Talk:Seat belt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're wondering where the anti-seatbelt rant went, see >> Seat belt/Excised , please discuss at the bottom of this page if you have any questions about this move. mayb you should wear em at all times

Dear Editor: Seat belt laws represent unabated tyranny on the march as each year law enforcement is expanded. Such laws infringe on a person’s rights as guaranteed in the Fourth, Fifth, and the Ninth Amendments, and the Civil Rights section of the Fourteenth Amendment. Seat belt laws are an unwarranted intrusion by government into the personal lives of citizens; they deny through prior restraint the right to determine a person’s own health standards for his own body, the ultimate private property. Not using a seat belt is a victimless, state-created crime that does not hurt or threaten anyone. While seat belt use might save some people in certain kinds of traffic accidents, there is ample proof that in other accidents people have been more seriously injured and even killed because of seat belt use. Also, some people are alive today only because a seat belt was not used. In those cases, the malicious nature of seat belt laws is revealed: by law, the victim is subject to a fine for not dying in the accident. The government has no constitutional authority to knowingly maim and kill some people just to save others. The government has no right to take chances with a person’s body. If a doctor attempted to force you to use a device, take a drug, or have surgery to protect your health, he would be violating patients’ rights - your right to decide what measures you take to protect your own body - and he would be subject to full prosecution under the law. Yet when politicians force you to use their device, they violate that same right and face no consequences. Seat belt are an after-the-fact device. As such, not one penny of the millions of tax dollars spent in support of seat belt laws has ever prevented one accident. Conversely, because we feel safer wearing seat belts, studies have shown that we tend to drive more recklessly. This is known as “risk compensation,.” which is covered in more detail in the 1995 book, “Risk” by Dr. John Adams, University College London, England. We do not need to spend millions of dollars for more seat belt law enforcement, whether secondary or primary enforcement, for more forced seat belt use, for more traffic accidents. Any money we spend for traffic safety should focus on achieving more responsibly educated drivers, and more safely built roads and vehicles in order to prevent accidents. Preventing accidents will not only save lives but will save the cost of property damage and, most importantly, save our freedom. As with all voluntary personal health decisions, there is nothing wrong with voluntary seat belt use. However, there is a great deal wrong with all seat belt laws. Such laws must be repealed in order to restore true liberty in the U.S. Anyone who wants more facts can contact:

William J. Holdorf; 5839 S. Harlem Ave., #517; Chicago, IL 60638 or WHoldorf@msn.com 773-229-1933

--- You miss a small poin, this is NOT a US enciclopedia and your alegations about the possible violation of some (US) constitucional norms are not relevant for a broader audience Cuye


The article as it stands is not NPOV I think. There may also be some factual errors (for example wrt escape from a burning car).Kim Bruning 14:39, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

SF: the line regarding the burning vehicle was reproduced from previous version of article. If there are other factual errors it is probable that these also came from the previous version.

Contents

[edit] Essay excised

Oh I see, someone has snuck in an essay contra seatbelts. Sneaky Sneaky, this is not an essay site. I'll move it to Seat belt/Excised. Kim Bruning 18:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good; there was certainly some salvageable information in that mass of text, but it was rather hidden in the advocacy. We should certainly note that there are both pro-seatbelt and anti-seatbelt positions and summarise their views, but one viewpoint should not dominate both the other viewpoint and the factual information like that ... —Morven 18:19, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
Hello! I'd just been moving about/pruning/Wiki-fy-ing stuff which was already there, and had moved two headings under one of the earlier ones, and the whole lot seems to have been chopped en masse. I reckon some of it should go back. I'd put myself in the pro-seat belts camp, but I found the points raised interesting, and had been working on making them NPOV. I definitely wouldn't say it was a rant; a little one-sided maybe, but not a rant. Could this go on another page, rather than on seat belts? There's probably a related issue with some of the bicycle helmet article too. Any ideas about what would be a good common ground that could over all this? I'll stick a few bits back in; comments appreciated. PMcM 19:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hey, stuck back in three super-condensed paragraphs based upon what got chopped. About 60% of the first paragraph is pro-seatbelts, the remainder being linked to theories against. The Australia being the first to legislate stuff should definitely stay; it's factual, NPOV, and related. The final paragraph I also find interesting, and I think it's both relevant and NPOV enough to be included. Could probably do with more pro-seat belt info, which would possibly allow restoration of more of the anti-seat belt stuff, but I don't know enough about it to write it; I've just been trimming what's already there. PMcM 20:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's the way to go. In the end the article will end up discussing all the people involved in the debate, but somehow things like seat, belt, buckle, car, and car accident will manage to slip through the cracks. See especially some of the older versions of global warming for this (as yet unnamed) effect.
It's a better idea to explain that seatbelts exist, and that they are at the very least intended to keep people seated in a car in case of a car accident, than it is to discuss at length who called whom's mother what in which year.
Even though some controversy might be missed, the article retains both NPOV and content if approached in such a manner. Kim Bruning 20:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what you're getting at. Personally I prefer it as it is at the moment (probably because I spent about 25 minutes condensing it all!) than before the 'essay' was chopped. Got bored editing the text and made the diagram instead. :D PMcM 21:23, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The danger is, fundamentally, that an article becomes about the debate rather than about the subject. I think the depth of the pro/anti seatbelt debate belongs somewhere else. For one thing, most of the argument is fairly generically applicable to safety measures in general, rather than being about seat belts in specific. With a few words changed, identical paragraphs could be put in articles about motorcycle helmets, airbags, anti-lock braking, etc etc etc. —Morven 22:30, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)


There would seem to be some misrepresentation going on here. The excised material is not an essay comprising anybody's unsupported opinions and does not purport to be. It is clearly not an anti-seatbelt rant: the reasons for wearing seatbelts and hence imposing compulsory seatbelt legislation are clearly stated and the reasons for serious concern about such legislation are also clearly stated. The fatality/ injury patterns seen in various countries are matters of historical fact. Increases in non-occupant death rates are matters of historical fact derived from offically collected road accident statistics. Neither can the piece be dismissed as representing "orginal research" all the facts adduced are cited from the historical record and or peer/reviewed journals.

If you have any questions about wikipedia policy on thse matters I suggest you check here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

As for the argument that the same article could be written about motorcycle helmets, abs etc. The key issue that applies here (and not in those cases) is the effect of seatbelt legislation for those not covered by it e.g. the effect on non-car occupants. While this probably not an issue for US readers it is a very pertinent issue for readers from countries where non-car occupants represent the majority of road users. (I should point out that dismissing this issue as being about "who called whom's mother what in which year" is bordering on the offensive and undermines any claim to NPOV of the orginator.)

I accept the argument that the depth of the seatbelt legislation debate probably belongs somewhere else. Accordingly, I've renamed the excised section to give the seatbelt legislation issue it's own page.

--Sf 13:08, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


If you've renamed it, then that's a fair deal I suppose.
In other news, I'm curious. I've never heard of seatbelts being hotly disputed anywhere near where I live. Where is this dispute currently going on? The USA? Kim Bruning 13:15, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And you tidied up things quite a bit I must say, excellent! :-) Kim Bruning 13:26, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hi Kim

This is precisely the point. And this is why an open source project like Wikipedia should be covering the issue. The enitities disputing the legislation are individual researchers and representatives of affected groups such as and cyclists/pedestrians. In most cases these people do not get paid for their efforts. They cannot afford to do their own TV commercials, sponsored supplements in the newspapers etc. They are up against a massive advertising/publicity spend from the Auto industry, supported by specialised motoring journalists and commercial broadcasters who depend on the Auto industry for much of their advertising revenue (On average how many car ads are there per commercial break?). In many cases - certainly in the UK/Ireland but probably also the USA, official road safety committees tend to be dominated by external appointees who come from the auto industry. Many road safety "researchers" are also funded by, or work directly for, the Auto industry. Hence research/discussion of this issue has tended to come from Geographers, Economists and Psychologists. The facts surrounding the issue are not secret - anyone with access to a University library can dig them up. They are simply not "publicised". This is not "conspiracy theory" merely the way that commercial realities impinge on public information. Wikipedia should not be subject to those pressures nor behave as if it is.

--Sf 13:38, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Nobody has refuted the original data and research that said that, comparing like for like accidents, a seatbelt wearer is less likely to be killed/injured than a non wearer? That's what I seem to be reading.

IOW, that if (and that's the big assumption made) driver behavior is not altered by seatbelt wearing, then fewer driver/occupant deaths and serious injury should occur, and the non occupant toll would not alter at all?

If I understand things correctly, the views posted by User:Sf are that the above paragraph is correct, it is just that the assumption (that driver behavior would remain constant) is incorrect. Am I right?

I can certainly see the logic of this; that the controlling factor is the driver's perceived risk to themselves and those in their vehicle, above all. It is the amount of percieved risk that someone is willing to assume that is the constant.

I regularly drive a 37 year old car that (as a 1967 model in the US) is only fitted with lap belts, shoulder belts only becoming mandatory in 1968. I feel the difference. In that car I leave greater stopping distances, I drive somewhat slower and especially in situations where visibility is reduced, etc. —Morven 21:47, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reply from SF

Yes it is my understanding that the assumption in first paragraph is generally accepted. (However, as always things get messy - the design user of most seatbelts is a fully grown adult male. There are serious questions regarding what happens when much smaller people use adult seatbelts. Hence the move to booster seats for children).

As for the assumptions as to causative effect. The risk compensation hypothesis is difficult if not impossible to prove. It is merely for many people the "primary candidate" (there is however direct experimental evidence for such an effect associated with seatbelts under laboratory conditions). It is not impossible that there were serious flaws in the experimental methodologies originally used to demonstrate a protective effect for seatbelts. It may be that the claimed protective effect simply doesn't exist. I only know of one or two commentators who take this view. However, it must be noted that there are strong indications that contrary scientific data regarding seatbelts has been suppressed in some jurisdictions (so there's no way of really knowing what has been shown).

Regardless of the reasons the key indisputable facts are that a) seatbelt laws have never been followed by anything like the claimed/predicted beneficial effect for car occupants (and in some cases car occupant deaths have gone up) b) seatbelt laws have been accompanied by clear and otherwise inexplicable increases in deaths to non-car occupants.

The reasons remain a matter of speculation. The facts of what fatality patterns have accompanied seatbelt laws are matters of historical record. (Not a nice story really)

--Sf 11:07, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Possible improvements

A reference to analyses that support the statement "Put simply, then: if one is involved in a crash, he or she is almost always better off wearing a seat belt." would be useful. I could not find one that is readily available.

As well, explosive pre-tensioners must have some drawbacks (additional initial cost, cost of replacement, risk of explosive device in a car, etc.). It would be nice if this was explored/exposed in the text. ppblais 16:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Could this article please explain the absence of seatbelts form rail-vehicles, have there ever been moves/proposals to introduce them, e.g. on trams (in the drivers cab for instance).Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)

I don't believe there are any analyses that would support such a bald statement. Clearly above a given range of impact energies/velocities, fatal injuries due to the seatbelt (aortic dislocation etc) take over from fatal injuries that may have ocurred due to direct impacts with the car interior. Then of course there is the issue of possible increases in fatality rates such as among children following seatbelt wearing legislation. Here design is probably a factor. --Sf 15:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] seat belts

hi there

can you tell me your opinion on whether car seat belts should be requireds by law?

and please clearly reflect your opinion as a statement


please help me with this assignment


regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.146.104.148 (talk) 18:17, November 19, 2006


[edit] Pretensioners

I had a 1978 Volvo 244DL, and the 3-point seatbelts all included pretensioners. Can we confirm that they were indeed "introduced" in the Mercedes S-Class? If that is the case, how was the Volvo 240-series different? Thanks! Zenter 17:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Problems with Seatbelts

I think it should also be mentioned the problems a seatbelt can cause.

I had an uncle, who died in a car accident, the accident din't killing the seatbelt did. It wasn't a three-point seatbelt, it was a Lap seatbelt (he was siting in the back seat). The accident shook all his body body except his waist, which was left still thanks to the lap belt; this caused his spine to break and crush his intestines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.123.178.136 (talk) 23:53, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Only-lap belts are much more prone to create injuries (specially abdominal injuries) than three point seatbelts.
EuroNACP detracts points if a car still uses a lap belt in the rear seat.
BUT: If there´s only a lap belt for you (for instance, a European Bus, or an old rear seat belt) , USE IT!. The worse risk is to be expelled from the vehicle. Randroide 09:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Isn't the common spelling "seatbelt"? (without the space) 82.41.66.173 20:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)DanZieBoy


[edit] Made of ?

perhaps a section which would describe the type of fiber(s) used to make seat belt.

[edit] What are the cons of wearing a seatbelt?

I noticed that this page does not mention any pros, cons or an opinion at all. I am curious to know what some cons of seat belts are. If you know any statistical websites that could give me a chart or some numbers I would appreciate it greatly. Thanks for the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.72.225 (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most common way to die by not wearing a seatbelt

Someone told me that if you are not wearing a seatbelt and you're in an accident, the most common death is by actually being run over your car. I doubted the truth of that, and am wondering if anyone can help clear that up, preferably with a website that lists the statistics. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amishjedi (talk • contribs) 23:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See Car accident - a rollover is most likely to eject, or partly eject, unbelted passengers from a vehicle, which leads to some of the most serious fatality rates. Incidences have been increasing as the numbers of SUVs with high centres of gravity have increased. Ephebi (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't remember where I read it, but somewhere I saw early investigations into plane crashes (without seat belts) found most people died as a result of hitting the insides of the plane. I've come across before people talking of the injuries sustained from the belt itself; I'd much rather be restrained bya belt than hit the windscreen or be thrown from the vehicle. peterl (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • AIUI occupants in planes & trains have different issues to contend with. The train research below mentions the risk of being projected out of your seat but notes in many circumstances this can be a good thing if an object penetrates the carriage. And strengthening seats for belt wearers makes them more dangerous to collide with. RAF planes have seats that face backwards and they make you adopt the brace position when you land. Its been said that if airlines were serious about safety they'd do the same. But plane lap belts do at least protect the staff as they stop you bouncing off them in the event of turbulence. Ephebi (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] seat belt use in trains etc.

Article could be expanded to cover vehicles other than cars. Use of 3-point seat belts or lap belts have been considered for aircraft, bus & trains. Interesting report here describes a study into 3-point belts in trains, and concludes that there is no overall safety benefit, as there are additional hazards caused by strengthening seats etc. and restraint is not necessarily the best way to deal with the types of accident that occur with trains. Ephebi (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thank you very much for your invaluable source Randroide (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lap-belt Picture

Is the lap-belt being worn wrongly in the picture? Shouldn't it be down over the pelvis/hips instead of around the stomach? I seem to remember hearing once that it can cause very serious stomach injuries if worn as in the picture here. 62.49.31.155 (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Which picture are you talking about? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The aeroplane lap belt picture in the article. 62.49.31.155 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)