Can one sue the city council for instituting these requirements in the first place? Are you going to get a refund for the asbestos abatement costs? Of course not.* It’s Formica instead of granite countertops in your remodeled kitchen. It’s 10X the cost for a new furnace, or just abandon in place and put in big ugly mini-split heat pumps. Oh sure, you can freign igorance and just tear out the insulation yourself, and probably not get caught throwing it out in the trash, but when there’s a zero tolerance policy, someone will eventually find a stray fiber.

    *In the UK 150% of the cost can be deducted from income taxes, but not in the USA!

    • The absurdity arises in pretending asbestos is a highly toxic substance, when in reality it can have no more than a mechanical effect. Asbestos is treated as if it were Plutonium. Simply because the Psychopaths In Charge CAN treat it as plutonium. And thereby assume ever more authority and control.

  21. Was reading CFP about Artur Pawlowski released from prison… saw this comment, then thought of it again while reading, ‘Saaaaaaaaaafety . . . in Case You Forgot’

    michaelmichael
    When comrade Pawlowski mentioned being in the psychological section it reminded me. I once shared an office for 2 years with a Russian born and raised in KIEV ( in the then Soviet Union) who’s favourite line, after slapping her sides, was:

    “You don’t love communism? You must be MAD!!” She’d then roar with laughter.

  22. I remember being a little boy, maybe 8 or 9 yrs old, and the seatbelt laws went into effect. My grandfather was a grizzled WW2 army veteran, and I was riding with him to a tractor show when he got pulled over for not wearing his safety belt. I vividly remember him berating that cop, yelling at him in his drill sargents voice “I didn’t wade through the blood and guts of my fellow soldiers storming Omaha beach, seeing my brothers die for this country, killing Nazis with my bare hands, just so a piss ant little turd with a badge could order me to wear a stupid seatbelt!” He spent a good 10 min admonishing that cop for being a commie loving bastard harassing a decorated veteran. After he’d said his piece, the officer apologized for pulling him over, and thanked him profusely for his service to our country. I miss that man every day, I shudder to think at what grandpa would think of our currant state of affairs here in the divided states of embarrassment. He gave me a profound sense of respect though, and to this day anytime I encounter a veteran I go out of my way to shake their hand and thank them for their service to our country, and I’ve tought my 3 boys to do the same. While I may not agree with the causation for the wars, one cannot deny the personal sacrifices made.

    • “It would be very difficult for me to think of any term that disgusted me more than those words uttered continuously in the presence of virtually any soldier in the United States: “Thank you for your service.”” …

      https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/04/gary-d-barnett/thank-you-for-your-service/

      “Whether they want to believe it or not, that is the “service” that Americans are actually thanking the troops for when they say, “Thank you for your service.” The reality behind the bromide, as discomforting as it might be, is: “Thank you for killing people and, in the process, contributing to the destruction of our freedom and prosperity here at home.””

      lewrockwell.com/2017/06/jacob-hornberger/thank-you-for-your-service-2/

      “I hope you can now better understand why I find the bromide “Thank you for your service to our country” objectionable for me …”

      https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/david-johns/dont-thank-me-for-my-service/

      War is a racket

      https://ia802605.us.archive.org/29/items/WarIsARacket/WarIsARacket.pdf

      • 100% agree. Soldiers are exactly as the sadist Henry Kissinger described them ”

        “Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy”

        I personally despise their “service” that I’m forced to pay for. Their “service” does nothig for me but makes the worlds sickest people insanely rich along with aiding, abetting, and committing murder of people who are no threat to any of us.

      • Good for you you can copy and paste from Lew, I’ve actually shaken the man’s hand and spent quite a bit of time in the Mises institute in my late teens. So before you all assume and run your mouth, I understand that while war is a racket indeed one cannot deny a man’s personal sacrifices for his country regardless of the ultimate causation for it. And I can hold the utmost in libertarian beliefs, and still lay you out for disrespecting a veteran in my presence.

        • A man’s personal sacrifices for the bankers, you mean.

          RE: “And I can hold the utmost in libertarian beliefs, and still lay you out for disrespecting a veteran in my presence.”

          Sticks & stones.. how’s that not a giant violation of the N.A.P.?

          I don’t care who you met, or where you’ve been, your written words do Not convey the libertarian mindset. Ihmo.

          “The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism.” …

          https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/laurence-m-vance/shall-we-abandon-the-non-aggression-principle/

          • Helot, even more fundamental are the two questions; Do you own yourself? Do you own your works? The NAP naturally flows from those two questions. Remember the old meme? “Libertarianism, the radical idea that other people are not your property!”. The various works by Rothbard lay all of this out in great detail. Its a shame more people have not been exposed to his thoughts.

