RE: Clunk Click
Monday 3rd February 2003
Clunk Click
Are you one of the numpties with a feeble excuse?
Discussion
In the event of a crash, an unrestrained back seat passenger is hurled forwards, often inflicting severe injury on those in the front seats. Even at 30 miles per hour, an average sized adult who is propelled forwards on a sudden stop assumes the force of a small elephant.
I heard it was about 3 tons which is about right. I make sure if someone is sitting behind me that they have their belt on.
Yep would prefer a 3" harness, four point with quick release.
Whilst I agree that wearing seatbelts is sensible (I do) I don't believe it should be a law. The law is protect people from other people not to be a nanny state. I know someone that doesn't wear a seatbelt her reasoning is very simple she doesn't want to survive as she had a relative that did but was seriously injured. I personally don't agree with her but I agree that it is her right to choose.
Educate not legistrate IMHO.
Educate not legistrate IMHO.
smeagol said: Whilst I agree that wearing seatbelts is sensible (I do) I don't believe it should be a law. The law is protect people from other people not to be a nanny state. I know someone that doesn't wear a seatbelt her reasoning is very simple she doesn't want to survive as she had a relative that did but was seriously injured. I personally don't agree with her but I agree that it is her right to choose.
Educate not legistrate IMHO.
But there are a lot more accidents that don't cause death than do. More often than saving your life, a seatbelt would turn a "serious injury" into a "walk-away-muttering-and-cursing" accident.
But I assume you've had this discussion.
Interesting timing... given this thread last week... www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=2&f=23&t=27775&h=0&hw=seat+belt
I've automatically put on seatbelts all my life, whether i'm in the front or back. It's not the most strenuous excersise in the world...
As long as the person behind me has a seat belt on, i'm not bothered. If someone's in my car I'll ask them to belt up, if only for the sake of my dashboard and windscreen.
Everyone know's the danger, It's their choice.
As long as the person behind me has a seat belt on, i'm not bothered. If someone's in my car I'll ask them to belt up, if only for the sake of my dashboard and windscreen.
Everyone know's the danger, It's their choice.
But there are a lot more accidents that don't cause death than do. More often than saving your life, a seatbelt would turn a "serious injury" into a "walk-away-muttering-and-cursing" accident.
But I assume you've had this discussion.
Yes, and as I said before I don't agree with her views on seatbelts but I respect her views of freedom of choice. When people sit in my car they wear a seatbelt (even my friend) thats because its my decision not some law.
>> Edited by smeagol on Monday 3rd February 15:34
Even at 30 miles per hour, an average sized adult who is propelled forwards on a sudden stop assumes the force of a small elephant.
My ex was the size of a small ellephant before being propelled... tho she came in useful at trackdays as ballast to help ballance the front/rear weight difference. Only thing was I needed a nitrious burst to compensate for the power to weight adjustments... QUESTION:- Why don't they fit airbags in the back of the headrests of the front seats then?..or elephant traps ?
smeagol said: Whilst I agree that wearing seatbelts is sensible (I do) I don't believe it should be a law.
I agree a bit. I think seatbelts in the back should be law, because you're endangering the poeple in the front by not wearing them. Otherwise, it's up to you.
I did hear one story about a lorry driver being run over by his own lorry after having gone through the windscreen in part one of the accident.
Agent006 said:
smeagol said: Whilst I agree that wearing seatbelts is sensible (I do) I don't believe it should be a law.
I agree a bit. I think seatbelts in the back should be law, because you're endangering the poeple in the front by not wearing them. Otherwise, it's up to you.
I did hear one story about a lorry driver being run over by his own lorry after having gone through the windscreen in part one of the accident.
I do believe it is a law,but we all break the law every time we go over the speed limit. what it should be is second nature as a courtesy to the poor soul in front of you !
anoys me when you see politicians not belted in back of cars being interviewed, and nobody prosicutes them
get those belts on.
Ive seen the mess that people make and the vaste cost to public expense when they "kiss" the windscreen. Its not just them they affect!
