Seatbelt wearing

BrianD3

I've just been looking at some pictures of a recent crash where 3 people died. Looking at the wreckage, I would be pretty sure that none of the three were wearing their seatbelts because if they had been they would probably have survived or may even have walked away with minor injuries. What a waste of 3 lives.

Anyone know current stats for seatbelt wearing in Ireland. I remember it used to be around 50% at a time when the UK had a 95% compliance rate.

Of all the people I know, I'm the only one who wears a seatbelt in the back seat of a car. Anytime I have passengers in my car I have to instruct the ones in the back to belt up, and they look at me as if I'm nuts. If I'm in the back of someone else's car I'll often find that the belts are caught behind the seat back rest which means they're not being used. Everyday of the week I see children travelling unrestrained in cars or travelling on someone's lap. See this mainly in redneck bogger areas, rarely in Dublin.

While I'm at it I'll mention the muppets who leave objects like umbrellas and torches on the rear parcel shelf of their car. Not only can these restrict visibility but they can inflict a serious head injury when they fly forward in a crash.

BrianD3

impr0v

Not to mention having an unrestrained boyfriend in the back and a samantha mumba tape playing.

I think the low compliance (though i don't think it's as bad as that now) demonstrates how removed from reality people are when the climb into the metal cocoon and hurtle along the highways. That stuff won't happen to me, and if it does it will be something akin to the footage of crash test dummies gently nodding their head in slow-mo, material damage only.

ubu

the lack of seatbelts is worrying alright, and it does seem more prevaliant in the country but thats not to say its exclusive to the country one thing which really p1sses me off is seeing is kids jumping around the back of the car totally unrestrained and parent in the front who couldnt care less, its one thing not caring for your own safety but for your childrens is another thing and raises serious questions about their suitability as a parent
people seem to feel safer in the back and as a result dont put on their seatbelts, i wont go anywhere without everyones seatbelt on, and have had arguements with my mates before about it
think they should watch that samantha mumba (song) safety ad, its the one without the seatbelt who does the damage

EDIT
impr0v, u got there before me!

FX Meister

I think the rate would be pretty high, only one person I know bitches about it when I tell him to put it on, everyone else puts it on themselves. But you do see a lot of kids not wearing seatbelts, I can't understand how someone can put their kids in this kind of situation and not worry about it

woosaysdan

i dont leave anyone in my car without them wearing seatbelts!! if they have a problem with that they can walk!!! they may not be the best safety wise but it has to make do for now!!!

BrianD3

There have been a number of ads over the years about the potential danger of unrestrained back seat passengers. As well as the one with the mumba song there was the "baby elephant" one and another one where a teenager flies forward and kills his mother.

BrianD3

PBC_1966

Last time I stated an opposing view on this I got called an idiot, but hey, I'll try again.

Seatbelts are not always universally beneficial. There are plenty of cases where a belt can cause injuries such as whiplash, broken ribs, ruptured intestines, a broken spinal column, and even a broken neck. There are cases where people have been trapped inside a burning or submerged car by a damaged seatbelt mechanism which would not release.

If you have weighed up the possibilities and decided to buckle up, then fine, that's your choice. But don't force it upon everybody else.

sci0x

But you don't really have the option of deciding weather you want to buckle up or not unless you want penalty points.

byte

I think I'd rather have my passengers, or indeed me, have whiplash/ruptured intestines, etc than have them lying dead.

I enforce use of seatbelts in my car too. I usually don't get any whining about it.

koneko

PCB, the reason you hear about those "saved by not wearing a seatbelt" cases is because they rarely happen. Even in cases where someone breaks a rib or gets whiplash, what's the alternative? Crashing through the front of the car and ending up dead a mile down the road.

I always wear my seatbelt, whether i'm driving or in the back. It's common sense (in my opinion of course...)

unkel

BrianD3 wrote:

I've just been looking at some pictures of a recent crash where 3 people died. Looking at the wreckage, I would be pretty sure that none of the three were wearing their seatbelts

I've heard on numerous occasions with fatalities that people were not wearing seatbelts. This info can not be found in the usual media

Details about wearing seatbelts should be released to the media imho. It would have an instant impact on seatbelt wearing habits and thus fatalities. The cheapest and most effective measurement any government in this country could take - forget about penalty points or safety ads :rolleyes:

BrianD3 wrote:

Anyone know current stats for seatbelt wearing in Ireland. I remember it used to be around 50%

Those were the figures from a couple of years ago for drivers only. Total percentage under 50%, male drivers 1 in 3 and female drivers 2 in 3. The percentage has improved a good bit, but can't remember details. Percentage of passengers buckling up, especially in the back seat is still very poor. No where near as good as in many other countries around us, especially the UK

Bit of a coincidence (NOT), but in the UK the number of fatalities is very low indeed

Tommy Vercetti

I HATE parents who let their kids stick their head out the sunroof when they are driving (or at any time for that matter). Don't they realise that their sprog risks being decapitated if they have to brake sharply? I saw a silver 156 doing this on Sunday with two stupid kids with their heads sticking out, I was gonna follow the driver and kick him in the nuts.

elexes

i used to be a non seatbelt wearing person . but since i started driving ive done a 180 cant stay in a car without a seatbelt just dosnt feel safe ... it almost feels like ive forgotton to bring the keys if i did . i dono its hard to explain . i think of it as much as part of driving a car as it is to turn it on ... if u know what i mean

vibe666

Tommy Vercetti wrote:

I HATE parents who let their kids stick their head out the sunroof when they are driving (or at any time for that matter).

people are stupid, plain and simple. if you have a crash at high or low speed your chances aof being killed or seriously injured are drastically lower if you're wearing a seatbelt.

i know a guy who's life was saved by not wearing a seatbelt who was thrown through his windscreen (breaking his legs and lots of other bones badly) and landed in a ditch where he laid for ages while his car was completely crushed in the accident.

at the same time i know what a huge fluke it was that we wasn't thrown into the path of something else and run right over, or skewered on a branch or fencepost or something.

the fact of the matter is, regardless of the type of accident, you're at more risk without a belt, and anyone in your car who doesn't have a belt could well kill you and everyone else in the car even if you're all wearing belts apart from him/her.

if me and my family are in an accident and some idiot comes flying through his windscreen and into my car and hurts anyone in it but survives, i'm going to make a point of killing him myself. there's no excuse for the levels of stupidity required to get into a car and not use the seatbelt provided.

stop being such fvckwits and get a grip of yourselves before you kill someone with your ignorance and stupidity. if you're that worried about not being able to get your seatbelt off then go into your local motoring shop and get one of those little emergency tools that will cut through belts and break windows etc, and stop making stupid excuses.

PBC_1966 wrote:

Last time I stated an opposing view on this I got called an idiot, but hey, I'll try again.

opinions that endanger peoples lives ARE stupid. if you kill yourself by not wearing a seatbelt then fair enough, but you could just as easily kill someone else who IS wearing a belt.

fletch

How anyone can travel in a car without wearing a seatbelt is beyond me. I absolutely need to be belted up before I go anywhere. Even movin my Dads car on and off the driveway, I automatically put my seat belt on, its just a feeling of security and safety.

alias no.9

I must admit that I can be poor at wearing belts in the back seat, especailly taxi's for some reason? However, I try to always make a conscious effort to wear one in the back.

In the front, I just don't feel secure without one. Probably goes back to being a passenger in a crash that I would probably have gone through the windscreen had I not been wearing a belt.

LFCFan

I can't even turn the car on without my seatbelt on. It's automatic. I feel naked without it and anyone (PBC) who thinks seatbelts are a hazard, need their head examined. There's probably a 1% chance that no seatbelt will work out for you in a crash. How can anyone choose this over something that has a much higher chance of saving you.

Hagar

Many years ago myself and my wife were involved in a crash with a 40ft. A brak pipe burst and I couldn't stop. We were dragged for almost 50m and the car was totally destroyed. We were both wearing seat belts and we both walked away. They were the old fashioned adjustable seatbelts not the modern inertia reel. My wife had her's adjusted slightly loosely to give her a little freedom of movement. As a result she had a two inch wide bruise across her shoulder and down the centre of her chest. Mine belt was tight so I didn't move at all. No bruises, nothing.

Wear your seat belt !!!

seaghdhas

I once wrote off a car. Not my proudest moment, but for the sake of discussion... I don't entirely remember everything but the car did go a little sideways and I fractured a bone in my hand when it got sandwiched between my head and the side window. I was wearing a seatbelt at the time and I may have gone through the windscreen had I not been wearing one. But at the same time it's not completely protective. At the same time I've not gone anywhere in any car without a seatbelt since.

IgnatiusJRiley

Ever notice in films/tv programmes how rarely people put their belts on. I'm sure this has some sort of effect.
My wife was recently in a car with two friends and their seven year old daughter. It was the daughters first communion so she was allowed sit in the front. She wasn't wearing a seat belt which my wife pointed out. The parents said 'Shir it's her communion, she can go without it for today'. The father then proceeded to drive the car at speeds of 100mph... absolute madness... they got away with it though.

Sleipnir

PBC_1966 wrote:

Last time I stated an opposing view on this I got called an idiot, but hey, I'll try again.

Seatbelts are not always universally beneficial. There are plenty of cases where a belt can cause injuries such as whiplash, broken ribs, ruptured intestines, a broken spinal column, and even a broken neck. There are cases where people have been trapped inside a burning or submerged car by a damaged seatbelt mechanism which would not release.

If you have weighed up the possibilities and decided to buckle up, then fine, that's your choice. But don't force it upon everybody else.

It was probably me who called you that.
I can force it upon anyone who gets into my car.
It's my car and while you're in it, you're my responsibility. So belt up, or get out.

If you don't want to wear a seatbelt in your own car then you're an.....well you can guess the rest.

vibe666

ah well, at least if she'd been killed she'd have already been wearing a nice dress for her funeral. :rolleyes:

Boggle

I'll never understand why people always have to take an issue and polarise it!

Seatbelts DO save lives and, while I do believe that seatbelts should be compulsory for all passengers, I do not accept that the driver should have them forced on him/her.

Heres why:
A) The driver is the one responsible for the actions for the car and therefore should be forced to take care of the safety of others but should be allowed to use common sense and own judgement to decide whats safest for him/herself depending on conditions. (I'm not a child)

When driving around towns I find that a seatbelt is a hindrence as it always seems to catch if I'm trying to lean forward to get a better view of something. (example being in tight traffic or car-park watching mainly for children popping out from behind cars)

C) Why wear a seatbelt in a housing estate? I'd rather be able to keep an eye out for kids that can pop out of nowhere and besides if you are moving fast enough to get killed in an estate then you should be killed.

D) If the driver doesn't wear his belt outside of the town (or where he feels it's needed i.e. outside 30mph speeds) then that really is his problem. A belt wont prevent a crash and it wont save any life other than the driver so less of the nanny state please. Its just another way of getting a fine.

mike65

Boggle wrote:

I'll never understand why people always have to take an issue and polarise it!

Seatbelts DO save lives and, while I do believe that seatbelts should be compulsory for all passengers, I do not accept that the driver should have them forced on him/her.

Heres why:
A) The driver is the one responsible for the actions for the car and therefore should be forced to take care of the safety of others but should be allowed to use common sense and own judgement to decide whats safest for him/herself depending on conditions. (I'm not a child)

Think of the children - your children after you die.

When driving around towns I find that a seatbelt is a hindrence as it always seems to catch if I'm trying to lean forward to get a better view of something. (example being in tight traffic or car-park watching mainly for children popping out from behind cars)

Sound like you need to adjust the height of the belt pivot point.

C) Why wear a seatbelt in a housing estate? I'd rather be able to keep an eye out for kids that can pop out of nowhere and besides if you are moving fast enough to get killed in an estate then you should be killed.

I don't follow this at all...

D) If the driver doesn't wear his belt outside of the town (or where he feels it's needed i.e. outside 30mph speeds) then that really is his problem. A belt wont prevent a crash and it wont save any life other than the driver so less of the nanny state please. Its just another way of getting a fine.

The passenger behind you will kill you if not buckled up in a crash above a
certain speed.

Mike.

Seth Brundle

Boggle wrote:

Heres why:
A) The driver is the one responsible for the actions for the car and therefore should be forced to take care of the safety of others but should be allowed to use common sense and own judgement to decide whats safest for him/herself depending on conditions. (I'm not a child)

Given the amount of fatalities/injuries/etc. on our roads, drivers show that they frequently cannot use common sense nor can they make appropriate decisions based on the environmental conditions.

Boggle wrote:

When driving around towns I find that a seatbelt is a hindrence as it always seems to catch if I'm trying to lean forward to get a better view of something. (example being in tight traffic or car-park watching mainly for children popping out from behind cars)

thats bollocks! Where are you trying to view? As Mike says fix your belt. A seat belt is not constrictive unless there is sufficient pressure on it - e.g. in an accident!

Boggle wrote:

C) Why wear a seatbelt in a housing estate? I'd rather be able to keep an eye out for kids that can pop out of nowhere and besides if you are moving fast enough to get killed in an estate then you should be killed.

Does this idiocy warrant an answer? You mean to say that driving at the allowed limit (30mph) and you come to a sudden stop, you will not in any way be forced forward? Why will wearing a belt stop you looking out for children? What position do you drive?

Boggle wrote:

D) If the driver doesn't wear his belt outside of the town (or where he feels it's needed i.e. outside 30mph speeds) then that really is his problem. A belt wont prevent a crash and it wont save any life other than the driver so less of the nanny state please. Its just another way of getting a fine.

A road fatality is estimated to cost the state €1m thereby affecting the taxpayer. it also affects those who have to scrape the carcass off the ground, it affects the familys...

seamus

Here ya go. http://www.nra.ie/PublicationsResources/DownloadableDocumentation/RoadSafety/d844.PDF

Table 5.1 Driver wearing rates (%) by gender and road class
Road Class 				       Male % 	Female %      Overall %
Urban National Primary 				73 	   88 		78
Urban National Secondary 			61 	   72 		65
Rural National Primary 				75 	   82 		78
Rural National Secondary			63 	   76 		67
Cork (Urban) 					65 	   80 		69
Dublin (Urban) 					68 	   84 		75
Dun Laoighire (Urban) 				71 	   75		73
Limerick (Urban) 				69 	   83 		74
Small Urban Areas 				52 	   71		60
Regional Roads 					69 	   86 		75
County Roads 					59 	   77 		65
Driver Total 2002 				66 	   80 		71
Driver Total 1999 				48    	   68 		55
Driver Total 1991 				49 	   60 		52
Overall Wearing Rate
(Driver + Front Passenger) 2002 		65 	   81 		72
Overall Wearing Rate
(Driver + Front Passenger) 1999 - - 					57
Overall Wearing Rate
(Driver + Front Passenger) 1991 - - 					53

Seems much improved between 1999-2002. I'm surprised.

Victor

kbannon wrote:

it also affects those who have to scrape the carcass off the ground

I agree. I think they much prefer to find the body in the car it started in, not a decapitated one halfway through the other car's windscreen

Blitzkrieger

FS people - learn to quote relevant bits. Quit quoting entire posts just cos you're lazy.

PBC_1966 wrote:

Seatbelts are not always universally beneficial. There are plenty of cases where a belt can cause injuries such as whiplash, broken ribs, ruptured intestines, a broken spinal column, and even a broken neck. There are cases where people have been trapped inside a burning or submerged car by a damaged seatbelt mechanism which would not release.

