Shocking stuff .....
Discussion
Teen thrown up into power lines
January 29, 2003
A TEENAGER in the US state of Missouri who was thrown into the air when his Jeep struck another car, saved himself by grabbing onto power lines and hanging on until he was rescued, authorities said.
Joe Thompson III, 18, was suspended six to 7.5 metres in the air for about 20 minutes. He even managed to call his dad on a mobile while waiting for rescue.
Thompson, flown to a Kansas City hospital, was treated and released.
"God was definitely in control, that's all I can say," he said.
Sergeant Ray Myers of the Blue Springs police said Thompson was "bear-hugging" the wires when help arrived.
"He had apparently snagged the lower wire, and the momentum carried him over," he said. "He had two wires wrapped together and he was just hanging on to them."
Police said a car driven by another young man struck the Jeep Wrangler driven by Thompson. They said the Jeep spun around and rolled at least once.
Thompson, who said he was not wearing a seat belt, was thrown into the air but managed to grab the power wires and hang on until a fire crew was able to get him down.
January 29, 2003
A TEENAGER in the US state of Missouri who was thrown into the air when his Jeep struck another car, saved himself by grabbing onto power lines and hanging on until he was rescued, authorities said.
Joe Thompson III, 18, was suspended six to 7.5 metres in the air for about 20 minutes. He even managed to call his dad on a mobile while waiting for rescue.
Thompson, flown to a Kansas City hospital, was treated and released.
"God was definitely in control, that's all I can say," he said.
Sergeant Ray Myers of the Blue Springs police said Thompson was "bear-hugging" the wires when help arrived.
"He had apparently snagged the lower wire, and the momentum carried him over," he said. "He had two wires wrapped together and he was just hanging on to them."
Police said a car driven by another young man struck the Jeep Wrangler driven by Thompson. They said the Jeep spun around and rolled at least once.
Thompson, who said he was not wearing a seat belt, was thrown into the air but managed to grab the power wires and hang on until a fire crew was able to get him down.
apache said: what is it with yanks and their reluctance to wear seatbelts? I cannot get my head around this, is it something to do with 'freedom' of choice? even the cops don't bother with them
One of the problems resulting from not wearing seat belts is that manufactureres time air bags to go off slightly earlier, so as to be of use to the average sized american driver. If you happen to be a significantly smaller driver, you stand a good chance of hitting the bag as it inflates and this does you serious harm. Several people have been killed as a result of this, (probably still hotly disputed though).
apache said: what is it with yanks and their reluctance to wear seatbelts? I cannot get my head around this, is it something to do with 'freedom' of choice? even the cops don't bother with them
Er well yes it is actually. My view is that nobody has the right to tell me I have to wear a seatbelt. Same goes for helmets on motorcycles. Once you start taking away some freedom then then some clown will argue that another then another should also go.
Over here in West Oz it is against the law to ride a push bike without wearing an approved helmut.
Strewth.
Er well yes it is actually. My view is that nobody has the right to tell me I have to wear a seatbelt. Same goes for helmets on motorcycles. Once you start taking away some freedom then then some clown will argue that another then another should also go.
Over here in West Oz it is against the law to ride a push bike without wearing an approved helmut.
Strewth.
rjo said:
Er well yes it is actually. My view is that nobody has the right to tell me I have to wear a seatbelt. Same goes for helmets on motorcycles. Once you start taking away some freedom then then some clown will argue that another then another should also go.
Over here in West Oz it is against the law to ride a push bike without wearing an approved helmut.
Strewth.
The day you cause an accident in which a third person gets killed because it weared no belt, you'd wish he had weared one.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not predicting that you'll cause an accident, but accidents happen accidentally and nobody's immune against the fate.
Bodo said:
rjo said:
Er well yes it is actually. My view is that nobody has the right to tell me I have to wear a seatbelt. Same goes for helmets on motorcycles. Once you start taking away some freedom then then some clown will argue that another then another should also go.
Over here in West Oz it is against the law to ride a push bike without wearing an approved helmut.
Strewth.
The day you cause an accident in which a third person gets killed because it weared no belt, you'd wish he had weared one.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not predicting that you'll cause an accident, but accidents happen accidentally and nobody's immune against the fate.
Looks like we will have to agree to disagree Bodo.
I still think freedom for the individual to choose is paramount.
If we give in to the argument that we must do whatever is necessary to save injury or death well, then what. Perhaps everyone should wear a helmut when driving a car? Should we ban soft tops or motorcycles?
Okay, perhaps the Yanks are a bit foolish to not take advantage of the safety offorded by seatbelts. But they recognise that people should have the right to choose.
A knock on from the right not to wear seat belts is that all cars will have to have nine squadzillion air bags fitted (ok the figure might be slightly exagerrated)- just to protect those who choose not to protect themselves.
The freedom thing works in USA where you have your own insurance for body (human) repairs .. but over here we all pay for that regardless .. if someone refuses to wear a seatbelt then suffers serious chest injuries (say) because of it, they should forfeit their right to free NHS repairs to their body IMO. But then of course I'd like to see a situation where we pay on a per-use basis.
Joolz . (fit and healthy at the mo so paying for ill people everywhere... thank me later.tongue firmly in cheek)
The freedom thing works in USA where you have your own insurance for body (human) repairs .. but over here we all pay for that regardless .. if someone refuses to wear a seatbelt then suffers serious chest injuries (say) because of it, they should forfeit their right to free NHS repairs to their body IMO. But then of course I'd like to see a situation where we pay on a per-use basis.
Joolz . (fit and healthy at the mo so paying for ill people everywhere... thank me later.tongue firmly in cheek)
Although i agree with the postings regarding freedom of choice, as a driver, dont you think that the safety of yourself and your passengers is more important than having to wear a piece of safety gear?
As for complaining about wearing a helmet on a bike, pedal or motorcycle, that makes total sense to me, after all, tough nuts are hard to crack.
Mind you, i have this theory that nature sorts out the stupid folks by killing them off..........hope im not next.
As for complaining about wearing a helmet on a bike, pedal or motorcycle, that makes total sense to me, after all, tough nuts are hard to crack.
Mind you, i have this theory that nature sorts out the stupid folks by killing them off..........hope im not next.
Problem is... it's not just you (as the driver) or the passengers it can affect.
In a previous job, I worked in accident investigation... putting together what happened in the accident from the clues... skid marks etc... since no one saw the accident, and no one survived.
I think one of the worst one's I ever saw, was a head on collision (around 40mph) and the driver of car A had not been wearing a seatbelt.. nor has the rear seat passenger.
The rear seat passenger was thrown forward... went through the windscreen... through the windscreen of the other car and had killed the driver of car B... who was wearing a seatbelt and would (most likely) have survived the initial impact....
In a previous job, I worked in accident investigation... putting together what happened in the accident from the clues... skid marks etc... since no one saw the accident, and no one survived.
I think one of the worst one's I ever saw, was a head on collision (around 40mph) and the driver of car A had not been wearing a seatbelt.. nor has the rear seat passenger.
The rear seat passenger was thrown forward... went through the windscreen... through the windscreen of the other car and had killed the driver of car B... who was wearing a seatbelt and would (most likely) have survived the initial impact....
Yertis said: Don't tell me scary stories like that - I've got to drive later on...
Plenty more horror sotries where that came from... like the Lotus that got wedged under a truck... :gulp:
The lorry driver who took the keys out the ignition to unlock the glovebox to get his choccy bar... steering lock came on, and he went over the side...
Tell you what thoough.. once you've seen a crash test... makes you think twice...!
I am afraid that I am with the majority here also - seatbelts are one of the most simplest and easiest safety systems fitted to modern vehicles. They have no doubt saved countless lives and will continue to do so in the future....
In the UK we have a very good car safety record and if part of that is the legislation for the compulsary wearing of seat belts then good.