I stood at a junction the other day waiting to cross and watched the cars go by. No word of a lie 1 in 3 cars had the driver without a belt. Most were women with kids on their way to school. AND now youve got me ranting
what about little Johnny leaning through the front seats from the back? 
Hello!
Some people just shouldnt be allowed on the road.
I feel better now!
Ive seen the mess that people make and the vaste cost to public expense when they "kiss" the windscreen. Its not just them they affect!
I stood at a junction the other day waiting to cross and watched the cars go by. No word of a lie 1 in 3 cars had the driver without a belt. Most were women with kids on their way to school. AND now youve got me ranting
what about little Johnny leaning through the front seats from the back? Hello!
Some people just shouldnt be allowed on the road.
I feel better now!
Cos then you would have the person in the front seat explosively accelerated into the seatbelt.
ultimasimon said:
QUESTION:- Why don't they fit airbags in the back of the headrests of the front seats then?..
I would imagine that a fair amount of crushing would ensue.
The only way around this would be to make the seat a lot stronger/heavier etc & then of course it would need stronger mount points, the car would get even heavier & slower....
ultimasimon said: QUESTION:- Why don't they fit airbags in the back of the headrests of the front seats then?..or elephant traps ?
According to this week's Autocar, Renault will be offering rear seat belt air bags on the new Scenic. They will apparantly offer the same protection as a standard front bag.
I think that what the people who think that having to wear a seatbelt is an infringement of their civil liberties forget is that the ambulance crews and hospital staff DON'T get the choice of whether to treat them or not!
We have a badly overstretched NHS and nobody likes paying higher taxes but if someone comes in badly injured, you have to help them - even if that means the old dear who got mugged has to wait on the trolley for another 4 hours because her injuries aren't quite as serious.
Maybe the ambulance paramedic should poke his head in through the car window and say
"Ah, I see you weren't wearing your seatbelt sir (madam?) Well, I respect your right not to do so and I shall now leave you to enjoy your horrible and painful death without further interruption. Good night!"
Now I'm a bit guilty of double standards here because like many on this forum I have been guilty of exceeding the speed limit on the odd occasion (Ahem!) and one could also argue that this is just as selfish for the same reasons but in my defence (OK, there IS no defence) I'd plead that excess speed appears to be a contributing factor to only 7% of accidents whereas I think the injury / fatatlity rates for people not wearing seatsbelts but travelling within the speed limit are worse but can't prove this!
P.S. A severe frontal crash is generally reckoned to generate decelerations between 20 and 30g so that should mean that a porky git such as myself weighing 95kg will impose forces on the belt of between 2 and 3 tonnes! Certainly, seat belt anchorages get tested to about 3 tonnes force (per seating position) during the type approval test!
We have a badly overstretched NHS and nobody likes paying higher taxes but if someone comes in badly injured, you have to help them - even if that means the old dear who got mugged has to wait on the trolley for another 4 hours because her injuries aren't quite as serious.
Maybe the ambulance paramedic should poke his head in through the car window and say
"Ah, I see you weren't wearing your seatbelt sir (madam?) Well, I respect your right not to do so and I shall now leave you to enjoy your horrible and painful death without further interruption. Good night!"
Now I'm a bit guilty of double standards here because like many on this forum I have been guilty of exceeding the speed limit on the odd occasion (Ahem!) and one could also argue that this is just as selfish for the same reasons but in my defence (OK, there IS no defence) I'd plead that excess speed appears to be a contributing factor to only 7% of accidents whereas I think the injury / fatatlity rates for people not wearing seatsbelts but travelling within the speed limit are worse but can't prove this!
P.S. A severe frontal crash is generally reckoned to generate decelerations between 20 and 30g so that should mean that a porky git such as myself weighing 95kg will impose forces on the belt of between 2 and 3 tonnes! Certainly, seat belt anchorages get tested to about 3 tonnes force (per seating position) during the type approval test!
