Hey, there! Log in / Register
Massholes revel in their world-class status
By adamg on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 9:06am
New federal stats show Massachusetts has lowest seat-belt usage in the country - why, we are even less likely to strap in than two years ago.
Via Channel 4.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
question for long-time Bay Staters
Those stats are stunning, especially when compared to other states. New Hampshire is just about as bad, but Massachusetts also is similar to Arkansas, Mississippi, and Wyoming.
This is NOT a facetious question: Long-time Bay Staters, is there something going waaay back about the unwillingness of folks to buckle up here that makes us such an outlier?
I prefer to be thrown clear
I prefer to be thrown clear of the accident.
I'm forced to assume you're
I'm forced to assume you're serious, since there's a lack of smileys or irony (damn you Internet and your lack of inflection!)
In which case, you have obviously never expressed this opinion to a cop or an EMT. Or spent any time studying car accidents. Hell, just ask an insurance agent. Being "thrown clear" means "being thrown through glass at high speeds and then smacking into whatever obstacle is in my way".
And...
You only get to prefer it once, so make it a good one.
Oops. This is a joke I
Oops. This is a joke I stole from XM comedy channel about a guy explaining his father's reason for not using his seat belt. By the way, I've been an EMT for 15 years. Seat belts save many lives and they should ALWAYS (I'm learning) be worn.
Ballot Question
This was a long time ago now, but I'm sure there is still some resentment about this instance, in a long list of instances concerning ballot questions passed by the people of the Commonwealth that the legislature has chosen to ignore.
From http://www.jerrywilliams.org/article-detail.php?ar...
"[In 1986, talk show host Jerry] Williams was incensed by a state law requiring seat belt use and blamed it on Democrat Dukakis.
"What we said about the law," says Williams, "was true: It would raise [insurance] rates, police could look in the car, we were going to have an intrusive law. Those were my reasons; wear them, but do it voluntarily."
He repeated those reasons tirelessly in 1986, working his supporters into a frenzy. They collected signatures to put a repeal question on the November ballot. Williams's on-air response to one seat belt advocate was typical: "We're going to win this fight for freedom, you dummy!" And they did, with just over half the voters favoring repeal. (The law was reinstated in 1994 by a wide margin.)"
(Italics mine)
What is not mentioned - or mentioned with some obfuscation - is that the 1994 reinstatement was not the result of a ballot question, per se, but a legislative vote, which was then confirmed via the voting down of another ballot question calling for repeal.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
suldog, thanks for that background
I moved here in 1994 and wasn't paying much attention to local issues yet. That does explain some of the continuing 'tude. Memories here can be awfully long....
Also, let's not forget why the law was reinstated
The federal government was threatening to pull all its highway funds from any state that didn't require seatbelts.
Oy...
...that says it all.
how to get seatbelt usage up
None of those solutions actually lead to a higher rate of seatbelt usage. The only thing that worked was a law to require kids to wear their seatbelts... nobody would argue with that. Then junior wanted to know why he had to wear one in the back seat but you didn't have to wear one in the front seat.
Hmmmm ..... interesting.
Hmmmm...this:
is interesting. All this time, I thought that New Hampshire was worse than Massachusetts regarding seat-belt usage.
Easy solution
No seatbelt - no insurance coverage.
actually, that may already be the case;
buried deep in most insurance policies is a clause removing coverage if a claim was necessitated by the commission of a crime.(E.g., intent was to not cover you for property damage liability if you crash while running from the cops.) I suppose they could make driving while unbuckled a greater offense and use that as an excuse to deny coverage. THAT would get people's attention.
time to pay for it?
Could it be that MA's car insurance system has something to do with it? In other states, insurance companies can make you pay more or make you pay for injuries resulting from a failure to buckle up. MA has only recently allowed police to pull you over for not having a seatbelt on.
I think the best way would be to give serious discounts to those who claim to wear belts. The insurance companies could then be allowed to refuse to pay for injuries in any accident where seat belts were not worn, unless you paid the higher "no belt" rate - in other words, unless you were honest and paid for the privilege of going beltless, you could find yourself responsible for your own injuries.
Massholes, the law, and cars
So is it something of a cultural thing??? This sounds a lot like the reluctance of the Legislature to get tough on DUIs.
The "Make Me" State
To a masshole, the actual law means nothing. Look at the comments when Manny got busted for jaywalking in Seattle: things like "waiting for walk signals is for little kids in kindergarten" etc. Not much mention of "waiting your turn" for the road or the crosswalk, or waiting for anything unless somebody makes you do it. No understanding that the rules make everything work better and run faster. This same combination of ignorance of the law and me-first narcissism and misplaced belief that any of it has to do with who is the bestest and most importantest permeates the culture.
I think you're projecting
I think you're projecting your pet peeve onto something.
I jaywalk all the time, but it's not because I think I'm superior or the bestest: it's that there aren't any cars coming for BLOCKS and by and large, people don't acclerate from a ten-block distance to catch lights in Boston. Now, I'm not going to charge across the street in the middle of traffic, but if I've got somewhere to be and nobody's coming, of course I'm jaywalking. I can take that much responsibility for my own person.
NYC, it makes perfect sense, but this is because when it comes to lights New Yorkers drive like they have to hit checkpoints or their car will explode.
Jay Walking?
As a moderately urban suburban(ite), I was under the impression that as long as there weren't any cars coming in either direction that you could cross the street without a problem. Furthermore, I am always amused when I go to the midwest (Chicago, Toronto, etc) and people are lined up waiting for the little man to light up when there isn't a car as far as the eye can see. I thought it was just midwesterners being weird...is that actually the law?? I mean, why would you waste time standing at the end of the sidewalk when it's safe to cross and you have places to go? I've never seen anyone in Boston cited for simply crossing the street.
i think boston is the
i think boston is the capital of jay walking. we have gotten so good at it that we can time jaywalking with an incoming car and have them pass just as we are a few feet from them. of course this doesnt work when out of town drivers are at the wheel. they get a look a terror on their face and slam on the brakes, and we get pissed off at them for interrupting our jaywalking. i guess that is what makes us massholes.
So...Boston's number one....BEAUTIFUL!
As a resident of this area I often ride my bicycle downtown in the better weather for errands, appointments, etc, and it's unbelievable how many people do jaywalk. Don't they know about the walk-lights anymore? Nothing to be proud of, imho.
Yes?
I jaywalk all the time too, but that's because I never get tired of this joke.
I got a million of these.
partial buy-in
S'gal, I'll reserve judgment on whether I agree with your entire broadside, but I do think there's something about Massholes and their cars that makes for a powerfully dangerous combination.
And to be fair, I've seen some amazingly arrogant (and foolish)pedestrian games of chicken with cars as well. Waaaaaay beyond standard brand jaywalking......with the same "f*ck you" 'tude exhibited by fellow Massholes behind the wheel.
A few things...
-Police still cannot pull vehicles over for not wearing a seatbelt (primary enforcement) but can with minors.
-If there is a crosswalk that is within 300 feet of where the pedestrian is crossing, the pedestrian must use that crosswalk.
-Towns and cities can regulate their own pedestrian rules and regulations within the state frameworks (no more than a $1 fine)
-People jaywalk in places that you can jaywalk naturally. You don't see as much jaywalking in areas where it would be unsafe to jaywalk....
Heres a great clip on why someone might want to jaywalk...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXF7_0CAAdo
Obviously
As an out of stater, MA drivers are some of the dumbest I've ever seen without question. I am not surprised.
It is suprising....
since we are that much smarter than everyone else....
Intelligent ignorance
There is being smaht, and then there is knowledgeable.
Massachusetts drivers don't have to know much to get a license compared to states with comprehensive exams and a lot more questions. How smaht they are doesn't really matter if they don't even know their basic driving rules.
It would be interesting to see how often massholes get tickets in other states for rules they didn't know existed. Like that whole "take turns" thing at a four way stop ... been the law in MA since the early 80s too, but you wouldn't know it. Oh, but the cops are just picking on them for being from out of state - even if the rental car has the "right" license plate.
Crackerjack Drivers
MA has crackerjack drivers. As in, license from a box of.
My test was a joke. In any sane state, they wouldn't have passed me. I'm a pretty crappy driver, and I used to be worse.
So many rules, so few I learned before driving. Did you know that you have to stop at a crosswalk if anyone else stops at a crosswalk, even if you've got the light?
That said, when people complain about Boston drivers, they really mean Brookline drivers. Only in Brookline do they need signs like "Stop at red light."
Revenue
I've always been of the opinion that MA will never have a more stringent exam because the issuance of licenses is a cash stream the state will deny itself the benefit of only when faced with the very worst menaces to public safety. And giving licenses to those ignorant of the laws makes for more tickets handed out, another source of revenue.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
You would probably be suprised....
go to a busy intersection for a few hours and watch how out of staters handle traffic, merging and other simple tasks. I actually think MA drivers are better than out of state drivers. Take away the elderly and a few boneheads and I think MA drivers actually do pretty well.
Ever go to the south where everyone drives the same speed in every lane?