179 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Phoebus]

I seem to recall a study that showed wearing the old style seatbelt wiithout a shoulder strap was more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt at high speed. Because it only distributed the force across the abdomen/pelvis in high speed collisions it tended to (partially) bisect people and being thrown from the vehicle was more survivable.

However modern vehicles have shoulder straps in the rear seats, so it's not much of an issue these days unless if you're riding in a classic car on the highway.

[KenKenpachi]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...I check it's not the goverments money, it is our tax dollar and choosing the to take an extremly low risk of injury is in no way idiotic. I

Well if I have to pay because someone gets hurt for not using their seatbelt I still don't think it makes it right. Either way someone is paying for someones stupidity.

Yeah, tell that to the idiot that was turned into fried chicken when he got stuck in his vehicle because of seat belt malfunction and his vehicle burst in to flames. May he rest in peace.

On the other hand it's totaly non-idiotic to pay taxes to your goverment for services that you'd rather people not use... oh and lets forget that on top of all this we pay Insurance that is also suppose to pay for the same service... uhmm, you're probably right,  totaly wise.

If only there was some tool to hmm....cut the belt, like a blade, or a sword but smaller. Like a Pocket or safety knife. I must invent that and save millions!

[chelseaisthepan]

It's really not that big of a deal..

If it has the potential to save your life, why not wear it?

[Milana_Saros]

sympathy4saren wrote...

In Pennsylvania, it is requirement to wear seatbelts. Why? Furthermore, motorcyclists who have over two years cycle driving experience and over age 21 don't need to wear a helmet.

What's up with this whole ordeal?

You mean it's NOT a requirement in every country/state? Wow...just....wow.

Here it's pretty much something taken for granted. You wear them or you get a fine...or fly through the goddamn windshield if you hit a moose or something.

[KenKenpachi]

Milana_Saros wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

In Pennsylvania, it is requirement to wear seatbelts. Why? Furthermore, motorcyclists who have over two years cycle driving experience and over age 21 don't need to wear a helmet.

What's up with this whole ordeal?

You mean it's NOT a requirement in every country/state? Wow...just....wow.

Here it's pretty much something taken for granted. You wear them or you get a fine...or fly through the goddamn windshield if you hit a moose or something.

The indavidual States decide alot of Laws on there own in the US. For instance in South Carolina one doesn't have to have insurance. If you get into a wreck you better have the cash, or go to prison. Ah well. Not that its a bad thing IMO, but it makes for neat situations, for instance a citizen of New York state can't buy a huge number of things in another state.

[Eurypterid]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Yeah, tell that to the idiot that was turned into fried chicken when he got stuck in his vehicle because of seat belt malfunction and his vehicle burst in to flames. May he rest in peace.

Because that happens so often, right? Like, way more than people suffering serious injury or death from not wearing a seat belt.

On the other hand it's totaly non-idiotic to pay taxes to your goverment for services that you'd rather people not use... oh and lets forget that on top of all this we pay Insurance that is also suppose to pay for the same service... uhmm, you're probably right,  totaly wise.

It's at this point that I bow out. I don't even... wow.

[Milana_Saros]

chunkyman wrote...

I don't understand seatbelt laws either. The decision to wear seatbelts is something that only affects me, so I don't see why we need to be fined if we decide not to.

And this is why there are so many unnecessary, completely ****ed up traffic accidents out there annually. People thinking like this. As already stated, when you nodge a couple ton metal bucket on the move, it stops being about you, yourself and...you.

[vometia]

I remember when it was made compulsory in the UK about 30 years ago, and heard exactly the same arguments against enforcement then. Which, it has to be said, were mostly (if not entirely) specious. Moving to the present day, it's rare that I don't wear a seatbelt, generally only if I'm in a very old car that doesn't have rear seatbelts fitted; and I have to say it does actually feel pretty unsafe now. Especially taking corners with a driver who likes to put their foot down...

[Blastback]

Milana_Saros wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

In Pennsylvania, it is requirement to wear seatbelts. Why? Furthermore, motorcyclists who have over two years cycle driving experience and over age 21 don't need to wear a helmet.

What's up with this whole ordeal?

You mean it's NOT a requirement in every country/state? Wow...just....wow.

Here it's pretty much something taken for granted. You wear them or you get a fine...or fly through the goddamn windshield if you hit a moose or something.

Where do you live that hitting a moose would be an issue?  I like moose.

And I will never understand why some people have problems with seatbelts.  Really, what's the problem?

[Lord Sullivan]

Eurypterid wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Yeah, tell that to the idiot that was turned into fried chicken when he got stuck in his vehicle because of seat belt malfunction and his vehicle burst in to flames. May he rest in peace.

Because that happens so often, right? Like, way more than people suffering serious injury or death from not wearing a seat belt.

On the other hand it's totaly non-idiotic to pay taxes to your goverment for services that you'd rather people not use... oh and lets forget that on top of all this we pay Insurance that is also suppose to pay for the same service... uhmm, you're probably right,  totaly wise.

It's at this point that I bow out. I don't even... wow.

You say "Like this happens everyday", no of course it doesn't, just like major/critical accidents where lifes would be in danger if the seat belt wasn't on don't happen everyday and happen in a very small percentage.

As for the paying taxes and insurrance, are you one of those people that believe we wouldn't have to pay for taxes or insurrance if no one would get in to accidents? If so, well dream on, the goverment would get creative and still make sure it would be replaced with other bogus taxes and it would still be required to buy insurance regardless for the "Just in case" factor.

[chunkyman]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Anything can potentially affect others, but not wearing seatbelts predictably, and often DOES. Thus, as I said, it is not only about protecting you, it is as much about protecting the other people that share the car and/or the road with you.

The person not wearing a seatbelt causing serious injury or death to someone else isn't some sort of a rare freak occurrance - it happens all too often.

When we have a simple action, such as putting on a seatbelt, without which being in trafic in general is more dangerous for everyone, it's completely understandable and appropriate that it is made a legal requirement.

Do you have statistics showing that not wearing seat belts often affects others? If it can be empirically demonstrated that one person wearing a seatbelt often saves other peoples lives, I will consider agreeing with you. Until then, I will err on the side of letting people decide on their own.

Another thing to consider is risk compensation. The Society of Automotive Engineers published a study showing that making people wear seat belts made them more likely to speed, and that the total number of injuries and fatalities were more or less equal between places that required seat belts and those that didn't. This issue isn't black or white.

Modifié par chunkyman, 14 juillet 2011 - 05:53 .

[Swordfishtrombone]

chunkyman wrote...

Do you have statistics showing that not wearing seat belts often affects others? If it can be empirically demonstrated that one person wearing a seatbelt often saves other peoples lives, I will consider agreeing with you. Until then, I will err on the side of letting people decide on their own.

Another thing to consider is risk compensation. The Society of Automotive Engineers published a study showing that making people wear seat belts made them more likely to speed, and that the total number of injuries and fatalities were more or less equal between places that required seat belts and those that didn't. This issue isn't black or white.

Here's a good article on how wearing or not wearing seatbelts affects rates of death and injury. Most notably,  the effect of having one person in the car that's not wearing a seatbelt on the others who are, is to increase their risk of death or injury by 50% in case of a crash. Why that is is pretty clear - you don't have a seatbelt on, you'll be thrown around in the car in whatever direction the hit comes from, and the forces can be quite extreme. In a bad crash for the unfortunate person that's in your way, it's like an elephant jumping on them.

Also, if you're thrown out of the car, I sure wouldn't want to be in your flight path, with the forces involved.

Risk compensation is of course a problem - I've heard of it in connection to having safer, better crash tested cars leading people to be more careless driving. But that doesn't address my point - if you, and everyone in your car is wearing a seatbelt, and you crash due to your driving error or recklessness, you and your passangers may get hurt, but your chances of severely injuring or killing others with your recless driving is lessened.

If, on the other hand, you don't wear a seatbelt, and your passangers are not wearing a seatbelt, and you drive a little more carefully than the average seatbelted-driver, and you still make a mistake and get into a bad crash, you and your passangers are screwed - high probablility of deaths and/or severe injuries.

Thus the passangers, who did not contribute to the crash, bear the price. This is not wearing seatbelts affecting others, not just you.

[Milana_Saros]

chunkyman wrote...

This issue isn't black or white.

It is actually...

*suffle suffle* Inserts the lock into the casing *click*

There, 2 seconds later, I'm wearing a seatbelt.




I seriously can't get it into my head why some people have to make this such a big freaking deal. It's one click. One freaking click. Something you do as a habit whenever you start up your car. I drive during winter. I drive during summer. Long trips, short trips. Burning hot temperatures, freezing sub zero temperatures. And not once have I been bothered by the existense of seatbelts.

Whenever I have something heavy on the back seat, like my computer and the monitor, I buckle them both up with seatbelts. I do NOT want a piece of plastic and metal and circuits penetrating my goddamn skull if I get in a car crash. Now imagine if the "thing" on the back seat was a bag of meat called a human. I don't want that penetrating my skull either...nor my windshield...

And I don't give a rat's ass what the supposed studies say. I prefer to rely on common sense.

[Ulous]

In the UK the main reason behind forcing us to use seatbelts is to reduce the strain on the NHS, a person with ten broken bones costs a lot more to treat than a person with no broken bones.

[Ghost Lightning]

This is why.

[J. Finley]

I always put my seatbelt on first thing whenever I get into my car. It's become a force of habit now and I never even notice it anymore. Why does wearing one bother people so much? It's not like it restricts you or anything while you're driving.

[Lord Sullivan]

Well allot of old nothing but hearsay arguments I read here as the government's campaign on it. What is really the issue is that is a personal right to make that choice, not what COULD possibly happen if you get in a certain accident that meet certain conditions.

But that's not to say I'm entirely against wearing the seat belt. I would definitely only wear it on the highway, but on service roads, boulevards and residential streets? not for a second in order to enjoy some comfort besides the fact that it is ridiculous on those types of roads.

Modifié par Lord Sullivan, 14 juillet 2011 - 09:07 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Joe Bidden says it's patriotic to pay taxes, so don't wear a seatbelt, get fined and be a patriot!

Also if you die in a collision from not wearing a seatbelt then it will help cut down on overpopulation...unless you are a zombie. But at least then you'll be a ticket paying, patriotic zombie.

[C9316]

Because it's not a big deal, it only takes a second to put on a damn seatbelt and it increases the chance of you not flying out of your seat and head first into your windshield if you get into a crash. But like most people said if a person dies because they didn't bother to put their seatbelt on, hey one less idiot on the road and great population control.

[sympathy4saren]

I just wish there would be some resemblance of consistency in laws. Not that I follow it...seatbelts are extremely uncomfortable imo and it seems cops don't give a crap...they've looked over and seen me without one many of times. Maybe its too much paperwork for a $25 fine.

I've heard, too, seatbelts can cause paralysis. No offense to those who may have a handicap, but I would rather die than be paralyzed.

[sympathy4saren]

C9316 wrote...

Because it's not a big deal, it only takes a second to put on a damn seatbelt and it increases the chance of you not flying out of your seat and head first into your windshield if you get into a crash. But like most people said if a person dies because they didn't bother to put their seatbelt on, hey one less idiot on the road and great population control.

Laws on how people live every aspect of our lives IS population control

[Boiny Bunny]

Not sure about other regions of the world, but when seatbelt laws were introduced in Australia there was a substantial drop in aggregate mortality rates, across most ages and both genders. At least here, the number of lives saved by the enforcement of seatbelts substantially outweighs the number of deaths caused by seatbelts (as per fried chicken example above).

[C9316]

sympathy4saren wrote...

C9316 wrote...

Because it's not a big deal, it only takes a second to put on a damn seatbelt and it increases the chance of you not flying out of your seat and head first into your windshield if you get into a crash. But like most people said if a person dies because they didn't bother to put their seatbelt on, hey one less idiot on the road and great population control.

Laws on how people live every aspect of our lives IS population control

Right... because a law requiring people to wear a seatbelt for their own good is controlling every aspect of their life, you must think requiring people to wear clothes is also controlling thier life as well.

[Lord Sullivan]

C9316 wrote...

Because it's not a big deal, it only takes a second to put on a damn seatbelt and it increases the chance of you not flying out of your seat and head first into your windshield if you get into a crash. But like most people said if a person dies because they didn't bother to put their seatbelt on, hey one less idiot on the road and great population control.

And what is your personal experience on the matter? I'm personaly experienced. After having a head on crash in a wall of a tunnel at approximatly 80 Km/h speed while i was wearing a seat belt, the gear did me no service as I alone with my legs and both arms prevent me from being trown forward. Now as for the reasons the accident happen was two fold, first a dum driver in the front of the line of cars moving in a flow decided to hit the breaks to slow down radicaly from 110 Km/h to 60 Km/h for absolutely no reason what so ever and my used vehicle suffered a back breaks malfuction of which made my car go wildly out of control and well, you can imagine the rest. After the ordeal I had zero injuries and I was all fine and dandy.

So, how are you going to be trown out of a vehicle at any speed between 30 Km/h to 80 Km/h again?uhmm...

Modifié par Lord Sullivan, 14 juillet 2011 - 10:43 .