While this is true, the chances of the seatbelt being beneficial are much, much MUCH higher than the chances of it being a hinderance. Especially in modern cars. Tbh - a seat belt isn't likely to sieze up all of a sudden. How stupid do you have to be not to get a safety feature like that fixed straight away?

I met a girl once who said she never wears her seatbelt because she was in three accidents where she was thrown from the car while not wearing a belt and escaped unhurt. What a plonker. She could have been thrown under the wheels of a lorry or off a bridge or, like some poor Mayo man, thrown into a ditch to bleed to death because no one finds you.

I don't agree that a seatbelt resticts your movement either. If it does - get it looked at. I usually like to wear mine even when I'm parked in case some twit comes along and slams into me.

elexes wrote:

i think of it as much as part of driving a car as it is to turn it on ... if u know what i mean

I find flashing a bit of leg always turns my car on........

PBC_1966

Boggle wrote:

Seatbelts DO save lives and, while I do believe that seatbelts should be compulsory for all passengers, I do not accept that the driver should have them forced on him/her.

Boggle,
I thank you for at least acknowledging that drivers should have a right to decide for themselves, and I agree entirely with the points you set out in paragraphs A-D.

I have to ask the following however: If you believe that the nanny state should not force the driver of a vehicle to buckle up, then why do you think it should be compulsory for passengers? If a driver has the right to decide for himself what steps he will take to protect himself, then don't passengers have the same right?

One of your last points I believe needs emphasizing:

A belt wont prevent a crash and it wont save any life other than the driver so less of the nanny state please. Its just another way of getting a fine.

Hear hear. Has a seatbelt ever prevented a crash? No. Has dangerous driving caused crashes? You bet it has (the man driving his little girl at 100mph sounds like a prime example). I want the book thrown at the reckless driver who it endangering everybody else as well as himself. I don't want the government persecuting people simply because they have chosen -- of their own free will -- to not use a certain safety device.

Even if it's accepted that a belt is beneficial more often that it is detrimental, that still means that in some cases the belt will injure or kill. Do you think the government should force you to do something which may be harmful?

Compare this with vaccinations. In some cases a vaccine has debilitated or even killed. Would you accept a law forcing vaccinations upon you, knowing that there is chance of harm, even if they were safe for 95% of the time? Wouldn't you be objecting, claiming that you have the right to choose? I sure would.

By the way, at least the penalty points issue mentioned above doesn't apply here in Britain (not yet anyway).

jongore

PBC_1966 wrote:

Boggle,
Hear hear. Has a seatbelt ever prevented a crash? No. Has dangerous driving caused crashes? You bet it has (the man driving his little girl at 100mph sounds like a prime example). I want the book thrown at the reckless driver who it endangering everybody else as well as himself. I don't want the government persecuting people simply because they have chosen -- of their own free will -- to not use a certain safety device.

1)Any driver not wearing a belt is by definition being reckless
2)An unbelted driver can seriously injure or kill his pasengers during side on crashs.

PBC_1966 wrote:

Boggle,
Even if it's accepted that a belt is beneficial more often that it is detrimental, that still means that in some cases the belt will injure or kill. Do you think the government should force you to do something which may be harmful?

For the belt to injure you, you needs to be a high speed crash (in which you are more likely to die without the belt) or the device is faulty and you should have fixed it.

Simple fact is there are no good reasons not to wear a belt, I don't really want to come across a bloody carcass on the road so please BELT UP!

BrianD3

Consider this: people bitch about the price of cars, then they don't wear their seatbelt. Do they realise that manufacturers spend huge amounts of money on crumple zones, safety cells, crash testing and restraint systems. They then pass this cost onto the consumer. Hit a wall at 25 mph with your seatbelt on in modern car and you walk away, thanks to this engineering. Have the same accident with your seatbelt off and all the safety features that you spent your money on become useless AND you're probably dead or have severe brain damage.

PBC_1966: I think it is a bit irresponsible of you to be "spreading the word" that seatbelts are responsible for broken spines, ruptured intenstines etc. This is extremely misleading. The small number of cases where these injuries were reported were where the person was wearing a LAP belt not a properly fitted 3 point belt. Big difference. Even so, the experts agree that even wearing a lap belt, you're still far better of than with no belt at all.

If you don't want to wear your belt then fine - it's your choice. However it sounds from your comments on seat belts that you're not making an informed choice because your opinions on the dangers of belts are extremely dubious at best. I suggest you read up on automotive safety engineering, biomechanics etc. and you may change your mind.

BrianD3

Seth Brundle

to those that are being critical of safety belts, answer me this - would you put your children into your car without any kind of safety restraints?

skyhighflyer

Anyone who says that there's no need to wear a seatbelt is a complete tool. If you want to go ahead and do so, fine. I would ask those who don't wear a seatbelt; would they wear a helmet if driving a motorbike? It's the same kind of situation; if you don't wear a seatbelt you have a much greater chance of being killed or injured in a crash, just like if you don't wear a helmet on a bike. And even if you consider yourself a safe driver, what about all the other idiots on the road?

However, what I will say is this: wearing a seatbelt is only part of being safe in a car. Making sure the belt is properly adjusted and not twisted, not sitting too close to the wheel and making sure the steering wheel and head rests are adjusted properly so the airbag actually cushions your head during a crash, rather than just firing up your nose (like it will do if you're like any of the women I know who drive right up at the steering wheel), and driving properly all play a part.

Hagar

I think Darwinism will provide the definitive answer to this debate given enough time.

Boggle

I have to ask the following however: If you believe that the nanny state should not force the driver of a vehicle to buckle up, then why do you think it should be compulsory for passengers? If a driver has the right to decide for himself what steps he will take to protect himself, then don't passengers have the same right?

The reason I say this is because the driver is responsible for the safety of others in the vehicle and should ensure their safety in the event of a crash. His own safety is his own decision.

If you don't want to wear your belt then fine - it's your choice. However it sounds from your comments on seat belts that you're not making an informed choice because your opinions on the dangers of belts are extremely dubious at best. I suggest you read up on automotive safety engineering, biomechanics etc. and you may change your mind.

Exactly its his decision - right or wrong. Its up to him to see the facts and make up his own mind - unlike alot of people who mistakenly swallow every brick ever handed to them without ever bothering to form an opinion of his own.


And if there's anyone here who actually thinks seatbelts are the be all an end all in road safety then I think I'm not the one who needs a reality check!! The seatbelts in our cars are cheap and do only the minimal job of protecting you. If you are in a high speed crash you are dead - simple! Driving is dangerous - simple! If your in a high speed crash you hit the windscreen even with the seatbelt on (due to the give in the harness and the contortion and twisting of the body due to having one strap). And this does cause severe injury - although in

If you want to be properly pinned to your seat you should have a 4-point and a proper headrest with head supports coupled with airbags on both sides and proper fcuking pillars that wont crumple and have the roof come in and snap your neck.

(kbanan - I said I wouldn't allow anyone alse in the car wo a belt ... sorry if not clear - was in a rush at the time)

Seth Brundle

I still don't accept your arguments.
1. Why is it ok for you to not wear a belt but for everyone else in the car to?
2. As I have stated, many drivers cannot make informed choices and hence the law being there!
3. Seat belts are not the be all and end all in road safety but in terms of safety devices within the confines of a car, they are all thet many people have.
4. You said "The seatbelts in our cars are cheap and do only the minimal job of protecting you. If you are in a high speed crash you are dead - simple!" - isn't minimal protection better than none? Furthermore, compare the scenario of Princess Di. Accident investigators have consistently stated that all the occupants of the car would be alive, after their high speed collision with a concrete pillar, had they been wearing belts.

seamus

Boggle wrote:

If you are in a high speed crash you are dead - simple! Driving is dangerous - simple! If your in a high speed crash you hit the windscreen even with the seatbelt on (due to the give in the harness and the contortion and twisting of the body due to having one strap). And this does cause severe injury - although in

That's a bit of a spurious argument. Given the right conditions, all safety equipment is rendered useless. If a child runs with all his might at a childsafe barrier on the stairs, he'll probably blast through it and fall down the stairs. A nuclear power station wall can withstand an aircraft hitting it at 400mph, but a few powerful missiles or a nuke, and the thing will probably end up destroyed. Motorcycle helmets protect a motorcyclist's head in the case of collision, but if he comes off at 100mph and hits his head off of a sharp edge, it's quite likely the helmet will crack.

