Safe Speed Forums

If you agree with my stance, please sign:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/seatbeltchoice/

I don't believe the No. 10 petitions site to be anything but a scam to give the illusion that the government cares, and I certainly don't expect any response from the P.M.'s office beyond the usual self-serving nonsense when the petition closes, but at least it demonstrates the strength of public feeling to others.

Why would anyone want to repeal the seat-belt laws? Arguably the biggest single saver of lives in auto accidents.

Because (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.

I'm curious, could you name these 'many types'. (I'm expecting at least half a dozen here by the way)

Mike.

_________________
www.misspelled-signs.com - A tribute to illiterate signwriters.

I reckon I could manage that:

- accidents involving pedestrians where a risk tranfer has taken place (there's significant evidence to support this idea.)
- accidents involving fire or water where the seatbelt hampers the escape
- accidents involving observation failures where the presence of the seatbelt reduces the body movement applied to enhancing observation
- accidents involving drivers in the process of trying to put a seat belt on. (yes, it does happen.)
- accidents involving drivers whose confidence has been lifted a little too high by the feeling of security provided by the seatbelt (overlaps with the first, of course)
- accidents involving 'opportunity cost' effects where 'efforts' put into seatbelt laws, enforcement or publicity ISN'T applied to other crash causes.

I'm not saying that seatbelts cause a net loss of life - but I can't see a net benefit either based on extensive examination of national crash stats.

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

I can only speak from a personal standpoint, but since 1963, when I sold my Ford V8 Pilot and got a Mini, I have never driven without a seat belt unless none was fitted or in exceptional circumstances. I always thought the legislation long overdue when it finally arrived in 1983.
I sincerely believe my life was saved when I was a passenger in a big Merc which was involved in a motorway accident in Belgium in 1993. The impact speed was c.90 mph and we both just stepped out of the wreckage without a scratch.
Maybe some think seat belts in airliners are unnecessary too.

Which is known as the "risk compensation factor," as documented by Prof. Adams a good many years ago. To those who argue against this idea, I usually ask them to consider the reverse scenario of making somebody feel less safe. If you were forced to drive with a 12-inch spike sticking out of the steering wheel pointed directly at your chest, wouldn't you be inclined to be a little a more cautious?

Anyway, add to the list:

- Accidents in which a vehicle is "T-boned" by another and the side impact crushes the driver or passenger because he is restrained by the belt

- Rear-end collisions in which the impact itself does not cause injury, but the lurch forward by the person afterward followed by the immediate restraint by a belt results in whiplash injuries

- Certain rollover accidents in which being restrained by the shoulder part of the belt results in the upper portion of the head/body being crushed

- Internal injuries such as punctured lungs and ruptured intestines caused by belt restraint in what would otherwise be quite minor collisions

perhaps when the resulting emergency response & health care isn't paid for by the state you could argue that to be the case....

Such as?



Different risks, totally different reasons for having belts.



But the state is forcing the use of a device which in some cases actually makes matters worse.

If we ignore that and assume for the sake of argument that belts always save, just imagine how far that argument could be extended.

Smoking is a proven killer (by the government's own statistics, it kills far more people every year than die in auto accidents). Shouldn't smoking be outlawed completely?

Eating unhealthy foods might place a burden on the health service. Hadn't we better legislate a healthy diet and fine people for eating the "wrong" foods?

Perhaps we could also make it illegal to go outside in cold weather without a coat. After all, catching pneumonia would be a burden on the NHS, would it not?

How far are you willing to accept government interference in your life on this basis?

I'd like to be open minded about this, but wasn't there a fairly large reduction in KSI after the introduction of the seat belt law?

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

KSI?

Killed or Seriously Injured...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Ah, O.K. Yes, the figures in the year following the adoption of the first belt law in 1983 showed a decline, although it couldn't really be called fairly large.

This reduction is frequently cited as being "proof" of the effectiveness of seat belts and of the law, but a few other facts are conveniently ignored. First, the fatality figures had already been in gradual decline for a number of years previously. Of course, one could argue that this might have been due to increased voluntary belt use during long-running "Clunk-Click" campaign on TV, but there are far too many variables to attribute the decline to that with any certainty.

Far more important though, is the fact that the introduction of the belt law coincided with a huge compaign and tougher enforcement against drunken driving. If you look at the statistics more closely, you find that the large majority of the reduction of fatalities was during the hours of darkness.

Draw your own conclusions, but I'd be pretty amazed if seat belts were that selective in saving more people at night than during the day.

[bad taste warning]

I doubt that the "People's Princess", if she could muster up a medium with a computer, would sign up.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I'm quoting from memory, I will check tonight if I get chance, but I think there were some statistics from the US Airforce in the early 70's, they mandated the use of seatbelts after finding they were losing more flightcrew per year through vehicle deaths than in combat (during the Vietnam war). They reported a decrease in deaths. If you have it, read Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed", where I recall the anecdote from.

Whilst I am in no way in favour of removing the seat belt laws, there is some truth in the facts that other safety improvements have happened in the last 20 years or so, things that reduce the damage caused by the "second impact" - for example, steering wheels that flex slightly when hit (the rim) rather than remain rigid, softer internal dash furniture / less sharp edges - and of course things like disc brakes becoming more common, ABS, better tyre technology, all adding to better chances of stopping before the "first impact".

Everyone seems to have a story of their mother's hairdresser's cousins dog walker who was killed becuase they had a seatbelt on, or were thrown clear because they weren't wearing a seatbelt. Given the theory that there are only 5 degrees of separation between everyone on the planet, I wonder if these stories are all about the same person?

_________________
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.

Years ago, I would have been of the same opinion as Paul_1966 to seatbelts. When I was a lorry driver we didnt have seatbelts fitted to the trucks then.

I used to say if people wanted to kill them themselves by not wearing seat belts then then thats theyre choice. Then one day a driver / colleague of mine wanted to take his sonwith him in the wagon for the day ,so, he picked him up outside the depot and wenton there way un be known to him that overnight his wagon was in for servicing and it was a tilt cab.

As he was driving down the motorway he had to brake suddenly and unfortuneately the cab tilted forward throwing his young son out of the window, resulting in the truck running him over and killing him instantly.

I would say that if belts were fitted then , then he would have made his son wear it and if this was the case he would have been restrained either fully or sufficiently to secure him enough to perhaps have saved him.

I then left driving and joined the police and this was when I realised that contrary to popular misconception seatbelts do save lives,in the past 12 months I have been to umpteen serious and fatal collisions where seatbelts have not been worn, and if they would have been then I know for sure that they would still be with us today, all be it probably have suffered serious injury but survivable ones.

I agree that the only two scenarios I know where time is of the essence is when Fire and Water are involved and if belts are worn then this sometimes can increase your vulnerability, but the majority of times are involving street furniture or other vehicles.

We have an obligation to save lives and part of that is by enforcing the seat belt law its not just a case of if you want to kill your self then thats your business,it impacts on a lot of other people.

The other thing and not my priority is the cost to the national health service in treating you for your injuries along with insurance claims, so, if you can say truthfully that you have been to the same amount of collisions that I have, where a tragic waste of life and injury have been involved then you wouldnt be even contemplating getting rid of the seat belt law.

This is just my opinion based on hard facts and experience not reading all the crap statistics that is put about , about this and that, end of rant.

Stephen

Not wishing to go off-topic, this is similar to bikers wearing or not wearing proper protective gear, like decent leathers at all times. I know it's up to the individual etc., but riders being unnecessarily injured impacts on NHS/insurance costs etc...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Conditions for airforce vehicles in active service are rather different from those on the public highway though.



I have a document which lists many, many instances where a seat belt has killed or resulted in serious injury, from all over the U.S. and the U.K. The evidence is there for anyone who seeks it out, beyond the very one-sided pro-belt stance which is all one finds in the mainstream media and safety campaigns these days.

At least during the passage of the first law and immediately after (remember the U.K. law was passed initially for a trial period only) there was better coverage of the downsides. Today, people have become so conditioned to the "seat belts save" mantra that they're willing to dismiss any other ideas as being the realms of fantasy and kooks.

I remember back in the mid-1980s, for example, when doctors reported that since the passage of the law they were seeing more accident victims brought to them suffering from Hangman's Fracture. In many of these cases the collisions were otherwise sufficiently minor that the people would almost certainly survived, albeit with injuries, had they not had their necks broken by the seatbelt.



A terrible accident, but surely the primary cause was a faulty tilting cab mechanism which was not secured properly?



But how about the ones where the seat belt has made the injuries worse, or even caused a death which would not have otherwise occurred?

In the case of belts causing severe internal injuries, it's often the case that the victim does not die for a considerable time after the accident, certainly long after the police, ambulance crew, and other emergency teams have forgotten all about it. I would suggest that this might color your view of the situation somewhat, because you get to see the ones who were killed instantly, or who died at the scene.

to clarify - the USAF lost more flight crew in US road accidents, i.e. not on active service but driving on the public highway, away from combat zone.

If I get time tonight I will find the relevant section and refresh my memory.

_________________
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.

All part of the same basic argument. In my opinion, you have every right to wear as much or as little protective gear as you wish on your motorcycle. I do not agree with the law which makes use of helmets compulsory any more than I agree with the seat belt laws. (By the way, I'm speaking as somebody who has never ridden a motorcycle in his life, so I have no vested interest from a personal use point of view.)

Interestingly enough, over in the U.S. while the individual states have been strengthening their seat belt laws in recent years, many have actually repealed or relaxed their mandatory motorcycle helmet laws.