Seatbelt wearing

Seth Brundle

to those that are being critical of safety belts, answer me this - would you put your children into your car without any kind of safety restraints?

skyhighflyer

Anyone who says that there's no need to wear a seatbelt is a complete tool. If you want to go ahead and do so, fine. I would ask those who don't wear a seatbelt; would they wear a helmet if driving a motorbike? It's the same kind of situation; if you don't wear a seatbelt you have a much greater chance of being killed or injured in a crash, just like if you don't wear a helmet on a bike. And even if you consider yourself a safe driver, what about all the other idiots on the road?

However, what I will say is this: wearing a seatbelt is only part of being safe in a car. Making sure the belt is properly adjusted and not twisted, not sitting too close to the wheel and making sure the steering wheel and head rests are adjusted properly so the airbag actually cushions your head during a crash, rather than just firing up your nose (like it will do if you're like any of the women I know who drive right up at the steering wheel), and driving properly all play a part.

Hagar

I think Darwinism will provide the definitive answer to this debate given enough time.

Boggle

I have to ask the following however: If you believe that the nanny state should not force the driver of a vehicle to buckle up, then why do you think it should be compulsory for passengers? If a driver has the right to decide for himself what steps he will take to protect himself, then don't passengers have the same right?

The reason I say this is because the driver is responsible for the safety of others in the vehicle and should ensure their safety in the event of a crash. His own safety is his own decision.

If you don't want to wear your belt then fine - it's your choice. However it sounds from your comments on seat belts that you're not making an informed choice because your opinions on the dangers of belts are extremely dubious at best. I suggest you read up on automotive safety engineering, biomechanics etc. and you may change your mind.

Exactly its his decision - right or wrong. Its up to him to see the facts and make up his own mind - unlike alot of people who mistakenly swallow every brick ever handed to them without ever bothering to form an opinion of his own.


And if there's anyone here who actually thinks seatbelts are the be all an end all in road safety then I think I'm not the one who needs a reality check!! The seatbelts in our cars are cheap and do only the minimal job of protecting you. If you are in a high speed crash you are dead - simple! Driving is dangerous - simple! If your in a high speed crash you hit the windscreen even with the seatbelt on (due to the give in the harness and the contortion and twisting of the body due to having one strap). And this does cause severe injury - although in

If you want to be properly pinned to your seat you should have a 4-point and a proper headrest with head supports coupled with airbags on both sides and proper fcuking pillars that wont crumple and have the roof come in and snap your neck.

(kbanan - I said I wouldn't allow anyone alse in the car wo a belt ... sorry if not clear - was in a rush at the time)

Seth Brundle

I still don't accept your arguments.
1. Why is it ok for you to not wear a belt but for everyone else in the car to?
2. As I have stated, many drivers cannot make informed choices and hence the law being there!
3. Seat belts are not the be all and end all in road safety but in terms of safety devices within the confines of a car, they are all thet many people have.
4. You said "The seatbelts in our cars are cheap and do only the minimal job of protecting you. If you are in a high speed crash you are dead - simple!" - isn't minimal protection better than none? Furthermore, compare the scenario of Princess Di. Accident investigators have consistently stated that all the occupants of the car would be alive, after their high speed collision with a concrete pillar, had they been wearing belts.

seamus

Boggle wrote:

If you are in a high speed crash you are dead - simple! Driving is dangerous - simple! If your in a high speed crash you hit the windscreen even with the seatbelt on (due to the give in the harness and the contortion and twisting of the body due to having one strap). And this does cause severe injury - although in

That's a bit of a spurious argument. Given the right conditions, all safety equipment is rendered useless. If a child runs with all his might at a childsafe barrier on the stairs, he'll probably blast through it and fall down the stairs. A nuclear power station wall can withstand an aircraft hitting it at 400mph, but a few powerful missiles or a nuke, and the thing will probably end up destroyed. Motorcycle helmets protect a motorcyclist's head in the case of collision, but if he comes off at 100mph and hits his head off of a sharp edge, it's quite likely the helmet will crack.

Does this mean we should stop using all safety equipment? After all, it's useless given the right conditions!

Boggle

1. If I'm driving I am the one who is responsible for what happens to that car and everyone in it. I have the rigt to put myself in harm's way but I do not have the right to do that to others and driving while the passengers are not restrained places them in danger.

