Awesome

My wife was unfortunate enough to see a dead body in the center of the expressway a few weeks ago while on her way to work. A husband & wife were driving along when they veered off towards a ditch (she didn't see the accident, just the aftermath & we only know what happened because it was all over the news). It appears that the man over-corrected & lost control thus sending the vehicle in to a roll. The man was wearing his seatbelt & lived (although he was in the hospital for a bit). His wife wasn't so fortunate. She was ejected through the window, their own car smashed her body during the roll & then another vehicle hit & ran over her.

In contrast, I know several people who have survived deadly accidents because they didn't wear their seatbelt and were ejected out and away from the crash.

I'm just playing devil's advocate. I always wear my seatbelt. I strongly support regulations to require manufacturers provide seatbelts and other safety devices in all vehicles. However, I strongly oppose enforcement of it's usage by the individual owners.

Interesting video nonetheless.

When I'm cruising around town, doing 35mph I don't wear my seat belt. When I am on the freeway though I will put it on. I mean hell my gokart goes up 80mph and there is no belt, of course it's more like a motorcycle you would rather go skidding across the asphalt.

However I strongly disagree with the law (Ohio laws) that make you HAVE to wear a seat belt. Why should I HAVE to wear a seat belt but when I hop on a motorcycle, I don't have to wear a helmet??

Hmm. I think that in most European countries you're required to wear a seat belt (and, of course, required to wear a helmet if on a motorcycle).

Who on earth do you hang around with?

The "getting thrown to safety" justification for not wearing a seatbelt is the absolute stupidest ****ing thing I've ever heard and triggers my idiot radar every time I hear somebody say they actually believe it is a better option.

I was gonna type out a bunch of reasons but do I really need to? There are *SO* many reason's why I would rather be contained in a metal cage that most likely has air bags and other safety features based on decades of crash testing than hurled through a laminated/tempered window (which are NOT easy to break mind you) at high speeds into WHO KNOWS WHAT (telephone poles? Trees? Brick walls? Other cars moving at high speeds? Land on asphalt ragdoll style at best? No thanks).

When I wan in high school a classmate was in the back seat of a sedan without a seatbelt, drivers side. The car fishtailed sending the passenger side rear quarter panel right into a tree. He flew across the back seat, slammed into the passenger side rear door busting the door open with just his body's momentum, flew out of the car, and died in the gutter. I bet money he's still alive today if he had his seatbelt on, as well as many other people.

Then again as a supporter of natural selection, I have a tough time deciding if I want to FORCE people to buckle up....

First, there's a HUGE difference between laminated and tempered glass. Yes, they are both safety glasses, but with two separate purposes. Tempered glass is designed to break into a million pieces. These shards are round and blunt. This is what your side and rear windows are made out of. Laminated, on the other hand, is two pieces of thin tempered glass with a thin 'laminate' between them. The idea here is to control damage to glass if struck and to prevent shattered pieces from displacing themselves from the glass structure (preventing shards from breaking off). This is what your Windshield is made out of. One allows objects to pass through when broken and the other does not (at least not very easily).

Secondly, therefor, there's a HUGE difference between the safety conditions of a front/rear end collision vs a collision from the side. If you are in a front/rear end collision you want to have your seatbelt on to prevent flying through the windshield, as it's not very forgiving at all being laminated glass (arched laminated glass at that). However, if I could reach and unbuckle my seatbelt even a split second before a side impact on my side, I would be much better off. Why? Because the seatbelt pins you into that position and forces you to bare the full force of the impact. Where as, removing the seatbelt allows some of that force/energy to be passed along in your kinetic motion as you're pushed away from the impact. Therefor, reducing the overall force imparted directly into your body.

[Note: I'm not a physicist and I don't pretend to be one. However, I do understand a little bit about it but If I'm wrong then anyone is welcome to correct me].

I bet money that there was enough force involved that it wouldn't have mattered either way.

We can agree here.

The only time I'm not wearing a seatbelt is when I'm either reversing and I can't see **** out of a window, or I'm taking off or adding items of clothing, which I wouldn't do when driving anyway.

So without a seatbelt you somehow will gravitate towards the center of the car immediately before the impact takes place, thus not baring the full force of the impact? :confused::confused::confused:

Let's say you're driving north and you get t-boned on the driver side by a car traveling east. Initially, your vehicle will be accelerated RAPIDLY in the eastward direction, combined with the possibility of your vehicle being damaged on your side and possibly caving in, causing you harm. Your body will impact the west side of the interior of your car whether you have a seatbelt on or not. This impact will then cause your body to be accelerated eastward, slightly behind the car in time. This is where the seatbelt comes into play. After your car's initial eastward acceleration from the impact, it will immediately start slowing down due to drag from the tires or possibly hitting something that was east of you. With a seatbelt your body will be gradually slowed down WITH the car. Without one, you will go flying across the car and slam into the passenger door.

Objects tend to keep doing what they are doing unless acted upon by another force. Therefore when you car takes a hit on the side, it will move in a different direction than before. But since you don't have your seatbelt on, there is no force to act on you so while your car slides around under your butt rapidly changing direction from an impact you will stay right where you are in space. That is until you get in the way of one of the interior walls of your car which is no longer traveling in the same direction as you and BAM lights out.. Put your seatbelt on and as soon as another car acts on your car, your car will act on you through the seatbelt. You will start changing direction the same time your car does so by the time you hit an interior wall of your car, IF YOU DO AT ALL, there will already be traveling somewhat in the same direction as it and more likely to survive.

Aren't you the guy that tried to argue that radio waves were sound waves?

No offense, but maybe you should step back on this one.

I don't believe that is what I posted, no.

Aren't you the guy that thrives on digging up old dirt on people even though it has absolutely no baring on the current discussion? I admitted my error in that discussion.

My point, is that there's something to be said about the 'rag doll effect' that allows many drunks who don't wear their seatbelt in deadly accidents to survive.

Don't forget to wear your neck belt!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiuOQHTsNg

Well, it is relevant, because it shows that you still don't know the first thing about physics.


How about some actual statistics on that?

Are you trying to justify drunk driving as well?

And you do?

I know that things don't work quite as Dash described. To name a few:

"I would rather be contained in a metal cage" - Dash

Except that modern vehicles are designed to absorb the impact. Which means the impact zone experiences much higher forces then the other parts of the car and it crushes in on itself in that area.

"With a seatbelt your body will be gradually slowed down WITH the car." - Dash

Most cars decelerate to zero within a second or two of impact (in a side impact scenario at < 55Mph, which is the scenario that I'm arguing that not having a seatbelt on may be more beneficial). The body, however, does not. There is no "gradual" slow down with the car. The car stops abruptly, but your body still wants to continue moving. This is where things like whip lash come into play.

If you are hit in the side, do you want to be held to the spot where the car is going to give way to "absorb the impact" and thus forcing you to be pinned (or killed), or do you want the impact to push you out of the way? Yes, you'll likely get slammed against the other side of the car. However, I think that's preferable in this type of scenario.

What? Even if there's only a handful in the entire world to ever survive based off of it, it's enough reason to warrant further investigation as to why they were able to survive other than "because they were limp". Why would you need statistics? Obviously, not every accident is an exact "apples to apples" comparison. You'd also have to determine which ones are head-on and which are side impacts, anyways. I don't think anyone's really done the research. So, just because a "statistic" doesn't exist, it doesn't mean it's not meaningful. Again, not that a statistic would even matter for the purpose of this discussion.



Assume much?

Just because the natural tendency is for someone to "brace for impact", it doesn't mean that through training they couldn't reverse that tendency to go "limp" like-a-drunk in order to increase their chance of survival.

No where did I say, "I endorse drinking and driving." In fact, no where did I endorse "You're an idiot if you wear your seatbelt". I simply made an interesting note that there are some people that survive car accidents by the fact that they were not wearing their seatbelt. Obviously, we have no way of knowing if they would have died unless someone did a case by case analysis of each incident (to check for how much their car crushed in on itself at where they were sitting).

You guys really know how to blow something out of proportion.

I think it's pretty safe to say they've done plenty of studies, and I'm just going to go ahead and assume that the number of accidents your life would be saved by not wearing a seatbelt would be extremely tiny compared to the amount of accidents seatbelts have saved.

Also, I'm going to go with Alco here, he made an observation he found interesting (I know someone who was saved because he was flung from the car) and you guys have blown his comment out of proportion and marked him the enemy.

Yes, people who think your safer if you don't wear belts is an idiot, Alco isn't one of those people

Nope, not really, but I'm not the one pretending here.


How do you KNOW they survived "because they were limp?" You don't! Without any hard data, you have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER why these people survived. It could have been luck: being situated in just the right way that they did not splatter themselves on the windshield. If anything, going limp is probably a bad idea because it encourages whiplash.

