Do you wear your seatbelt? Why WOULDNT you?
Discussion
DKL said:
Probably the same reason some cyclists don't wear helmets. I still have no idea what this reason is.
I've travelled in friends open top vintage cars which don't have seat belts. It feels really odd!
If you are hit on a bike by a car above 15 mph, I don't think a helmet will help you much, with or without helmet, you are very likely to have head injuries, whereas, wearing a seat belt in a modern car, will prevent the airbag from killing you. I've travelled in friends open top vintage cars which don't have seat belts. It feels really odd!
New POD said:
If you are hit on a bike by a car above 15 mph, I don't think a helmet will help you much, with or without helmet, you are very likely to have head injuries,
I believe that is more to do with the brain moving about in the skull. Even someone with a full face helmet will suffer injuries due to the fact the helmet stops the head from hitting the ground but does not stop the brain hitting the cranium. Cotty said:
I believe that is more to do with the brain moving about in the skull. Even someone with a full face helmet will suffer injuries due to the fact the helmet stops the head from hitting the ground but does not stop the brain hitting the cranium.
The helmet should deform under the impact to dissipate energy thus reducing the effect on the skull and the brain inside. That is why you should always buy a new helmet when it has had an impact. Even if it looks OK it will be damaged.TA14 said:
kVA said:
Those of you selfishly saying it should be your choice - have you ever seen the result of a crash where one or more people were not wearing belts?
I have and it stays with you for life... Thankfully the nightmares have stopped now (it was over 20 years ago), but being first on the scene and vainly trying to do something helpful as someone died unnecessarily, is not something you forget easily... By the time he died, hundreds of innocent motorists had been traumatised by the blood-lake down the bonnet of the lightly damaged car, with the drivers bloody head stuck out of the front window, as his caved in chest was trapped by the steering wheel - stopping him being thrown out completely...
OK, so with an airbag, there would have been less visible blood - as death would have come from internal injuries, rather than external - and he may even have survived long enough to cost the NHS a few hundred thousand?
Sorry, but I will never understand selfishness on this level - let alone a willingness to die, rather than crease your shirt and obey a law derived from a quantitative and statistically proven method of enhancing safety and reducing the burden on the tax-payer.
So I suppose that you'd ban smoking then? It seems to fit all of your criteria. Why should some people be allowed to smoke? They could do it for years and then it may kill them, etc.I have and it stays with you for life... Thankfully the nightmares have stopped now (it was over 20 years ago), but being first on the scene and vainly trying to do something helpful as someone died unnecessarily, is not something you forget easily... By the time he died, hundreds of innocent motorists had been traumatised by the blood-lake down the bonnet of the lightly damaged car, with the drivers bloody head stuck out of the front window, as his caved in chest was trapped by the steering wheel - stopping him being thrown out completely...
OK, so with an airbag, there would have been less visible blood - as death would have come from internal injuries, rather than external - and he may even have survived long enough to cost the NHS a few hundred thousand?
Sorry, but I will never understand selfishness on this level - let alone a willingness to die, rather than crease your shirt and obey a law derived from a quantitative and statistically proven method of enhancing safety and reducing the burden on the tax-payer.
Smoking will never be banned though - the Government cannot afford the loss in tax revenue - which I sincerely hope far outweighs the NHS costs of treating these idiots...? I quite like the idea of paying LESS tax than my personal drain on the public purse, because I care about my health
Abbott said:
Cotty said:
I believe that is more to do with the brain moving about in the skull. Even someone with a full face helmet will suffer injuries due to the fact the helmet stops the head from hitting the ground but does not stop the brain hitting the cranium.
The helmet should deform under the impact to dissipate energy thus reducing the effect on the skull and the brain inside. That is why you should always buy a new helmet when it has had an impact. Even if it looks OK it will be damaged.Couldn't engage shoes from pedels in time, side of my head hit the Tarmac, cracked the helmet in about 6 places down one side. I am 6ft tall, on the bike head is nearer 7 ft from the ground, quite a way when you go over sideways.
Head damage, zero. With the amount of zombie pedestrians tweeting and such these days, I would have thought (I may be wrong), the big danger to cyclists is pedestrians not cars. Even a collision with a car doesn't have to be a high speed one, a tap will throw you off, so a helmet in those circumstances would be a benifits.
Oh well, back to the seatbelt debate, time of the year I suppose, seems to crop up now and again, can't recall any not wearing them lately, but some do still use their phones.
New POD said:
wearing a seat belt in a modern car, will prevent the airbag from killing you.
I can't (mentally) put the key in the ignition, without putting my seat belt on. Having worked on airbag connectors for Lucas back in the late 90's, I think the US spec airbags are more likely to kill you as they are slightly bigger. Either way, airbags, are designed to be work with a seat belt. shoehorn said:
otolith said:
Indeed it would be, though I don't believe anyone has taken that position.
Read through.shoehorn said:
"I wont wear one because I`ve been told to",is basically what some of you are saying,what sort of childish mentality is that?
But you didn't quote whoever you thought was saying that and I can't find anyone who is.Some people saying they don't wear them for other reasons (mostly dumb reasons), some people saying that it should be a personal choice (but that they wear one and think it's stupid not to), nobody that I can see saying "I don't wear one because I've been told to". Who is it you are thinking of?
New POD said:
New POD said:
wearing a seat belt in a modern car, will prevent the airbag from killing you.
I can't (mentally) put the key in the ignition, without putting my seat belt on. Having worked on airbag connectors for Lucas back in the late 90's, I think the US spec airbags are more likely to kill you as they are slightly bigger. Either way, airbags, are designed to be work with a seat belt. shoehorn said:
Not at all,if you want to drive without a seatbelt then that`s your risk,an un-needed risk.
the car is fitted with belts,everybody knows that they are there, most sensible people accept and there`s plenty of evidence to back that up that they are there for your safety,why not use them?
But to not use them because you are told to is ridiculous,
I wear a belt because I want to and because I`m not bloody minded,Not because someone told me to.
It`s not a removal of your civil liberties,the belt is there to protect you.
What possible activity that requires the removal or not wearing of a seat belt in a moving car is not considered dangerous in its self anyway?
People spouting about oppression and civil liberties need to learn to differentiate between that and common sense,wearing a seat belt is the latter.
If there were not so many accidents involving non wearers then there would be no need to bring out laws to do so.
Some people need protecting from themselves,as proven by clearly not knowing the difference.
All those that have died or been injured through not wearing a belt thought they would be all right,how wrong every one of them were.
And yes some people may have died because of a seatbelt but those are a fraction of those that die because they are not.
Reiterating that seat belts save lives simply shows you haven't understood, or read most of the posts on this thread.the car is fitted with belts,everybody knows that they are there, most sensible people accept and there`s plenty of evidence to back that up that they are there for your safety,why not use them?
But to not use them because you are told to is ridiculous,
I wear a belt because I want to and because I`m not bloody minded,Not because someone told me to.
It`s not a removal of your civil liberties,the belt is there to protect you.
What possible activity that requires the removal or not wearing of a seat belt in a moving car is not considered dangerous in its self anyway?
People spouting about oppression and civil liberties need to learn to differentiate between that and common sense,wearing a seat belt is the latter.
If there were not so many accidents involving non wearers then there would be no need to bring out laws to do so.
Some people need protecting from themselves,as proven by clearly not knowing the difference.
All those that have died or been injured through not wearing a belt thought they would be all right,how wrong every one of them were.
And yes some people may have died because of a seatbelt but those are a fraction of those that die because they are not.
Suggesting 'Some people need protecting from themselves' when what you actually mean is 'All people need protecting from themselves' as the law applies to all regardless of their reasons, just means you are the other side of libertarian divide which cannot be reached.
In my lifetime helmets in cars will be introduced, and probably motorcycles will be banned, and your same arguments will apply. There is no common sense as to why you wouldn't wear a helmet in a car.
I was against the smoking ban, yet I don't smoke and have more reason than most to dislike smoking, I was against the seatbelt law yet I always wear a seatbelt. Does any of that make any sense to you?
"Suggesting 'Some people need protecting from themselves' when what you actually mean is 'All people need protecting from themselves' as the law applies to all regardless of their reasons, just means you are the other side of libertarian divide which cannot be reached."
Incorrect, some people wear seat belts, it is the idiots that don't that the law is there for, so 'Some people need protecting from themselves' is perfectly valid.
"In my lifetime helmets in cars will be introduced, and probably motorcycles will be banned, and your same arguments will apply. There is no common sense as to why you wouldn't wear a helmet in a car."
I think this is incorrect too, the technology is moving towards driverless vehicles. The advances in car safety, making cars that don't explode on impact (Minis aside ), seatbelts and airbags ect are making the wearing of helmets superfluous.
"I was against the smoking ban, yet I don't smoke and have more reason than most to dislike smoking, I was against the seatbelt law yet I always wear a seatbelt. Does any of that make any sense to you?"
No, not at all? The issue of smoking is not relevant to seatbelts, since the smoking ban was to protect innocent people from the effects of secondary smoking. As a non-smoker I support that, why should others suffer from the poor lifestyle choices of others? Wearing seatbelts is primarily to protect the individual (with the added bonus of protecting others in the case of rear seat passengers) and save costs of injuries.
All this has been discussed already if you read through the posts.
Argue as much as you like, the facts still remain. Seatbelts are proven to reduce injuries and their effect on demand for hospitals and emergency services, are provided in most vehicles and are quick and easy to put on and take off. They have also been made adjustable to suit people of differing heights.
For those objecting to being told what to do (I personally think you need to grow up) you still have choices. you can use alternative transport that does not require them (bus, cycle, motorbike, car without them fitted ect), break the law and not wear one or move to a country that does not require it, such as India.
Can't see many takers on that one myself, much as you like to moan and complain, you would still prefer the good life in the UK over a third World country methinks!
So the civil rights arguments are also invalid, or am I missing something?
