Safe Speed Forums

I'm sure that could be so.

But remember this is not really about personal opinion and experiences but how we all act, so what do you think the effect of telling people they are 'safe' by wearing a seat belt as opposed to 'drive more carefully because you could be horribly injured' could be?

You seem to be suggesting that you are oblivious to the feeling of using the seatbelt.

I think this raises the matter of personal perception, which is influenced by what has been the norm for that person. As Prof. Adams notes in the trials, some drivers who normally did not buckle up showed a tendency to take greater risks when they did use a belt. That doesn't necessarily mean that all drivers will be so affected, or that a driver won't adjust his driving style after a while when using or not using a belt makes him feel more or less secure, as appropriate.

To the generation which has only ever ridden around in modern cars and always used belts, perhaps the effect is different from those of us who grew up never using belts.



But if people should be allowed to make their own choices about what they eat, how warmly they dress, whether they smoke, etc., then why should they not also be free to assess the risks for themselves and decide whether or not to buckle up?



Well, the older belts (either lap belts or three-point without inertia reels) weren't so restrictive since they could be adjusted to be slack. But to campaign simply for that would be to ignore the fact that it should be freedom of choice in the first place.

A lot of people do find belts restrictive and uncomfortable, especially modern inertia types, and I'm one of them. I don't even like driving bundled up with a big, heavy coat, and would rather remove it before setting off and be cold for the first few minutes. I certainly don't like being strapped into my seat.



I was basing my assurance on the many comments I've heard from others over the years that they are like me and simply do not like being strapped into their seats.



So you admit that belts can injure? Precisely one of my points as to why people should be free to choose.

thats strange... the quote you use definitely says it felt like i was driving without a seatbelt. so no clearly i'm not oblivious to the feeling of having a seatbelt on or not.

what i assume you'd like me to say was that it made me drive differently, i don't beleive it did.

No, that was a claim which you brought up to support your argument, dare I say it was a critical one. More significantly: how can you expect to be taken seriously in your quest when you’re not even going to consider any form of compromise, with all based on what you don’t like and heresy but no actual data?


Why? You can’t say you don’t like something without saying why.
What’s wrong with being strapped into your seat?
There is no comparison between a big heavy coat and a three-point harness.

When I buckle up I can move my body freely as necessary to perform the functions needed to control a vehicle (unlike when wearing a big heavy coat), without the feeling of undue restriction or pressure; belting up does not cause me to concentrate on wearing it.
That’s me in a nutshell, what’s different about you?

Perhaps it will stop bothering you if you didn’t concentrate so much on it?
(that’s a serious comment BTW)


Are you trying to wind me up? I and others have already stated that, in certain circumstances, seat belts indeed may be of negative benefit. The critical issue here is of relative exposure (you know, the part of my previous post which you conveniently didn’t quote). Allowing exceptions to belting-up is probably a good compromise for some ‘exceptional’ people.
Of course, not everyone is exceptional (well we are in our own little way, but not when basic physics is applied), so the exceptions won’t apply to all.


Last and certainly not least:

Which has been my point from much earlier, which I’ve repeated, which you’ve ignored: if anything you should campaign to determine what the real risks actually are. Then and only then can you or anyone else make an informed choice.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Hmmm.

We (as a group) are forever attributing improvements in the KSI statistics largely to (among other things) improvements in vehicle design and technology. If we pursue the line of thought you've just mentioned, surely we should see all these features making things WORSE?

Aw COME ON!!!! you're 'avin' a larf now! I don't know how many times I have to say this but while I am perfectly happy to believe that belts can CAUSE injuries, the only ones I'm interested in are the ones that are WORSE THAN WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE OCCURRED!!!!! So far, nothing you have said goes even a small way to convincing me that this isn't a vanishingly trivial number of "freak" accidents!

Just had a thought...

For a belt to work at its best, it needs to be as tight as possible. This is the case with proper motorsport harnesses but they are deemed to be too restrictive for general road use (although some people do)! The "inertia reel" was developed to try and keep the slack in the system to a minimum whilst still allowing as much freedom of movement as possible.

In the cases you cite where the belt caused serious / fatal injuries, it would be interesting to see how many of those were on vehicles with either static three-point or lap belts AND out of those, how many were not adjusted up correctly for the reasons you mentioned earlier.

I have overstated my position. I think it does to some extent would be more accurate.

Many modern safety features are 'invisible' to drivers and cannot be expected to drive a risk compensation cycle.

The 'Munich Taxi' study produced strong evidence of risk compensation behaviour caused by ABS brakes.

I don't believe that general improvements in refinement (smoother / quieter / faster) trigger risk compensation effects because after two weeks in a better vehicle it just feels 'normal'.

It's complicated stuff. I'm sure it's real and deeply subconscious - part of the human condition.

See what you think of John Adam's paper, or search out 'Target Risk' by Wilde.

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

A bit like speed cameras then?

_________________
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.

The only thing that is 'strange' it that I think you misunderstand me.

What I thought I said was normally I think you are oblivious the the use of the seatbelt. In that you don't consider it at all.

OK. As I said this is not about INDIVIDUAL experiences.

This is very good Paul, and this shows one of the problems that those that cannot begin to understand Risk Compensation (for whatever reason) suffer, as soon as you try to put it in simple terms for them to understand they mistake your terms for explanation for the whole experience and, in their blinkered way, refuse to accept it.

The national use of speed camera and the associated advertising have the opportunity to study Risk Compensation built in - the excuse 'I wasn't speeding' is (apparently) quite often banded about in car accidents these days. Speed alone has become the measure of 'good' driving for those that cannot understand how to drive properly.

As long as you don't 'speed' you must be safe'! After all that is what they have been told!

My basic premise is that whatever the benefits or drawbacks of belts, their use should not be compulsory. How is it possible to compromise when there are only two possibilities? Buckling up is either mandatory or it isn't.



I did say why. They are restrictive and uncomfortable -- To me, if not to you. That's a subjective matter, completely aside from whether the belt might be beneficial or detrimental in an accident.

In fact if we're looking at all the side effects of belts, one could make a very good point that forcing something upon a driver which makes him uncomfortable might actually distract from his driving, thus increasing risk to other road users.



Which then comes back to inequal application of the law. Why should certain people be forced to buckle up if others aren't? We don't force people to have surgery or immunizations but allow exemptions for "exceptional" people. Why should this be any different?





Nobody here seems to be questioning that these "freak accidents" can occur, only the relative numbers. So the risks posed by belts are already known, the only argument is about how they compare, proportionally, with accidents in which belts are beneficial.

As far as compulsion goes, the proportion is irrelevant. The fact -- which nobody in this thread seems to dispute -- is that in some cases a belt can make things worse. It does not matter if it is a 49% chance or a 0.001% chance, it is still the government mandating the use of something which may prove harmful to some people.

Does the government have any right to force a device upon people in the knowledge that it may maim and kill, just because it hopes that a greater number of people will be saved? No, it does not.

I admire you tenacity Paul_1966 and it's been interesting reading but for me the bottom line goes way back to your second post where you said: -

"(a) in many types of accident seat belts can actually be harmful rather than beneficial, and (b) even if that were not the case, what measures one takes for one's own safety are none of the government's business. Seat belts, crash helmets, and the like should be a matter of personal choice."

You are very unlikely to gain support based on (a) because unless there's evidence that the advantages of not wearing one massively outweigh the advantages of wearing one, people just won't buy it.

But most people probably wouldn't argue with (b) and your closing statement. In fact, like many others I suspect, I am with you there 100%.

_________________
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.

That really is the bottom line which overrides all other considerations anyway. Even if belts were always beneficial and there was absolutely no question whatsoever that they might be harmful in some cases, I would still be opposed to their use being mandatory on principle.

Sorry but that’s a silly thing to say, confirmed by the fact that it is obviously wrong.
Buckling up need not be mandatory for some people as the benefit may be outweighed by other risks, risks which don’t apply to all.
You are far too uncompromising in your approach.


I’m afraid you still did not answer my question, at least not to any level of satisfaction. You have given two generic words without any support of their usage.
How are they restrictive? (especially given that I’ve already described how I believe they are not)
How are they uncomfortable?


Which leads me to repeat myself yet again: Why not instead campaign to determine what the real-world benefits actually are? Then we can all make an informed decision regarding compulsion.


The described exceptions solve some of that problem. The rest will be solved once we can foresee what kind of crash we will be next involved in. Until then…..


"Hopes"? I think you are twisting reality here. Accepted research and general consensus points towards belting-up being of overall significant benefit (for most).

I think someone already touched on this but I will revisit it anyway:

If I didn’t have to pay taxes and national insurance so contributing towards your care, care resulting from your own unnecessary actions then I would be happy to let you do as you please (so long as I’m not otherwise inconvenienced). Unfortunately, I do have to pay and you cannot opt out of the care system (and probably wouldn’t anyway – and each case would be impossible to police); therefore I have the right to want others to take what is on average regarded as preventative action, especially if the preventative action itself is hardly an inconvenience or a bar on quality of life. So is it any wonder that the great majority of people accept this law without complaint?

Your demand of abolition of compulsion, especially without attempt at compromise, is unfair to everyone else.

No it isn't, THIS is the bottom line.....



If you were living on an island somewhere as a state of one i.e. Mr Paul_1966 I wouldn't give a flying fig if you were to experiment for 365 days of the year doing things to uphold your precious principles and, at the same time, trying to get yourself into the Darwin Awards.
But like it or not you are a UK citizen, or at least a resident here, and enjoy all of the benefits that such a status attracts. And yes, depsite the increasingly shitty state of the place, there are plenty of benefits - I'd chose the Uk over Zimbabwe any day.
Amongst those benefits are the health and welfare services which I and Smeggy (and millions of others) pay into to bail you out if your desire to stand up for your principles comes unstuck on you.
At trhe end of the day, nobody actually forces you to drive a motor vehicle on the nation's roads, you do so by your own choice. So when you do it is right and proper that you abide by the caveats (otherwise known as rules and regulations) that have been put into place. The seatbelt law has been included as one of those so as to ensure you stand the best possible chance of surviving a crash (which is what they do regardless of the random 'facts' you grasp at to prove otherwise) and lessen the amount that I would have to pay out if legions of other prinicpled loons went about without wearing a seatbelts.

Ultimately the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I believe it should have become clear to you at least 10 pages ago, that you were arguing your case to the wrong people. I seriously doubt whether anyone is going to have a sudden epiphany, realise you are right and go off and sign your blessed petition .
Indeed, a quick glance at the sorry state of the document suggests that your attempts thus far have proven less than satisfactory; I also note with amusement that one (ahem) signatory is rather impolite in offering you his judgement on what he thinks of your stance

_________________
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.

On that basis you would have to support a ban on motorbikes I think.

So I don't think the argument flies...

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

IMO there are several key differences between not belting up and riding motorbikes.

Motorbikes are a lifesaver for those who need to commute but cant afford a car or public transport (time wise and financially for the latter). Also, they can be of use for beating jams (especially good for couriers), as well as contributing to the quality/enjoyment of life (the obvious thrill factor) for those who use them responsibly.

Not belting-up is neither useful (as the facts stand) or is in any way rewarding.

Nope, each situation has to be argued on its own merits and if its robust enough it should be able to stand up. Argument by straight comparison or on a 'on that basis' line of reasoning doesn't work else we could, through a process of vague connections and squinted thinking, link any activity to another until we ban everything by comparison.

The only similarity in this insatnce is the wearing of a crash helmet whilst motorcycling. Which I support for the reasons stated above.

_________________
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.