            • Morning, BJ –

              I’ve always thought it a shame that Jefferson didn’t make it more clear what that the most “self evident” truth – the one upon which all the others depend for their substance – is that of self ownership. Any assault upon this principle undermines the rest. You’re either a free man – or you’re something less, the “less” always increasing.

              • I think Jefferson was hobbled by the fact that he owned other men. Because of this, generations to come have been shackled, even today.

                • I think so, too, Anon – in re Jefferson.

                  I’ve read about him extensively and almost feel as though I knew him. He knew it was wrong to own other people – and as a young man, was one of the few to openly say so. But as a middle-aged (and old) man, he also knew that giving up his slaves would bankrupt him; he was already bankrupt, in fact. So he chose to do the expedient but wrong thing by continuing to own slaves in order to support a lifestyle beyond his means. A tragic flaw of his. Of course, all great men have them – and he was no exception.

                  • “So he chose to do the expedient but wrong thing by continuing to own slaves in order to support a lifestyle beyond his means.”

                    Self-interest above all else. Expedience is being shown to be society’s downfall even today – in re “just a mask,” “just a jab,” etc.

                    “A tragic flaw of his. Of course, all great men have them – and he was no exception.”

                    Yes, he communicated beautiful ideas. But they were left for other men to implement. And perhaps that is true of most (if not all) of us.

                  • Expedient. Great word choice. Rule 7 in Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules book… Pursue What Is Meaningful, Not What Is Expedient

                    Expediency is what is destroying me, at the moment.

        • Those veterans are the enablers and enforcers of the satanic agenda being shoved down ours and the world’s throat.  Teaching five year olds they can be a girl and how to masturbate, boys in girls locker rooms,the quackcine, big tech censorship, the green con, the EV con, the Russia con, Bill Gates cricket burgers – those veterans you idolize are the worldwide enforcement goons for all this.  They serve Satan.   They’re either in on it, don’t care, or most likely – like you – have no clue.  

          Anyone who claims to be a libertarian who thanks a veteran or a cop or other armed government worker for their ‘service’  is pretty much too far gone to talk to.  And thinking their “sacrifices” are more special than regular working class folks (who you SHOULD be thanking) and who add value to society rather othan sucking it dry at the government teat is the cherry on the stupid cake.  As helot pointed out, your childish threat of violence to speech you don’t like  makes you a better fit for BLM or Antifa.  

        • Soldiers’ Honor Fallacy. The ancient fallacy that all who wore a uniform, fought hard and followed orders are worthy of some special honor or glory or are even “heroes,” whether they fought for freedom or fought to defend slavery, marched under Grant or Lee, Hitler, Stalin or McArthur, fought to defend their homes, fought for oil or fought to spread empire, or even fought against and killed U.S. soldiers! A corrupt argument from ethos (that of a soldier), closely related to the “Finish the Job” fallacy (“Sure, he died for a lie, but he deserves honor because he followed orders and did his job to the end!”). See also “Heroes All.” This fallacy was recognized and decisively refuted at the Nuremburg Trials after World War II but remains powerful to this day nonetheless. Related to this is the State Actor fallacy, that those who fight and die for a country (America, Russia, Iran, the Third Reich, etc.) are worthy of honor or at least pardonable while those who fight for a non-state actor (abolitionists, guerrillas, freedom-fighters, jihadis) are not and remain “terrorists” no matter how noble or vile their cause, until or unless they are adopted by a state after the fact.

          • Hi Anon,

            This is something I’ve questioned for years — especially since the “Bush wars” and the idea that we should honor “service” and “sacrifice” whether we agree with the political agenda or not.

            Using that logic though, one must also “thank” Nazi and Japanese soldiers in WWII, the Taliban, both Union and Confederate forces in the Civil War, both Russian and Ukrainian troops in the current conflict — anyone who fought in any war, ever, pretty much. After all, those soldiers made sacrifices, even if we don’t agree with the ideology behind it, right? All that matters is they “served”…right?

            One can sacrifice for something and still be doing it for a very misguided cause. It’s tragic when people put their safety and even lives at stake for someone else’s egotistical agenda (especially if they were forced into it such as via the draft), but being obliged to be “thankful” doesn’t seem the proper reaction to me. 🤷‍♂️

        • Rusty, one can honor the individual vets (as I do), without forgetting that they fought in a pointless war, at the behest of monsters. Any war that is not strictly defensive is wrong. It is also wrong to fill young men’s minds with illusions/delusions, and send them off to kill strangers who have never done anything to them. War is among the most insane activities that humans engage in. It is also one of the most destructive in terms of blood and treasure. This is a complex topic that deserves its own column. There is a phrase that has always stuck in my mind; “All wars are bankers wars”. Wars are EXTREMELY expensive. Most would not be possible without the governments central bank. If one examines the history of central banks, one soon finds those who profit from both sides of wars, and have for centuries. The creature from jekyll island by G Edward Griffin would be a good place to start.

