DeletedUser
Hellstromm, I think you like being on the opposing side of arguments
The sky is blue...
The sky is blue...
It was a Toyota. As to the safety regulations, mind pointing out where in any European safety regulations does it address hoods?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.
Indeed, they restrain you in your seat in an entirely different manner... by restraining you in your seat.also seat belts do not restrain you in your seat like they used to.
Just to ensure you're right in the perfect spot to be decapitated by that nasty hood.for a start all seatbelts are now pre-tention seatbelts. this pulls you back into your seat before the airbag releases.
And of course everyone is driving around the latest cars. *rolls eyes*also the seatbelt release mechanisms have been completely modified. it is extremely rare that you get trapped in a car fire nowadays.
All crash tests are a joke, as long as they continue to use non-reactive, non-resistant dummies.just compare a euro n cap crash test to a US one. you cannot disagree with me that the US one is a joke.
I am still waiting for the reports that unequivocally demonstrate seat belts save lives.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!"
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...The sky is blue...
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.And the tests they do are pretty complex, don't think that they only do front, side and back impacts.
Hi Jack, I haven't found reliable statistics. Can you point me to them?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.
Omg I'm a ninja!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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.