Even low speed impacts can be fatal without seat belts (as illustrated rather graphically by Podie above) - so it seems pretty pointless to not wear one. Personally I have managed to turn a car on its roof. All three of us in the car had seat belts on and all walked away with a couple of small cuts (mine being the worst, but then again I am the tallest!). Without seat belts I would hate to think what the consequences would have been - we did manage to slide down the road for something like 25 metres!!!
As for helmets and motorbikes! Yes, you should have to wear a helmet... Would you have your electricity system in your house bare and open on the floor? With no earth and live cables everywhere? You know the risks and you think that you wont touch them so its safe isnt it? Well all it takes is a small mistake and then BANG.... your stuffed. No one goes out to deliberately have an accident - thats what it means - it happened accidentally.... if serious injury can be prevented then yes, stop it from happening....
Legislation is a fine line - and I for one certainly dont think that the current enforcement of seat belts and helmets in the UK is a bad thing....
Cheers,
Paul
P.S. Crap example above as I couldnt think of anything better!!! Sorry.
In the UK we have a very good car safety record and if part of that is the legislation for the compulsary wearing of seat belts then good.
Even low speed impacts can be fatal without seat belts (as illustrated rather graphically by Podie above) - so it seems pretty pointless to not wear one. Personally I have managed to turn a car on its roof. All three of us in the car had seat belts on and all walked away with a couple of small cuts (mine being the worst, but then again I am the tallest!). Without seat belts I would hate to think what the consequences would have been - we did manage to slide down the road for something like 25 metres!!!
As for helmets and motorbikes! Yes, you should have to wear a helmet... Would you have your electricity system in your house bare and open on the floor? With no earth and live cables everywhere? You know the risks and you think that you wont touch them so its safe isnt it? Well all it takes is a small mistake and then BANG.... your stuffed. No one goes out to deliberately have an accident - thats what it means - it happened accidentally.... if serious injury can be prevented then yes, stop it from happening....
Legislation is a fine line - and I for one certainly dont think that the current enforcement of seat belts and helmets in the UK is a bad thing....
Cheers,
Paul
P.S. Crap example above as I couldnt think of anything better!!! Sorry.
Until someone can prove that seat belts have saved lives and that their use did not merely make for more casualties outside of the car instead of inside the car, I reckon they're bollocks.. wear seatbelt, drive less carefully...
And the freedom to choose thing is important too..
What is also bullshit is that in the US cars have to have airbags but they don't have to wear their seatbelts (if this is true)..
Either you want safety or you don't, fcukers!
But then the law there is a screwed as it is here in a lot of ways..
Edited because of Podie's moaning which turned out only barely justifiable..
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Wednesday 29th January 10:47
And the freedom to choose thing is important too..
What is also bullshit is that in the US cars have to have airbags but they don't have to wear their seatbelts (if this is true)..
Either you want safety or you don't, fcukers! But then the law there is a screwed as it is here in a lot of ways..
Edited because of Podie's moaning which turned out only barely justifiable..
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Wednesday 29th January 10:47
Went on a thing a while ago at Mallory Park for the launch of the A3, bit of an activity day, tanks, track driving etc but they also did a presentation about what happens after a crash. Basically they turn you upside down in an A4 and show you how to get out.
This is because they reckon that roadside a lot of serious injuries are caused by people panicking when upside down stationary and just releasing the seat belt leaving your neck supporting your entire weight and snapping.
Sobering stuff really.
Matt.
This is because they reckon that roadside a lot of serious injuries are caused by people panicking when upside down stationary and just releasing the seat belt leaving your neck supporting your entire weight and snapping.
Sobering stuff really.
Matt.
CarZee said: Until someone can prove that seat belts have saved lives and that their use did not merely make for more casualties outside of the car instead of inside the car.
I reckon they're bollocks.. wear seatbelt, drive less carefully.
And the freedom to choose thing is important too..
What is bullshit is that in the US cars have to have airbags but they don't have to wear their seatbelts (if this is true)..
But then the law there is a screwed as it is here in a lot of ways..
er... that's a confusing post CZ... shouldn't there be a negative in there somewhere?
Forums | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff