Seat Belts - 2014 and people still done user them!

[23rdian]

Assuming around town at 30mph max...

Why is not wearing a belt any more dangerous than riding a motorbike?

[boobles]

23rdian said:

Assuming around town at 30mph max...

Why is not wearing a belt any more dangerous than riding a motorbike?

I don't think anyone has suggested there is a difference. But

If you fall off a bike at 30 & assuming you hit nothing & nothing hits you, there is a good chance you will survive. If you hit something in a car at 30 (because you can't fall off a car) & you are not wearing a seatbelt, the chances are you could die. Hitting something at 30 means your body will continue to travel at 30 (slowly decelerating) until you hit something. Usually the windscreen & the windscreen will usually win.

[23rdian]

boobles said:

I don't think anyone has suggested there is a difference.

Right but one is legal and one is not? One will get you a fine and the other will not?

boobles said:

If you fall off a bike at 30 & assuming you hit nothing & nothing hits you, there is a good chance you will survive. If you hit something in a car at 30 (because you can't fall off a car) & you are not wearing a seatbelt, the chances are you could die. Hitting something at 30 means your body will continue to travel at 30 (slowly decelerating) until you hit something. Usually the windscreen will always win.

Baw bags.

[boobles]

23rdian said:

Baw bags.

So you don't beleive me? My 20 years experience in crash testing tells me otherwise.

[CoolC]

over_the_hill said:

More surprising is the stated fact that 47% (of the estimated 2 Mill.) said they were not aware that it was an offence.
Isn't this something that should be drilled in as part of driving lessons / test as part of the Highway Code / Traffic Law.

Fixed to show the reality.

The old "I didn't know" line.

[Pepperami]

23rdian said:

Assuming around town at 30mph max...

Why is not wearing a belt any more dangerous than riding a motorbike?

Hit something on a bike and you'll probably be thrown clear and if all the planets align and you hit nothing/don't get hit by anything then you'll survive, albeit a little battered.

30mph in a car with no belt and your chest smashes into the steering wheel at 30 mph, probably shattering your ribs which will in turn puncture your lungs and you'll essentially drown in your own blood or asphyxiation as your lungs collapse due to bleeding in the chest cavity. If your airbag goes off then with no restraint from the seatbelt you'll probably be rolled around the bag by the impact, fracturing your skull on the A/B pillar or door frame or rotating your neck around the airbag while your body remains static and snapping your neck.

I've seen all of this. I've seen many fractals that should have been survivable. By the same token, due to seatbelts I've arrived many times and expected to deal with fatalities and everyone was walking wounded.

Edited by Pepperami on Wednesday 1st October 11:53

[Pepperami]

23rdian said:

Assuming around town at 30mph max...

Why is not wearing a belt any more dangerous than riding a motorbike?

Hit something on a bike and you'll probably be thrown clear and if all the planets align and you hit nothing/don't get hit by anything then you'll survive, albeit a little battered.

30mph in a car with no belt and your chest smashes into the steering wheel at 30 mph, probably shattering your ribs which will in turn puncture your lungs and you'll essentially drown in your own blood or asphyxiation as your lungs collapse due to bleeding in the chest cavity. If your airbag goes off then with no restraint from the seatbelt you'll probably be rolled around the bag by the impact, fracturing your skull on the A/B pillar or door frame or rotating your neck around the airbag while your body remains static and snapping your neck.

I've seen all of this. I've seen many fatals that should have been survivable. By the same token, due to seatbelts I've arrived many times and expected to deal with fatalities and everyone was walking wounded.

Edited by Pepperami on Wednesday 1st October 11:53

[23rdian]

Pepperami said:

Hit something on a bike and you'll probably be thrown clear and if all the planets align and you hit nothing/don't get hit by anything then you'll survive, albeit a little battered.

I'm sorry I just don't buy this argument.

So if you are on a bike and are lucky you will survive for sure? But you will die 100% of the time from not wearing a belt at low speeds. Err, right.

I'm not saying wearing a belt isn't sensible (and I can see why it's encouraged by TPTB) but for someone to avoid it (out of personal choice) is no more risky than being a biker IMO.

[boobles]

23rdian said:

I'm sorry I just don't buy this argument.

So if you are on a bike and are lucky you will survive for sure? But you will die 100% of the time from not wearing a belt at low speeds. Err, right.

I'm not saying wearing a belt isn't sensible (and I can see why it's encouraged by TPTB) but for someone to avoid it (out of personal choice) is no more risky than being a biker IMO.

Like any collision - you either live or you die. As previously said by others, many have walked away without wearing a seat belt, many havn't. I can only judge it on what I know & I guess police officers see the effects good & bad for not wearing a seat belts. Pretty certain that stats would show a higher death rate through people not wearing seat belts than them who do.

[Pepperami]

23rdian said:

Pepperami said:

Hit something on a bike and you'll probably be thrown clear and if all the planets align and you hit nothing/don't get hit by anything then you'll survive, albeit a little battered.

I'm sorry I just don't buy this argument.

So if you are on a bike and are lucky you will survive for sure? But you will die 100% of the time from not wearing a belt at low speeds. Err, right.

I'm not saying wearing a belt isn't sensible (and I can see why it's encouraged by TPTB) but for someone to avoid it (out of personal choice) is no more risky than being a biker IMO.

No. I listed PROBABLE outcomes from being in a car. As someone has previously said, it's rare to be thrown clear of a car without impacting something/lots of things on the way out. I see a lot of motorcycle related fatalities, but rarely are they low speed. Low speed motorcycle crashes involve (usually) a bump or two because there is other safety equipment worn by the rider. Physics dictates that a seatbelt on a bike would probably cause more damage to the rider in a solid object collision as, without the ability to be thrown clear, the rider would be crushed by their own weight AND that of the bike.

[TurboHatchback]

23rdian said:

Assuming around town at 30mph max...

Why is not wearing a belt any more dangerous than riding a motorbike?

If you rode a motorbike into a wall or a lorry at 30mph whilst not wearing a helmet or any other protection then I imagine you would likely die or be seriously injured. Likewise in a car with no seatbelt, though at least a car has some crumple zone to slow the deceleration slightly.

More to the point why would you not wear a belt? Nobody is too busy to take two seconds putting it on or taking it off again and the benefits are obvious to anyone with half a brain and any comprehension of physics.

[Vipers]

23rdian said:

Assuming around town at 30mph max...

Why is not wearing a belt any more dangerous than riding a motorbike?

Try a risk assessment, and the consequences of both. Question, do you wear your seat belt, just curious.

[Hugo a Gogo]

Stoofa said:

As many a police officer has said - "I've never unbuckled a corpse."
Sure, there are plenty of situations where someone has died, even though they were wearing a seat belt - but the fact they were wearing one means they weren't dead at the scene and had a chance.

seriously? you're saying no one dies in car crashes if they wear seatbelts?

boobles said:

If you fall off a bike at 30 & assuming you hit nothing & nothing hits you, there is a good chance you will survive. If you hit something in a car at 30 (because you can't fall off a car) & you are not wearing a seatbelt, the chances are you could die. Hitting something at 30 means your body will continue to travel at 30 (slowly decelerating) until you hit something. Usually the windscreen & the windscreen will usually win.

so hitting something at 30 is more dangerous than NOT hitting something at 30? who'd have thought it?

good job you're here with your 20 years experience

Edited by Hugo a Gogo on Wednesday 1st October 16:04

[boobles]

Hugo a Gogo said:

so hitting something at 30 is more dangerous than NOT hitting something at 30? who'd have thought it?

good job you're here with your 20 years experience

Edited by Hugo a Gogo on Wednesday 1st October 16:04

I was meaning whilst wearing a seatbelt or not. The guy was asking about motorbikes.

But nice to see the troll has entered...

[paranha]

Driving a 1979 LHD BMW E12 5 series.Sunny July Sunday in 1984,Eastbound M25 near Mimms/Enfield juncs.In middle lane on early morning drive,no traffic.NS limit, when a green blur suddenly came through the Central reservation barrier, when the gaps were left open for Emergency services in case of Accidents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
A Westbound car that missed his exit decided to do a "U" through the gap.A sudden blur of a car coming through and an instinctive reaction I turned left, missed him and hit NS Armco, bounced off over to offside barrier-repeated back to NS, back to OS----E12 a Writeoff--- Driver survived---------------Thanks to my Seatbelt.NO airbags in those days.

Good Luck to the Non belt users--Transplant parts are in Great demand---

Edited by paranha on Wednesday 1st October 17:26

[kowalski655]

V8forweekends said:

liner33 said:

I dont know if anyone saw this http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/29/justice/tracy-mo...

The comedian Tracy Morgan was seated in the rear of a minibus when it was struck whilst in stationary traffic by a Wallmart truck , one of the passengers died ands TM was seriously injured but Wallmart are claiming that his injuries are his own fault due to not wearing a seatbelt .

That was in a foreign country - their laws are different.

Even in this country(UK), damages can be reduced for contributory negligence,for failing to wear a seatbelt

[MrTrilby]

23rdian said:

I'm sorry I just don't buy this argument.

So if you are on a bike and are lucky you will survive for sure? But you will die 100% of the time from not wearing a belt at low speeds. Err, right.

I'm not saying wearing a belt isn't sensible (and I can see why it's encouraged by TPTB) but for someone to avoid it (out of personal choice) is no more risky than being a biker IMO.

Crash in a car when you're not wearing a seatbelt and you will definitely hit something that will injure you, and maybe kill you. Crash on a bike and you might hit something solid that will injure you. Furthermore, motorcyclists wear a helmet to reduce the chance of their head sustaining significant injuries. Whilst there is some evidence to suggest that car drivers would also benefit from some kind of head protection, I suspect few car drivers wear any.

Bottom line is that a seatbelt will double the chance of you surviving a crash, and prevent a rear passenger from killing you, and reduce the cost on the NHS and emergency services. So wear it. A seatbelt on a motorbike will increase the chance of injury, so would be utterly pointless.

[grumpy52]

Having raced in bangers and stock cars for over 12 years is all the evidence I need that seat belts save you from injury .
Remember it's NOT speed that kills but the sudden lack of it .

[Hugo a Gogo]

boobles said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

boobles said:

If you fall off a bike at 30 & assuming you hit nothing & nothing hits you, there is a good chance you will survive. If you hit something in a car at 30 (because you can't fall off a car) & you are not wearing a seatbelt, the chances are you could die. Hitting something at 30 means your body will continue to travel at 30 (slowly decelerating) until you hit something. Usually the windscreen & the windscreen will usually win.

so hitting something at 30 is more dangerous than NOT hitting something at 30? who'd have thought it?

good job you're here with your 20 years experience

I was meaning whilst wearing a seatbelt or not. The guy was asking about motorbikes.

But nice to see the troll has entered...

you clearly don't know what a troll is

you can't compare NOT hitting something, to hitting something

[mph1977]

Stoofa said:

As many a police officer has said - "I've never unbuckled a corpse."
Sure, there are plenty of situations where someone has died, even though they were wearing a seat belt - but the fact they were wearing one means they weren't dead at the scene and had a chance.
The "I know of someone who survived because they weren't wearing one...." seems pretty anicdotal, I'm yet to actually read a story where that was the case and I've never read "....and they would have survived if they had choosen not to wear one".

As others have said, if people want to be stupid enough not to wear one then let them get on with it. I always make sure people in the back of my car wear them as in an accident they could damage/kill me by not wearing one, but all the others - knock yourselves out.

and people who work in A+E or the ambulance service will say the same as the copper .

one notable anecdote from my time working in A+E a car 5 up mis judged a roundabout , not helped by the factthey were doing approx 100 mph on the approach ( NSL road) , 4 people were discharged from hospital within days they were wearing seatbelts, the fifth, unrestrained occupant was certified at scene.