2. Nanny stateism. I do accept that not all drivers are good drivers but this notion that people are inherently stupid is balls. People make mistakes granted, but that is different to an uninformed opinion. What most people generally refer to a s uninformed opinions are more often than not just points of view that differ from their own. (We dont always pick the rigt government either - should there be a law passd to tell people who to vote for?)

3. True.

4. Princess Di would also be alive if she didn't crash! She was speeding (albeit while under chase I think) and if you speed and crash you probably die. The message is dont speed!! But as for your point, they may have been alive after the crash in their rolls (or whatever expensive car they had) - do you think the same would apply to your average family car?

Anyway, you are missing my main point about this whole thing which is the right to choose. As stated above I prefer not to wear my belt around town because I dont like being overly restrained in crowded areas. In town you rarely get above 20 mph so the chances of anything more than a bruise are slight (but thats the chance you take when u get in a car). What I went on to say is that outside of town I always wear a belt - but that is because I decide it has value. I dont need a law to tell me, and I dont want a law to force me...

Boggle

seamus wrote:

That's a bit of a spurious argument. Given the right conditions, all safety equipment is rendered useless. If a child runs with all his might at a childsafe barrier on the stairs, he'll probably blast through it and fall down the stairs. A nuclear power station wall can withstand an aircraft hitting it at 400mph, but a few powerful missiles or a nuke, and the thing will probably end up destroyed. Motorcycle helmets protect a motorcyclist's head in the case of collision, but if he comes off at 100mph and hits his head off of a sharp edge, it's quite likely the helmet will crack.

Does this mean we should stop using all safety equipment? After all, it's useless given the right conditions!

Child barrier - a responsible parent will buy a barrier with sufficient strength and attach it properly. (they're stronger than they look in most cases)

Nuclear power station - WHAT????? Only messn - if it gets nuked then the station blowing is just one of many things you worry about.

Helmet - if you come off a bike at 100mph and his head hits an edge his neck will break so I wouldn't worry about the helmet breaking. (It wouldn't by the way - the helmet is designed to smash the minute it hits anything this dissipating the energy of the impact but has a tough inner core to protect from breaking apart. This is why you have to replace a helmet even if you just dropped it a few inches from the ground.)

LFCFan

Boggle wrote:

As stated above I prefer not to wear my belt around town because I dont like being overly restrained in crowded areas. In town you rarely get above 20 mph so the chances of anything more than a bruise are slight (but thats the chance you take when u get in a car).

Even a crash at 20 MPH can kill you if you're not restrained and it's bullcrap so say that you 'rarely' get above 20MPH. Sounds to me like you're a very nervous driver if you don't like to be restrained in crowded areas. I've never once felt restrained because I have a seat belt on. I feel safer than I would without it.

Boggle

And I could fall out my bed tonight and die. You, to me, sound like the nervous driver. I dont like to wear it in town, for both comfort and so that I have the freedom to twist around and lean forward if necessary. That is my choice - its how I prefer to drive. Just because YOU prefer to wear it doesn't mean I should have to wear it.

A seatbelt gives a false sense of security anyway. The problem with all this is that now many people think that if they wear a seatbelt they are almost immune from getting killed or badly hurt on the roads and are more inclined to take certain risks and drive faster. Self defeating innit?!?!?

LFCFan

Boggle wrote:

I dont like to wear it in town, for both comfort and so that I have the freedom to twist around and lean forward if necessary. That is my choice - its how I prefer to drive. Just because YOU prefer to wear it doesn't mean I should have to wear it.

I can lean forward and twist around just fine with my seatbelt on. It also means that if some idiot hits me head on driving down the wrong side of the Quays, I have more chance of surviving. Don't come crying to us when you're dead because you failed to wear your seatbelt.

seamus

Boggle wrote:

Child barrier - a responsible parent will buy a barrier with sufficient strength and attach it properly. (they're stronger than they look in most cases)

Nuclear power station - WHAT????? Only messn - if it gets nuked then the station blowing is just one of many things you worry about.

Helmet - if you come off a bike at 100mph and his head hits an edge his neck will break so I wouldn't worry about the helmet breaking. (It wouldn't by the way - the helmet is designed to smash the minute it hits anything this dissipating the energy of the impact but has a tough inner core to protect from breaking apart. This is why you have to replace a helmet even if you just dropped it a few inches from the ground.)

You have completely missed my point.

The motorbike one is in fact the perfect example. In a high-speed crash, the helmet will prove useless because the motorcyclist will probably end up with massive internal injuries, and missing limbs, and quite often, a missing head.

So why bother making motorcyclists wear helmets?

unkel

Boggle wrote:

1. If I'm driving I am the one who is responsible for what happens to that car and everyone in it. I have the rigt to put myself in harm's way but I do not have the right to do that to others and driving while the passengers are not restrained places them in danger

You keep missing the point imho. If you don't wear the belt, you could end up doing damage to other occupants in the car or people outside of the car when you are launched

It was already mentioned that someone has to scrape your remains of the tarmac, pay for everything and what about friends, family and dependents (children!) you leave behind

You don't have that right and you shouldn't claim it...

Sleipnir

Boggle wrote:

And I could fall out my bed tonight and die. You, to me, sound like the nervous driver. I dont like to wear it in town, for both comfort and so that I have the freedom to twist around and lean forward if necessary. That is my choice - its how I prefer to drive. Just because YOU prefer to wear it doesn't mean I should have to wear it.

A seatbelt gives a false sense of security anyway. The problem with all this is that now many people think that if they wear a seatbelt they are almost immune from getting killed or badly hurt on the roads and are more inclined to take certain risks and drive faster. Self defeating innit?!?!?

Nobody thinks they're "immune" for god sake, don't be stupid.
It reduces the risk of serious injury. REDUCES..hear?

More inclined to take risk cos their wearing a seatbelt, WHAT!?!?
What are your sources for that ridiculous comment? What are the statistics for
"people taking more risk cos they have a belt across their chest and therefore believe they are invincible"

Is there a button to shake people remotely over the internet yet?
I feel like I'm taking crazy-pills here.

Kev

How many of you wear a helmet while driving your car ?

Seth Brundle

erm, I do when Im on track!

Sleipnir

Kev wrote:

How many of you wear a helmet while driving your car ?

Over my suit of armour?
That's another ridiculous question.

It might reduce the risk of injury in a crash, but would increase the risk of a crash in the first place. Therefore, a stupid, ill-conceived notion.

ubu

Kev wrote:

How many of you wear a helmet while driving your car ?

A Helmet is the required safety equipment for a bike, a seat belt is the required safety equipment for a car, both are required for good reason in each case, why are you combining both?

Kev

Wouldn't it be safer to drive a car with a helmet, racing drivers wear them.

I assume people don't wear them because they make a personal choice that the extra safety is not worth the hassle and it would look uncool.

ubu

or its because, as already stated which it would reduce the risk of serious injury in a crash in would actually increase the risk of a crash on the first place as a helmet reduces your field of vision and for car driver who arent used to driving a car would result in an increase in accidents
its fine on a race track when you dont have junctions, pedrestions, cyclists and so many other road users to contend with

Kev

I'm sure a helmet could be developed with a full field of vision.

Sleipnir

Seatbelts protect against crush injuries in the chest and knees as well as head injuries.
Helmets do not and would be hazardous to wear in a car.

It's a nonsensical argument.

Kev

Thats probably what they said when seatbelts were invented.

Why do rally drivers wear helmets.

ubu

well until such a thing exists i think you should drop the arguement for people to wear them in a car, seatbelts provide adequate protection if used and used correctly, unlike boggle who cant seem to grasp the mechanics of seatbelt wearing as he cant move forward with one on :rolleyes:

Sleipnir

Kev wrote:

I'm sure a helmet could be developed with a full field of vision.

Tell me how? Transparent metal? Have you got a formula for that? If so I'll buy it off you.
Before you come back with "transparent plastic" it would distort your vision rendering it useless for situational awareness.

In a car, you have the protection of the car's body itself. Seatbelts prevent the person's body from travelling forward and coming into contact with the windscreen and the dashboard. In the case of rear-seatbelts, it prevents the person from hitting the seat (and people) in front.

On a bike, you don't need to be protected from the bike itself as you will be projected forward and off the bike. After that, it's you and the ground.
The helmet is the "car's body" in the paragraph above. It prevents the head from coming into contact with the ground directly.

Sleipnir

Kev wrote:

Thats probably what they said when seatbelts were invented.

Why do rally drivers wear helmets.

Yah, and they were wrong? They were misinformed.
Do rally drivers wear seat-restraints?
Would a driver rally without one?? Would he hell. They ain't stupid enough.

Kev

Where did i say you shouln't wear a seatbelt

PBC_1966

unkel wrote:

You keep missing the point imho. If you don't wear the belt, you could end up doing damage to other occupants in the car or people outside of the car when you are launched

It was already mentioned that someone has to scrape your remains of the tarmac, pay for everything and what about friends, family and dependents (children!) you leave behind

You don't have that right and you shouldn't claim it...

Let's analyze this indirect-harm principle a little further. Suppose somebody who over-eats, smokes like a chimney, doesn't get any exercise, and generally leads an unhealthly lifestyle has a heart-attack while driving and plows into somebody else causing injury or death. What gave him the right to lead an unhealthy lifestyle which led to a crash?

If the man had led a more healthy life that heart-attack may never have happened. Does that mean we should legislate what food people can eat, what exercise they must take, and so on in an attempt to prevent such an accident?

How would it be if a cop came banging on your door, demanding to know what you've eaten in the last week and what food is in your refrigerator? How would it be if he then handed you a citation with a fine or court appearance if your diet didn't correspond with the legal requirements? That is exactly the same sort of nanny state "Big Brother knows best" approach that we have with seatbelt laws, helmet laws, and any other legislation intended to protect people against themselves "for their own good."

The helmet issue raises more queries. I do not, nor have I ever ridden a motorcycle, so I have no ax to grind especially, but as far as I'm concerned if you want to ride without a helmet, that's fine -- It's your choice. If you want to put a helmet on, that.s fine too. Heck, if you want to ride around with a helemt and an asbestos suit "just in case" that's just dandy -- You're exercising your freedom of choice without hurting anybody else.

The issue of helmets restricting visibility in a car was raised. Let me ask a question of the motorcyclists then: Doesn't a helmet restrict your vision when riding a bike? If the answer is yes, then couldn't it be argued that the helmet may actually help contribute to an accident if your visibility is not a good as without a helmet?

Sleipnir wrote:

More inclined to take risk cos their wearing a seatbelt, WHAT!?!? What are your sources for that ridiculous comment? What are the statistics for "people taking more risk cos they have a belt across their chest and therefore believe they are invincible"

It has been shown that for certain people this is indeed the case. It is known as "Risk compensation." I have a document by Prof. John Adams which addresses this concern (as well as providing some interesting information on seatbelts in general). I'll see if I can find a link to it later, but if anyone wants to read it in the meantime, let me know and I'll e-mail a copy. (366KB PDF document)

And if you don't believe that risk compensation is valid, then let's look at the reverse case. If you had a 12-inch blade sticking straight out the steering wheel toward you, wouldn't it make you drive just a little more carefully than before?

ubu

PBC_1966 wrote:

If you had a 12-inch blade sticking straight out the steering wheel toward you, wouldn't it make you drive just a little more carefully than before?

no it would make me stop driving altogether, the risk would be too great, whist i might be able to rely on my own driving i cant rely on the driving of the idiot that ploughs into me, for the same reason i wouldnt drive without a seatbelt on, the risk is just too great

PBC_1966

jongore wrote:

1)Any driver not wearing a belt is by definition being reckless

You may think belts are wonderful safety devices and that everybody should use them, but I think that statement is taking things rather too far.

I drive within the speed limit, I stop at red lights, I keep a careful lookout for children and animals around town, and I yield to pedestrians when turning. I just don't want to be buckled into my seat, thank you very much. Does that sound like being reckless?

What if I get into a vintage car which doesn't have any seatbelts? Am I still being reckless? What about a bus or truck driver in a vehicle with no belt -- Reckless?

As a matter of interest, here's a question for all of you who have stated that you wouldn't go anywhere in a car without a belt. If you were stranded somewhere and needed a ride, and somebody came along driving a vintage car with no belts, or a maybe a newer car with front belts but no rear belts, would you refuse a lift?