Safe Speed Forums

What are you defining as anecdotal? It's as valid as the "official" statements which trot out things like "He would probably have survived if he'd been using a seat belt."

Are you also going to disregard the collected evidence of those doctors who noted the increase in neck injuries?



Yes, you take your choice, that's my whole point, but you forgot some:

F) Broken ribs and ruptured internal organs
G) Drowning or burning to death due to being unable to escape
H) Being crushed to due restricted movement
I) Being ejected and consequently not dying in the wrecked car (yes, it has happened)




How is making decisions about one's own well-being arrogant and selfish? Are test pilots selfish for having a risky profession? Are mountain climbers arrogant? What about their families who might be left behind?



Ah, so it's right because it's the law? "It's the law" is not a valid defense of that law.



Better a small bump on the noggin than a broken neck. Better to be ejected and hit the tarmac at 40 mph than to smash headlong into the side of a mesa. Also simple. (And yes, the latter has happened as well.)



So long as it doesn't directly endanger anybody else, yes.

I have had a look at the actual figures, what I see for 1983 when compared with 1982 is

Peds & Cyclists +3.4% - the cyclists actually rise 10% on their own!
Motor vehicles other than bikes -16.3% - largest yearly drop recorded
Motor Cycles -11.7%
Total -8.24%

The overall drop has the effect of making the drop in motor vehicles look like it matches the rise in peds & cyclists. In fact the percentage drop for MVs was nearly 5 times that of P&Cs and if you take the actual numbers nearly six times.

If this was noise then it means nothing, if you accept an effect from seatbelts then it was large and on the whole positive. If there was a real effect then I suspect a significant part of it was the raising of awareness of road safety due to the advertising of the seatbelt regulations rather than the actual wearing of belts alone.

1991 looks to be the most significant when it comes to positive changes, did something really happens or was it a change in the recording?


I hope it is apparent I am arguing with you rather than against you.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

No problem.

You're not accounting for the 'external influences' on the system which give rise to good years and bad years.

The early 90s good performance was associated with the economic crash ('ERM slump'). (And not any significant change in reporting practice.)

The percentages chart reveals 'shifts' independent of the 'economic' (and other) noise which causes year to year variations.

edited to add...

I should have made clear that the percentage chart 'nullifies' / tends to nullify:

- underlying trend (systematic downwards trend (at the time in question))
- weather effects (causing year to year variations, probably to all groups)
- economic effects (causing year to year variations, probably to all groups)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Both, to an extent. Yes, I do have genuine concerns that seat belts actually do more harm than good in some accidents, up to and including resulting in some deaths which would not otherwise have happened. I am willing to accept that in some accidents a belt may be beneficial; the point of contention is the proportions.

And yes, I am definitely anti-authority when that authority is enforcing a law which violates an individual's right to make his own choices about his own personal safety. I don't doubt that if the government made rules about what one may eat (purely for your own good, you understand) that a great many people would be similarly anti-authority. I don't see seat belts as being any different in the basic argument about self-determination.



The government still spends vast sums of money on those who deliberately place themselves in danger by engaging in any of the risky activities we've already mentioned: Skydiving, spelunking, mountain climbing etc. And the government still spends huge amounts on those bloody minded people who deliberately damage their health by smoking.




I submit that any significant drop in 1983 was most likely because the introduction of the seat-belt law coincided with a massive campaign and stricter enforcement against drunken driving. This seems even more probable when one considers that the reduction in fatalites occurred mostly at night.

From wiki: "Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is."





Not at all. But then, we dont what other circumstances contributed to their injuries, now do we? Its like saying "speed kills"....





I agree, all possible scenarios. Thats the risk you take when driving. I accept them, why cant you? Why do you have to try and prove that even worse injuries are a price worth paying just to stick one to the state?
Youre argument is flawed fatally ( no pun).



In the case youre pushing, its arrogant and selfish because all the evidence so far points to seat belts saving lots more lives than they take. You seem to think you know better.
I suggest that all F1 and Cart drivers cease and desist from wearing a Hans device ( proven life saver) because they dont like the colours.....




NO! its because its a sensible, rational law made for genuine reasons of safety. If it was irrational ( speed kills law) then i would agree with your point.




Youre not seriously suggesting that an ejection through the windscreen of a vehicle at 40 mph onto a carriageway would result in only a "small bump" on the head? Are you????





Point well and truly missed. By your deliberate and wilful circumvention of a safety device, you needlessly endanger yourself more than necessary and tie up valuable resources which could have been used to treat some who was involved in a serious "accident" not an engineered downfall created by an "ideal" you wish to espouse.

"I wish to throw lots of grenades in a busy high street. As long as it dosent harm anyone else i should be free to do so.".....

Really.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Check out this idiot with no seat belt then tell me its a good idea not to wear it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QURsmnVx2S8

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

The point at hand is whether a belt can prove detrimental in some cases. Nobody in this debate so far has argued that it cannot, only that it is much more likely to beneficial.

Does the government have the right to force something on a person when that thing may be harmful, regardless of how frequently it proves to be beneficial? I say no.



The same can be said for anything used in support of seat belts. That's one of my main points: There are far too many variables involved to make an absolute determination, yet the arguments used to support the belt laws don't account for that.



I accept the risk of being thrown through the windshield or bounced around the car. Why can't you accept that? Or more precisely, why can't you accept that I am prepared to accept those risks?



I submit that it does no such thing, but let's assume that it does for a moment. You could still apply this argument to any one of a number of other situations. The evidence (not to mention common sense) clearly suggests that those who don't go mountain climbing never harm themselves from mountain-climbing accidents. Ban mountain climbing.



That's not what I said. Even though it's not a pleasant prospect, and could just as easily prove fatal, what I suggested was that it was preferable to smashing headfirst into the side of a mesa and ending up in a crushed fireball of a car.

There is a distinct difference between the leisure/pursuit activities you mention, undertaken by comparatively few, and the everyday activity of driving a car. I have no idea as to the actual figures but I'll wager the amount spent putting people back together after car crashes makes the amount spent on sorting out failed caving expeds look like a microbe's frisbee viewed through the wrong end of a telescope from Pluto by comparison.
Those who engage in 'extreme' pursuits will often find that their standard life assurance policy won't cover them for their hobby and they will usually (if they are sensible) take out a seperate policy. I'll wager that your motor insurance wouldn't pay out if the insurer discovered you weren't wearing a seatbelt.
However, I am of the view that hillwakers, cavers, etc etc who don't take adequate precaution to safeguard themselves, e.g. by adopting standard precautions equivalent to wearing a seatbelt in a car, should have to stump up if RobinXE and his 'dope on a rope' are scrambled in shitty weather to pull them out of the ground or off a hillside. I make this as a point of principle only.
Smoking is a complex issue because it was interwoven into our society before the detrimental effect on our health became so apparent. I am absolutely certain that if tobacco had been discovered yesterday, the health effects of smoking unveiled today then it would be banned tomorrow.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Would you count the operator's family as endangered by the fact they can no longer afford their home because daddy can't work with just one arm?

I've read - and reread - Paul's post regarding distribution of accidents from the poor observing brake-planter who piles headlong in to something compared to, say, the driver who has more lizard brain power to deal with an impending accident by, eg, choosing "offroad" or choosing to broadside into a hedge or wall than face a head-on or plough headlong into the back of a broken down that looms out (or whatever).

I wonder if any computer simulation can be applied to get a distribution of accident TYPE versus driver competence. Yes we know that 80% of accidents occur in 8% of drivers (or whatever the ratio is) and that therefore generally more advanced drivers have far fewer accidents, but are the accidents advanced drivers are involved in more typically of a type where seatbelts may give disbenefit?

One example: Traffic up ahead on a 3-lane motorway coming to a screeching halt from 60/65/70 in L1/2/3 respectiverly - a multiple pile up situation. The less observant driver half a mile back may well either plough headlong into it and/or be shunted from behind. The more advanced driver might brake fairly hard early, possibly including some hazard flashers, and may be able to reduce things. However, it might trigger a harder rear end shunt (at the expense of any front shunt). A different type of advanced driver might have picked an escape lane, which may well take him either into the central reservation barrier and nasty scrapes down the side (possibly with a snagging and precipitating rear near side into other stationary traffic) or over the hard shoulder and way up (or down) the verge, possibly collecting a few G-forces in any of several directions along the way, but hopefully minimal impact damage.

Not sure what this adds but...

That may well be. I'd also wager that the amount spent on treating illnesses caused by smoking is higher than that spent on auto accident victims (sorry, smokers, I'm not trying to demonize you, just making the comparison).

On which point:



Riding around without a seat belt was also firmly established and woven into our society. There was no law requiring belts to be fitted in cars in the U.K. until 1968.

Not wearing a seat belt is not physically or chemically addictive. Poor choice of straw man IMHO

Not directly endangered. What if the father was a test pilot rather than an accounts clerk? What if walking home from work one night he decides to "risk it" by cutting through a really bad neighborhood to save time? Once you start taking indirect consequences into account you could start arguing for legislation against almost anything which involved the smallest amount of risk.

Now I afraid you are getting desperate to 'prove' your point by making such spurious connections.
Not wearing a seatbelt was simply a habit or practice that motorists had gotten used to largely because, as you say, cars didn't originally have them fitted. There was never an issue of people being physiologically addicted to not wearing a seatbelt nor did a whole industry, and therefore workforce and taxation system, rely on people not wearing seatbelts. So changing that was was 'merely' a question of getting people to change their behaviour and attitudes and mandating that motor manufacturers fit seatbelts as standard, something both parties have, by and large, seen the sense in and taken in their stride.
There is no easy solution to issues that affect our health and well being. Nonetheless, one strand of legislation aimed at protecting people (from themselves amongst other things) does not become invalid or over-bearing simply because legislating in a similar vein in another sphere is not feasible.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I've just thought of something...

Officer: "Excuse me sir, but why aren't you wearing your seatbelt?"
MoP: "Because I'm not planning to have an accident."

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The reason for a seat belt is to combat Newton's first law of motion, in summary "An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a net force."
If a car occupant is not anchored to the vehicle the occupant will remain in motion when the vehicle comes to a stop.
Equally, when a car decellerates, such as very f*kin quickly in an accident, the deceleration effect of braking and the crumple zone braking have no effect on stopping the motion of an unsecured occupant.
The unsecured occupant then hits other occupants or the hard passenger cage of the now stopped vehicle causing serious or fatal injuries to the moving occupant or other occupants.
Yes, seat belts are designed to work in conjunction with the rest of the structures of the vehicle, the crumple zone decelerates the secured occupant in an acceptable way and prevents the occupant from travelling straight through an airbag rather than the designed cusioning it is supposed to give.
The seat belt law is not the key law in operation here, it is those of Newton!
The petition is futile and based on little or no understanding of the mechanisms in vehicle occupant restraint and protection systems, this was illustrated by the original poster having to ask what a KSI was on the first page of this thread. The discussion so far has provided little further of evidence of informed debate on the subject, I am somewhat surprised at this group; perhaps not!!

The %age graph is of little use and naive, imho, try using an index to make comparisons of series of data with differing magnitdes.

Umm, welcome to the forum but I fear that in your effort to belittle the depth and perspicacity shown by the contributers to the debate, you appear to have missed the point.

Paul_1966 is arguing, by and large, a point of principle and does not appear to be disputing the Newtonian physics of the issue.
He argues, through what I believe to be tenuous and largely invalid comparison with other activities, that he should be free to choose whether or not to wear a seatbelt.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I wasn't really trying use that to prove my point, just pointing out people had been driving around without seat belts for years, just as people had been smoking for years before the dangers become widely known.

It raises questions though. If the object of the exercise is to protect people from their own follies, what does how long something has been established or whether an industry revolves around it have to do with anything? The government hasn't cared about many small companies which have been forced into extinction by its overbearing legislation all in the name of "health & safety" or "protecting the environment," has it?

So why is smoking -- a known killer -- any different? All the evidence in 1983 pointed to smoking being dangerous, and very little, if any, pointed toward seat belts being beneficial. Yet they passed a law mandating belts, but 24 years later smoking is still legal (albeit with more restrictions these days).

It couldn't be something to do with the massive amount of tax, surely? I would just be cynical to think that, right?



A seat belt does not actually anchor a person to the vehicle in the absolute sense though. It merely restricts movement in certain directions, and those same laws of physics results in forces being applied to the body by the belt. Different forces perhaps, but forces which can cause damage nevertheless.



So we can assume that you know every single abbreviation and acronym in existence then?

That's another 'strawman' fallacy.

So far this has been a great thread, could we keep it on track?

I heard a story that during first World War the number of soldiers with head injuries rose dramatically after tin hats were introduced. The reason was that before tin hats the soldiers suffered severe head inuries and died and so were recorded as dead with no reference to the type of injury. If the tin hat stopped them from being killed then the type of injury was recorded. I believe that you are describing exactly the same type of effect.