Safe Speed Forums

Yes, Semitone, that's exactly it. We (the auto industry) frequently get lawsuits from people with relatively minor airbag injuries. The fact that almost ALL of the ones (that I've seen at least) simply wouldn't be alive to sue us had it not been for the airbag is a good illustration of the point. Same thing for seat belts, (except we don't seem to get sued by people with belt injuries for some strange reason!)

Likewise, OF COURSE there were recorded increases in seat belt injuries when seat belts became more widely used!!!! But nobody seems to think of what used to happen before that!

Sometimes, I really wonder why we bother....

...been thinking about this mountaineering thing a bit...

I think the difference MIGHT be that in an inherently dangerous sport (like mountaineering, sailing, flying etc) the participants are obliged (morally, if not legally) to take all "resonable" precautions to ensure their own safety and that of anyone sent out to rescue them. If the government found that the cost to society of fixing up those muppets that DIDN'T take reasonable precautions was so great, I think they probably WOULD legislate. To be honest, we're right on the brink of this with sailing right now. There is no (UK) legislation requiring a yachtsman to undergo any training. In fact, there wasn't (until very recently) anything much by way of legislation to save us from ourselves. It was largely left to the "Darwin" principle. Believe it or not, I have much sympathy with Paul's views on nannyism. One of the main reasons for switching from cars to boats as a hobby was the wonderful freedom from red tape and nannying legislation, in fact!

In recent years, however, the number of people taking to the water for recreation has grown massively and with it, the number of lifeboat call-outs for completely avoidable stupid mistakes has grown too. Sure enough, we are seeing increased calls for mandatory training and minimum levels of safety equipment to be enforced. The Royal Yachting Association has a good slogan "education not legislation" but despite its best efforts, I think that if the number of people wanting to "exercise their right" to (say) not wear a lifejacket or not carry any distress flares increases much further, the legislators might have to step in (which will be a pity.

Off topic? well, maybe, but I've heard people who are "anti-lifejacket" spouting the (very rare) situation of being trapped in a capsized boat by one's lifejacket and unable to escape downwards...

...and distress flares are a fire hazard...

But it's still weird. We're ending up at the point where we can do whatever we like, however dangerous it might be, so long as we take reasonable/responsible safety precautions.

But if we're well equipped doing an ultra-difficult climb in midwinter, the risk to rescuers is still far greater than the ill-equipped hill walker in summer.

If risk to (potential) rescuers is the metric or the objective we're still deep in the smelly stuff.

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

I agree. That said, I know a few of our local mountain rescue team and they do this because they get a kick out of it. Obviously, none of them WANT to have a nasty accident on a call-out but they all understand it could happen and they're still willing to do it.

People who know that they are doing something inherently dangerous tend to understand the dangers and they follow proper procedures and use the correct equipment to minimise the danger. Although the consequences can be deadly, the chances of something going wrong are small.

People who do not understand the dangers are the ones who get hurt most often because they do things that get them into trouble and then don't know what to do to get out of trouble.

I'm convinced seatbelts are more useful than not but I agree with Paul66 that the state seems to be intervening in every little thing I do, so I think I'm developing a love/hate thing for him here

I joined the biker world just after the helmet law came in but I was told that the vast majority of bikers were indeed wearing them anyway. If it were repealed tomorrow I certainly would carry on wearing one but I don't like being told I have to. I don't see a difference between falling off a push bike at 40mph and doing the same on a motorbike? Your head will crack open just the same but when I'm cycling in the countryside I like to feel the wind in my hair, (well, on my bald head). I hope the helmet law doesn't extend to cycling one day but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it's done 'for my own good'.

There should be a balance between law verses freedom; even freedom to do stupid things at times (I should hold a degree in that one)

If one in two marriages fail maybe marriage should be outlawed? After all, it doesn't get much more stressful and bad for your health than that - especially when kids are involved. We could get really silly with these truisms but we should have the freedom to make our own choices for better or worse.

Someone told me a story in the paper the other day that a parent asked for goggles to be worn when kids play conkers. What next I wonder?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

There are two aspects to this which haven't, as yet, been mentioned.
First of all, before seat-belt wearing was mandated, most windscreens were of the toughned glass type. When impacted they 'crazed' into thousands of pieces which made seeing through them in order to maintain control very difficult when they sustained damage. However, they were less likely to cause serious injury to someone hitting them with their head. With seatbelt legislation came subsequently almost universal adoption of laminated screens. Now, the one thing you really don't want to do is to collide your head with a laminated screen. Belts do reduce this happening.
Secondly, there is an old adage that when an accident is inevitable, keep on steering in order to lessen the effect and increase the distance available for stopping. It has always been alleged that by keeping you in your seat, you are thus better able to keep steering if you are actually off the road and in the process of crashing. If your head is hitting the top screen rail and your a**e is 12" off the seat, it's hard to steer as well.

