DeletedUser
Hellstromm, I think you like being on the opposing side of arguments 
The sky is blue...
The sky is blue...
DeletedUser
Perhaps as the driver of the car you have a few splits seconds to react to what is happening, but your passengers most likely would not and I would imagine that depending on the circumstances the driver might use those last seconds to continue to try to avoid collision or decrease the severity of the collision. I remember once I hydroplaned and I couldn't stop my car. I wasn't even going very fast but hitting the car in front of me was what brought me to a stop. My head hit the windshield. The cracks radiating out from the point of impact made a great picture to show me where I would have gone had my car been going any faster. I was fine but since that day I have a rule. If you get in my car and you want me to drive - then put on your seat belt or we aren't going anywhere. But I can relate to concerns about seat belts not opening and causing a problem when you are trying to get out of the car. I keep a pair of scissors in my glove compartment. Actually they have come in handy quite often so even though they might be unreachable or whatever naysayers would like to say about it -- I'll continue to do so I think wearing seat belts is better than not wearing them even as I admit they could also cause harm depending on the circumstances. There are just too many possible outcomes when it comes to accidents and most of the time survival is probably just dang fool luck - but as the driver of the car I feel I have the responsibility to at least try to keep my passengers safe.
I think wearing seat belts is better than not wearing them even as I admit they could also cause harm depending on the circumstances. There are just too many possible outcomes when it comes to accidents and most of the time survival is probably just dang fool luck - but as the driver of the car I feel I have the responsibility to at least try to keep my passengers safe.DeletedUser9470
lol @ HS, gizmos dads steering wheel going straight for his head, and your hood going straight for your head= same thing.
you wouldnt have died because the seatbelt held you in your seat, you would have died because your hood went into your head!
and why is that?
maybe safety regulations mean you dont have crumple zones on cars in your country?
if you did have these regulations no way would your hood have tried to chop your head off.
also seat belts do not restrain you in your seat like they used to.
for a start all seatbelts are now pre-tention seatbelts. this pulls you back into your seat before the airbag releases.
also the seatbelt release mechanisms have been completely modified. it is extremely rare that you get trapped in a car fire nowadays.
just compare a euro n cap crash test to a US one. you cannot disagree with me that the US one is a joke.
nonetheless, ignorance is bliss, its great to drive around without a seatbelt, without a care in the world (a sense of freedom europeans have given up on), until that split second when you are flying through your windscreen looking at the front grill of a 44T lorry, thinking "mmm, i wish I put that seatbelt on!"
that said thumbs up for biking, biker for life, if you havent ridden a bike then you havent lived. thinking of upgrading my cbr 600 moped soon!
you wouldnt have died because the seatbelt held you in your seat, you would have died because your hood went into your head!
and why is that?
maybe safety regulations mean you dont have crumple zones on cars in your country?
if you did have these regulations no way would your hood have tried to chop your head off.
also seat belts do not restrain you in your seat like they used to.
for a start all seatbelts are now pre-tention seatbelts. this pulls you back into your seat before the airbag releases.
also the seatbelt release mechanisms have been completely modified. it is extremely rare that you get trapped in a car fire nowadays.
just compare a euro n cap crash test to a US one. you cannot disagree with me that the US one is a joke.
nonetheless, ignorance is bliss, its great to drive around without a seatbelt, without a care in the world (a sense of freedom europeans have given up on), until that split second when you are flying through your windscreen looking at the front grill of a 44T lorry, thinking "mmm, i wish I put that seatbelt on!"
that said thumbs up for biking, biker for life, if you havent ridden a bike then you havent lived. thinking of upgrading my cbr 600 moped soon!
DeletedUser
It was a Toyota. As to the safety regulations, mind pointing out where in any European safety regulations does it address hoods?
Indeed, they restrain you in your seat in an entirely different manner... by restraining you in your seat.
Just to ensure you're right in the perfect spot to be decapitated by that nasty hood.
And of course everyone is driving around the latest cars. *rolls eyes*
All crash tests are a joke, as long as they continue to use non-reactive, non-resistant dummies.
I am still waiting for the reports that unequivocally demonstrate seat belts save lives.
Hehe, I keep wanting to go back into biking. Always finding a reason to leave it for some other lifetime.that said thumbs up for biking, biker for life, if you havent ridden a bike then you havent lived. thinking of upgrading my cbr 600 moped soon!
Or red, or yellow, or green or purple...
