seat belts,your thoughts

[Guest windjamer]

Due to the increase of fine,now $ 165.00 I have been fourced to start useing my seat belt. This law affects NO ONE but the individual and I feel that it should be a matter of Choice.In the past 30 years I have seen three incidents where an individual woud be dead had I not carried a sharp knife and now a seat belt cutter Outher than a lap belt I have yet to see a belt that did not come accross the kneck and iratate the he** out of the person. What are your thoughts, ??

[Guest asinger]

I actually installed seat belts in my 1967 Mercury Park Lane convertible. Since it is a convertible, I can't install shoulder belts.

Reasons:

The "cutoff" year for seatbelt legalization is 1968. Pre-1968 cars, like my Park Lane, would be exempt from this law. This means, that driving it now without seatbelts installed, would be theoretically legal, but I would have to debate a police officer on the side of the road if he pulled me over and asked where the seatbelts were. It's just easier with them in.

Secondly: for safety. I've heard the reports of "he would have died if he were wearing the seatbelt" but I to be honest, I feel safer wearing it while driving this giant hunk of rolling metal. And you never know when a jackass driver is going to veer in front of you and slam on his brakes. That happened to me last year. I had to slam on my brakes, and had I not been wearing a seatbelt, I probably wouldn't have been able to stay in my seat.

Thirdly: baby seat. I wanted to be able to transport our new baby in the car, and baby seats require seatbelts. No seatbelts=no baby in car=less fun in owning this car.

[Shop Rat]

Just yesterday a guy, 42 years old, was killed at the scene of his accident because the Jeep Wrangler he was driving went into a shallow ditch, flipped, threw him out and he was killed. No seatbelt. I drive that very stretch of road about once a week.

About eight years ago a nineteen year old girl who kept her horses at the barn where I used to keep mine died when she was thrown from her beloved purple Ford Ranger truck and then it rolled over her crushing her. It was raining and she was driving too fast around a curve. No seatbelt. Her friend was wearing a seatbelt, stayed in the truck and had minor injuries. The girl that died was an only child. Her father came out to the barn on what should have been her twentieth birthday. I was the only one there. He hugged me and started to cry saying, "I didn't know what to do. So I came out here where she was so happy when she was alive." They gave her favorite horse to her best friend that lived across from the barn. Those parents and the rest of her family will never be the same. The barn owner always said to her as she left, "Slow down and put your seatbelt on." We all sure wish she had listened to him.

My dad installed a bright red seatbelt in the backseat in the new 1965 Dodge Dart GT that he ordered. I was fourteen and I am now fifty-eight and I have worn a seatbelt ever since. I would not ride in/drive the Mercedes until Bill replaced the seatbelts because the web was old and had cuts in both of them.

I got seatbelt adjusters at Advance Auto and the seatbelts do not cut into my neck at all. There are several types of them and they are not expensive.

You are a nice man wj. Please protect yourself.

[Guest quadfins]

Three teenagers were killed last week near here, when they were thrown out of the vehicle. The four wearing their belts survived.

Sometimes your Big Brother is right.

Jim

[R Walling]

I would never drive a car without belts. My 31 Essex, 32 Ford and my 38 Buick all have them.

[joe_padavano]

Due to the increase of fine,now $ 165.00 I have been fourced to start useing my seat belt. This law affects NO ONE but the individual and I feel that it should be a matter of Choice.In the past 30 years I have seen three incidents where an individual woud be dead had I not carried a sharp knife and now a seat belt cutter Outher than a lap belt I have yet to see a belt that did not come accross the kneck and iratate the he** out of the person. What are your thoughts, ??

Normally I would agree with you. The decision to not use seatbelts (or motorcyle helmets) is simply evolution in action. If it truly did not affect me, I would not care what you did. Unfortunately, every injury or death attributed to not wearing seatbelts (or helmets) causes MY insurance bill to go up (where did you think that money came from?). Are you willing to accept a reduced insurance payment in exchange for the right not to wear a belt? In that case, do whatever you want.

As for the "trapped in a burning auto" argument, sorry. Three POSSIBLE examples you've brought up verses probably 300,000 cases where seatbelts DID save lives. I'll take those odds.

[Shop Rat]

As for the "trapped in a burning auto" argument, sorry.

