Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 27
  1. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    64
    the statistics clearly state that you have a 50/50 chance of surviving wheather you are wearing a seatbelt or not. [/B]
    Hey, if EVERYONE wore their seatbelt then 100% of detahs would be associated with seatbelts.


    There's three kinds of crash.

    1) Survivable without seatbelt
    2) Not survivable without seatbelt
    3) Not survivable even with seatbelt

    If you wear a seatbelt you are protected in scenarios 1 and 2. If you do not wear it, then you'd better hope your accident is scenario 1.

    I have personally survived unscathed in an 80mph head-on crash because I was wearing a seatbelt. At 80mph I would surely have been ejected through the windshield had I not been wearing it. I don't expect many people who are in 80mph head-on collisions WITHOUT seatbelts are able to walk away from the wreckage.




  2. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Coastal Georgia
    Posts
    34,902
    .

    [Edited by JAMES 3528 on 08-29-2005 at 02:25 PM]

  3. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas
    Posts
    14,914
    Originally posted by billva
    the statistics clearly state that you have a 50/50 chance of surviving wheather you are wearing a seatbelt or not.
    No, the statistics only say that nearly 50% of crash deaths are people not wearing seat belts. The number of crashes where people are not wearing seat belts these days is MUCH smaller than the number of people who wear them.
    Proportionatly the % of people not wearing seat belts who die in an accedent is vastly higher than the proportion of people who die in accedents that do wear seat belts.

    Not wearing a seat belt when you drive a car, or a helmet when you ride a motorcycle is moronic.

    People talk about it being a freedom issue, I call BS.
    You have no freedom to choose not to use the safety gear when other people, through insurance or government benefits, are expected to pay for the injuries you recieve as a result of not using the safety gear.
    If more government is the answer, then it's a really stupid question.

  4. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    64
    If you want to drive without a seatbelt or ride without a helmet then go ahead - just please carry additional insurance to cover the significantly greater injuries you will suffer.

    That would save the rest of us from paying extra insurance/taxes to pay for your freedom to crack your melon on your bike or depart via the windshield of your car when a drunk driver crosses the median...


  5. #18

    Originally posted by James 3528
    .

    [Edited by JAMES 3528 on 08-29-2005 at 02:25 PM]
    Bahahahahaha!!

    That has got to be a first.

  6. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,944
    Seat belt laws are designed to give drivers one more thing to have to do before being able to react to jackass police officers and stop light situations. They are simply another governmental restraint.

    I know that seat belt usage has saved lives and I do not disagree with the wearing of them...for others. I cannot stand to have something holding me down and jamb my seat belt rewind mechanism so I can loosely drape the shoulder restraint in front of my chest so police think I am strapped in.

    I was a front seat passenger in a 1960's Ford Esquire that had the seat belts bolted to the floor behind the front seat. When we hit a telephone pole that tore the seat from its mounts, propelling the driver and myself into the windshield, we were injured but still alive. Had we been wearing the seat belts we would have been cut in two by the force of the two passengers in the seat behind us pushing the front seat into the dash and windshield. CASE 1 for me.

    A few years ago I lost control of a 1988 Toyota pickumup that went into a wooded area, nose dived 15 feet into a boulder, flipped; end over end, hit a tree while on the return flip and rolled into a creek. I was tossed around a bit but not serious injured. I was not wearing a belt.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  7. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Upstate, SC
    Posts
    2,919
    Well, this is my first time reading the general discussion area and the subject line caught my eye. I hate seatbelts and do not wear them and I have my reasons. I once was involved in an accident driving a 1976 Impala that was estimated to have rolled 7 times. The only reason I am still here is that I was not wearing a seatbelt because the top of the car was flattened and had I had my seatbelt on, I would not have been able to lay down and roll into the floor board when the ride got really out of control. Even the trooper working the wreck said he was glad I was unbelted. This was in 1978 before seatbelt laws around here. Then in 1981 I had a huge John Deere tractor cross the yellow line and hit my brand new 81 Chevrolet truck head on. The tractor rolled up over the front of my truck and flattened the cab. Again, if I had had on my seat belt, I wouldn't have survived because I couldn't have laid down in the seat when I seen it coming. Again, this was before seat belt laws in our area. Now, I have heard all the arguments before and against seatbelts, but I continue to not wear mine because of past experience. I have been told that I'll finally leave here one day because of it and things will even out, but I'll take that risk.

    Bobby

  8. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    in a house, Appomattox, Va.
    Posts
    3,308
    I've heard that a certain small percentage of deaths is CAUSED by wearing seatbelts. If the government takes away the right to decide, isn't the gov responsible for those deaths? Whoever makes a decision is accountable for the results.

    I've heard the insurance arguement before,too. So can I tell you not to use the cell phone then? It runs up my insur bill when you wreck. What about cigarettes? or extreme sports? Or people who don't maintain their homes? All those things run up my insurance bill, and therfore I have a right to restrict you from those things on the basis that if seatbelts are good because they help someone else's wallet, I should get the same.
    Col 3:23


    questions asked, answers received, ignorance abated

  9. #22
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Bennington, Vermont U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,864
    I get closeiphobia (sp) when I wear a set belt. But I also got a $75 ticket over in NYS for not wearing one.

    I went to home cheapo and bought these little yellow clamps. So now the belt is around me but it is not choking me to death.

    So I guess I am legal. "Yeah but you could get hurt if you have an accident."

    You could get hurt if I go postal on the highway.

  10. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    88
    Seatbelt and helmet laws are a product of the power of the insurance companys lobbyists in American politics, I would agree to carry any amount of insurance if I could ride free again without a helmet.

  11. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    S.E. Pa
    Posts
    6,192

    Talking a paramedic's point of view

    Billva mis-interpreted the data. It does not say 50% of all die and 50% live. It states about 50% of those DEATHS were not restrained. From my 12+ yr career, I'd put that number at closer to 80% who died were unretrained. Of those ejected from the car, about 90% were toast. Many ended up under the car.

    The reason for the seat belt laws was because people who scoffed at the belts then did a windshield taste test were driving up the cost of medical care and the lawsuits were going through the roof. If I hit you and you go through your windshield like a Tomahawk cruise missle, why should that be my fault? Also, also as an instructor in the Emergency Vehicle Operators Course, I can tell you there is no comparison to keeping control of your vehicle while properly restrained versus sloshing around inside. No brainer.

    For those innocent ones who think you can brace yourself, consider this:
    If you have enough time to brace your legs against the firewall, the force will be transmitted through your femurs to the acetabulum blowing out both hips. If you brace your forearms against the dash, you will snap your radius and ulna (forearm bones), your clavicle( collar bone) and, or dislocate your shoulder. Your head being full of blood will be thrown forward by inertia smashing through the windshield, possibly fracturing your cervical vertebrae. Since the phrenic nerve roots exit at C3-C5, a fracture here would stop your breathing and you'd simply suffocate to death (Million Dollar Baby was a C-2, Superman was a C-1 odontoid Fx).

    I wish I had a dollar for all the pretty girls whose faces will never look the same. I could knit a large sweater from all the hair stuck in the safety glass of the windshields I've seen. That's how we used to tell which kid was the driver--by matching the hair color with the smashed skull.

    Sure, air bags and selts can hurt. Beats the hell out of the alternatives.

    If you are going fast and hit something or somebody, you should die regardless of restraints. The fact many do survive is not a goal to strive for: not having the accident in the first place is the goal. How many soldiers want to earn a Purle Heart a second time? Only idiots... Those who have been there and understand the forces involved, the pain, and the heartache need not be told. Its all your cherries who don't listen. Kinda like those who chose to ride out Katrina.

    I'm done.

  12. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia
    Posts
    4,264
    Makes perfectly good sense to me hearthman. No one has ever had to beg me to buckle up. The benefits have always seemed clear to me.
    There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action....Mark Twain

  13. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,311
    drivers of vehicles over a certain gross tonnage need not wear a seat belt as well, and thats even in california. I don't know the tonnage though I think its in the neighborhood of three or so.

    It is hearsay so if anyone can back this up or discount i would love to know.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event