Why, though? That doesn't make any sense. I mean I guess you could say something abstract like it makes drivers increase their comfort zone or something of that nature, but that's impossible to identify. Personally, I'd go with cell phones. Seatbelts aren't obstructive or distracting. I also think that the continued modernization and geographical expansion of society is a major factor. The number of drivers on the road and miles driven increases constantly. Therefore, there is always a greater chance that two vehicles will collide. But if you're wearing the seatbelt, you're still decreasing the chance that you'll die in an accident. Ninety percent of accidents are said to be caused by 'driver error.' In other words, one of the drivers involved was driving like a jackass. That's what you don't see in these horrific articles in the paper about accident fatalities. They never just come right out and say that one or both driver(s) was being a complete douche. That's why you just have to drive very defensively, and obey the traffic laws. You'd be surprised how many people think that's too much to ask. They'd rather run the risk of dying than be inconvenienced like that.
The real cause of accident rates increasing is obvious. We keep putting guys like Chaos in charge of the damned traffic lights and lane changes. :lol::thumb:
(email forward) My neighbor is a "lefty" of sorts (Obama bumper stickers, gung-ho socialized medicine, "guns should be banned", etc.). So this past spring I put this sign up in my yard after one of his anti-gun rants at a neighborhood cocktail party. The sign wasn't up more than an hour before he called the police and wanted them to make me tTake down the sign. Fortunately, the officer politely informed him that it was not their job to take such action without a court order and that he had to file a complaint "downtown" first, which would be reviewed by the city attorney to see if it violated any city, county, or state ordinances. If there was a violation a court order would be sent to the offending party (me) to "remove the sign in seven days." After several weeks he was informed that the sign was legal (by a quarter of an inch) and there was nothing the city could do, which obviously made him madder. I tried to smooth things over by inviting him to go shooting with me and my friends at the hunt club but that seemed to make him even more angry. I am at a loss how to reconcile our long relationship (notice I did not say friendship), any suggestions would be welcome.
How is that putting the guy's house in danger? He is merely illustrating what everyone's house will be like if gun control zealots get there way by banning all guns amongst civilians. I think it's funny that any guy who thinks civilian ownership is unnecessary and should be banned, would take umbrage at it being pointed out about his own house. It's absolutely delicious in it's hypocrisy. If an alarm system and a police force is all his neighbor needs, then it is all he needs.