An additonal item to have for getting out of a vehicle incase the doors are blocked or jammed was suggested by a safety expert that was on the Oprah show several years ago.

It is a spring loaded punch used normally to mark metal. It will shatter even auto glass in a hurry. Oprah has the fear of going into water in a vehicle and not being able to get out. Many people say that is why they won't wear a seatbelt, even though going into water is fairly rare. He brought a car onto the stage and put the punch at the curve in the side window glass and pushed it. The glass shattered in crumbles. Then he had her do it to another window. It worked like a charm no matter if used from inside or outside. I got ours at the local Harbour Freight store for less than $4 each.

We have one in all of our vehicles but the Mercedes. I will get one for it. We have never had to use one but I feel better knowing that we have them.

[Guest martylum]

My first new car with factory seatbelts was a brand new 1963 Pontiac Tempest sedan. At the time I was living in Southern CA where 4-5 lanes of traffic doing 70-80 mph was the norm and I felt a bit more comfortable with a belt on as I grew in the country.

In 1981 I hit a truck laid over on the roadway in the fog with my 71 Chevy Impala. The separate lap and shoulder belts kept me in the car and behind the wheel. although my car was destroyed. i was able to get out and plant flares before the next 2 vehicles, large trucks, came along. I think the belts might have been a lifesaver in my case.

I hope you haven't disconnected your airbags too.

Martin Lum

[ply33]

Been wearing seat belts since my father installed them in the 61 Valiant when I was a child. I've installed lap belts in my 1933. While not as good as a shoulder belt setup it should help some in the event of an accident.

One issue with seat belt and helmet laws "affecting no one except the individual": A lot of the brain dead people from motorcycle accidents end up using public support after their insurance and family resources are exhausted. Change the law to say that if you are injured while not taking all reasonable precautions (helmet on motorcycle, seat belts in cars, etc.) then there will be no public money or money from the other individuals in the accident used to care for you. Then go ahead and your lack of care will not affect me. Until then your lack of care may cost the public and so the public has an interest in the situation.

If you get the law changed so that the government and other parties have no responsibility to cover your expenses then go ahead, leave that belt off. In that case it won't affect me other than some regret for your family when your injuries or death devastate them financially.

(Along that line, there is a mandatory bicycle helmet law for children in my state but not for adults. It amazes me when I see a family riding where the parents are without helmets. Who do those people think are going to care for their children when they get a head injury? And by not wearing a helmet they are sending a message to their children that helmets are only for children.)

[Shop Rat]

(Along that line, there is a mandatory bicycle helmet law for children in my state but not for adults. It amazes me when I see a family riding where the parents are without helmets. Who do those people think are going to care for their children when they get a head injury? And by not wearing a helmet they are sending a message to their children that helmets are only for children.)

Here too but only until age fourteen. Then they get to choose.

Whether it is seatbelts, helmets or life in general there is a certain truth to the saying "Children go where they are lead, not where they are pointed". As adults we should set a good example. Or if they can't at least kids can see what not to do or how to act. :eek:

[F&J]

Windjamer, us old folk need to learn from our kids....wear the belt...most kids do because of the tough fines and they can't afford the fines.

I am starting to get used to them at 58. Matter of fact, I did feel a little safer hauling a heavy trailer load to a show last Sat. My tow-er is a 66 Chevy camper special that I did fit with shoulder belts fron a Cavalier station wagon when I restored it in 95.

They do make some sort of clip thing that keeps the belt a little looser fitting, but I don't have one.

Do it for the people who want to see you stay healthy.

[Dave@Moon]

The decision to not use seatbelts (or motorcyle helmets) is simply evolution in action. If it truly did not affect me, I would not care what you did. Unfortunately, every injury or death attributed to not wearing seatbelts (or helmets) causes MY insurance bill to go up (where did you think that money came from?).

A while back the Harley riders of PA pressured the PA legislature to rescind the helmet law in PA. According to the insurance lobby this resulted in an increase of insurance premiums of roughly $20.00 per car (which normally should be taken with an obvious grain of salt). They came about this figure by multiplying the additional head injury rate by the number of motorcycle riders, and dividing that by the number of registered (and therefore in PA insured) cars.

That estimate was using conservative 20+ year old numbers. Today probably twice that amount per car is paid by everyone who lives in a no-helmet state.

Our cars today are smaller, lighter, and faster than they've ever been. Yet the highway death rate is about 25% of what it was in 1966 (on roads twice as crowded). (Highway Death Rate for 2004 Sets Record Low)

Not using a seat belt is a personal choice in the same way walking along the railing instead of the sidewalk over a bridge is a personal choice. Period.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Dave@Moon
added 2nd paragraph (see edit history)

[Reatta Man]

The stories about 'he would have died if he had a seat belt on" don't stand up under the years and years of research, statistics and observations by people who deal with accidents and death in large numbers.

As an Air Force public affairs officer, I have sat through countless accident and fatality review panels and investigation briefings. The results are so clear, they scream. Seatbelts work. Airbags work. Cars are safer, as long as you stay IN the car.

And, if you think seat belt use is ONLY a personal choice, consider the following:

1) The family members you leave behind when you are dead. They have to arrange your funeral, go through and dispose of your personal property, possibly deal with significant medical bills, and that is only the begining. They then get to adjust to life without you, figure out how to live without the income you provided to the family, and even more. The missed holidays, anniversaries, birthdays, graduations and weddings go on, without you. And, that is if you die. If you are comatose, they get to do nearly all of this AND select a nursing home or convalescent long-term care facility for you......if they can afford one.

2) The others that may be affected in or around the accident. Sometimes those people ejected from the car are then run over by cars coming up a fraction of a second later. That driver (or drivers) must ask if you would have lived if they had not run over you with their car. Lots of grief to lay on someone else, don't you think?

3) The resources you use up could have gone to someone else. Unfortunately, those ejected from cars don't always die quickly. They go to the ER, tie up the staff, blood, drugs, lab resources and X-ray, MRI or other diagnostic equipment that could have been used on someone else, possibly involved in that same accident. All for an accident victim the staff is trying valiantly to save, knowing the odds are against them due to the incredibly violent trauma your body has gone through because you were ejected from your car or truck.

Finally, just think about the technology you are denying yourself if you are not belted in and ejected from the car.

As Dave said, most cars are go much faster than they did 20-30 years ago, and they are smaller. Yet, it is not unusual for even an entry-level car to have 4, 6 or even 8 airbags, ABS, stability control, traction control, OnStar (to call 911 with your GPS coordinates when the airbags deploy) and even more. ALL of this technology is useless and wasted if you are lying 10-20 feet outside the car. And, of course, your skeleton and vital organs took the 50, 60 or 70 MPH impact, not the car and all that safety technology.

You want to be a rebel or thumb your nose at society?

Grow your hair (or shave your hair) get an earring, a tattoo, wear an ugly shirt with a message on it, contribute to your favorite political cause (conservative OR liberal), wirte letters to the editor, get involved in local politics. But don't offer up your body just to "prove a point."

Please, windjammer. Think about this some more.

Joe (Totalled 4 cars in my life due to other driver's neglegence and lived to tell about it)

Edited July 23, 2009 by Reatta Man (see edit history)

[poci1957]

I have a question related to the subject. I have a 1957 Pontiac, which had dealer accessory seatbelts available but very rarely seen. I have purchased some that look similar--not exactly identical, but they are new, period correct, and I can show an original Pontiac accessory guidebook that would show the belt and buckles in place and looking correct. If I install them neatly will they be held against me in judging? Any input is appreciated, thanks, Todd

[MCHinson]

poci1957, I am going to jump in without actually taking the time to review the exact wording of the rules, They should be allowed as a safety item without deduction as long as they are in excellent condition and installed in an appropriate manner with good workmanship.

Windjamer, over the last 30 years I cannot count the number of dead bodies that I have seen in car crashes, first as a volunteer fireman, next as a volunteer rescue squad member, and as a law enforcement officer. I would guess that the number would be about 600. Of those 600 or so there was one that MIGHT have lived if they had not been wearing the seatbelt that restrained him in the driver's seat area where he were killed by the driver's door that caved into that crush zone. Other than that one... I have never seen a dead body seatbelted in a car. Of the other 599 or so, most of them would have lived if they had been wearing a seat belt.

Edited July 24, 2009 by MCHinson (see edit history)

[poci1957]

I will double check the rule book also, thanks

[MCHinson]

Judging guidelines state:

15. Seat belts and child restraints will be

accepted if neatly installed.

[ted sweet]

64 and later in ny most have belts

[Guest Siegfried]

Learned to drive in 1966 and my moms 52 Studebaker had seat belts. My dad put them in. He was a weekend drag racer. Always used belts and I always walked away with only minor injuries. Maybe I'm just lucky, but then again.......

[Guest ken bogren]

It is a spring loaded punch used normally to mark metal. It will shatter even auto glass in a hurry.

As a side note, and I'm not absolutely sure about the accuracy of this, but...

I read the other day that the new Buick Lucerne will have laminated side windows. That's apparently supposed to help make the car quieter, which I don't understand.

But the idea of laminated side windows made escaping from a sinking car sound a lot harder.

[Terry Bond]

I work with a lot of EMTs and many of them have a favorite saying when the conversation turns to drivers not wearing seat belts - "never had to unbuckle a dead one."

Terry

[LINC400]

Whether seat belts save lives is not my issue. I think it is ridiculous that someone in Illinois can ride a motorcycle with shorts and flip flops, no shirt and no helmet, yet I can be ticketed for driving in an enclosed 5000 lb. vehicle without a seatbelt. When they set up an ambush ticketing every driver without a seatbelt, the police certainly are not interested in saving lives, they are interested in revenue. People can smoke themselves to death, drink themselves to death, and ride a motorcycle with zero protection. But I can get a ticket driving the 2 blocks to pick up my mail down an unused side street at 20 miles an hour because I forgot to put my seat belt back on.

[Dave@Moon]

I think it is ridiculous that someone in Illinois can ride a motorcycle with shorts and flip flops, no shirt and no helmet, yet I can be ticketed for driving in an enclosed 5000 lb. vehicle without a seatbelt.

When the helmet law repeal was being debated in PA there was one overriding argument that won the day:

Harley guys are mostly old, and Harley guys vote.

It's like pretending that 80/20 health coverage using made-up numbers is a workable health plan. What isn't "ridiculous" in America?

[Shop Rat]

...But the idea of laminated side windows made escaping from a sinking car sound a lot harder.

It does to me also. Car companies are coming out with some strange stuff. Like the new Mercedes E Class that can stop on it's own with no assistance from the driver according to an ad I saw just tonight. Scary, very scary.

[Shop Rat]

Whether seat belts save lives is not my issue. I think it is ridiculous that someone in Illinois can ride a motorcycle with shorts and flip flops, no shirt and no helmet, yet I can be ticketed for driving in an enclosed 5000 lb. vehicle without a seatbelt. When they set up an ambush ticketing every driver without a seatbelt, the police certainly are not interested in saving lives, they are interested in revenue. People can smoke themselves to death, drink themselves to death, and ride a motorcycle with zero protection. But I can get a ticket driving the 2 blocks to pick up my mail down an unused side street at 20 miles an hour because I forgot to put my seat belt back on.

That is a whole nother kettle of fish. This thread is why wj should wear a seatbelt. And you will notice all the responses relate to keeping him safe not keeping his wallet fat or him out of jail.

[LINC400]

That is a whole nother kettle of fish. This thread is why wj should wear a seatbelt. And you will notice all the responses relate to keeping him safe not keeping his wallet fat or him out of jail.

I don't think it is. He apparently doesn't want to wear a seatbelt and thinks it should be his choice. I agree. Safety is obviously not the issue as it is much more unsafe to be on a motorcycle in flip flops, shorts, no shirt and no helmet than in a 5000 lb. car with no seatbelt. Yet that is legal on a motorcycle. I get a ticket in my car.

[Guest Dean_H.]

I really despise laws like this one. You'd think here in the land of the "free", we'd let our citizens decide when to wear a seat belt.

[joe_padavano]

I really despise laws like this one. You'd think here in the land of the "free", we'd let our citizens decide when to wear a seat belt.

And again, if you are given the right to choose for yourself, will you also forego any insurance or publically supported financial aid needed as a result of your injuries? Why should my insurance or tax payments subsidize your "right" to make a bad decision? Of course, this line of reasoning can rapidly be extended to smokers, morbidly obese, and other cases. I think we've left the realm of automotive-related discussion.

[R Walling]

We are all protected from ourselves whether we like it or not.

Your porch must have a railing of a certain height.

The steps on your house must be of the same height.

Many cities demand fire and smoke alarms.

You must shovel your sidewalk when it snows.

The list goes on and we all LIVE with it.

Back in the good old days, the cave men didn’t have rules,

but you don’t see many cave men around any more!

[R W Burgess]

Back in the good old days, the cave men didn’t have rules,

but you don’t see many cave men around any more!

Ahh, but you do, Roger!

We just dress better now! :cool:

..........For, we're direct descendants of the cave man!

Wayne

[Dave@Moon]

I really despise laws like this one. You'd think here in the land of the "free", we'd let our citizens decide when to wear a seat belt.

It comes down to the cost to society. Why isn't it legal to shoot up heroin? Because addicts become a burden to society. Why isn't it legal to marry your cousin? Because the defective offspring become a burden to society. Why isn't legal to ride a bike without a helmet? Because the victims of accidents....

This can be overcome if there's enough social pressure to force the rest of society to assume the risk (motorcycle helmet laws, smoking, etc.), or if the risk/cost to society is relatively small (I love it when the safely buckled up couple in the Nissan ad come upon the naked balloonists who didn't even need pants at 1000'!). Such cases are rare. For the most part living in a communal society means having to deal with things like not being allowed to make toy guns without bright red tips, needing a license to use anything from the fireworks store more dangerous than a smoke bomb, not being allowed to use or make DDT and/or methamphetamine, etc.

It's just something decent people do for each other.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Dave@Moon
typo (see edit history)

[LINC400]

Red tips on toy guns, balcony railings and the like are indeed safety issues. While the police like to make you think seat belt laws are a safety issue, it is not about safety. It is about revenue.

One of the local radio stations used to announce when the local police would set up one of their seat belt ambush roadblocks, give the location, and tell listeners to wear their seat belts. They would also encourage listeners to call in with this info. They don't do it anymore. When many of the listeners kept asking why, finally one DJ said that they were ordered not to by the police department and can't say anymore for legal reasons. If the police were truly concerned about safety, they would be happy this radio station was telling people to buckle up. They were not. Instead they threatened the radio station with legal action because they were afraid it might reduce their ambush revenue.

[Guest windjamer]

I dont want to debate the pros and cons of seat belts,thats not my point. I just think it should be MY CHOICE. I think every time I give big brother a inch he takes a foot. In 58 NY (broome county) passed a sales tax law. ITS ONLY 2% FOLKS AND ONLY ON LUX ITEMS. Un ha stop at MickyD and see what it cost. Roe V Wade gave the ladies a choice and that choice is a he** of a lot more diffinate than weather I will be hurt or killed in a vech. accident if I dont use a belt. For the record, my Buick has a lap belt. I use it. My Chevele has a lap and seperate shoulder belt I use the lap belt. Bottom line, the CHOICE should be MINE.

[rocketraider]

You'll see the common thread about regulations in a lot of these posts boils down to insurance-company mandated items (i.e. porch railings and the like). Seat belt laws sprang from the same thing, and insurance lobbies are very powerful in statehouses and the halls of Congress. No telling how much of our premiums they have spent getting nanny laws passed so they'll have zero risk.

Zero risk is a nice thing for an insurance company to dream about, but it is not realistic. Same as Utopia is a great idea in theory, but blows all to pieces in practice.

I wear seat belts religiously, matter of fact I feel naked without them, but knowing what drove passage of these and similar nanny laws is enough to make me rebel against them.

Knowing that MADD throws grant money to local PD's for DUI checkpoints burns me up even more. Any more when they call, I politely tell them to kiss off and do not call me again. PD's up here never have seat belt, DUI or other type checkpoints unless they've gotten some grant money- in other words, the type of law enforcement you'd hope they'd do in the normal course of their work. No grant money- they don't do it.

We had a sheriff that was a pro at getting grant money. His department couldn't solve cases worth a hoot under him but they had all kinds of equipment to do it with, checkpoints for something every week, and they dressed paramilitary- all paid for with grant money. He got run out of office last election and under his successor (a former state police investigator) the department has already solved close to half the cases the new sheriff inherited from 18 years of doing nothing. BTW, the paramilitary uniforms and shaved heads are gone.

[Guest Dean_H.]

I've noticed we never vote on laws like this one. The last election there were propositions about the cities general plan, school and park bonds, a new water canal, high speed trains etc.. All of which I know little about, but I'm asked to make a decision on. Seat belts however, I'm an expert. I'm right there in the trenches all around it every day. I have a strong opinion and it would be an easy vote. Sadly, big brother decides this one.