          • Hi BJ,

            A story about war that has always stuck with me is the one about the Christmas Armistice of WW I. Soldiers on both sides of the trenches decided to stop the war – and the killing – on their own initiative. They met across no man’s land, shared meals, the holiday spirit, etc. And them went back to shooting at one another. It is hard to conceive of a better description of insanity than this.

            Then there’s Muhammad Ali’s more pithy analysis of why he wasn’t interested in going to war in Vietnam: No ‘Cong ever called me ‘nigger’ “…

            • That story stuck with me too. Christians decided to stop killing each other over BS reasons on Christmas… presumedly to remember Christ, only to stand back up, put out the campfire, dust their pants off, and proceed to shoot each other in the faces right after.

              Ahhh yes. We need to shitcan that ‘Einstein Definition’ of insanity and instead say “the definition of insanity is suspending war for football matches, Christmas caroling, and exchanging of uniform buttons with the opposing ‘team’ for a day to celebrate Christ for a day, and then kill them the next.”

    • Your Grandfather had the excuse of ignorance. You don’t. The US has not been involved in a “just” war since the Revolution. As one can now easily learn if they seek to. Since its founding the US has only known about 20 years when its military was not actively engaged in killing people. Another’s participation in that is not a thing to be thankful for. I would be far more thankful if they refused to. My appreciation of Mohamed Ali is not because of his exceptional boxing skill, but because he sacrificed perhaps millions of dollars to adhere to his conviction that he would not participate.

      • Indeed, John –

        Although this is a hard one to come to grips with for many, especially conservatives, who often associate “the troops” and “supporting” them (which really means not questioning that the “Defense” Department gets as much hardware and our money as demanded) with – somehow – protecting our freedoms. Many will get very angry, ver quickly, if you even gently question “supporting the troops” – i.e., whether it protects our freedoms to have “the troops” engaged in wars/occupations all over the globe, whether our freedoms are enhanced by having 15 (or however many) aircraft carrier battle groups . . . and so on.

        Instinctively, many of us admire bravery and regard service as laudable. But bravery is not an isolated value. Hitler was a brave soldier. The question ought to be – brave, how? In the service of what, exactly?

        It is brave to stand up against tyranny. But is that what “the troops” are actually doing? Who will enforce the next “lock down”?

        If “the troops” had refused to participate in unjust wars and unjust actions at home and fought to protect our freedoms, then I would be the first to thank them for their service.

    • Actually that’s exactly what your uncle fought for along with all the other trash our society has devolved into. He just didn’t realize it

    • Let’s not lose sight of the fact that Rusty’s grandfather correctly pointed out to the officer that he was a commie scumbag, as almost every cop is, knowingly or not.

      Today, instead of an apology for harassing and annoying you, you will be drug from your car, beaten, shot, or worse.

      This is where we are at for your safety.

      • Yeah his grandfather fought for the communist globalist agenda and probably killed folks who were no threat to him or his family and now he”s upset at the inevitable result. What a hero.

  23. Brilliant piece of work whichever generic group of bureaucrats did it…. thanks to them we now know which cars annoy and nag you the least on pointless crap you dont care about….

    Wonder what they will say to my old X3 – whos seatbelt alarm doesnt work anymore !!!

    • Seatbelt alarms can often be defeated, by a combination of input to the programming. Look it up for your particular model to see if it’s possible. Don’t lose the information, since if you disconnect the battery, you will likely have to do it again.

      • Yup, all my vehicles nagging/chiming has been turned off. My Manuf. (FCA) actually built in the defeat with a fairly simple procedure. It still lights up a dash warning light when you come to a stop for 3-5 seconds and goes away, but no beeps. I’m guessing that was their way of ‘complying’ with the safety cult.
        I’m guessing, again, that they got tons of nuisance complaints about the nagging and they decided to build in a back-door so the dealer could get rid of it.
        Thank you FCA, not sure if the new owner Stellantis has this feature or not.

        • Seatbelt buckles can be easily defeated permanently by clipping or splicing the wires together (normally closed/open switch). Just be aware the claymores were designed with buckled occupants in mind and will likely be MORE dangerous when the buckles have been neutered.

          • Yup, fully understand (I’m a mech engr). My issue with the nagging is I commute to work less than 5 min., so 500 very short trips a year +/-. I rarely see a car, so I don’t bother. I do think it’s smart everywhere else, especially in today’s lack of attention to driving and huge increase in head-on’s, and with the claymore in front of you.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here