Add a Comment

Comment by Brad Carlson on December 3, 2007 at 2:03pm

Cick it or ticket.That's what it should be in every state.We all know as first responders to put on our seat belts weather in our p.v or on the apperatus.How many of us have pulled victims from an mva out of thier car who were not wearing a seat belt?Me for 1.

Comment by Don Zimmerman on December 2, 2007 at 2:07pm

Sorry some of us nag about this alot but the point of the matter is there are a lot of firefighters who are not wearing the seat belts when they should be. And every time they don't wear them they take a gret chance that they might not get to "go home" afeter the call or shift. I don't know when you went to you the last firefighter funeral, but I don't like going to the for any reason at all. Seatbelts are just to easy to wear & use when it comes to living to see the next sunrise come up.

Comment by Mary Ellen Shea on December 2, 2007 at 1:56pm

Exactly Art---and I physically cringe whenever I see a young, inexperienced driver steering the car with one hand and texting with the other, not paying attention, not looking at the road.....
a motor vehicle tragedy just waiting to happen. I see it so often now. It genuinely frightens me.

Comment by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on December 2, 2007 at 12:37pm

I get upset when I see a PET that has been thrown through a windshield because it wasn't restrained.
ANYTHING, including bodies, laptops, golf clubs, garden tools, pets, home gyms; anything in that vehicle that can be a potential PROJECTILE should be restrained in some way.
I'm like you; I just don't understand why there is no minimum bar on common sense anymore.
Maybe someone should text message me while they are DRIVING to explain that to me.
Art

Comment by Mary Ellen Shea on December 2, 2007 at 12:20pm

that's not a bad idea Art---I think it would be easier to get compliance that way than by common sense.
Here's what I just don't understand....you've all responded to MVA's, you've seen the damage and carnage resulting from an unbelted driver or passenger hitting the pavement, or a tree, or the windshield at any speed over 20 mph--I've personally witnessed two end results which still haunt my sleep 15 years later--so everyone KNOWS what can happen if there's an accident and you're not strapped in. This begs the question, WHY the refusal to wear the seatbelt ?
I simply can't wrap my mind around the stubborn attitudes. I've seen someone else get their brain wrapped around the base of a tree because she didn't want to wear a belt.
The thinking process on this, or lack thereof absolutely baffles me.

Comment by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on December 2, 2007 at 12:08pm

For the record, Chris Kangas was the young man from PA who was killed while riding his bicycle to the station. He was an explorer at the time, but there was a push to get him LODD status as a firefighter so that PSOBs could be paid to the family. The over-riding issue became "when is a person a 'firefighter'?"
My point of using that case in my argument is that, this was A CASE where the criteria for collecting the PSOBs did not fit this case, so the push was on to change it.
We can do the same thing for seatbelt.
Sorry for the confusion.
Art

Comment by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on December 2, 2007 at 12:01pm

May have to tie not wearing them to benefits.
If firefighters refuse to wear them, have an accident and it is determined that not wearing it contributed to their death, then no benefits.
There will be those purists who will say that is wrong.
Why is that any different than a firefighter who is found to have drugs or alcohol in his system at the time of the LODD and is denied benefits as a result? Wrong is wrong.
If we know that putting drugs/alcohol into our system and responding to a call-if we have enough sense to know THAT right from wrong, then why is it different to think that not wearing a seatbelt is acceptable?
There is no degree of right or wrong. It's one way or the other. But because it affected ONE case; example, Chris Kangas, then we have to constantly re-visit it and make it more palatable to the aggrieved.
We live in an age where we want to pick and choose when to enforce the rules, but change the ones that in a RARE case, didn't fit the model. And that is exactly why we can't push the fire service to progress.
Just MHO.
Art