[Guest Robin Coleman]

Sirs; I spent 35 years as a locomotive engineer. During that time it was my misfortune to have had numerous crossing collisions with autos and semi trucks. One particular case was on the day Reagan got shot. A Wal Mart cab over and my train collided. He was doing about 20 MPH and so was I. He shot out of the windshield like from a cannon and the tractor jack knifed. The rear wheels were on his chest when we got to him. The coffee in his console was not even spilled. No seat belt. The worst accident was a Cadillac with 12 people in it (2 adults and 10 kids). I hit them less than 100 feet from their house, and the grandfather was watching from the front porch. Of the 12, 11 died. The car was airborne and spinning. each revolution two or three kids were thrown out. I was running 60 and the car was doing about 10. No sir... I don't care what you think your rights may be, it is just bad judgement not to wear a seatbelt. I have watched more people in the last instant of their lives than anyone save for some combat soldiers. True, a T-bone from a train at 60 mph is going to be fatal no matter what, but I will not even back my car up in the driveway to wash it without buckling up. I have looked into the eyes of too many people in the last instant of their lives to do otherwise. As for no helmet and shorts, etc. while on a bike, that is why trauma teams call them donorcycles.I've been riding for over 40 years, had two accidents, and the first thing to contact the road was my head. I would not be here save for my helmet.

[JZRIV]

I'm rarely one to support government intervention into telling us how to live in our own house or car....or in anything really.....but seatbelt laws are one area I do not have any problem with.

Regardless of what your particular experiences are, the hard facts and evidence is overwhelming........and I mean overwhelming in favor of seatbelts saving lives and minimizing injury. You will NEVER find facts to dispute this.

There is one exception and I admit I do not always use the lap belts in my 67 Buick but typically I'm not in high traffic areas and am driving very cautiously. If I'm driving through metro traffic I put it on.

[LINC400]

As I said before, it is not about safety, it is about choice. I usually wear my seat belt. But it annoys me immensely that I can drive all the way home with it on, pick up my mail, forget to buckle it for 2 blocks with no traffic at 20 mph down a side street, and can get a ticket and lecture from a cop. Then he does a U-turn in front of oncoming traffic, turns on his lights for no reason, and goes 65 mph in a 30 mph zone to meet his buddy at Dunkin Donuts.

Or I can sit in traffic for an extra 20 minutes making me late for work because the police have decided to set up an ambush roadblock. Of course motorcycles are exempt because they have so many safety features, unlike cars.

Edited July 24, 2009 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[LINC400]

I'm rarely one to support government intervention into telling us how to live in our own house or car....or in anything really.....but seatbelt laws are one area I do not have any problem with.

Regardless of what your particular experiences are, the hard facts and evidence is overwhelming........and I mean overwhelming in favor of seatbelts saving lives and minimizing injury. You will NEVER find facts to dispute this.

There is one exception and I admit I do not always use the lap belts in my 67 Buick but typically I'm not in high traffic areas and am driving very cautiously. If I'm driving through metro traffic I put it on.

So then you should be ticketed every time you drive your Buick.

[Dave@Moon]

While the police like to make you think seat belt laws are a safety issue, it is not about safety. It is about revenue......If the police were truly concerned about safety, they would be happy this radio station was telling people to buckle up. They were not. Instead they threatened the radio station with legal action because they were afraid it might reduce their ambush revenue.

One corrupt police force doesn't make a corrupt society. Also the police don't want people buckling up just for the check points, or avoiding them. DUI checkpoints are never announced for the same reason.

IF (and I do mean IF) your police force is being used as a revenue collection service, it's being abused as much as the laws themselves. People don't get into law enforcement, with the training/education/danger/low pay/etc., to become glorified toll collectors. It's an insult to them if they are being used this way. More importantly, if they are being used this way it would be the users (your friendly neighborhood local politicians) that would put the kibosh on announcing the checkpoints. (Unless the police are working on a commission basis, in which case you have bigger problems!).

Bottom line, the CHOICE should be MINE.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Bottom line, it will be when YOU pay MY INSURANCE BILLS.

At least that's the "bottom line" everyone else has agreed on.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Dave@Moon
bad grammar (see edit history)