Incorrect, some people wear seat belts, it is the idiots that don't that the law is there for, so 'Some people need protecting from themselves' is perfectly valid.
"In my lifetime helmets in cars will be introduced, and probably motorcycles will be banned, and your same arguments will apply. There is no common sense as to why you wouldn't wear a helmet in a car."
I think this is incorrect too, the technology is moving towards driverless vehicles. The advances in car safety, making cars that don't explode on impact (Minis aside
), seatbelts and airbags ect are making the wearing of helmets superfluous."I was against the smoking ban, yet I don't smoke and have more reason than most to dislike smoking, I was against the seatbelt law yet I always wear a seatbelt. Does any of that make any sense to you?"
No, not at all? The issue of smoking is not relevant to seatbelts, since the smoking ban was to protect innocent people from the effects of secondary smoking. As a non-smoker I support that, why should others suffer from the poor lifestyle choices of others? Wearing seatbelts is primarily to protect the individual (with the added bonus of protecting others in the case of rear seat passengers) and save costs of injuries.
All this has been discussed already if you read through the posts.
Argue as much as you like, the facts still remain. Seatbelts are proven to reduce injuries and their effect on demand for hospitals and emergency services, are provided in most vehicles and are quick and easy to put on and take off. They have also been made adjustable to suit people of differing heights.
For those objecting to being told what to do (I personally think you need to grow up) you still have choices. you can use alternative transport that does not require them (bus, cycle, motorbike, car without them fitted ect), break the law and not wear one or move to a country that does not require it, such as India.
Can't see many takers on that one myself, much as you like to moan and complain, you would still prefer the good life in the UK over a third World country methinks!
So the civil rights arguments are also invalid, or am I missing something?
JagXJR said:
"I was against the smoking ban, yet I don't smoke and have more reason than most to dislike smoking, I was against the seatbelt law yet I always wear a seatbelt. Does any of that make any sense to you?"
No, not at all? The issue of smoking is not relevant to seatbelts, since the smoking ban was to protect innocent people from the effects of secondary smoking. As a non-smoker I support that, why should others suffer from the poor lifestyle choices of others? Wearing seatbelts is primarily to protect the individual (with the added bonus of protecting others in the case of rear seat passengers) and save costs of injuries.
The smoking issue is very relevant. You change what you say about it which is why it keeps being raised. The parallels are very clear: protect innocent people, yes; lifestyle choice, yes; primarily to protect the individual, yes; added bonus of protecting others, yes; save costs of injuries, yes.No, not at all? The issue of smoking is not relevant to seatbelts, since the smoking ban was to protect innocent people from the effects of secondary smoking. As a non-smoker I support that, why should others suffer from the poor lifestyle choices of others? Wearing seatbelts is primarily to protect the individual (with the added bonus of protecting others in the case of rear seat passengers) and save costs of injuries.
On the subject of motorcycle helmets, these do nothing for reducing the demand on NHS services. Back in the early 90s we used to have meetings with doctors and emetrgency services about aibags, seatbelts and crash performance. One of the surgeons from the N&N said the immediate after effect of the legislation for wearing helmets resulted in a massive increase in workload. Prior to that most motorcylce accidents just needed a big plastic bag and a brush, after that there was a well preserved head on top of a bit of mess to try to put back together.
Abbott said:
On the subject of motorcycle helmets, these do nothing for reducing the demand on NHS services. Back in the early 90s we used to have meetings with doctors and emetrgency services about aibags, seatbelts and crash performance. One of the surgeons from the N&N said the immediate after effect of the legislation for wearing helmets resulted in a massive increase in workload. Prior to that most motorcylce accidents just needed a big plastic bag and a brush, after that there was a well preserved head on top of a bit of mess to try to put back together.
Harsh but true. In the 90s there was a theory that airbags caused ankle and foot injuries. On further investigation it was found that most of these people would never have been in a position to complain about their mangled feet otherwise.Abbott said:
New POD said:
New POD said:
wearing a seat belt in a modern car, will prevent the airbag from killing you.
I can't (mentally) put the key in the ignition, without putting my seat belt on. Having worked on airbag connectors for Lucas back in the late 90's, I think the US spec airbags are more likely to kill you as they are slightly bigger. Either way, airbags, are designed to be work with a seat belt. No car in this family is going anywhere if someone is not belted in.!!
The scary thoughts about the possible outcome of not being secured in the car were established and written in stone at my visit to Vti in Sweden (crash lab) a couple of weeks ago. Both child safety in cars AND general occupant safety ie. belt wearing and lack thereof were lectured on.
As a trained Nurse assistant, I have seen my share of injuries - all of them due to traffic stupidity such as lack of seatbelts.
The scary thoughts about the possible outcome of not being secured in the car were established and written in stone at my visit to Vti in Sweden (crash lab) a couple of weeks ago. Both child safety in cars AND general occupant safety ie. belt wearing and lack thereof were lectured on.
As a trained Nurse assistant, I have seen my share of injuries - all of them due to traffic stupidity such as lack of seatbelts.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff