Seatbelt wearing

seamus

PBC_1966 wrote:

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?

No. More spurious arguing. Any restriction in vision is correctable, that is, the helmet at no point prevents you from seeing a danger, as long as you make the effort. If the rider's excuse is "I didn't see it", then it's a case of rider error and poor observation, not "Vision restricted by helmet". What you're saying is like saying that a car with a roof is more dangerous because it restricts your vision. Even wearing a helmet, a rider has far superior vision to a driver.

Exactly the same, a driver complaining that he couldn't see because the seatbelt prevented him from moving about, or that he recieved a large cut across his neck in a crash is at fault for driver error and incorrect use of a seatbelt, not "The seatbelt caused the injury/crash to occur".

As usual, it's a case of "Don't step on my freedoms" gone mad. People are idiots. There are cases where enforcement of a law is necessary to protect a large portion of society, because they're too stupid to do the common sense thing, so long as the law doesn't seriously affect the rest of society. Seat belts easily fall into this category. So do motorcycle helmets. Your correct food one above doesn't, because it would seriously and prohibitively affect the other large section of society who do eat correctly and who do excercise enough.

PBC_1966

ubu wrote:

no it would make me stop driving altogether, the risk would be too great

There you have it. You have assessed the possible consequences of having a 12-inch knife pointed toward you and decided that the risk is too great. People assess risks all the time and decide to do, or not do, something as a result of that assessment.

A motorcycle rider is far more vulnerable than the occupant of a car, but the bikers here are aware of the risks of riding a motorcycle and presumably have come to the conclusion that they are willing to take these risks. Why then, do you seek to deny the same right of risk assessment over seatbelts?

ubu

PBC_1966 wrote:

the bikers here are aware of the risks of riding a motorcycle and presumably have come to the conclusion that they are willing to take these risks. Why then, do you seek to deny the same right of risk assessment over seatbelts?

Bikers can decide that they're willing to take the risk of actually goin out on the road, but they're not at liberty to choose whether they can wear a helmet or not, in the same way car drivers are not at liberty to choose whether the wear their seat belt - youre not comparing like with like

PBC_1966

seamus wrote:

There are cases where enforcement of a law is necessary to protect a large portion of society, because they're too stupid to do the common sense thing, so long as the law doesn't seriously affect the rest of society. Seat belts easily fall into this category. So do motorcycle helmets.

So you're arguing that if, say, 80% of drivers/passengers buckle up, then it's O.K. to force the remaining 20% to do so?

Aside from it being plain wrong to force people to do something for their own good, the major problem with that argument is that when the seatbelt laws were introduced in most places the majority of people did not buckle up. So the law did impose on the majority.

Your correct food one above doesn't, because it would seriously and prohibitively affect the other large section of society who do eat correctly and who do excercise enough.

The majority of people would wear a coat to walk in a blizzard in mid-winter, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal to walk around in 20-degree weather wearing nothing but shorts and a t_shirt.

PBC_1966

ubu wrote:

but they're not at liberty to choose whether they can wear a helmet or not

You're talking about what the existing law says, while I'm arguing fundamental rights of choice. Law aside, as far as I'm concerned bikers have every right to choose whether or not to wear a helmet (or leathers, boots, gloves, or anything else for that matter).

Let's say the government decided that motorcycles were involved in too many accidents and passed a law banning them. Let's get people off those dangerous bikes into cars where they're better protected.

I bet all the bikers here would be screaming that they have every right to choose the riskier option of riding a motorcycle if they so choose.

Boggle

Seumas - I sort of deliberately missed your points there but fair 'nuff here's my answer... The child barrier and the safety precautions on a nuke plant are to protect other people and because we do not have the right to place any one else (ur child, the locals to a plant) in danger. Hence they have really nothing to do with the argument at hand as my argument was about whether we have the right to decide what precautions we have for ourselves.

The bike point is just a more extreme version of the seatbelt one. If I were on the bike, say driving round an empty carpark at extremely slow speeds where I know that even if the bike fell over I would be able to safely dismount I should have the option of not wearing a helmet. If however I decide not to wear a helmet and drive at 100mph then I am an idiot - an idiot who probably wont survive very long. There is no need to place a law on this - its obvious to all concerned what happens if you come off a bike without protection. (and I include proper leathers in this - which there is no law for) There's no law telling me not to run with scissors - no-one needs it cos they know they'd be stupid to do it.

Sleipnir - since we're on the topic of rally drivers, do you think a rally driver would drive a track in a 3-point seatbelt with tensioner?? Ever wonder why? Cos they'r crap and really are just short of useless. Picture this: you go from 50mph to 0 in approx 2-3 feet (crush zone in the car). Your body tries to be flung forward but the waist is stopped by the waist restraint. Your body continues but your right shoulder is restrained in a diagonal stopping it partially as your left side continues and gets violently twisted (spine???) allowing your head to hit the windscreen crooked causing potential severe damage to the side of the brain and neck. You are screwed, spine damage, neck damage, chest injuries, shoulder injuries, head,neck and brain injuries. Still think a seatbelt will save you if you make a mistake??? And this is the type of crashes its designed to work best on. Think about a side-on crash...

seamus

PBC_1966 wrote:

So you're arguing that if, say, 80% of drivers/passengers buckle up, then it's O.K. to force the remaining 20% to do so?

No, the other way round. If only 20% of people have the common sense to buckle up, then it's ok to force the other 80% to do so.

Aside from it being plain wrong to force people to do something for their own good, the major problem with that argument is that when the seatbelt laws were introduced in most places the majority of people did not buckle up. So the law did impose on the majority.

We'd all love to live in an utopian paradise where everyone did as they wished, and everyone got along, and it was great. But that's not the way the world works. People have to be controlled to some degree. Laws have to be enacted for people's own good. A law is the simplest, and least hassle way of generating a trend, of imposing an attitude on a populous. Without seatbelt laws, most people wouldn't buckle up. The law provides a foundation on which attitudes are based. The same goes for the smoking ban in workplaces. Give it ten, twenty years, and how savage our children will think our society was for allowing people to smoke in workplaces.

If everyone did the common sense thing, we wouldn't need laws. Seatbelts would be optional, but everyone would wear them. Cigarettes and Alcohol would be freely available for sale to children, but none would buy them. Thieves and drug dealers wouldn't be punished, but that wouldn't matter, because they wouldn't exist.

Plain fact of the matter is: We must live in a society. Society requires laws and boundaries to protect its weak, innocent, stupid and vunerable. The rest of us must abide by these laws, whether we want to or not. If you don't like it, go live on some remote island.


The majority of people would wear a coat to walk in a blizzard in mid-winter, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal to walk around in 20-degree weather wearing nothing but shorts and a t_shirt.[/QUOTE]

Stark

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)

I've another fancy word that makes me drive carefully even when wearing a seatbelt - "No Claims Bonus"

Blitzkrieger

Omg this is going around in circles. While a seat belt isn't perfect, it's been proven countless times that you're far better off with one on than without, even at low speeds. It shouldn't have to be a law, but the plain fact is : people are stupid. Unless you make something illegal and penalise people for doing it, they'll carry on doing it. If it wasn't the law to wear safety belts, much less people would and there would be far more/worse injuries in car crashes.

I don't accept that it reduces your ability to turn and look around inside the car. If it does, there's something wrong with it and get it fixed. As for not wearing it at low speeds around town - is everyone else going at a slow speed? What kinda force is generated by a 10t truck hitting you at 25mph? Or any of those big **** off 4x4s every muppet needs to drop their kids off at school in.

Stark

I've this image of that guy Boggles constantly having to make sharp sudden movements every time he needs to turn and look at something For gods sake man, a seatbelt doesn't impair your ability to turn around in the car Personally as LFCman says I feel naked without a seatbelt in a car. And just because I feel an increased sense of security doesn't mean I have to drive faster, I still have good old higher conciousness and judgement to rely on thank you very much. It's like when I'm driving back into my estate and I see the skanger kids who've been terrorising us straight in front of us, I don't slam on the accelerator however much I might want to

My wife was recently in a car with two friends and their seven year old daughter. It was the daughters first communion so she was allowed sit in the front. She wasn't wearing a seat belt which my wife pointed out. The parents said 'Shir it's her communion, she can go without it for today'.

Lovely, what do they let her do on her birthday, drink toilet cleaner?

Vibe666 wrote:

ah well, at least if she'd been killed she'd have already been wearing a nice dress for her funeral.

LOL. Black black humour, I love it

PBC_1966

seamus wrote:

Society requires laws and boundaries to protect its weak, innocent, stupid and vunerable.

Yes, but the laws are there to protect the weak and vulnerable against the actions of others who would take advantage of them It is not the purpose of government to protect people against themselves. If you start to accept laws for self-protection, there is virtually no limit to the nanny state.

If you don't like it, go live on some remote island.

An excellent idea. If you can find me one which doesn't already have some government claiming jurisdiction over it, I'd probably move there and start a new country.

There are still some jurisdictions that have fought the tide of the seatbelt Nazis though. New Hampshire still stands firm as the only U.S. state with no compulsory seatbelt laws for adults.

Stark

Yes, but the laws are there to protect the weak and vulnerable against the actions of others who would take advantage of them It is not the purpose of government to protect people against themselves. If you start to accept laws for self-protection, there is virtually no limit to the nanny state.

There are loads of laws to "protect people from themselves". The conservative drug laws for example. In fact the seatbelt law is a different situation. If you pop a pill you're definitely only harming yourself (stupid things you may do under the influence aside), however as has been said in this thread if you don't wear a seatbelt you could injure other passengers in your car in the event of a crash or else leave a nasty mess on the road in front of you for people to clean up.

jongore

PBC_1966 wrote:

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?

Being reckless is taking unnessecerary risks, so yes not wearing a seatbelt is reckless behaviour.

PBC_1966 wrote:

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?

This a completly spurious argument, I would take the lift but when there are seat belts I use them, including when I'm sitting in the back. Safty equipment should be used when available not using it is a reckless act.

PBC_1966

In fact the seatbelt law is a different situation. If you pop a pill you're definitely only harming yourself (stupid things you may do under the influence aside),

Stupid things like maybe driving a car? In that case you may not be harming just yourself. There are any number of other things which could be done under the influence which could prove harmful to others.

Being reckless is taking unnessecerary risks, so yes not wearing a seatbelt is reckless behaviour.

You may consider it an unnecessary risk. That doesn't mean that everybody else does. What about the risk of being injured by a seatbelt? Yes, I know you'll say that the chances are small, but will you accept that they exist? If so, then is it not just as reckless to not consider the possible consequences of being buckled up?

The simple fact is that everything we do has a greater or lesser element of risk. So long as an action does not directly threaten to harm the well-being of another person, then people should be free to decide for themselves what risks they are willing to take. If you start trying to legislate for every possible indirect consequence of what may happen under certain combinations of circumstances (if there's a crash, and if the unbelted person hits another person in the car etc.) then nobody would be able to do anything.

This a completly spurious argument, I would take the lift but when there are seat belts I use them, including when I'm sitting in the back. Safty equipment should be used when available not using it is a reckless act.

Why is it a spurious argument? You have stated that you would ride in a car which doesn't have any seatbelts, so presumably you don't have any objections to anybody else doing so.

What happens, then, to all these arguments about the risk of hitting other people in the car in a collision, or of being thrown through the winshield?

If I can choose to take those risks while driving a car with no belts fitted, then why can't I take the same risk by not using the belts in a car which has them?

Victor

Re: Racing drivers. They wear helmets, 4-point seat belts (which are available to "civilians" in the USA, certainly for back seats) and have custom cars.

alias no.9

PBC_1966 wrote:

You're talking about what the existing law says, while I'm arguing fundamental rights of choice.

Your whole perspective on this is flawed. There are no fundamental rights in compliance with the law. Driving is not a liberty, it is a privilege and it is conditional. That is why there is a minimum age requirement, that is why there are licencing laws and that is why there are rules of the road. You do have a right to chose and nobody can take that right away from you. You have the right to chose not to obey the rules of the road, however, if you make this choice, there may be consequences including fines, revokation of your driving license and even prison. But you, being aware of the risks, make your own judgements and should accept any consequences. This is not about opinion, it is about fact, the rules of the road exist, they are enforcable.

The way you talk about seat belts, one would be forgiven for thinking that you believe there is a great conspiracy to force them upon people for spurious reasons. Maybe for the inventor to profit from sales of seatbelts? But of course even though volvo hold the patent for the three point seatbelt, they have never sought royalties from it so thats out the window.

Sleipnir

Boggle wrote:

Sleipnir - since we're on the topic of rally drivers, do you think a rally driver would drive a track in a 3-point seatbelt with tensioner?? Ever wonder why? Cos they'r crap and really are just short of useless. Picture this: you go from 50mph to 0 in approx 2-3 feet (crush zone in the car). Your body tries to be flung forward but the waist is stopped by the waist restraint. Your body continues but your right shoulder is restrained in a diagonal stopping it partially as your left side continues and gets violently twisted (spine???) allowing your head to hit the windscreen crooked causing potential severe damage to the side of the brain and neck. You are screwed, spine damage, neck damage, chest injuries, shoulder injuries, head,neck and brain injuries. Still think a seatbelt will save you if you make a mistake??? And this is the type of crashes its designed to work best on. Think about a side-on crash...

Seatbelts save lives Boggle.
Your diatrade about "twisting spines" and "the side of your face hitting the windscreen" is all bull.
What, is hitting the windscreen with the side of your face somehow more desirable than hitting it with your face?

Most crashes occur when one vehicle hits another head-on because one of the vehicles was over the white line.
So, statistically you are more likely to be in a head on collision than any other. Therefore, the seatbelt will help to protect you in the most commonly occuring crash.

You keep making the argument that they don't protect you from absolutely everything so you're better off without it? :rolleyes: That's just plain bad maths.

"I limp because of the crash and I had to have surgery on my face. I'll never be the same as I was before the crash but the other is dead"
"Yeah, you're much worse off than that guy"

Sleipnir

In seatbelt statistics, it must be factored in that persons who choose not to use seatbelts are more likely to have accidents out of a higher general bent toward risk taking.

Source: Leonard Evans, "The Science of Traffic Safety", The Physics Teacher 26, October 1988, Page 431.

a_ominous

There is an article in the Irish Times "Science Today" section of today's paper related to this topic. Not online without subscription to link.
Regarding the risk compensation that PBC and Sleipnir mentioned, IIRC the conclusion was that people who don't have safety equipment tend to take less risks or risks with lesser potential damage. For example a rock climber will not try to jump 5 feet to a 6 inch wide ledge when 100 up a cliff without a safety rope. It's this reasoning which prompts the logic that a 12 inch spike on your steering wheel will force you to think more carefully about the decisions you make when driving. The Times article refers to some research that accident rates went up in countries that had introduced compulsory wearing of safety belts.

Makes you wonder about all these new cars with a zillion air bags. Or the school run mum in her SUV: "I like it because I feel safer".

One of the reasons for introducing the NCT was to reduce accidents / fatalities. AFAIK 2% of accidents were attributed to defective cars. In a rust bucket, you couldn't drive at 80 MPH, so bring back the bangers, reduce accidents.
The biggest cause of accidents has _never_ been tackled. And the cause IMHO is bad drivers. Generally low standard of driving here. When I'm on my bike I treat every car / van / bus driver as a potential murderer. They may not intentionally want to kill me but one silly mistake has the potential to kill me. That's why I wear a helmet / padded jacket trousers, gloves and boots.

Kev

Should motorcycle be banned because they are too risky ?

For those who wouldn't ride in a car without a seatbelt, would you ride in a bus without a seatbelt ?

Sleipnir

Should walking?
Going to the moon?
swimming?

Yes i would. You are far, far, far less likely, statistically, to be injured on a bus then in a car.

Kev

Depends on what you are doing in the car

Sleipnir

Right, that's it.
I'm off outside to argue with a lampost.

alias no.9

Kev wrote:

Should motorcycle be banned because they are too risky ?

For those who wouldn't ride in a car without a seatbelt, would you ride in a bus without a seatbelt ?

A bus would need to be in a collision with a very heavy object in order to be subjected to the kind of decelleration force that a car would encounter in a small crash, therefore the risk is greatly reduced. However, if there's a seatbelt, I'll wear it.

PBC_1966

alias no.9 wrote:

There are no fundamental rights in compliance with the law.

Yes there are. A law is not valid if it is in violation of fundamental rights as set out by various documents: The Constitution in the U.S.A., Magna Carta & The Bill of Rights in the U.K., etc.

Driving is not a liberty, it is a privilege and it is conditional. That is why there is a minimum age requirement, that is why there are licencing laws and that is why there are rules of the road.

Dirving as a right vs. privilege is a whole different argument. But to keep it simple for now, how then would you apply this to the passengers in a car? There is no licensing for them, and most western countries' constitutions provide for the free movement of people within the country's borders, so they do have a right to travel.

This is not about opinion, it is about fact, the rules of the road exist, they are enforcable.

You seem to be missing the point. Yes, seatbelt laws exist and are enforcable because the politicians and the judicial system enforce them, sometimes against their own better judgment. Are you saying that every law ever passed is just and morally right?

The way you talk about seat belts, one would be forgiven for thinking that you believe there is a great conspiracy to force them upon people for spurious reasons.

To an extent, yes. I don't doubt that a large number of the people who seek ever stricter seatbelt laws have been convinced of their beneficial effects by the extremely biased reporting in their favor over the years.

Many of the reports supporting compulsory belts are based on flawed studies For example, the main UK survey came to the conclusion that after belts were made mandatory in 1983 the fatality rate dropped sharply. That single report has been quoted over and over in support of belt laws. What is not revealed nowadays, however, is that a massive blitz on drunken driving was launched at exactly the same time. When the statistics for different times of day are studied, it becomes clear that almost all of the drop in fatalities was during the prime drunk-driving time period of late night/very early morning.

Maybe for the inventor to profit from sales of seatbelts? But of course even though volvo hold the patent for the three point seatbelt, they have never sought royalties from it so thats out the window.

No, because new cars were already required to be fitted with belts before their use was made mandatory, so sales of belts would have continued anyway.

PBC_1966

Most crashes occur when one vehicle hits another head-on because one of the vehicles was over the white line.
So, statistically you are more likely to be in a head on collision than any other. Therefore, the seatbelt will help to protect you in the most commonly occuring crash.

I was always led to believe that head-on crashes were actually less common than rear-ends, glancing blows, side-swipes, etc.

Sleipnir wrote:

You are far, far, far less likely, statistically, to be injured on a bus then in a car.

Many of you are quoting statistics. Well, statistically, you are less likely to be injured in an airplane than in a car. So why doesn't the government ban cars altogther and force everybody to fly instead?

According to the government's own statistics, vastly more people die each year as a result of smoking-related diseases than in auto wrecks. So why don't they leave cars alone for a while and ban tobacco entirely?

You may quote statistics all day. I'm sure that the percentage of rock-climbers who are injured in their hobby is far greater than the percentage of stamp-collectors. That doesn't mean that the government should ban rock-climbing and force these people to take up stamp collecting instead.

You may believe that in 80% of crashes, or even 99% of crashes a seat-belt will be beneficial rather than harmful (although personally I believe the percentage to much lower, although almost impossible to actually calculate due to the huge number of variables). It doesn't matter what the exact percentage is -- There is stil a certain risk of the belt being detrimental, and therefore the law is telling you that you must do something which may be harmful. The government does not have the right to play a roulette game with people's lives, forcing injury on some because they believe it may save others.

We are individuals, and should be left to make our own decisions about what level of risk is acceptable.

Seth Brundle

for fupps sake - this is really stupid. You are defending your percieved right to be thrown out of your car. Grow up! Seat belts do save lives and reduce injuries significantly. It was for this reason that volvo did not place royalties on their usage - they knew their importance.
With your arguments you appear to be like a spoilt child who is pissed for not getting their way.
People are dicks. The law is there for the benefit of the majority. If you don't like it then don't wear one but be prepared to face both the rigours of the law and possibly, late one night, the asshole who believes the drink driving laws shouldn't apply to them - should make an interesting article the following day in the paper!

ubu

PBC_1966 wrote:

I don't doubt that a large number of the people who seek ever stricter seatbelt laws have been convinced of their beneficial effects by the extremely biased reporting in their favor over the years.

or possibly due to the fact that the benefits are so blatently obvious that it is only natural that they would seek to ensure that everyone should have some form or protection in a crash

my dad hit a wall after skidding on oil patch, he was wearing his seat belt, the seat belt broke two of his rib bones and collar bone, the seat belt did this damage yea, but it also prevented him from being thrown from the car and almost certainly dieing - which would you prefer??


looking at it from a purely monetary sense its in the govt interest to keep us alive as stated already any fatal accident costs the taxpayer €1million the govt also loose revenue from the said dead person because s/he is no longer able to work/ pay taxes for obvious reasons
it also reflects on the govts ability and if they are precieved to be doing a good job and ultimatley whether they will get re-elected

ever wonder why seat belts are fitted as standard, in much the same way as ABS has become a requirement for all new cars, its a beneficial safety feature and whilst seat belts wont prevent a crash they drastically improve your chance of survival in the event of one occuring

unkel

kbannon wrote:

It was for this reason that volvo did not place royalties on their usage

I didn't know that. Mighty decent of them

PBC_1966

kbannon wrote:

You are defending your percieved right to be thrown out of your car.

I am defending my right to decide for myself what precautions I will take for my own safety.

Seat belts do save lives and reduce injuries significantly.

In some cases. In others they can cause injuries.

ubu wrote:

looking at it from a purely monetary sense its in the govt interest to keep us alive as stated already any fatal accident costs the taxpayer €1million

It would be interesting to know exactly how they come to that figure.

the govt also loose revenue from the said dead person because s/he is no longer able to work/ pay taxes for obvious reasons

Financial considerations should not impinge upon basic freedoms, but if we are to analyze it in these terms, then don't forget that with the pack of thieves running most governments, they stand to gain from death duties, inheritance tax, fees for property title transfers after somebody's death, and so on.

While we're on the subject of money, this has surely to be the main motivation for enforcing this sort of police-state, "You will do what we tell you to do or else" mentality. Make up a never-ending stream of petty rules and regulations, then rake in millions in fines when people don't comply with them.

it also reflects on the govts ability and if they are precieved to be doing a good job and ultimatley whether they will get re-elected

Speak to most people (at least in England, maybe it's different in Ireland?) and you'll find they want less government interference in their lives, not more. Most of us are fed up with the ever-tightening grip of petty laws that seek to regulate every minute detail of our lives.