Safe Speed Forums

Estimated how precisely?

I've seen estimates about the supposed life-saving effects of seat belts which vary so wildly that they are totally meaningless.

Also from the report linked above:



How do you reconcile that with claims of 500 per year or 1000 per year, which have also been made? In fact, how do you reconcile a claim that 370 lives could have saved in 2005 when the claimed figure over the previous 21 years averages some 2380 per year?

Absolutely! The problem here is that it is not 'free', as I have summarised at the bottom of a previous post here.

Follow the references and you shall see.
edit: actually that may not be true. There is a study that is referenced which I cannot find.
That's doesn't matter as that is unrelated to the point I'm making (over-representation).


Easily. The number of potential casualties have dropped over the years, (at least partly) thanks to safer driving styles, better car design and re-engineered roads.

Perhaps it would have been better had I made it a question rather than a statement (not that RobinXe seems to bother to answer questions)

"You haven't really got a clue about what risk compensation is, do you?"

Is that better, dad?

Fantastic, it only took you the best part of a week to find something that you think fits. Shame that RobinXe needed his dad to do his homework for him.

Perhaps it is not as really, really obvious as you would like to think and I must say I'm struggling to see how that is evidence that disagrees with the hypothsys of Risk Compensation. But there you go. I'm sure you will think it does.

BTW was that in the 'best research' or just an 'accepted sturdy'?

I thought your answer was just avoiding the issue. I still do. I am not the person who can best answer your question about Adams but there is a way that you can try to resolve it.

But it seems that you just don't want to. I understand. We can leave it there if you like.

This antagonistic behaviour is not acceptable on these forums.

In light of this and other recent antagonistic posts, the moderating team have decided to impose a fixed-term suspension of Icandoit's posting rights.

Great, now back to the matter at hand, instead of repeatedly re-answering the same question!



'Free society' (this utopian concept) does not equal anarchy, there have to be certain rules, that may limit certain choices, that keep society free for everyone.

Would you defend a passenger's right to choose if they wanted to sit unbucked behind you? How about your wife or child?

As for leaving it to the parents or guardians, I'm sorry, but we do have every need for rules that protect children from bad parenting. How about we leave the kids in the hotel room whilst we nip out for dinner? Of all the anecdotal accounts you have referenced, where occupants would have been better off unbelted, have you ever come across even one where the coroner muses how much better off poor little Timmy or Suzy would have been if it wasn't for that damned child-seat?

Two stories.

Family 1, had new child on lap of mother. Neither wore a restraint.

Baby killed by being crushed when mother flew forward when car ran into by drunk driver.

Family 2. Child asleep in back of car. Brakes on new car failed, car ran into wall. All adults in car killed. Child survived because it was thrown clear of car.

Two very different outcomes.

There are powerful arguments on both sides.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

They're not you know mate, they're anecdotes.

And your point would be:?

Incidentally, one story was widely reported in the press at the time and the other? Well, I'll be seeing the survivor over the weekend.

And just because evidence is anecdotal does not mean that it did not happen.

When people shout "anecdotal evidence!" They often mean: "Don't tell me stuff I don't want to know!"

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

No-one has doubted that. The issue is whether one type of outcome is significantly more prevalent than the other given the relative exposure.

I have always felt that arguing against the wearing of seatbelts using these sort of anecdotes (factual or otherwise) is a bit like saying "I always walk down the middle of the road because I once heard of somebody who was run over by a car mounting the pavement"

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

True, but go back to the days before seat belt laws and when only a tiny minority of people used belts. Was there anarchy? Of course not, any more than there is anarchy now because we don't force people to eat the "right" food, to wear the "right" clothes, etc.



Yes.



No different from anybody else.



Actually yes. I can recall one incident (can't remember the names, but it happened in upstate N.Y. I think) in which the coroner made it clear that a 7-year-old boy had died solely because the belt buckle had caused internal injuries.




Quite so. I don't underatand this dismissal of stories which show belts in bad light as mere "anecdotal evidence." What are the similar reports of belts proving beneficial then?




How appropriate for this thread.

It's interesting that the 7 year old boy would (probably) have been small enough to need a mandatory booster seat in the UK today. One of the main reasons for this is that adult belt geometry is unsuitable for restraining a child's physiology. It does raise the interesting question that out of all the incidents where the belt was deemed to have CAUSED the injuries, we ought to not only subtract those cases where no belt would have left the occupant no better off but ALSO those incidents where the injury inflicted by the belt could have been mitigated (or even removed altogether) by the belt being used correctly.

This statement exemplifies exactly why it is a damned good thing that legislation exists in certain selected and identifyable areas to protect vulnerable individuals from themselves and others.
Thank heavens for the seat belt law and the Health and Safety at Work Act to name but two.

Also, if a parent persistently sends his/her child outdoors without adequate clothing they CAN be done for neglect...

NSPCC

Oh POLICE STATE, POLICE STATE..I'm not allowed to send my child out in the snow in just his shreddies, help I'm being oppressed.

_________________
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.

Rigpig has alluded to the next issue I wanted to raise, which is the mandatory use of safety guards on dangerous industrial machinery. I suppose that should be personal choice too should it, despite all the appendages lost in the mills.

Oh, and no, anecdotal does not mean inconvenient and ignorable, it means that "this one time I heard of" is not statistically significant enough to build a case on when faced with the weight of cases to the contrary.

And if belt laws are to exist -- which they should not, of course, but just for the sake of argument -- shouldn't those laws also acknowledge this aspect? In other words, if a small child is likely to be endangered by a regular belt, then why does that law still force use of the belt?

So long as failure to use the guard does not directly endanger anybody else, yes. But this is not quite the same thing as seat belts. Guards might be inconvenient for some jobs, but using them doesn't pose the possibility of causing injury.



But all the cases which make up that weight of cases started as "this one time I heard of" as well.

I'm not suggesting there was (although there were a good deal more unbelted fatalities), I was hoping you could see the allusion, but I'll spell it out. Freedom of choice cannot be complete and unlimited, you have to have rules for the function of a free society, to prevent people choosing to rape, murder and steal.



So effectively you place their choice over your life, or do you plan to be exiting unbelted through the windshield in the event of a crash, performing a double-tuck and a half-pike, before landing unscathed on the side of the road?



Assuming it ever actually hapened, how is it the seat, and not the seatbelt, that has caused the fatality. Furthermore, the coroner stating that the belt-buckle caused the fatal injuries is nowhere near the same thing as being worse off for it's presence!



Satistically majoritive.

Quite, would you care to present them in such a way as to show that seatbelts are worse than being unbelted in a statistically significant proportion of accidents.

Of course they should not exist? Why, because you have an enormous weight of public feeling behind your stance?

Paul Coxwell, the Petition Creator, joined by:

Philip Glover
What a complete and absolute tosser!!!
Adrian Godfrey
andrew roy

Oh no, you've still only got your four (er three) mates haven't you?

Tell me, does anyone you know actually agree with you? And if so, why haven't they signed the petition?

Because after 30 pages of this thread it should be transparently clear to you by now that you are completely and utterly beaten. All of your analogies have been trounced and your 'evidence' buried.

_________________
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.