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I think the type of accident makes a big difference when it comes to the safety of seat belts. A friend of mine hit a patch of ice one night which caused her car to go off the road, flip and land upside down in a lake. She and her 8 year old daughter were both wearing seat belts, and neither was seriously injured. Unfortunately, her seat belt jammed because of the weight of her body and she ended up drowning, her daughter was able to slip out of hers and survived uninjured (other than near hypothermia from being in the icy water).
In most cases, the damage from being thrown from a car would be worse than the damage of being held in place, but there are always exceptions to every rule. In my friend's case, the seat belt may have both saved her life (from the actual accident) and caused her death (from the drowning.)
In most cases, the damage from being thrown from a car would be worse than the damage of being held in place, but there are always exceptions to every rule. In my friend's case, the seat belt may have both saved her life (from the actual accident) and caused her death (from the drowning.)
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
OK, dummy tests are useless, as long as the hood chops your head of and they can't move to dodge it. Well isn't that the point of them? If the hood slips the head of the dummy, then there's something wrong with the damn car and they go fix it. That's called a successful dummy test bcus they found something useful. And the tests they do are pretty complex, don't think that they only do front, side and back impacts.
I've heard of countless accidents in which the driver(and the passager) got out unharmed. And I'm not talking about some 10km/h crashes... I'm talking about cars fliping over and stuff. Now the count of people geting unharmed from not wearing their seatbelt... it's not looking good.
Forget about hitting the steering wheel... just hitting the thing over your head(the thing that blockes the sun... sorry don't know how it's called in english) if it's in a wrong position can shatter your face.
I've heard of countless accidents in which the driver(and the passager) got out unharmed. And I'm not talking about some 10km/h crashes... I'm talking about cars fliping over and stuff. Now the count of people geting unharmed from not wearing their seatbelt... it's not looking good.
Forget about hitting the steering wheel... just hitting the thing over your head(the thing that blockes the sun... sorry don't know how it's called in english) if it's in a wrong position can shatter your face.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Why would anybody not wear a safety belt? The statistics clearly show that they increase safety significantly; less chance to die, less chance to get heavily injured.
It's been a rule here for almost 40 years that can get you fined for. The driver is also responsible for all passengers. Though there are a few exceptions like cabs, busses, post vans etc.
Also the non-reacting-dummy argument is sort of invalid, unless there are ninjas or professional racing drivers in the car that actually have a very low reaction time (and the latter ones wear safety belts, too). Ordinary people will behave just like dummies as they're too slow to react and in some cases additionally shocked and unable to react at all.
It's been a rule here for almost 40 years that can get you fined for. The driver is also responsible for all passengers. Though there are a few exceptions like cabs, busses, post vans etc.
Also the non-reacting-dummy argument is sort of invalid, unless there are ninjas or professional racing drivers in the car that actually have a very low reaction time (and the latter ones wear safety belts, too). Ordinary people will behave just like dummies as they're too slow to react and in some cases additionally shocked and unable to react at all.
DeletedUser28032
Well looking at it from an engineering point of view I'd have thought it unlikely for the bonnet(or Hood) of your car to decapitate you. For starters its hinged in such away as to open up with the sharp end is going away from your head, or crumple with the rest of your car keeping it firmly in place.
Also if your car was struck head on with sufficient force so that both the bolts and the latche were to shear off and then force its way through the safety glass you've probably alreay been thrown clean through your windscreen if you weren't wearing a belt.
Also if your car was struck head on with sufficient force so that both the bolts and the latche were to shear off and then force its way through the safety glass you've probably alreay been thrown clean through your windscreen if you weren't wearing a belt.
DeletedUser
Tests only exist because of consumer advocates like Ralph Nader. They're only as complex as is required to avoid the radar of scrutiny. I.e., just enough to get those damn consumer advocates off their back.
Hi Jack, I haven't found reliable statistics. Can you point me to them?
Omg I'm a ninja!
Anyway, that's just your opinion. All my experiences indicate I have sufficient time to react and/or brace for impact. I once even had enough time to kiss my ass goodbye.
DeletedUser
1) Not my quote!
2) Here's an Austrian one by official source. I can find lots of news articles that refer to statistics, but I can't find actual sources for those that fast, though both motor club members and government representatives speak of a major safety improvement (and in 99% they don't agree on anything).
If you like to you can do it by hand though by comparing plain statistic data of pre-early-70s (as in pre-belt-obligation) car accident statistics with later ones. Though then you have the trouble figuring out the increase of car top speeds and all other factors affecting death and injuries.
This article e.g. mentions 21.332 deaths due to car accidents in 1971 and 4.000 in 2010, while having 3 times as many cars and an increase of 20 million people. Obviously it's not solely due to safety belts, but a lot of other gimmicks in modern cars, speed limits, alc limits and whatnot. Also deaths in car accidents refer to any people not just drivers and passengers. The pedestrian you hit with a car doesn't care whether you wear that belt or not.
3) While you're a ninja, can you say the same about the person next to you or the kids in the back of your car?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser9470
well HS you have always been on the ball when in comes down to stats and proof. Im surprised you cannot find any on this subject!
especially as i didnt need to look far.
i can get a lmgtfy search done for you if you want?
wikipedia:
Experiments using both crash test dummies and human cadavers also indicated that wearing seat belts should lead to reduced risk of death and injury in car crashes.
Studies of accident outcomes suggest that fatality rates among car occupants are reduced by between 30 and 50 per cent if seat belts are worn. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that death risks for a driver wearing a lap-shoulder seat belt are reducing by 48 per cent.The same study indicated that in 2007, an estimated 15 147 lives were saved by seat belts in the United States and that, if seat belt use were increased to 100 per cent an additional 5024 lives would have been saved.
NOTE CADAVERS ARE ALSO USED
it also says this:
Opposition
A number of groups and individuals are opposed to seat belt legislation. The most common grounds for opposition are:
The view that laws requiring the wearing of seat belts are an infringement of individual liberty
Claims that official estimates of the number of lives saved by seat belts are overstated or fail to take into account additional risks for other road users
i wouldnt want to call you a hillbilly...
from the ROSPA website:
Since the law to wear seat belts in the front was introduced in 1983, front seat belts are
estimated to have saved 50,000 lives, 590,000 serious casualties and 1.5 million minor
injuries.
if you want to put your life in danger because you think you are smarter than death then that is your own choice.
failing to see that seatbelts save lives is bizarre.
all professional racing drivers are firmly harnessed in. what for if those belts dont help keep you alive?
maybe you think seatbelts are just some kind of fashion "peer pressure" thing?
Im sure sergio perez today was glad of all the innovations in terms of safety in this accidentthat happened today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzzUIxPFFxg
no doubt though he would have just jumped out ad landed on his feet had he not been firmly harnessed.
regardless of what you may think, if you want to get in my car then you will have to strap yourself up.
even if you are a rear seat passenger. Im not dying head-butted in the back of my head by a hill billy thinking he'll be able to swerve round my head in the event of an accident.
this is a Euro Ncap test on the Opel Astra 2010
note how the bonnet deforms along "crumple zones". note also at the end how much energy is dispersed into the roof via the B pillar sections.
everything is designed to take out as much energy out of the impact.
and that is exactly what seatbelts do.
id much rather the potential energy of my body be taken by a pretentioner seatbelt than my head.
can you dodge bullets as well HS?
if you are so good at dodging car hoods why didnt you just dodge the accident?
90% of people in the uk wear their seatbelts without even questioning whether they should wear it. because they know it will save their life.
indeed, read above^^^. "tests" demonstrate this very very clearly.
you simply cannot disagree.
you are fighting an already lost battle HS
the day you manage to set up a test to demonstrate and prove that seatbelts kill more people than they save then i will gladly disobey the law and not wear one.
especially as i didnt need to look far.
i can get a lmgtfy search done for you if you want?
wikipedia:
Experiments using both crash test dummies and human cadavers also indicated that wearing seat belts should lead to reduced risk of death and injury in car crashes.
Studies of accident outcomes suggest that fatality rates among car occupants are reduced by between 30 and 50 per cent if seat belts are worn. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that death risks for a driver wearing a lap-shoulder seat belt are reducing by 48 per cent.The same study indicated that in 2007, an estimated 15 147 lives were saved by seat belts in the United States and that, if seat belt use were increased to 100 per cent an additional 5024 lives would have been saved.
NOTE CADAVERS ARE ALSO USED
it also says this:
Opposition
A number of groups and individuals are opposed to seat belt legislation. The most common grounds for opposition are:
The view that laws requiring the wearing of seat belts are an infringement of individual liberty
Claims that official estimates of the number of lives saved by seat belts are overstated or fail to take into account additional risks for other road users
i wouldnt want to call you a hillbilly...
from the ROSPA website:
Since the law to wear seat belts in the front was introduced in 1983, front seat belts are
estimated to have saved 50,000 lives, 590,000 serious casualties and 1.5 million minor
injuries.
if you want to put your life in danger because you think you are smarter than death then that is your own choice.
failing to see that seatbelts save lives is bizarre.
all professional racing drivers are firmly harnessed in. what for if those belts dont help keep you alive?
maybe you think seatbelts are just some kind of fashion "peer pressure" thing?
Im sure sergio perez today was glad of all the innovations in terms of safety in this accidentthat happened today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzzUIxPFFxg
no doubt though he would have just jumped out ad landed on his feet had he not been firmly harnessed.
regardless of what you may think, if you want to get in my car then you will have to strap yourself up.
even if you are a rear seat passenger. Im not dying head-butted in the back of my head by a hill billy thinking he'll be able to swerve round my head in the event of an accident.
this is a Euro Ncap test on the Opel Astra 2010
note how the bonnet deforms along "crumple zones". note also at the end how much energy is dispersed into the roof via the B pillar sections.
everything is designed to take out as much energy out of the impact.
and that is exactly what seatbelts do.
id much rather the potential energy of my body be taken by a pretentioner seatbelt than my head.
can you dodge bullets as well HS?
if you are so good at dodging car hoods why didnt you just dodge the accident?
90% of people in the uk wear their seatbelts without even questioning whether they should wear it. because they know it will save their life.
indeed, read above^^^. "tests" demonstrate this very very clearly.
you simply cannot disagree.
you are fighting an already lost battle HS
the day you manage to set up a test to demonstrate and prove that seatbelts kill more people than they save then i will gladly disobey the law and not wear one.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Hehe, estimates are not studies, they're monkeys on typewriters. Also, any date-comparable studies are grossly inaccurate because they fail to consider modernization, better education for driving, better road maintenance, more and better signs/lights, and other improvements on vehicles. It is, in effect, a very hard task to find a study that specifically indicates it is seat belts that saves lives or decreases injury.
DeletedUser9470
Hehe, estimates are not studies, they're monkeys on typewriters. Also, any date-comparable studies are grossly inaccurate because they fail to consider modernization, better education for driving, better road maintenance, more and better signs/lights, and other improvements on vehicles. It is, in effect, a very hard task to find a study that specifically indicates it is seat belts that saves lives or decreases injury.
not at all, euro n cap crash tests demonstrate that without a seatbelt the dummy/corpse ends up a mangled piece of plastic/flesh.
there is no doubt.
which is why they spend mllions of pounds on this. because it actually saves even more money on injury expenses.
do the volvo test yourself.
strap an egg into a moving device and brutally stop it from moving, then unstrap it and do the same...
DeletedUser
what euro n cap crash tests?
DeletedUser
So I asked google again...What do you think of ten pages of google news links of accidents concerning the non-wearing of safety belts, but only two (single hits, that is. not pages) due to safety belts...and actually those two didn't refer to car crashes, but people in hospitals strapped to their bed. Conspiracy? The almighty safety-belt-lobby controlling our lives?
DeletedUser
What those googled sites do not address, are the many ways in which seat belts endanger passengers and cause death, such as instances of drowning, being trapped in a burning vehicle, etc. Seat belts address only two things: flying out of your vehicle and slamming against the dashboard. That's all, that's it. It's to counteract forward-inertia in cases where people aren't paying attention or are caught by surprise. Making it out as if it's a cure-all is a falsehood.
But, more important, while features in the newest model cars offer better seat belts, by and large the bulk of society is driving around in cars with substandard, unsafe, seat belts. These, along with other issues, causes me to hold much against the notion that it should be legally enforced, particularly since people aren't required to wear helmets while driving down the road in their car.
And let's address one more thing. All tests ensure the "dummies" are wearing their seatbelts properly, with the correct tension and give. They are setup to be on the legs, as opposed to across the abdomen, with some leeway to allow a bit of give. Shoulder straps are properly adjusted so they do not pose a threat to the esophagus and are loose-fitting.
But it is rare to find someone wearing a seatbelt properly, and thus the "perfect picture" is a sham. People wear seatbelts too high up the waist and the shoulder straps are almost always setup to be comfortable across the upper chest, but when it comes to an incident, they are too high and cause neck injuries, including collapsing of the esophagus. Not to mention a lot of people shove the shoulder strap behind them, so all they have is the waist strap. And let's not forget that many cars only offer waist straps, while most of them have the older locks on them, which prevent the seatbelts from being removed if the vehicle is at a forward angle (standard inertia-pendulum design) or when exposed to heat, thus trapping people in their cars in the majority of flood/fire incidents.
But, more important, while features in the newest model cars offer better seat belts, by and large the bulk of society is driving around in cars with substandard, unsafe, seat belts. These, along with other issues, causes me to hold much against the notion that it should be legally enforced, particularly since people aren't required to wear helmets while driving down the road in their car.
And let's address one more thing. All tests ensure the "dummies" are wearing their seatbelts properly, with the correct tension and give. They are setup to be on the legs, as opposed to across the abdomen, with some leeway to allow a bit of give. Shoulder straps are properly adjusted so they do not pose a threat to the esophagus and are loose-fitting.
