Safe Speed Forums

I had always thought that "seat belts = good" and had never thought of not wearing one. I will still always wear one and insist that my passengers do so, but I have altered my view slightly in the past few months.

For a start I have thought more about the unavoidable discrepancy between a person's right to take part in risky activities (massively disproportionate to people who don't) and the right to not wear a seat belt. For instance, per hour of exposure, playing rugby is one the of riskiest sports you can take part in.

Anyway, my main poin: While doing some reading I found out that the DoT produced a report prior to the seat belt legislation ("The Isles Report"). They compared countries which had no legislation to those that introduced it and concluded that it would actually increase the fatalities due to risk compensation. I don't know what they concluded, but apparently it was buried for many years.

While the specifics are different (seat belts almost certainly DO protect vehicle occupants) there are quite a few parallels in the (mis)use of statistics - for instance the DoT incorrectly predicted 1,000 fewer deaths and 10,000 fewer serious injuries.

There's some good discussions on these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation
http://www.barvennon.com/seatbelt/irish_letter.html
http://www.mpp-rdg.mpg.de/workshop/JohnAdams.pdf

Gareth

I've long worried about seat belts. Like you I believe in them in a straightforward obvious way.

See this graph:



From unpublished work.

Notice that glitch in 1983/84? That could well be the effect of seatbelts. Overall change in road death? Nada.

On ONE DAY in 1983/4 we went from around 15% of drivers and front seat passengers wearing belts to 90% wearing belts. We would have expected a big drop in fatalities, but we didn't get any drop at all.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I have mixed views on belts because of what I have seen with my own eyes.

The first fatality I ever saw was a far that had left the road and hit a tree. The car was not recognisable. I was there before the emergency services and did what I could. There were 4 people in the car. Wne the car hit the tree the roof was ripped of and the car inverted and lay upside down with its back broken. The two back seat passengers were thrown clear. Had cuts and bruses but survived. The driver and front passenges were pinned in the car by their belts. With the car upside down and the roof cut ..well you can imagine the mess. It was 20 years ago and I can still picture it like it was yesterday. If the back seat passengers were strapped in they would probably be dead as well.

On the other hand I took my eldest daughter on a track day. She went out in a Fiesta RS Turbo as a pasenger. The car had a roll cage and 5 point harness. I told her if anything happened to hold on the the harness to stop her arms flapping about and tuck her hed down. Well it did happen. The car left the track at about 80mph, hit the gravel and rolled over and over. The car was destroyed, all the windows shattered but the cage held up. Without wearing the belts she could have easily list a limb or worse. As it happened she was shaken and sore. that was all.

I think it all depends on the type of accident and type of car. If the car structure holds up you are better off strapped in.

The other problem nowadays is airbags. If you are not strapped in the airbag explosion can crush your chest.

I am sure the TrafPols will have something to say on the subject. They must see stuff all the time

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

There is no doubt that if you leave the car before it hits something at speed or explodes then you are likely to be better off, but you better be sure that you aren't crushed by the car or anything else. Unfortunately you don't really have much choice - you leave wherever you are pushed.

Also in coach crashes most people are killed when they fall out the windows and get crushed - most people who are left inside are ok.

This is some genuine in-car video of a driver falling asleep and the car rolling:

http://www.motorminute.com/Audio/noseatbelt.htm

Gareth

Vast majority of trucks, do not have seat belts fitted

As the driver, they do more harm than good, as the driver braces themselves with the steering wheel

I agree with the passengers wearing them, as they reduce impact damage.

_________________
Steve

I'd say that a seat belt would be a major factor in keeping you alive in the event of an accident. Certainly attended many fatals where I would say the non -wearing of a seatbelt contributed to the death or increased the severity of the accident.

Of course there are a few very rare exceptions - Wildy's own incident was one: she swa the vehicle approaching and actually reasoned her best chance was to remove the belt and take whatever cover she could in the situation. As result she did not get struck by the person who entered her car via the rear window, nor did she get crushed againt the steering wheel which could hve ripped a major artery (aorta - for example). However, this was a freak incident and there was no avoiding any serious injury. So it does depend on luck as well - but on aggregate, I'd say chances of survival are higher if you are belted up.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I value seatbelts. I would almost certainly not be here typing this had I not been wearing one that night 25 years ago, when a drunk driver decided to overtake directly in the face of oncoming traffic (me).

Having said that, I appreciate that there are cases (rare IMHO) when you're better off without one.

One benefit of seatbelts which is often overlooked is that it keeps you in your seat and in control. A relatively minor collision can throw an unrestrained driver out of their seat, which could well lead to a major collision.

Regards
Peter

From time to time I drive a car with out belts (built pre 1966) It seems weird.

It makes you feel more vulnerable. Fun though

I also ride a bike. No seat belts in that one. Safety is relative I suppose.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

GB Road deaths:

1975 6366
1976 6570
1977 6614
1978 6831
1979 6352
1980 6010
1981 5846
1982 5934
1983 5445
1984 5599
1985 5165
1986 5382
1987 5125
1988 5052
1989 5373
1990 5217

At some date (I think late 1983?) front seat belt wearing jumped from 15% to 90% overnight when the law came in. There's no benefit to be seen. Why not?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The statistics & graph are very interesting, but surely the figures on serious injuries would show a drastic reduction following the introduction of seat belts.

What also affects the number of incidents, both deaths or otherwise must be the sheer volume of cars on the roads. If the car industry is selling 1.5 million - 2 million cars each year, even though some are being scrapped, there's still a large year on year rise in the number of vehicle son the roads.

More cars + same amount of roads = more accidents.

Was it really that low?

From personal memory I recall most people were already wearing seatbelts most of the time.

The wearing of rear belts will ahve been a much more gradual process as many cars on the road did not even have them fitted when the legislation came into force and there is no requirement to retro-fit them. (the first car I owned with rear belts was in the mid 1990's for instance).

Yes, I would have said the proportion before was more like 40-50% rather than 15%.

Once cars were fitted with inertia-reel rather than static belts, a lot of the old objections to wearing them disappeared.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

From memory I think the pre-law seat belt wearing rate was 40% on motorways and 15% overall. If anyone has any better figures, then I'd love to see them.

The law came in in Jan 1983.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Bmwk, in a hard collision, the first thing to happen is the driver's arms break if he is braced against the steerig wheel.

There was a report in Readers Digest years ago with a split- second by split-second break down of what happens to a human when a car strikes a tree at 55mph. I've never forgotten it and I think it should be compulsory reading for all drivers.

Sounds good to me. It's hard to imagine sometimes the forces experienced in a collision. This might help:

Crashing into something solid at 30 mph is equivalent to a fall of 30 feet.
Crashing into something solid at 40 mph is equivalent to a fall of 53 feet.
Crashing into something solid at 50 mph is equivalent to a fall of 84 feet.
Crashing into something solid at 60 mph is equivalent to a fall of 120 feet.
Crashing into something solid at 70 mph is equivalent to a fall of 163 feet.
Crashing into something solid at 80 mph is equivalent to a fall of 214 feet.

It might also help to consider sitting in the driver's seat of a car that's dropped nose first.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Strange conclusion, know plenty of hgv drivers that have been involved in accidents, that have not suffered broken arms.

Yet the trucks do not have seat belts fitted.

_________________
Steve

Most crashes are low energy crashes. Physics cannot adequately explain it.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I am certain that I would have died at 6:30 pm Feb 20, 2004, if I had not been wearing one or if it had given way. But the risk compensation idea - yes, I could buy it.

_________________
I stole this .sig

That's only because in a collision between a truck and almost anything else (except, perhaps, head-on with another truck) the truck isn't decelerated anywhere near as much as a car would be hitting the same object.
And in a head-on between two trucks, seatbelts are not going to save the drivers.

Regards
Peter

Before front seat belt wearing became compulsory in 1983, seat belts were worn by 40% overall.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 505871.stm

It's interesting the expected reduction in casulties which clearly hasn't happened. As I said previously, the drastic increase in the total number of vehicles on the roads must be a factor in why road deaths haven't continued falling.