The ratio of people who die while wearing seatbelts is MUCH LOWER than the ratio of people who die without. You are asserting that, in the situations where people die wearing seatbelts, they may have benefited from not wearing a seatbelt. But you've provided no good reason as to why that is, and have no physical evidence to justify your claim, other than your poor understanding of physics, it seems.

What it comes down to is that if they werent wearing a seatbelt and survived is that they're ****ing lucky.

I wouldn't say marked the enemy, but it's certainly a decent area for conversation and debate

Indeed, I personally have nothing against Alco and rather enjoy his posts.

But... comon now

Neither am I. In fact, at my very first mention of physics I encouraged someone to correct me if I was wrong. By that I mean, a reason and not just "your wrong" (or at least a link or something to point me in the right direction).



I don't necessarily "KNOW". Generally, that's what I've read on the subject. The problem seems to be that that's where the analysis starts and ends. When asked, the Doctors generally chalk it up to "they must have survived because of the alcohol causing them to be more relaxed then normal". I personally have looked but not been able to find where someone has performed a study to provide a real answer. Which is part of the point that I'm making, that it's worth studying and finding a real answer. It may provide some insight on developing a better safety device. There has to be SOMETHING useful about it.



First, i'm asserting that in a SPECIFIC situation where people have died while wearing seatbelts, they may have survived by not wearing a seatbelt AND being relaxed.

Secondly, I'm drawing on simple observation that some people do survive accidents by being flung from their vehicle to safety. I through in my "poor understanding of physics" because Dash did the same. I know from being in accidents myself, that things don't work the way Dash described. Also, you can youtube various crash tests and see it for yourself.



But my point is, why did they survive? How can this analysis be used to develop better technology for improving safety? It seems that all of the studies are based off of why people die in an accident. No one seems to be looking at why people survive (especially when not utilizing all of the safety equipment).

And my point is they survived because they're lucky. When youre in a car accident at 50mph, "going limp" or "being relaxed" isn't really going to keep you alive. The margin of error when it comes to that is very fine. It's not realy something youd be able to design around.

Wow, and I just thought it was a cool video.

I never thought I'd see the day where I heard the "bull****, seatbelts kill more than they help" argument.

THE STIG WEARS A SEATBELT AND SO DO I




I also wore a helmet from age 3-9, but for an entirely different reason

I don't understand this relates to what I said.




I don't see how this supports your point. If anything, it supports mine. You're absolutely right that cars slow down rather abruptly. The body indeed wants to continue moving. Without a seatbelt, the body WILL continue moving, right into the side of your car and possibly out the window. This is because the car slowed down without you being attached to it. If you buckle your seatbelt you will slow down with the car, and instead of slamming your face into the window you'll get bruises on your torso from the seatbelt.



Whatever crumpling or crushing takes places will be completed LONG before your body even begins to move, so you can forget about being "thrown" out of the crunch zone. Even if this wasn't the case, upon initial driver side impact your body will be THROWN TOWARDS THE DAMAGE so it doesn't matter. If you're hit on the drivers side your body will initially be THROWN TOWARDS THE DRIVER SIDE.

Lets say you get hit on the passenger side. What do you think is gonna happen then? Your whole car is going to slide right out from under you and you're gonna crack your skull open on the passenger side of the car because you are initially thrown TOWARDS the damage. Thats the rule of thumb here. Wherever somebody hits you, your body will accelerate TOWARDS the damage (with respect to your car). Put your damn seatbelt on and there's a chance that the seatbelt will PREVENT you from being thrown towards the damage.



There are a million situations out there will the observed result does not fit the trends. The more trials you observe the more obvious it is. Being thrown to safety because you weren't wearing a seatbelt is one of these situations. Would you hit with 20 and the dealer showing a 9? After all, the guy next to you just did and won. I think not.

No one here is making that argument.



I'm sorry, I have to correct you here. You're not thrown towards the damage. The damage pushes against you. You perceive it the other way because you're thinking from your relative position within your vehicle. Watch some crash tests on youtube where you can see the crashes from the outside and you will see that this is not the case. What's happening is that your body is moving at a delay to the car moving. This is the same as when you make a sharp turn to the right and your body "seems" to go to the left (generally just your head if you're wearing a seatbelt). In actuality, your body is still moving forward and the car is turning into you. Likewise, your body is never thrown towards a crash but is instead always pushed away from it.



You missed the point entirely.

If you're not going to wear your seat belt, at least sign your organ donor card.

I'd just like to step in at this point and say that 'whereas' and 'nowhere' are real words, please use them.

No he didn't. He's saying exactly what I was. When you're in a car crash situation and NOT wearing a seatbelt, theres an incredibly small margin of error. If you're in a side impact crash you get pushed away from the initial damage, but end up getting thrown towards more when the car hits something else. You're more likely to survive if you stay within the confines of the car as well as your seat. What we're trying to say is that when you stay inside the car, your chances of surviving are insanely higher.

The people you mentioned who survive because they arent wearing a seatbelt? Thats called luck. There really isn't a way to calculate why someone who got thrown from a car at 50mph managed to miss getting jabbed in the neck by a shard of glass and survived. I'd much rather wear a seatbelt and get whiplash than cross my fingers and hope i get ejected from the car safely.

But but, I know this guy who was in a wreck and wasn't wearing a seatbelt and he didn't get hurt! Therefore, seatbelts must make you more likely to get hurt!

Anecdotal evidence 4tl.

Practically every state does this.

My dad's car slipped off of a poorly build road in the rain and into a telephone pole. He wasn't wearing his seat-belt and was thrown out of place and was really hurt. However, the steering wheel was crushed well into the drivers seat where he would have been sitting.

/Anecdotal evidence. I still always wear my seat-belt.

I don't get this... Alco, do you think that this insight about the greater safety afforded by wearing no seatbelt is something that has just... slipped past years and years of repeated crash testing and analysis by every auto manufacturer, undetected?

But it's funny, that people here are arguing over weather or not seat belts save lives, but I think everyone can agree that you should wear a motorcycle helmet at all times. But the law says you have to wear your seatbelt, but you don't have to wear your helmet.. :downs:

I clearly stated in my post:



You admit to not knowing much about physics (which I don't blame you for or hold against you at all, btw) then try to inform me about points of reference?

So once again, with respect to your car, upon impact, your body is thrown towards the point of impact. It then bounces and is thrown in the opposite direction.

Not to beat a dead horse, but put a box on the ground and set a billiard ball in the middle of the box. Then smack the side of the box. If you attached a camera to the box pointing at the ball, upon impact, that ball will appear suddenly accelerate towards the wall of the box, and that's all that matters.

Maybe you don't see it....but trust me, you're wrong on this one.

Wear your ****in' seatbelt if you want to live!

Your box example doesn't work because the box is at rest and then you accelerate it. Once the box stops, the ball will keep rolling and hit the OTHER end of the box. I'm not sure why you gave your example as without my trailing bit it seems you're arguing against your earlier comment.

Also bouncing is very bad, and doesn't always happen (people have been known to fly through windshields).

Not exactly.



Yes, the both of you misssed the point. You guys keep arguing a point that's not even in debate. It's not the "chance" of surviving, it's that someone survived at all.

Also, the exact situations in which they survived can be analyzed and calculated. I don't know why you think that it could not be.



And once again, it is not "thrown towards the point of impact" at all. It doesn't matter if you give reference respect to the car or not. You are pushed by the impact and then as the impact stops you continue forward. There is no "bouncing" involved. Watch some crash tests. Not that this point really matters at all. It's the release from the impact that then matters for the sake of this discussion (seatbelt vs no seatbelt). For the seatbelt, it acts against you almost immediately as the energy from the impact it transferred to you and then to the seatbelt. Contrary to what you believe, at high speeds this can cause more than just bruising. Sever internal damage and even death can occur. I would argue that in the no seatbelt scenario some of the energy is transfered to the friction between your butt and the seat and also in the air as you're accelerated toward the other side of the car. So, the energy left would, theoretically, be lower then what it would be if you transferred it directly to the seat belt. Additionally, it'll be spread over your entire body instead of the specific narrow regions that your seatbelt covers you in. How much energy? I have no idea, someone else will need to do the calculations.

Now, where am I going with all this? What's the point? We know that curtain airbags help mitigate some of this force. So, I'm thinking that at least one step in the right direction would be to have seatbelts that covered more of your body to help keep you in place and spread the applied force across a larger area of the body. Also, it would be nice if they were filled with a gel material that might help to further reduce the total applied force. It still doesn't do anything to prevent neck damage, but that's our 'Achilles heel' it seems.