Good call on getting the belts in. We are thinking to transport people in the back of our 5-ton as well. This would be driving through our little town and to the Iron Curtain - Cold War exhibition along the former Iron Curtain only half a mile out of town. For passenger safety (most important), insurance coverage (as important) and the law (which I use as argument when people do not want to belt on), we will use old bus seats with at least hip belts. If I am driving 20 miles and hit the brakes full, the truck stops quicker than people in the back can react
I hate seatbelts, and have removed them from my deuce, and wont use them in anything else (except for something with no doors) I dont like the fact the the goverment tells me what I can/can't do for my
PERSONAL safety, I can understand making laws concerning what I do if it could hurt someone else.. but if it only concerns my safety, I should have that choice.. i guess I'll step down off my "soap box" now
.....
Can I take your place, can I?
For argument's sake, let's say you only hurt yourself and brake your back, being confined to a wheelchair or a bed for the rest of your life. If you are uninsured, even the US Government - probably - will not let you laying in the dirt without anything (at least not in the first few hours, think about ambulances, ER treatment, maybe even an evac helicopter to get you there in time). And even with brilliant insurance coverage still a lot of costs fall on the community. What about your family who have to take care of you and wipe your behind because you cannot do it yourself anymore. And the extra costs they have to provide for, and the shared income they miss because of you being out of normal life. That's only the financial side. Now the emotional cost. Apart from the too obvious thought about no holidays anymore for anybody because you need 24/7 365 days/year attention. Want to calculate the financial and emotional costs for your dearests and for society of that?
Next argument: setting the example. If you refuse to wear a seat belt because the law says so, you have no moral grounds to order your passengers to do while you don't. Which mean they will not. In case of accident, you as driver become at least partly responsible for their injuries due to not wearing seat belts either.
Wear the belts because they make sense and can save your life, not because the government wants you to. Not wearing them because the government wants you to is not a smart way of protesting. The Asians have a nice saying about such behavior, but if I quote that proverb I will get kicked off the forum because of obscene language.
.....now as far as the seat belts in the M37, when the truck was built they didnt put seatbelts in anything.. and kids didnt use them then.. so why now? (also back then kids for the most part were well behaved and did what they were told.. thats getting harder to find now) .
Same reason why it is not a good idea to drive 75 miles with a deuce. These vehicles were made in a complete different time. Less cars on the roads, less stress on the road, lower speeds etc etc etc. All civilized countries found out that without safety-belts, costs of accidents became too high. Even most drivers realized that and started wearing them.
And before anybody mentions it, yes, I do know what I am talking about. Long time ago, my sister used to work with physical rehabilitation of patients, especially after car accident. My aunt and her daughter both have - had husbands who became lamed from the neck down and needed that care. I am thankful these events were not closer to me, but it was close enough to see the results. Last but not least, those belts saved my life a few times already.