That sort of attitude means that no-one should participate in sport. "Ahh I see you were racing a car well sorry mate thats dangerous", or "I see you like hang gliding, sorry mate thats dangerous", "oh you broke an ankle whilst playing football, well its your own fault". I used to high-board dive (officially classed as a dangerous sport according to my life insurance at the time). If I had an accident do I not get NHS medical care?
The list goes on. Yes not wearing a seatbelt is stupid and dangerous but so is "jumping off a plank 10m up with a pair of underpants on". I pay my NI as does my friend. Legislation to "protect you from yourself" is never a wise law, there are always other things which are just as dangerous. I don't drink or smoke but I have no problems with people that do. Do we say "sorry your liver/heart damage is your own fault". The paramedics etc. still have to treat the examples I've mentioned and maybe granny is still waiting.
Its legislation like seatbelts laws that bring in other nanny laws. Canabis laws were brought in for "our safety", the 70mph limit was brought in for "our safety". Rememeber that speed limiters are being trialed by the govt. will they be compulsory for "our safety"?
BTW 7% of accidents are attributed to speed but 95% of deaths occur in high speed accidents (these include within the limit 60+60 = 120mph on a country road head on). Nothing special about this statistic just simple physics. The faster you're going the more likely you are to be seriously injured or killed. Using your argument if I brought in a law to restrict every car to 20mph then it would reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries dramatically so must be okay. I'm sure you would THEN start talking about civil liberties (as would I) there is NO difference between this and seatbelts.
>> Edited by smeagol on Tuesday 4th February 22:48
The list goes on. Yes not wearing a seatbelt is stupid and dangerous but so is "jumping off a plank 10m up with a pair of underpants on". I pay my NI as does my friend. Legislation to "protect you from yourself" is never a wise law, there are always other things which are just as dangerous. I don't drink or smoke but I have no problems with people that do. Do we say "sorry your liver/heart damage is your own fault". The paramedics etc. still have to treat the examples I've mentioned and maybe granny is still waiting.
Its legislation like seatbelts laws that bring in other nanny laws. Canabis laws were brought in for "our safety", the 70mph limit was brought in for "our safety". Rememeber that speed limiters are being trialed by the govt. will they be compulsory for "our safety"?
BTW 7% of accidents are attributed to speed but 95% of deaths occur in high speed accidents (these include within the limit 60+60 = 120mph on a country road head on). Nothing special about this statistic just simple physics. The faster you're going the more likely you are to be seriously injured or killed. Using your argument if I brought in a law to restrict every car to 20mph then it would reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries dramatically so must be okay. I'm sure you would THEN start talking about civil liberties (as would I) there is NO difference between this and seatbelts.
>> Edited by smeagol on Tuesday 4th February 22:48
With the greatest respect to all the points raised, unless you have first hand experience you can't fully comprehend the issues.
I would be dead without a seatbelt, impact speed estimated at 100 mph and I got out and walked away with a broken wrist, broken bone in my foot and severe bruising (I had a purple seat belt mark all across the chest and hips).
I had been one of those people unconvinced about the law, but I wouldn't have survived without it. In my opinion the seat belt law is sensible and the risks of it causing injury is far outweighed by the potential benefits.
You may note I feel strongly about this nowadays.
I would be dead without a seatbelt, impact speed estimated at 100 mph and I got out and walked away with a broken wrist, broken bone in my foot and severe bruising (I had a purple seat belt mark all across the chest and hips).
I had been one of those people unconvinced about the law, but I wouldn't have survived without it. In my opinion the seat belt law is sensible and the risks of it causing injury is far outweighed by the potential benefits.
You may note I feel strongly about this nowadays.
JSG nobody is doubting that seatbelts save lives. Its whether or not its the law is the point. I wore my seatbelt before it became law because its sensible to do so. Making it a law to protect "stupid people" is wrong as there is plenty of things to cause natural slection in this world. You cannot (and should not IMHO) legislate everything, people have to be responsible for their actions.
I believe the police have enough to do without getting them to nursemaid people who can't put on a seatbelt.
I believe the police have enough to do without getting them to nursemaid people who can't put on a seatbelt.
Speed Matters | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff