Seatbelt
- Thread starter Rob-GB
- Start date
Rob-GB
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,101
GPowers said:
Yes, it does.
While I was a child we had a road safety 'infomercial' (in the UK) that used the phrase "Clunk,Click,Every Trip". At that time my father never wore one, it was not mandatory or enforced by law, but I did. It was not that he was an unsafe driver, more that I did not trust the other road users. I didn't know them like my Dad! It had a lasting impact, if this video has a similar effect, then loved ones, partners & children may not suffer the huge pain of loss.
Rob.
Rob-GB
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,101
Here is just the one, Corwin, just one of the UK road safety campaigns. Not a Tool box, something much softer!
Julie knew her killer - seatbelt road safety advert
Julie knew her killer - seatbelt road safety advert
Over the years, I have heard too many stories of 'if (s)he hadn't been wearing a seatbelt ......'
Knowing the statistics, I find each and every one of those to be 'statistical anomalies'.....seat belts work. period.
Sure, there are all kinds of 'new' injuries caused directly by the use of a seatbelt. In general terms, injuries are only counted on those that survive.
My son had an uncle (Billy), 4 years older than him. Billy and a friend got in billy's car one night to literally 'just go down the street' to drop the car off for some maintenance work to be performed the next day. It was a short trip,less than a mile drive. Their intention was to walk back. They weren't going fast. (~25 mph at time of impact, according to the report). A patch of ice and a telephone pole later...... two 19 year old kids dead.
The coroner determined the cause of death to be 'cranial injuries',... each had suffered a broken skull on the side facing the other.
My son Ryan and 'Uncle Billy' were very close, more like brothers than uncle and nephew. He was devastated at the loss. As Ryan approached driving age (in fact even before) he became a seatbelt fanatic. Wore his belt religiously. So much so that he had even refused to be a passenger in a car if everyone was not buckled in.
As many of you are aware, Ryan too is no longer with us. And yes, as hard as it is for me to believe, he too was not wearing his seatbelt. No one can say for for a certainty that he would have survived if he was. It is a certainty to me though, if he had, his odds would have been infinitely better.
In the end, I have 2 words regarding seatbelts:
ALWAYS.
PERIOD.
Knowing the statistics, I find each and every one of those to be 'statistical anomalies'.....seat belts work. period.
Sure, there are all kinds of 'new' injuries caused directly by the use of a seatbelt. In general terms, injuries are only counted on those that survive.
My son had an uncle (Billy), 4 years older than him. Billy and a friend got in billy's car one night to literally 'just go down the street' to drop the car off for some maintenance work to be performed the next day. It was a short trip,less than a mile drive. Their intention was to walk back. They weren't going fast. (~25 mph at time of impact, according to the report). A patch of ice and a telephone pole later...... two 19 year old kids dead.
The coroner determined the cause of death to be 'cranial injuries',... each had suffered a broken skull on the side facing the other.
My son Ryan and 'Uncle Billy' were very close, more like brothers than uncle and nephew. He was devastated at the loss. As Ryan approached driving age (in fact even before) he became a seatbelt fanatic. Wore his belt religiously. So much so that he had even refused to be a passenger in a car if everyone was not buckled in.
As many of you are aware, Ryan too is no longer with us. And yes, as hard as it is for me to believe, he too was not wearing his seatbelt. No one can say for for a certainty that he would have survived if he was. It is a certainty to me though, if he had, his odds would have been infinitely better.
In the end, I have 2 words regarding seatbelts:
ALWAYS.
PERIOD.
Some good news for the US:
Traffic Fatalities in 2010 Drop to Lowest Level in Recorded History
Traffic Fatalities in 2010 Drop to Lowest Level in Recorded History
When lived and worked in Ireland for a year. The ads about safe driving were very powerful and made you think. I bet if they tried to show them in the US they would be banned as too graphic.....
They would help wake up these text and drive or phone and drive crap that you see every day.
Cheers,
Steve
They would help wake up these text and drive or phone and drive crap that you see every day.
Cheers,
Steve
mouppe
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,036
I agree. It makes me so angry to see mothers driving their kids to and from school in oversized SUVs whilst clamping a phone to their ear.
It makes me even angrier to hear the BS arguments spouted by some states as to why there shouldn't be a ban on using mobile phones whilst driving.
It makes me even angrier to hear the BS arguments spouted by some states as to why there shouldn't be a ban on using mobile phones whilst driving.
woodwrights_corner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 74
How about those who talk or text while they have a puppy or two on their lap?
TJ Cornish
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2010
- Messages
- 99
At the risk of being thrown off the forum, especially considering the loss of loved ones to posters in this thread, I humbly offer the following:
Seatbelts are a wonderful idea, and so are airbags. I wear my seatbelt absolutely every time I get in the car. My sub-2-year-old rides in an approved child seat without exception.
That being said, life has risk, and that will never be eliminated, no matter how many rules, laws, regulations, societal peer pressure, etc. we come up with.
There is a whole continuum of things that can be regulated - at the obvious end are things like intentional harm of other people - murder, theft, etc. At the other extreme are hypothetical regulations such as needing to get permission from the government to take a trip in your car at all - simply being on the road increases your risk of death or injury in an auto accident (duh), therefore we better make sure that no one goes anywhere unless the trip is important enough to justify the risk.
Where is the appropriate place to draw the line? In the US we're seriously considering regulating fast food, and even here on the FOG there's speculation that the Carvex delay is related to a perceived safety issue with the strobe light (which Festool has never corroborated - I'm not sure where this theory came from exactly). We have outlawed incandescent lightbulbs (and replaced them with toxic CF bulbs that in my experience don't last any longer than a conventional bulb did).
In the case of seatbelts the cost benefit analysis seems pretty clear that grave injury can be saved by doing something not terribly onerous. I'm less sold on the ever increasing age and weight "suggestions" of child seats, since those can be a lot more intrusive, and can have some unintended consequences - parents reaching back to give their kid something to get them to shut up, etc. I know my kid has been a lot more pleasant to ride with since we turned his seat around.
I believe that some regulation of products is a good thing - I'm glad my car has airbags, and it wouldn't without the government mandating them. I am concerned about the trend towards the "nanny state" where the government tries to do all the thinking for us and our cars get chips put in them that won't allow them to exceed the posted speed limit, or I can't put up a piece of sheetrock in my house without being "licensed". I'd like to be able to live the highest possible percentage of my life without having Big Brother looking over my shoulder, choosing which risks to take on my own, and suffering the consequences, good or bad.
I concede there's a lot of gray area here, I'd just prefer to err to the side of "suggestions", rather than laws.
Seatbelts are a wonderful idea, and so are airbags. I wear my seatbelt absolutely every time I get in the car. My sub-2-year-old rides in an approved child seat without exception.
That being said, life has risk, and that will never be eliminated, no matter how many rules, laws, regulations, societal peer pressure, etc. we come up with.
There is a whole continuum of things that can be regulated - at the obvious end are things like intentional harm of other people - murder, theft, etc. At the other extreme are hypothetical regulations such as needing to get permission from the government to take a trip in your car at all - simply being on the road increases your risk of death or injury in an auto accident (duh), therefore we better make sure that no one goes anywhere unless the trip is important enough to justify the risk.
Where is the appropriate place to draw the line? In the US we're seriously considering regulating fast food, and even here on the FOG there's speculation that the Carvex delay is related to a perceived safety issue with the strobe light (which Festool has never corroborated - I'm not sure where this theory came from exactly). We have outlawed incandescent lightbulbs (and replaced them with toxic CF bulbs that in my experience don't last any longer than a conventional bulb did).
In the case of seatbelts the cost benefit analysis seems pretty clear that grave injury can be saved by doing something not terribly onerous. I'm less sold on the ever increasing age and weight "suggestions" of child seats, since those can be a lot more intrusive, and can have some unintended consequences - parents reaching back to give their kid something to get them to shut up, etc. I know my kid has been a lot more pleasant to ride with since we turned his seat around.
I believe that some regulation of products is a good thing - I'm glad my car has airbags, and it wouldn't without the government mandating them. I am concerned about the trend towards the "nanny state" where the government tries to do all the thinking for us and our cars get chips put in them that won't allow them to exceed the posted speed limit, or I can't put up a piece of sheetrock in my house without being "licensed". I'd like to be able to live the highest possible percentage of my life without having Big Brother looking over my shoulder, choosing which risks to take on my own, and suffering the consequences, good or bad.
I concede there's a lot of gray area here, I'd just prefer to err to the side of "suggestions", rather than laws.
Wood_Junkie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,311
Wow, that video in reply #5 is shocking. Like, in a good shake-you-awake way.
Steve R has the right of it: that would never air in the US. But it really makes you realize that people in the back are a hazard that needs to be seatbelted in. And they're a *hazard*, not necessiarly at primary risk (of going through the windshield, for example).
The first video is very moving, and paints such a powerful message.
We are a seatbelt family: 100% of the time, no arguing, no exceptions, the car doesn't even move. I started driving before seatbelts were required at all times, and now I physically feel 'wrong' if its not on. My sister on occasion exempts herself in her own car. Drives me crazy in its overt laziness and stupidity. I don't let her get away with it in mine.
Steve R has the right of it: that would never air in the US. But it really makes you realize that people in the back are a hazard that needs to be seatbelted in. And they're a *hazard*, not necessiarly at primary risk (of going through the windshield, for example).
The first video is very moving, and paints such a powerful message.
We are a seatbelt family: 100% of the time, no arguing, no exceptions, the car doesn't even move. I started driving before seatbelts were required at all times, and now I physically feel 'wrong' if its not on. My sister on occasion exempts herself in her own car. Drives me crazy in its overt laziness and stupidity. I don't let her get away with it in mine.
TJ Cornish said:
The data on children under 2 years old shows that rear facing seats offered substantial protection over forward facing. Children under 2 years of age were 75% less likely to suffer serious trauma or die in accidents. I'll dig up the link when I get a chance.
As far as the nanny state commentary goes - please, please, regulate activities that are documented to increase the risk to my life (such as others testing while driving) by others as much as possible. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you are entitled to put the life (lives) of others at risk. When you've had someone drive you into a guardrail on the freeway, flip your car, and drive off... tell me there shouldn't be laws against holding that phone up to your head.
edit to add info: http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/21/car-seat-guidelines-updated-baby-rides-backwards-til-2/
TJ Cornish
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2010
- Messages
- 99
In every circumstance I can think of, behaviors that cause substantial injury to another party are already illegal, and are not (IMO) in need of being made "illegal-er" with new laws, though perhaps enforcement of existing ones could be improved. Certainly someone causing an accident such as what you describe is liable under such things as careless/reckless driving, endangerment, etc., and if someone is that thoughtless/careless/evil, I doubt a "no-texting" law would have made any difference in their behavior.b_m_hart said:
There's a landmark case underway here in MN - a 20 year old girl was texting, drifted into the oncoming lane, and wiped out a motorcylist. The biker survived, but was grievously injured - many broken bones, etc. He described all of the evasive action he tried to take, and how all he saw was the top of the head of the driver of the car. This is one of the first felony texting cases here in MN.
The rest of the story:
The driver didn't have a driver's license, just a learner's permit.
The car was uninsured
This moron had her two kids in the car with her.
http://www.startribune.com/local/west/120208334.html
Though this case has texting as the headline and may serve as a model for texting cases in the future, this moron was already breaking several very serious laws, and clearly showed no regard for anyone's lives. Again, more laws don't fix this garbage - they just confuse the legal system. On the plus side, her children were unhurt, though likely will be mom-less for a while.
There was once some place (was it New York maybe?) where a law was passed making it illegal to do anything that was against the law.
Seat belts save lives and never really endanger them in any "normal" way, so I don't really have an issue with the fact that yes, they should be worn. Educating people to the risks is good. Should it be illegal to not wear them? Should it be neccessary for it to be illegal?
Air bags kill people, and some have argued that they cause more damage than they help to alleviate, yet they are also required by law... but we'll save that for the airbag thread -- not dragging that out now.
There is a non-zero chance that the roof might collapse on me while I'm typing this; should it be illegal to invite people into buildings?
People should avoid foolish and dangerous behavior because it is foolish and dangerous. Making it illegal to do otherwise is far less effective than simply educating people as to the dangers, as most of them will simply ignore the law anyway -- just look at how effective the speed limit is at slowing down drivers when they don't see a cop in the area.
Seat belts save lives and never really endanger them in any "normal" way, so I don't really have an issue with the fact that yes, they should be worn. Educating people to the risks is good. Should it be illegal to not wear them? Should it be neccessary for it to be illegal?
Air bags kill people, and some have argued that they cause more damage than they help to alleviate, yet they are also required by law... but we'll save that for the airbag thread -- not dragging that out now.
There is a non-zero chance that the roof might collapse on me while I'm typing this; should it be illegal to invite people into buildings?
People should avoid foolish and dangerous behavior because it is foolish and dangerous. Making it illegal to do otherwise is far less effective than simply educating people as to the dangers, as most of them will simply ignore the law anyway -- just look at how effective the speed limit is at slowing down drivers when they don't see a cop in the area.
One of the `issues` we have with the various legislatures in the U.S. is their knee-jerk reaction to tragedy.
There is a simple fact, neither commons sense or morality can be effectively legislated.
Education is truly the key.
With that said, making something illegal in many cases amounts to nothing more than `getting your attention`. Over time many of these illegalities become part of the common sense/education process. I must agree with TJ Cornish , making something illegal-er seems silly.
There is a simple fact, neither commons sense or morality can be effectively legislated.
Education is truly the key.
With that said, making something illegal in many cases amounts to nothing more than `getting your attention`. Over time many of these illegalities become part of the common sense/education process. I must agree with TJ Cornish , making something illegal-er seems silly.
