Not wearing a seatbelt...

[jith]

jasandjules said:

Why would you not wear a seat belt?

IME it is the middle aged lady in her 4*4 who is most unobservant whilst patrolling Tescos finest tarmac looking for a space.

And it will be public highway if there is no barrier entry/paid entry as well IIRC.

Because seat belts frequently cause serious and even fatal injuries, particularly at higher speeds.

Dino D said:

Always put your seatbelt on even before starting the engine. If you don't I'm sure your 20k claim for whiplash from the 'no win no fee' companies might be reduced because you didn't take adequate measures to protect yourself.

Again as above, it is the seat belt in many cases that is responsible for whiplash injuries; your body is totally restrained and cannot move in relation to the actions of the vehicle, but your head, one of the heaviest single parts of your body, is free to do what it wants and pivots about the neck and causes injury to the spinal cord. If this movement is violent enough it will result in death.
Whiplash injuries only really dramatically increased in the '70s with the enforcement of seat belt law.

mungo said:

mmm-five said:

If the seatbelt is so important to safety, why do half the plod not bother wearing theirs? Does the stab vest make the belt redundant or are they just fückwits?

(yes that last question was rhetorical)

Many reasons... mostly with regard to needing to move from the seat quickly. If you need to exit the car quickly the seatbelt gets tangled in your handcuffs / radio / body armour etc and gets in the way ... not good when you have to jump out of the car to run after someone who is making a distance on you whilst your still fumbling trying to get your seat belt off your handcuffs etc

Also not good when some random nutter is attacking your vehicle whilst static and you need to exit quickly to sort them out (as has happened to me on one occasion)

Edited by mungo on Tuesday 27th June 12:44

All true Mungo, but notable for the absence of the most important reason. In a high speed impact your chance of survival in the front seat is actually better without the seat belt, even when you go through the windscreen!
In a high speed impact your body, which at that point is storing a kinetic energy of many tons, will stop dead against the seat belt causing appalling injury to the rib cage and stomach area, often breaking the sternum and driving it through the heart, or as is more common, snapping the spinal column and smashing the head against the steering wheel.
I have two friends who are alive today simply because they were not wearing seat belts and went through the windscreen, both in post 100MPH collisions.
Both had broken noses and lost teeth but were otherwise ok.
One of them was driving a Sunbeam Tiger, and after he did his Superman impression, it rolled into a field completely removing everything from the waistline up, this would have included his head and shoulders had he been strapped into the vehicle.
Don't allow a false sense of security to take over because you are wearing a seat belt; the local traffic police I know do not wear one almost to a man. If you watch the Police Stop videos on television you will see the same thing.
Bear in mind when these laws were laid down there were no airbags, no way of restraining the head, therefore the choice was left with the police, the rest of us were not allowed that luxury, because it was politically powerful for the government to pass a law and force us to wear.
What it did do was save the health service a fortune, because it instantly reduced the number of OBVIOUS injuries in low speed crashes, broken teeth, facial injuries, cuts, bruises, etc.
So you have to make your choice, to be an immaculate, unmarked corpse on a slab, or a stitched up accident victim still enjoying life.
Quite a thought!!

Edited by jith on Wednesday 28th June 10:37

[tigger1]

Hamster said:

tigger1 said:

I often roll over to the petrol pumps at the supermarket without a belt on...the beeping from the sensor drives me mad! I'm only doing 10mph ffs!

It's a 54 plate Clio - so not far off with the Scenic guess!

If you tell me the model car you have I'll find out how to silence the belt warning for you.

H

[flemke]

vonhosen said:

A road, for the purposes of the road traffic act, will include car parks.

vh,

Where does the Road Traffic Act stand with regard to instructional signs in privately-owned car parks?
Can failure to obey one-way arrows or exit signs result in a fine or penalty points?
Please don't tell me that this rule-obsessed nation is that far gone.

Cheers.

[Zod]

jith said:

jasandjules said:

Why would you not wear a seat belt?

IME it is the middle aged lady in her 4*4 who is most unobservant whilst patrolling Tescos finest tarmac looking for a space.

And it will be public highway if there is no barrier entry/paid entry as well IIRC.

Because seat belts frequently cause serious and even fatal injuries, particularly at higher speeds.

Dino D said:

Always put your seatbelt on even before starting the engine. If you don't I'm sure your 20k claim for whiplash from the 'no win no fee' companies might be reduced because you didn't take adequate measures to protect yourself.

Again as above, it is the seat belt in many cases that is responsible for whiplash injuries; your body is totally restrained and cannot move in relation to the actions of the vehicle, but your head, one of the heaviest single parts of your body, is free to do what it wants and pivots about the neck and causes injury to the spinal cord. If this movement is violent enough it will result in death.
Whiplash injuries only really dramatically increased in the '70s with the enforcement of seat belt law.

mungo said:

mmm-five said:

If the seatbelt is so important to safety, why do half the plod not bother wearing theirs? Does the stab vest make the belt redundant or are they just fückwits?

(yes that last question was rhetorical)

Many reasons... mostly with regard to needing to move from the seat quickly. If you need to exit the car quickly the seatbelt gets tangled in your handcuffs / radio / body armour etc and gets in the way ... not good when you have to jump out of the car to run after someone who is making a distance on you whilst your still fumbling trying to get your seat belt off your handcuffs etc

Also not good when some random nutter is attacking your vehicle whilst static and you need to exit quickly to sort them out (as has happened to me on one occasion)

Edited by mungo on Tuesday 27th June 12:44

All true Mungo, but notable for the absence of the most important reason. In a high speed impact your chance of survival in the front seat is actually better without the seat belt, even when you go through the windscreen!
In a high speed impact your body, which at that point is storing a kinetic energy of many tons, will stop dead against the seat belt causing appalling injury to the rib cage and stomach area, often breaking the sternum and driving it through the heart, or as is more common, snapping the spinal column and smashing the head against the steering wheel.
I have two friends who are alive today simply because they were not wearing seat belts and went through the windscreen, both in post 100MPH collisions.
Both had broken noses and lost teeth but were otherwise ok.
One of them was driving a Sunbeam Tiger, and after he did his Superman impression, it rolled into a field completely removing everything from the waistline up, this would have included his head and shoulders had he been strapped into the vehicle.
Don't allow a false sense of security to take over because you are wearing a seat belt; the local traffic police I know do not wear one almost to a man. If you watch the Police Stop videos on television you will see the same thing.
Bear in mind when these laws were laid down there were no airbags, no way of restraining the head, therefore the choice was left with the police, the rest of us were not allowed that luxury, because it was politically powerful for the government to pass a law and force us to wear.
What it did do was save the health service a fortune, because it instantly reduced the number of OBVIOUS injuries in low speed crashes, broken teeth, facial injuries, cuts, bruises, etc.
So you have to make your choice, to be an immaculate, unmarked corpse on a slab, or a stitched up accident victim still enjoying life.
Quite a thought!!

Edited by jith on Wednesday 28th June 10:37

This is the same litany of excuses that Americans use to try to justify not wearing seatbelts. Statistically, you are far more likjely to die if you are not wearing a seatbelt.

[s2art]

Zod said:

jith said:

jasandjules said:

Why would you not wear a seat belt?

IME it is the middle aged lady in her 4*4 who is most unobservant whilst patrolling Tescos finest tarmac looking for a space.

And it will be public highway if there is no barrier entry/paid entry as well IIRC.

Because seat belts frequently cause serious and even fatal injuries, particularly at higher speeds.

Dino D said:

Always put your seatbelt on even before starting the engine. If you don't I'm sure your 20k claim for whiplash from the 'no win no fee' companies might be reduced because you didn't take adequate measures to protect yourself.

Again as above, it is the seat belt in many cases that is responsible for whiplash injuries; your body is totally restrained and cannot move in relation to the actions of the vehicle, but your head, one of the heaviest single parts of your body, is free to do what it wants and pivots about the neck and causes injury to the spinal cord. If this movement is violent enough it will result in death.
Whiplash injuries only really dramatically increased in the '70s with the enforcement of seat belt law.

mungo said:

mmm-five said:

If the seatbelt is so important to safety, why do half the plod not bother wearing theirs? Does the stab vest make the belt redundant or are they just fückwits?

(yes that last question was rhetorical)

Many reasons... mostly with regard to needing to move from the seat quickly. If you need to exit the car quickly the seatbelt gets tangled in your handcuffs / radio / body armour etc and gets in the way ... not good when you have to jump out of the car to run after someone who is making a distance on you whilst your still fumbling trying to get your seat belt off your handcuffs etc

Also not good when some random nutter is attacking your vehicle whilst static and you need to exit quickly to sort them out (as has happened to me on one occasion)

Edited by mungo on Tuesday 27th June 12:44

All true Mungo, but notable for the absence of the most important reason. In a high speed impact your chance of survival in the front seat is actually better without the seat belt, even when you go through the windscreen!
In a high speed impact your body, which at that point is storing a kinetic energy of many tons, will stop dead against the seat belt causing appalling injury to the rib cage and stomach area, often breaking the sternum and driving it through the heart, or as is more common, snapping the spinal column and smashing the head against the steering wheel.
I have two friends who are alive today simply because they were not wearing seat belts and went through the windscreen, both in post 100MPH collisions.
Both had broken noses and lost teeth but were otherwise ok.
One of them was driving a Sunbeam Tiger, and after he did his Superman impression, it rolled into a field completely removing everything from the waistline up, this would have included his head and shoulders had he been strapped into the vehicle.
Don't allow a false sense of security to take over because you are wearing a seat belt; the local traffic police I know do not wear one almost to a man. If you watch the Police Stop videos on television you will see the same thing.
Bear in mind when these laws were laid down there were no airbags, no way of restraining the head, therefore the choice was left with the police, the rest of us were not allowed that luxury, because it was politically powerful for the government to pass a law and force us to wear.
What it did do was save the health service a fortune, because it instantly reduced the number of OBVIOUS injuries in low speed crashes, broken teeth, facial injuries, cuts, bruises, etc.
So you have to make your choice, to be an immaculate, unmarked corpse on a slab, or a stitched up accident victim still enjoying life.
Quite a thought!!

Edited by jith on Wednesday 28th June 10:37

This is the same litany of excuses that Americans use to try to justify not wearing seatbelts. Statistically, you are far more likjely to die if you are not wearing a seatbelt.

The arguments produced are valid. If there is an air-bag then the seatbelt is likely to incease your risk, simply due to the protection the air-bag provides to the head.

[jith]

Zod said:

jith said:

jasandjules said:

Why would you not wear a seat belt?

IME it is the middle aged lady in her 4*4 who is most unobservant whilst patrolling Tescos finest tarmac looking for a space.

And it will be public highway if there is no barrier entry/paid entry as well IIRC.

Because seat belts frequently cause serious and even fatal injuries, particularly at higher speeds.

Dino D said:

Always put your seatbelt on even before starting the engine. If you don't I'm sure your 20k claim for whiplash from the 'no win no fee' companies might be reduced because you didn't take adequate measures to protect yourself.

Again as above, it is the seat belt in many cases that is responsible for whiplash injuries; your body is totally restrained and cannot move in relation to the actions of the vehicle, but your head, one of the heaviest single parts of your body, is free to do what it wants and pivots about the neck and causes injury to the spinal cord. If this movement is violent enough it will result in death.
Whiplash injuries only really dramatically increased in the '70s with the enforcement of seat belt law.

mungo said:

mmm-five said:

If the seatbelt is so important to safety, why do half the plod not bother wearing theirs? Does the stab vest make the belt redundant or are they just fückwits?

(yes that last question was rhetorical)

Many reasons... mostly with regard to needing to move from the seat quickly. If you need to exit the car quickly the seatbelt gets tangled in your handcuffs / radio / body armour etc and gets in the way ... not good when you have to jump out of the car to run after someone who is making a distance on you whilst your still fumbling trying to get your seat belt off your handcuffs etc

Also not good when some random nutter is attacking your vehicle whilst static and you need to exit quickly to sort them out (as has happened to me on one occasion)

Edited by mungo on Tuesday 27th June 12:44

All true Mungo, but notable for the absence of the most important reason. In a high speed impact your chance of survival in the front seat is actually better without the seat belt, even when you go through the windscreen!
In a high speed impact your body, which at that point is storing a kinetic energy of many tons, will stop dead against the seat belt causing appalling injury to the rib cage and stomach area, often breaking the sternum and driving it through the heart, or as is more common, snapping the spinal column and smashing the head against the steering wheel.
I have two friends who are alive today simply because they were not wearing seat belts and went through the windscreen, both in post 100MPH collisions.
Both had broken noses and lost teeth but were otherwise ok.
One of them was driving a Sunbeam Tiger, and after he did his Superman impression, it rolled into a field completely removing everything from the waistline up, this would have included his head and shoulders had he been strapped into the vehicle.
Don't allow a false sense of security to take over because you are wearing a seat belt; the local traffic police I know do not wear one almost to a man. If you watch the Police Stop videos on television you will see the same thing.
Bear in mind when these laws were laid down there were no airbags, no way of restraining the head, therefore the choice was left with the police, the rest of us were not allowed that luxury, because it was politically powerful for the government to pass a law and force us to wear.
What it did do was save the health service a fortune, because it instantly reduced the number of OBVIOUS injuries in low speed crashes, broken teeth, facial injuries, cuts, bruises, etc.
So you have to make your choice, to be an immaculate, unmarked corpse on a slab, or a stitched up accident victim still enjoying life.
Quite a thought!!

Edited by jith on Wednesday 28th June 10:37

This is the same litany of excuses that Americans use to try to justify not wearing seatbelts. Statistically, you are far more likjely to die if you are not wearing a seatbelt.

Really Zod, and where do you get your statistics from?
I don't write "excuses", I deal in hard-nosed, real-world fact.
Why don't you ask a paramedic or better still a fireman, how many dreadful accidents they have attended involving seat belt injuries.
But what I will do for you, although it will take a bit of searching, is to dig out my stuff from the '70s including the statistical research carried out by the government's own Chief Medical Officer of the time who was surprised to find that after the introduction of enforced seat belt wearing, serious cranal and upper spinal cord injuries, most of which resulted in either fatal brain damage or total paralysis increased by 530%; a figure that surprised even me at the time.
The understanding about the principles at work here are not about medicine of course, they are about kinetics and the laws of physics. The Chief Medical Officer was not properly equipped or qualified to do this job; he was there to streamline the part that the Health Service played in this.
The important point I am trying to get across is that it should be the government's responsibility to EDUCATE the motoring public as to the risks involved in wearing a seat belt as opposed to not. Not to simply enforce a law and imply by way of silence that you will be completely safe in an accident if you wear a seat belt: that is undoubtedly the impression that is given and one that the general public has been misled into believing.
My grandaughter is strapped into a child seat in the back of my car when she comes out with me, but this seat is akin to a Formula 1 race seat with padded full harness and side protection for the rib cage and head, and is situated in what is in most cases the safest area of the vehicle to be in; but even this is still a compromise because there is still no forward restraint for her head. When she is in the car however, my instincts and awareness levels are utterly razor edged, so the chances of an accident are minimal indeed.
If we could get the general public to wear this kind of equipment including a race style neck restraint, the injuries from seat belts would be minimal if almost non existent.
But we will see that happening when Hell freezes over!

[jasandjules]

jith said:

Because seat belts frequently cause serious and even fatal injuries, particularly at higher speeds

But surely they save far more lives than they take? What sort of injuries could one expect travelling at 70mph without a seatbelt? Surely if a car is T boned, the driver is far better off with a seatbelt? Whilst I appreciate that airbags are good, the cars with them merely increase the safety?

Last time I checked, motor racing drivers wear seatbelts/harnesses etc..
I do think that 4 point harnesses should be permitted on the roads though.

Not being funny, but I got hit by a landrover in the side once, at about 30mph. My seatbelt prevented me from being launched into my passenger, and killing us both. Instead, my seat physically moved about 2" and I suffered a slightly bruised rib. My passenger had no injury at all.

[jith]

jasandjules said:

jith said:

Because seat belts frequently cause serious and even fatal injuries, particularly at higher speeds

But surely they save far more lives than they take? What sort of injuries could one expect travelling at 70mph without a seatbelt? Surely if a car is T boned, the driver is far better off with a seatbelt? Whilst I appreciate that airbags are good, the cars with them merely increase the safety?

Last time I checked, motor racing drivers wear seatbelts/harnesses etc..
I do think that 4 point harnesses should be permitted on the roads though.

Not being funny, but I got hit by a landrover in the side once, at about 30mph. My seatbelt prevented me from being launched into my passenger, and killing us both. Instead, my seat physically moved about 2" and I suffered a slightly bruised rib. My passenger had no injury at all.

With respect Jas, you are still not getting the point here.
The choice to wear one should be that of the individual based on an educated basis, NOT the government's enforced on you by the police.
With regard to your accident, if you were struck on the driver's side by another vehicle the seat belt would have little or no effect.
If you were driving a car with what is known as sports seats, i.e. good side bolster support, that was what stopped you moving sideways more than anything else, and possibly the fact that if you saw the accident coming you gripped the steering wheel to brace yourself, an action that is almost wholly instinctive.
I thought I had made the point about racing harness in my remarks about the child seat; this undoubtedly is the correct answer, but will NOT stop neck and head injury unless used with a full neck brace, as in Formula 1 equipment.
These are legal in a road car but are not acceptable to the majority of drivers because of the limitations to movement and the fact that it would leave a crease on their nice business suit!!
People will not be inconvenienced in the interests of safety.
To turn to airbags: I pulled a young man from a Renault Clio a couple of years ago just before it ignited after hitting the crash barrier on the motorway. The whole interior of his vehicle was filled with smoke from the airbag detonator; he was covered in blood and screamed as I pulled him from the vehicle, but I had no choice because of the impending fire. Fortunately the brigade arrived and put it out.
The pain he experienced was from a broken collar bone and a seriously injured neck, probably torn muscle, caused by the diagonal of the seat belt. The blood was from a huge split to his eyebrow and down the side of his face caused by the airbag detonating and striking him in the face with the horn push which had not dislodged as it should have.
The crash was caused by his offside rear brake locking on due to an ABS fault, (it had just been repaired by Renault!) causing him to go into a spin.
The engineers in all of these processes got it seriously wrong and let this young man down very badly; they have done so dramatically with airbags on numerous occasions; there are ongoing cases right now in the States in the Supreme Court against all the major vehicle manufacturers who did not spend the appropriate development time on these devices and the result was death by airbag injury. Whilst the software development on these has improved enormously, there is still something frightening about an explosion occurring a couple of feet from your face and striking you with a balloon at over 250MPH!
Having an in depth knowledge of the risks imbues you with a different view point.

[Zod]

Jith, you use the old "save by being thrown through the windscreen" chestnut. Yes, it does save people in exceptional case, but more often being thrown through the windscreen kills people. I accept that seatbelts cause fatal injuries in high speed collisions, but most collisions take place at lower speeds.

Edited by Zod on Wednesday 28th June 14:22

[jith]

Zod said:

Jith, you use the old "save by being thrown through the windscreen" chestnut. Yes, it does save people in exceptional case, but more often being thrown through the windscreen kills people.

That's not accurate. They take the windscreen out with them. What usually kills them is hitting the ground or another vehicle. In rural accidents they very often end up in a field.
The alternative is the injuries they will DEFINITELY sustain if they stay inside the vehicle.

[10 Pence Short]

jith said:

...The alternative is the injuries they will DEFINITELY sustain if they stay inside the vehicle...

I don't see the logic in that conclusion. If you are right, then surely instead of seatbelts, car manufacturers would be looking at devices to accelerate you out of your windscreen in the event of a high speed collision.

[s2art]

10 Pence Short said:

jith said:

...The alternative is the injuries they will DEFINITELY sustain if they stay inside the vehicle...

I don't see the logic in that conclusion. If you are right, then surely instead of seatbelts, car manufacturers would be looking at devices to accelerate you out of your windscreen in the event of a high speed collision.

Well, they fit ejector seats to aircraft.....

I guess a seatbelt just doesnt cut it for air 'incidents'

[Yugguy]

10 Pence Short said:

jith said:

...The alternative is the injuries they will DEFINITELY sustain if they stay inside the vehicle...

I don't see the logic in that conclusion. If you are right, then surely instead of seatbelts, car manufacturers would be looking at devices to accelerate you out of your windscreen in the event of a high speed collision.

I am now sat at my desk with the absurd vision in my head of a motorway pileup and scores of parachuted people gently floating back down to earth.

[cooperman]

Am I alone in finding that the way this thread is going is becoming a load of rubbish.
Of course the compulsory wearing of seat belts has saved a very large number of lives since 1983.
It is far better to decellerate inside the vehicle than be thrown out and decellerate against something else. No-one will ever convince me otherwise. I used to fly and would never have completed my pre-flight checks without confirming 'harnesses secure'.
Of course, there can always be cases quoted where not being strapped in could be advantageous, but very seldom. Air bags are just additional safety measures. Seat belts, then air bags, are two of the major factors which enabled casualty levels to drop consistently year-on-year (until speed cameras came along and screwed up the reductions).
We had all this 'better to be thrown out' nonsense in the 60's when the fitting of belts became compulsory, then again in 1982 when it was to be made compulsory. It's complete rubbish as many studies have shown.
Now I'll get into my rally car with its FIA seats and belts and roll-cage and drive home in safety. Tomorrow I'll get into my road car, fasten the lap/diagonal belts and drive.
Not bother with belts! Not me!

[s2art]

cooperman said:

Am I alone in finding that the way this thread is going is becoming a load of rubbish.
Of course the compulsory wearing of seat belts has saved a very large number of lives since 1983.
It is far better to decellerate inside the vehicle than be thrown out and decellerate against something else. No-one will ever convince me otherwise. I used to fly and would never have completed my pre-flight checks without confirming 'harnesses secure'.
Of course, there can always be cases quoted where not being strapped in could be advantageous, but very seldom. Air bags are just additional safety measures. Seat belts, then air bags, are two of the major factors which enabled casualty levels to drop consistently year-on-year (until speed cameras came along and screwed up the reductions).
We had all this 'better to be thrown out' nonsense in the 60's when the fitting of belts became compulsory, then again in 1982 when it was to be made compulsory. It's complete rubbish as many studies have shown.
Now I'll get into my rally car with its FIA seats and belts and roll-cage and drive home in safety. Tomorrow I'll get into my road car, fasten the lap/diagonal belts and drive.
Not bother with belts! Not me!

If there was some form of head restraint I would agree with you completely. As it is, a properly designed, full sized air-bag will protect you better than a seatbelt in high decelleration collisions.
(unless you have the spine and neck muscles of the Incredible Hulk)

[Flat in Fifth]

cooperman said:

Am I alone in finding that the way this thread is going is becoming a load of rubbish.

Seconded. No you are not alone.

I once had the dubious privilege of having my hands trapped between wheel and shattered laminate screen after a suicidal swan failed to reach adequate climbing speed on take-off from the local sailing lakes. It reached stalling speed having just pulled back on the stick to stagger over the central reservation barriers. Several stones of brassed off swan and Pug 205GTi screen don't go well together.

Thinking about the mess my hands were in afterwards I 'd hate to think what would happen if the screen wrapped round a body being ejected through the aperture. Assuming the body would reach the aperture and not be wrapped round the interior fitments.

Sorry jith, I understand the points being made but on balance don't agree.

[cooperman]

Going on from there, FiF, you'll remember that before belts were compulsory, most cars had safety glass screens, not laminated ones. The advent of belts enabled the much safer and stronger laminated ones to be fitted.

[Flat in Fifth]

And going on from there Cooperman you'll remember that a lot of occupants in an impact poked their head through the front screen which shattered leaving a nice rim of broken glass just strong enough to scalp them as they fell back inside.

[s2art]

And going on from there... Isnt the real issue that of seat belt versus proper air-bag?

[jith]

Flat in Fifth said:

cooperman said:

Am I alone in finding that the way this thread is going is becoming a load of rubbish.

Seconded. No you are not alone.

I once had the dubious privilege of having my hands trapped between wheel and shattered laminate screen after a suicidal swan failed to reach adequate climbing speed on take-off from the local sailing lakes. It reached stalling speed having just pulled back on the stick to stagger over the central reservation barriers. Several stones of brassed off swan and Pug 205GTi screen don't go well together.

Thinking about the mess my hands were in afterwards I 'd hate to think what would happen if the screen wrapped round a body being ejected through the aperture. Assuming the body would reach the aperture and not be wrapped round the interior fitments.

Sorry jith, I understand the points being made but on balance don't agree.

Calm yourself the two of you!!
Where in any of my posts did I say that I DO NOT advocate the use of seats belts??
What I am definitely stating is that the government, in their usual inimitable style enforce their usage and at the same time infer that you are travelling in perfect safety because you are wearing them; this then gives them yet another excuse to have a "blitz" via the police on non wearers and make even more revenue from the motorist.
I notice none of you have argued that they don't cause damage.
And Peter, I'm surprised at you. You know damn fine from your rally experience that a full harness and racing helmet is an entirely different ball game from a standard road car seat belt!!
I've said it twice already in these posts; how many times do I have to say it before someone actually reads it??!!