Does this mean we should stop using all safety equipment? After all, it's useless given the right conditions!

Boggle

1. If I'm driving I am the one who is responsible for what happens to that car and everyone in it. I have the rigt to put myself in harm's way but I do not have the right to do that to others and driving while the passengers are not restrained places them in danger.

2. Nanny stateism. I do accept that not all drivers are good drivers but this notion that people are inherently stupid is balls. People make mistakes granted, but that is different to an uninformed opinion. What most people generally refer to a s uninformed opinions are more often than not just points of view that differ from their own. (We dont always pick the rigt government either - should there be a law passd to tell people who to vote for?)

3. True.

4. Princess Di would also be alive if she didn't crash! She was speeding (albeit while under chase I think) and if you speed and crash you probably die. The message is dont speed!! But as for your point, they may have been alive after the crash in their rolls (or whatever expensive car they had) - do you think the same would apply to your average family car?

Anyway, you are missing my main point about this whole thing which is the right to choose. As stated above I prefer not to wear my belt around town because I dont like being overly restrained in crowded areas. In town you rarely get above 20 mph so the chances of anything more than a bruise are slight (but thats the chance you take when u get in a car). What I went on to say is that outside of town I always wear a belt - but that is because I decide it has value. I dont need a law to tell me, and I dont want a law to force me...

Boggle

seamus wrote:

That's a bit of a spurious argument. Given the right conditions, all safety equipment is rendered useless. If a child runs with all his might at a childsafe barrier on the stairs, he'll probably blast through it and fall down the stairs. A nuclear power station wall can withstand an aircraft hitting it at 400mph, but a few powerful missiles or a nuke, and the thing will probably end up destroyed. Motorcycle helmets protect a motorcyclist's head in the case of collision, but if he comes off at 100mph and hits his head off of a sharp edge, it's quite likely the helmet will crack.

Does this mean we should stop using all safety equipment? After all, it's useless given the right conditions!

Child barrier - a responsible parent will buy a barrier with sufficient strength and attach it properly. (they're stronger than they look in most cases)

Nuclear power station - WHAT????? Only messn - if it gets nuked then the station blowing is just one of many things you worry about.

Helmet - if you come off a bike at 100mph and his head hits an edge his neck will break so I wouldn't worry about the helmet breaking. (It wouldn't by the way - the helmet is designed to smash the minute it hits anything this dissipating the energy of the impact but has a tough inner core to protect from breaking apart. This is why you have to replace a helmet even if you just dropped it a few inches from the ground.)

LFCFan

Boggle wrote:

As stated above I prefer not to wear my belt around town because I dont like being overly restrained in crowded areas. In town you rarely get above 20 mph so the chances of anything more than a bruise are slight (but thats the chance you take when u get in a car).

Even a crash at 20 MPH can kill you if you're not restrained and it's bullcrap so say that you 'rarely' get above 20MPH. Sounds to me like you're a very nervous driver if you don't like to be restrained in crowded areas. I've never once felt restrained because I have a seat belt on. I feel safer than I would without it.

Boggle

And I could fall out my bed tonight and die. You, to me, sound like the nervous driver. I dont like to wear it in town, for both comfort and so that I have the freedom to twist around and lean forward if necessary. That is my choice - its how I prefer to drive. Just because YOU prefer to wear it doesn't mean I should have to wear it.

A seatbelt gives a false sense of security anyway. The problem with all this is that now many people think that if they wear a seatbelt they are almost immune from getting killed or badly hurt on the roads and are more inclined to take certain risks and drive faster. Self defeating innit?!?!?

LFCFan

Boggle wrote:

I dont like to wear it in town, for both comfort and so that I have the freedom to twist around and lean forward if necessary. That is my choice - its how I prefer to drive. Just because YOU prefer to wear it doesn't mean I should have to wear it.

I can lean forward and twist around just fine with my seatbelt on. It also means that if some idiot hits me head on driving down the wrong side of the Quays, I have more chance of surviving. Don't come crying to us when you're dead because you failed to wear your seatbelt.

seamus

Boggle wrote:

Child barrier - a responsible parent will buy a barrier with sufficient strength and attach it properly. (they're stronger than they look in most cases)

Nuclear power station - WHAT????? Only messn - if it gets nuked then the station blowing is just one of many things you worry about.

Helmet - if you come off a bike at 100mph and his head hits an edge his neck will break so I wouldn't worry about the helmet breaking. (It wouldn't by the way - the helmet is designed to smash the minute it hits anything this dissipating the energy of the impact but has a tough inner core to protect from breaking apart. This is why you have to replace a helmet even if you just dropped it a few inches from the ground.)

You have completely missed my point.

The motorbike one is in fact the perfect example. In a high-speed crash, the helmet will prove useless because the motorcyclist will probably end up with massive internal injuries, and missing limbs, and quite often, a missing head.

So why bother making motorcyclists wear helmets?

unkel

Boggle wrote:

1. If I'm driving I am the one who is responsible for what happens to that car and everyone in it. I have the rigt to put myself in harm's way but I do not have the right to do that to others and driving while the passengers are not restrained places them in danger

You keep missing the point imho. If you don't wear the belt, you could end up doing damage to other occupants in the car or people outside of the car when you are launched

It was already mentioned that someone has to scrape your remains of the tarmac, pay for everything and what about friends, family and dependents (children!) you leave behind

You don't have that right and you shouldn't claim it...

Sleipnir

Boggle wrote:

And I could fall out my bed tonight and die. You, to me, sound like the nervous driver. I dont like to wear it in town, for both comfort and so that I have the freedom to twist around and lean forward if necessary. That is my choice - its how I prefer to drive. Just because YOU prefer to wear it doesn't mean I should have to wear it.

A seatbelt gives a false sense of security anyway. The problem with all this is that now many people think that if they wear a seatbelt they are almost immune from getting killed or badly hurt on the roads and are more inclined to take certain risks and drive faster. Self defeating innit?!?!?

Nobody thinks they're "immune" for god sake, don't be stupid.
It reduces the risk of serious injury. REDUCES..hear?

More inclined to take risk cos their wearing a seatbelt, WHAT!?!?
What are your sources for that ridiculous comment? What are the statistics for
"people taking more risk cos they have a belt across their chest and therefore believe they are invincible"

Is there a button to shake people remotely over the internet yet?
I feel like I'm taking crazy-pills here.

Kev

How many of you wear a helmet while driving your car ?

Seth Brundle

erm, I do when Im on track!

Sleipnir

Kev wrote:

How many of you wear a helmet while driving your car ?

Over my suit of armour?
That's another ridiculous question.

It might reduce the risk of injury in a crash, but would increase the risk of a crash in the first place. Therefore, a stupid, ill-conceived notion.

ubu

Kev wrote:

How many of you wear a helmet while driving your car ?

A Helmet is the required safety equipment for a bike, a seat belt is the required safety equipment for a car, both are required for good reason in each case, why are you combining both?

Kev

Wouldn't it be safer to drive a car with a helmet, racing drivers wear them.

I assume people don't wear them because they make a personal choice that the extra safety is not worth the hassle and it would look uncool.

ubu

or its because, as already stated which it would reduce the risk of serious injury in a crash in would actually increase the risk of a crash on the first place as a helmet reduces your field of vision and for car driver who arent used to driving a car would result in an increase in accidents
its fine on a race track when you dont have junctions, pedrestions, cyclists and so many other road users to contend with