But it is rare to find someone wearing a seatbelt properly, and thus the "perfect picture" is a sham. People wear seatbelts too high up the waist and the shoulder straps are almost always setup to be comfortable across the upper chest, but when it comes to an incident, they are too high and cause neck injuries, including collapsing of the esophagus. Not to mention a lot of people shove the shoulder strap behind them, so all they have is the waist strap. And let's not forget that many cars only offer waist straps, while most of them have the older locks on them, which prevent the seatbelts from being removed if the vehicle is at a forward angle (standard inertia-pendulum design) or when exposed to heat, thus trapping people in their cars in the majority of flood/fire incidents.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Btw, here's an example of a typical report on the issue:
Notice how it demonstrates that 13% more people died when they weren't wearing seatbelts? But also notice... how double the ones without seatbelts also did not have their airbags deployed?! It is logical to conclude the "not wearing seatbelts" had nothing to do with airbags not being deployed. As such, it is also logical to conclude that many of the lives lost, even beyond the mere 13%, could very well have been saved if the airbags were deployed.
See, this is an example of the error in these types of reports. It doesn't demonstrate that wearing seatbelts saves lives. It demonstrates that if you collect a report that shows double the amount of incidents where airbags are not deployed, you'll find more casualties. This advocates enforcement of airbag installation (manufacturers), not enforcement of seatbelt use (drivers/passengers).
Notice how it demonstrates that 13% more people died when they weren't wearing seatbelts? But also notice... how double the ones without seatbelts also did not have their airbags deployed?! It is logical to conclude the "not wearing seatbelts" had nothing to do with airbags not being deployed. As such, it is also logical to conclude that many of the lives lost, even beyond the mere 13%, could very well have been saved if the airbags were deployed.
See, this is an example of the error in these types of reports. It doesn't demonstrate that wearing seatbelts saves lives. It demonstrates that if you collect a report that shows double the amount of incidents where airbags are not deployed, you'll find more casualties. This advocates enforcement of airbag installation (manufacturers), not enforcement of seatbelt use (drivers/passengers).
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
With 95% of people using belts here, you'd think there were accidents involving drowning/burning/anything due to the seat belt. But there is none. Even a specific search results in blogs and forums with people claiming this would happen, but there's no article to be found with an actual case of it happening.
On the other hand there are plenty of articles involving lethal accidents with those 5% of people not wearing their belts.
Inertia works whether you're surprised or not. And frontal crashes are probably about 99% of all accidents. And those I can witness a couple times per month here. Burning cars are on TV every now and then, but the vast majority of them involve a frontal crash as well. I've heard of a drowning car three times (at this point I'd like to greet all GPS-users, that give their navigation system more credibility than the non-existent ferry), but nobody had problems using their seatbelt.
It certainly isn't a cure-all. Nobody claims that. But it's a cure-most.
Wearing a seat belt isn't rocket science.
What's next? Wearing seat belt hinders your breath? Flattens your boobs? We had these arguments back in the 70s, but nothing actually proved to be true.
Sorry, but it's not logical. After all not wearing seatbelt, but having airbags is considered a very bad combination see this e.g.
I'm fairly certain that airbags do not deploy due to actually not wearing seat belts by modern car design.
DeletedUser
Hehe, alright this was fun playing devil's advocate, but I just can't keep it up. Well, I can, but I don't want to.
http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/seatbelt.asp
I'm not keen with enforcement of seat belts, particularly when they don't enforce installation of airbags in automobiles. But, I do know they are more often effective than not and can reduce injuries/fatalities. So, if we were to argue the issue of enforcement of seat belt laws, I think we can have a bit more fun.
http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/seatbelt.asp
I'm not keen with enforcement of seat belts, particularly when they don't enforce installation of airbags in automobiles. But, I do know they are more often effective than not and can reduce injuries/fatalities. So, if we were to argue the issue of enforcement of seat belt laws, I think we can have a bit more fun.
Last edited by a moderator:
Diggo11
Well-Known Member
Right, so we shouldn't enforce safety device X that has been proven to saves lives because... safety device Y has not become mandatory yet? I'll raise you a law then, why not make wearing a seatbelt (we all have them) and fitting airbags to all newly assembled cars (we should all have them) compulsory by law?I'm not keen with enforcement of seat belts, particularly when they don't enforce installation of airbags in automobiles. But, I do know they are more often effective than not and can reduce injuries/fatalities. So, if we were to argue the issue of enforcement of seat belt laws, I think we can have a bit more fun.