Oh yes, and here it is...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/3712764.stm

What about when you whack the other guys knuckles instead. They should be wearing gaunlets too shouldn't they!

Stop the world, I want to get off...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

So one has to question whether the change in the type of glass has really been beneficial then.



Australia and New Zealand already have mandatory helmets for all bicycle riders. I understand that a good many cyclists opposed their introduction, one of the arguments being the freedom-of-choice issue. This was countered by those pushing for the law by using the existing seat-belt laws to show that a precedent of forcing somebody to do something "for his own good" had already been established. The motorcycle helmet law had similarly been used as a precedent when seat belt use became compulsory (Victoria was one of the first, if not the first place in the world to mandate use of belts as early as 1970, and had also been an early adopter of mandatory motorcycle helmets in the early 1960s).

That's why I said that these are very dangerous precedents. One could argue that forcing pedestrians to wear a helmet and a padded suit could reduce injuries. Will that be next?

By the way, there was already a proposal by an M.P. last year to introduce U.K. legislation mandating the use of cycle helmets for children. Fortunately, it went no further, but it will no doubt come up again. If that ever goes through, you know that the next step will be to extend it to everybody.

Well you certainly started something here Paul but I think the question is much bigger than just seat belts. I find myself in agreement with you in general.

Why should a government be able to cherry pick harmful things and dictate what it feels we should be allowed to do? The dangers of smoking have been known since I was a foetus but to this day they still give us the choice. I could say the same about alcohol. (too much of a money spinner for the chancellor) It all smacks of hypocrisy to me.

So to go back to one of your original ripostes, "what measures one takes for one's own safety are none of the government's business" yes, I agree! It's called freedom and people paid for it with their lives.

Will my grandson be prevented from climbing trees one day and stabilizers will be fitted on every cycle by law? Where do you draw the line? How much government intervention is too much/not enough?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Yes, it was. One could also argue that the change from cable to hydraulic brakes wasn't really beneficial because you could never get hydraulic failure with cable brakes but hydraulic brakes just worked so much better that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. Laminated screens are vastly stronger than their toughened counterparts - so much so that the testing standards for each type are different because there's no way a toughened screen that weighed less than the rest of the car anyway!) would pass the tests a laminated one has to pass!

Don't get me wrong, if the argument is about civil liberties and the Nanny State forcing us to do what it thinks best, I'm very much closer to your point of view than one might think reading some of my replies! I used to wear a seat belt before the law made it mandatory, of my own free will. if, however, the argument is that seat belts aren't that good, then I will still take a great deal of convincing!

Maybe if we had a healthcare system more like the US, it would be an easier / fairer thing to do. If, for instance, we had our own insurance to pay for healthcare, then I guess a lot of my objections would go away. if you choose not to wear a seat belt, your insurance premium would reflect that. In fact, if you chose to do anything that made it more likely that they'd have to pay out (extreme sports, poor health choices, old / fast cars etc) or made the size of any likely payout greater, it would be reflected in the premium. That might also serve to validate your feelings (or not)! That is to say, if the insurers found that there really wasn't any difference in what they were paying for people who did and didnt wear seat belts, your theory would be vindicated. unfortunately, I don't know whether you'd ever get a large enough sample size to be statistically meaningful.

Having been on the receiving end of a high speed rock spat out of the back of a lorry and into my windscreen I'll stick with the laminated thanks. Somewhere between the size of a tennis and golf ball it very nearly got into the car - the plastic film between the inner and outer glass layers was stuck out a good 20mm into the car. We were showered with very fine glass splinters from the inner layer but as the hit wasn't in my line of sight I could continue to drive safely and, seeing as it was late Friday afternoon in rural Ireland, for the rest of the weekend. Toughened glass can take more punishment but if it had gone - and <speculation alert> I'm thinking it would have <alert over> we'd have had a missile loose in the car and no windscreen, oh and a lot more glass in my face - don't anyone tell you broken toughened glass can't cut, or stays in nice little cubes.

And as I always wear a seatbelt I'm not planning on testing any theories on which screen hurts least.

There is a general anti-authority streak here abouts, but you can take a dogma too far and I won't be signing for your petition. The world is full of anomalies and contradictions but given the number of accidents that have clearly been identified as having been made worse by the occupants having worn a belt seem few and far between for me it's clunk click every trip regardless of the

Barkstar
Just 5 weeks to the Lombard Rally 2007

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

Just to confess, that sometimes I simply forget to put the belt on.

When I started driving, the only compulsion was that anchorage points had to exist in new cars.


One thing that seems to escape notice is that belts are not a rigid restraint - nor are they designed to be - they stretch under heavy load. This means that after an accident, they should be replaced - but try arguing that with the insurance company!

The car is normally written-off after an accident big enough to significantly stretch the belt! In any case with modern pre-tensioners and peak load limiters, the belts need replacing as a matter of course even before the webbing itself has stretched appreciably.

Someone said that when the airbag goes off the explosive force can be harmful which made me wonder if this is dangerous for someone like myself who wears spectacles?

Any reported eye damage from this happening?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Indeed. Allow the government to encroach upon personal choice about risk over one thing, and you can open the floodgates.

To those who insist that the government should enforce a seat belt law, either for "our own good" or because of perceived expense to the NHS, let me pose a scenario. The present government waffle about good diet, warning labels on "unhealthy" foods and so on turns into demands that something more forceful be done, and in a few years we see the enactment of the Nutritional & Diet Regulations 2013. Part of these regulations stipulate that no person may eat more than one Big Mac or BK Whopper per day. (For your own good, remember.)

A cop sees you going into McD or BK for the second time in a day, and in accordance with the new law hands you a citation for unhealthy eating.

Would you consider that acceptable in a free society?



You argue that by (supposedly) endangering myself by not using a seat belt I am burdening everybody else with the possible costs of any injuries I may sustain. Why should you have to pay for my "stupidity" you say.

O.K., so why should I have to pay to treat people who deliberately endanger themselves by smoking, mountain climbing, skydiving, or riding a motorcycle?

If nobody should be allowed to increase his personal risk because of the burden it places upon the healthcare system, you could argue for laws to prevent people from doing almost anything.

The problem here is socialized healthcare.



Most definitely. I don't have any specific references to hand (I don't think I've kept them), but there have certainly been quite a number of cases in which an airbag has resulted in broken glass from spectacles being embedded in the eyes. Not nice at all.

_________________

It's true they go off with considerable force (and speed). There is also some heat but nothing that gets as far as the occupant. Abrasions with the bag material may, however cause friction burns.

I am aware of one story of a mechanic being killed whilst working on a dashboard without having first disabled the airbag though. I think people are lulled into a false sense of security because whenever the public sees an airbag deployment it is usually in slow motion and the whole expeience looks serene as the dummy glides into the soft, fluffy airbag which envelopes it gently. The truth is that it's more like (I'm told!) being punched in the face with a boxing glove full of lead!

The thing is, that in the "me, me , me" compensation culture "I have a right..." society in which we now seem to live, people just seem to expect not to suffer the consequences of their own actions. The airbag is by no means perfect, but it's better than hitting a dashboard / steering wheel / windscreen. Used properly, in conjunction with a belt incorporating a pre-tensioner and a peak load limiter, it gives the body an opportunity to spread the retarding force of the accident over as large a surface area as possible. That's the best the industry can do at present!

As far as the glasses question goes, I found this on the EuroNCAP website:

"Am I at risk of further injury if I am wearing glasses and the airbags deploy during a crash?

In-depth studies of road accidents reveal this is not such a concern. The presence of spectacles may even protect the eye ball from being scratched by the fabric of the airbag. More of an issue is smoking or having other objects placed between you and the airbag."

-so that's good news for spectacle wearers and bad news for pipe smokers!

On that we can agree. The images usually shown are misleading in the extreme.



"Not such a concern." That's not very comforting, is it? It probably isn't a concern until it happens to you.

Just like belts, airbags have saved but they have also killed. There was an incident in the States a few years ago in which a 3-year-old boy was killed when an airbag deployed and broke his neck. The system should not have even detonated the charge, as it was a very minor low-speed bump in a supermarket parking lot. And before you ask, yes, he was buckled up as well.

Statement of the year!!!

Don't reproach the pedestrian for walking out in the road and getting knocked over, demonise the driver instead. The first of at least a million examples I'm sure...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

As we have already discussed, US airbags go off with more force than European ones as the expectation is that the occupant will NOT be belted. And if you are in the business of reporting FAULTS, because the story you cite was of a faulty airbag, is it fair to ban something because some of them are broken? Using that logic, because a badly wired plug electrocuted someone, TV's should be banned!

You have very little support on your petition, which I suspect will stay at very low numbers - because very few people share your concerns. I tend to think you won't be happy until ALL rules are relaxed in favour of personal choice. There is a name for that, not a particularly pretty one: Anarchy. Would you describe yourself as an anarchist perhaps?

I almost laughed out loud when I saw this sentence:

Do you really think the US system (for example) is better? Ambulances racing to the scenes of car accidents, and people without health insurance being left at the side of the road?

Anyway, I think your petition will fail miserably. A petition to allow only those who take out appropriate specific insurance to cover road traffic accident healthcare and specialist "gore removal" teams for the aftermath of not-belted accidents to drive without a seatbelt, and all the same costs to be billed at full price for those that drive without a seatbelt OR insurance may get a few more signatories. I can just see it now, grieving families burying the remains of their loved one, landed with a huge bill ... ah well, "he was excercising his personal choice, it's how he would have wanted to die"?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.