Safe Speed Forums

It seems (based on my own observations rather than any statistical analysis) that use of seat belts is declining. Yesterday sitting in the car outside the Co-op whilst OH popped in for milk, a car pulled up, twenty-something driver in the front (no belt) two girls around 12 years old in the rear (no belts). In that few minutes I think maybe 60% of the cars had belted drivers.

Is there any good reason for not wearing a belt (other than the legally accepted one, local multi-drop delivery drivers)? It's not as though it's much of a hassle to put on and the benefits of belt wearing are unarguable in the prevention of what Nader called "the second collision".

What is driving this behaviour - it wasn't just youngsters in Saxo's without belts, it was all kinds of ages and cars?

_________________
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.

I actually based my final year thesis at Uni on the effects of seatbelts in collisions. Quite frankly, at a speed over about 50mph you are safer IMO not wearing a belt as the majority of deaths in collisions at this speed or above (in the papers I read at the time) were actually caused directly by the belt itself (this is only the case with 3 point harnesses, not 4 or 5 pionts). Personally I prefer to wear a belt simply because I feel more comfortable restrained into the seat rather than free to squirm about but it I had the choice I'd have 5 points in my car.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

this cannot be correct, surely. Do you have any real statistics to back up your opinion?

In "Unsafe at Any Speed" Ralph Nader wrote that more American Airforce flight crew were killed in one year of the Vietnam war by car accidents than in action. This number was vastly reduced when the airforce ruled that seatbelts were to be worn.

_________________
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.

Did that count friendly fire?

I did have when I did the research. I don't know whether or not I've got a copy of the final thesis to hand but I'll have a look tonight.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

This makes sense to me, however if they were not wearing belts then the cause of death would have been hitting windscreen,dashboard, steering wheel etc.

I know what you're getting at Gopher. At the end of the day, hitting something at 50mph+ is going to hurt either way. What my research showed was that 4 or 5 point harnesses reduce severity of internal injuries by dispapating enerty through the shoulders etc.

It was just a point to try and show that seatbelts aren't the be all and end all that's all.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

my point in asking the question was "is there a reasonable reason not to wear a seatbelt".

As most cars don't have 4or 5 point harnesses (with a 5 point, is there a chance of crutch strap collisions?), but do have 3 point harnesses, what can be gained by not wearing it?

I can't really see A) the problem with wearing one and B) any reason not to wear one. Compared to nasty impact with windscreen / dash / wheel, impact with belt is more attractive.

As to injuries from wearing seatbelts, I would doubt that they cause a significant number of deaths in their own right. It would be less likely in more modern cars as the seatbelt mounting points are not rigid, but are designed to tear away from the chassis under heavy load, thus dissipating some of the energy.

I do recall reading somewhere that undoing seatbelts after a car has rolled over causes a relatively high number of injuries (people undo seatbelts in an upside down car, fall to the ceiling and break their necks!) This may have been a US study (I can't recall) where I think there is a higher preponderence of SUV's, minivan's, pickups with high roofline?

_________________
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.

If it's not got one.

Seatbelt wearing is mandatory if fitted, which is post 66 for front belts and 86 for rears. The law is not retrospective on fittment

I have had two Ford Cortinas (64 and 65) and a 62 Ford Classic. None of them had belts and could be legaly used on the road....

Front seat belts are only effective at preventing hitting the steering wheel below 30MPH (unless pre-tensioners are fitted)

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

And let me guess, you avoid serious injury by.... dum di di di di di deeeee

Not driving into things?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Yep

I ride a bike as well. No seatbelts fitted there either.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Unless you've got one of those small BMW commuter scooter things! Please tell me you don't ride one of them!

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

They're not bikes, they're moronmobiles.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I will never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never ride one of those!

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

i always wear one in my car but never in a truck. i prefer the ability to move around a bit to overcome some of the blindspots. on top of that, some switches on certain trucks (bloody mercedes crap) are difficult to reach from the driving position.
i did have a truck on friday that didnt have them fitted at all. P reg Scania

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

Don't give them idea's, I still remember the insane leg protectors argument that went on for what seemed like a lifetime (fortunately it never got anywhere).

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Posted this elsewhere, never mind it looks at both sides of arguement.


Years and years ago , before seat belts were compulsary , but were fitted to vans cars etc ( circa 197x ) , a work colleague was excercising his heavy right foot ( and he was slightly inexperienced) on the A82, driving a forward control van. He came round a corner ( at least 60) to find council road roller trundling along at 10 mph. Anchors aweigh on the exit to the bend, his front wheel caught the grass verge, van flipped front to rear, rolled through 360 degrees and ended up facing the right way , but about 10ft into the adjoining grass.Took a Landrover about 25 mins and half of its tyres to recover van to the road.
Colleague kicked open driver door, and dodged windscreen ( came out as he got out), the side sliding door had warped open.
He was taken to hospital and diagnosed with deflated ego as a so called racy driver.No other injuries.

About a week later , on the same bend , this time going the opposite direction, a small van ( A55 or similar) was involved in a collision with a wagon carrying lengths of timber - minor damage to van, still drivable, driver was squewered by a length of timber, even though he had tried to move accross the seats. Reports were that he couldn't get his belt off to dodge the spike.

So we have one very lucky kid, saved by belt, and one unlucky bloke killed by belt.
Take your pick.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

On the way home from a wedding reception in the early hours of the morning we came across a RTA that had only just happened. The emergency services had not yet arrived. A car driven (as it later turned out) by drunk driver hit a tree. The roof had been totaly sliced off at the base of the pillars and the car was upside down with both the driver and front seat passenger pinned in their seats by their belts. Both dead!

There were two rear seat passengers who were thrown from the wreckage as the car broke apart. Both escaped with bruises and scratches. If they were strapped in I am absolutely sure they would both be dead.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Gizmo - possibly like the three i met in darkest Africa -

Coming round a corner i came across a car ( or what was left of it) with a couple of blokes and a couple of gals strewn about the road.
Two were bad , no phones in the bush , so i headed for the nearest - lucky folks - they worked for a farmer with health insurance on his workers --ambulance took two , i took other two , one with half of bicep partially torn off - (female who flashed parts to get attention)
So my pickup became temp ambulance .
Got to hospital - next question "who pays for ambulance" - so next time be thankfull you live in UK.
Point of story - no one wearing seat belts - car totalled, no serious injuries .Suspect ( NO, KNOW BY BREATHS) drink cause of accident.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I think seat belts are probably the biggest single secondary safety improvement on cars that has ever been made. I saw one estimate of 3 million since their introduction in the '50s - try topping that with as many scameras as you like! Sure, we can all think of some weird accident where the belt made things worse (nobody's mentioned the burning car yet!) or, indeed the story in the papers the other week about the bloke (unbelted) who had a heart attack at the wheel and hit a tree. His (belted) passengers all suffered various injuries but the impact between his chest and the wheel started his heart again and saved his life...

...unfortunately, for every one of these, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of accidents where the belt does a grand job and saves someone's life.

It's true that belts can cause injuries - sometimes very serious ones, but they're generally preferable to the injuries you'd get from being "restrained" by the steering wheel / windscreen / dash / pillars etc. Also, did Sixy's research look at belts with peak load limiters? These are designed to limit the loads the belt feeds into the body (for exactly the reasons he describes) and "share" the forces with the airbag(s). It's possible the research might have pre-dated these devices.

The "bottom line" (for me) is that when "Mrs. Mole" was a junior casualty officer in a busy hospital in the North West surrounded by the M6, M56 and M62, the police started having a real crackdown on front seatbelt wearing following the change in the law and the results she saw were dramatic. Almost overnight, the number of immensely expensive and time-consuming facial recontruction operations plummeted.

For my part, I managed a seat belt anchorage test lab for 5 years so I gained a pretty good idea of the sorts of forces you can generate in a big crash. These two experiences pretty much convinced me of the benefits (so it's "clunk-click every trip" for me!!!)

One last point, yes, harnesses are safer / better but they do have a real drawback when trying to lean forward to see out of a junction! Like evrything else, I don't think we should let the good be the enemy of the best here. People (generally) use belts because it's no real bother to do so. I suspect that useage rates would drop markedly if we all had to wear a full harness.

...and women would stop wearing skirts - surely a bad thing!