Safe Speed Forums

Um, what?

This is another comment I feel you're going to have to justify.

Why do you think there are belts on aircraft then?

In an aircraft the main use to to keep you in your seat if there is turbulance or violent manouvres.

In an aircraft the main use to to keep you in your seat if there is turbulance or violent manouvres.

The problem is that when seat belts were first widely used (became legally mandatory in 1982, then 1991 for rear seated adults) there was nothing else for occupant restraint/protection, like: crumple zones, multiple airbags, deforming components, impact protection. I would guess that everyone at that time would have accepted that the benefits of belting up seriously outweighed the associated problems. Now many cars have these other safety features, hence it’s reasonable to re-evaluate their effectiveness when used within a modern car.

I think there are multiple reasons auto manufacturers start fitting certain things, either as options or as standard (often starting as the former and gradually becoming the latter).

Go way, way back in motoring history. Why did manufacturers start fitting vacuum ignition advance and electric starters? Probably because they saw that these options would be popular with a lot of people, which they were.

Why did they start providing electric turn signals as an optional extra? Because it was sold to people as being far mroe convenient that winding down the window to give a hand signal, and of course it then became mandatory for signals to be fitted in later years, but even if that had not been the case, I think they'd have probably become standard fitments automatically because people would come to rely upon them and would not want to be without them, any more than anyone today would want to go back to hand cranking and making manual adjustments to the ignition timing.

But we don't have to look very far to see plenty of instances, especially in more recent years, of things which have really only become standard fitments because of legislation.

Rear fog lights anyone? Sure, they were around as options before U.K. law mandated them on new cars, but for something which was simply not that popular an option, would they have become standard features due to popular demand in the way that electric starters and turn signals had? I very much doubt it. They're only fitted on new cars here today because EU regulations demanded it.

And relating this somewhat to seat belts, the same could be said for the seat belt buzzer/warning light on all new U.S. vehicles. Fitted by popular demand? No -- Fitted only because they're now required by Federal law. People who wanted to use belts would buckle up anyway and those like me who don't will soon disable the annoying warning devices.

So I think there's quite a division between things which have become the norm due to public demand and those which have become the norm because of legislation or other business influences.

The reasons for having belts on an airplane are so different from those on a car that there's no valid comparison between the two.

As for motorsport, although closer, even that is rather different from everyday driving on a public highway. It is much more controlled, driving conditions are totally different, there are emergency crews standing by who can be at a crash scene within seconds, etc.

And their reasons for claiming a difference in public service vehicles are.....?

No. I've already spoken about aircraft belts and I disagree with you. As for Motorsport, I don't think that motorsport is that different - just more extreme. Rally cars tend to have pretty much all the same crashes as road cars - just faster / harder. They tend to have harnesses which offer better protection than a 3 point belt but are more restrictive so having marshals around to help the competitors out of their belts is a good idea. The principle is exactly the same as in a road car though - the belt is something to stop you having to use all the sharp / hard bits of the car interior to slow you down!

The other principal difference is the intrusion of having a steel roll cage in the car to bang your head on in the event of. This is the primary reason that helmets are worn in rally cars, and again why the occupants have to be so much more solidly restrained with fixed belts rather than "inertia reel" arrangements that allow more freedom of movement.

The net result of all this is that the such restraint systems are hugely more effective. My last rallying crash was head on into a dry stone wall at about 45mph. In a road car that would have been a big accident but as it was we hopped out without any ill effects whatsoever - no whiplash, nothing.

But as mole says, the principal remains the same, it's just more extreme demands.

i recall a great top gear clip where clarkson smacks his head on the side window of a tvr he's twatting around (he had it coming)

If that's the case, they test them to one hell of a load! I'm pretty certain that although they will certianly do that AS WELL, they are primarily intended to restrain you in a crash. Obviously not maximum airspeed into the side of a mountian, but a more survivable sort of crash - like a ditching, crash landing or taxiing crash

A plane is a woodworking tool

Their reason is that as most Public Service Vehicles carry standing passengers (who, by definition are not belted up!) they can't very well discriminate against them by providing belts for the seated passengers!

The European Commission looked at the case for banning the carriage of standees (and mandating belts on bus seats) but decided against it. Now I know you think that legislators only do this sort of thing to opress us, removing our freedom of choice etc, but actually, they looked at the number of lives likely to be saved and found that (unlike cars) so few people die in bus crashes that it wasn't worth it.

Ah, so we must legislate seat belts for car occupants because it's the state's duty to force people to do something for their own good,

but the people who might get hurt while standing on a bus can go hang just because they are far fewer in number?

I notice that as yet not one single person has answered yes to my questions as to whether he would support a government-mandated diet, compulsory surgical procedures, etc. all backed up with fines for non-compliance.

I assume, therefore, that there would be no support for such laws.

In this case, perhaps you could explain exactly why you think that the state should not force these things upon people for (a) their own good and/or (b) the benefit to society, but that it should force things like seat belts and helmets upon people.