Seatbelt laws

[Msterbeau]

Seat Belts only help as long as your not hit from the side. Then they help to kill you.

I don't have a problem with the laws... only the way they are inforced and fined.

Someone brought up Helmet laws. They should most likely look into the research that has been done since helmet laws were passed. When they were passed, noone had done any studies to prove that helmets were safer than not wearing one. They just seemed safe, so laws were passed. All these laters people have done research and studies. Turns out helmets kill more people than they save. Helmets bounce far more than skulls do. That bounce causes the brain to bounce inside the skull. This causes brain damage and death. In most cases, the same hit to the head would only cause minor damage if not for the helmet. The helmets also break your neck more often than they protect your head.

I completely disagree with your assesment. The brain bounces around in your skull because of severity of the impact (How quickly your skull stops). The brain sloshes around inside your skull under an extreme g-load... which is MORE likely to happen, by far, without a helmet. When you add a helmet, the foam inside lessens the severity of the impact thus helping to protect you brain. The hard shell of the helmet is there to protect you from the initial impact and reduce the bruising and scrapes. All of which you will get without a helmet. Granted.. there are different levels of quality. Some are pretty shitty. Look for a helmet with the Snell foundation logo inside if you're serious about saving your head from injury.

A helmet is not a panacea, but you'll never convince me that a good quality helmet is worse then none at all.

I'm not sure what these studies are you cite... but I'd be surprised if they weren't funded/distributed by organizations who's goal is to repeal helmet laws.

Bottom line, once again: If you want to have your freedom, just make sure I don't have to pay for it. You hurt yourself...it's your dime.

[Msterbeau]

which part was absurd? while it's true that a helmet will keep your skull intact on impact, very few studies have been done that look at anything other than death prevention. my arguments against helmets are more in line with accident prevention, than protection after the fact. helmets (ones that will give adequate protection) are terribly restrictive to field of vision, which prevents me from seeing a lot of things i could without one. it also is very restrictive to hearing, and considering cars are so much quieter than bikes, it inhibits my ability to "sense" any changes in traffic, or any oncoming vehicles. also, motorcycling is an exercise in balance, and helmets can wiegh up to five pounds, which has been shown to not only throw off a person's balance, but also induces fatigue quicker in a rider, and as any rider knows, when you're tired, you're less aware, and this can lead to mistakes and accidents. furthermore, while helmets usually will keep a skull intact, it greatly increases the chances for death or permanent paralysis from a broken neck, due to the extra wieght of the helmet. (think whiplash x100) in my opinion, the best way to stay safe is to give myself the best chance i can to avoid an accident in the first place, and i think my chances are best without a helmet. (and before anyone actually starts into the half-helmet argument... 1) unless you fall on the top of your head, they won't help in the least bit, and in the event you do, you're gonna snap your neck anyway... 2) i have a DOT half-helmet at home - the tag inside it reads (paraphrasing) "this helmet has only been proven effective in impacts up to 15 mph". i don't know about anyone else, but i can't tell you the last time i travelled somewhere on my cycle under 15mph, so why bother?)

Very good points TA.

I'd like to see some numbers like BF is inquiring about. I don't doubt you assertions about helmets though... I've raced cars for a long time and the restrictions apply there as well. I also rode bikes for a while. Even given those drawbacks I'd still advocate for helmet use and helmet laws. You're still alive and quite possibly productive with a neck injury... You're just taking up space and using up money if your a vegatable in a hospital because your head got smashed.

[Msterbeau]

Let there be statistics!!

http://www.jtrauma.com/pt/re/jtrauma/abstr...#33;8091!-1

Anyone care to debunk this?

I also saw one that showed that when a helmet law was repealed in Florida... injury and death rates went up sharply.

Something to note... repealing helmet laws increases motorcyclist registrations. So some of that increase could have come from more riders on the road. Hard to say without all of the data.

Are we off topic yet?

[Fierce Critter]

My computer went totally kablooie as I tried to post a follow-up immediately after my first post, which sucks 'cause Jon was sitting here helping me with it and he's asleep now.

Basically, Jon's from the city next to Daytona Beach. He spent his life up until I stole him off to Michigan on bikes and attending (and dealing with) Bike Week.

Reports in the news were to the effect that though accidents did not increase when Florida repealed it's helmet law, deaths DID. He doesn't remember statistics, and I'm sure I could look them up, but frankly I don't really care.

Statistics be damned. Common sense, people. Common fucking sense.

Oh, Jon also speaks from experience. Was in a very serious accident on a Ninja crotch rocket and his full helmet took the brunt - by the time he stopped sliding after the truck hit him broadside, 1/4" of the back of the helmet was ground off. Better that than his head.

Marc has taken over well for me, so I don't need to say anymore - thanks Marc.

Oh, and since when on this board does derailing the fuck matter? wink wink wink smilie smilie

<-- re-lurks for her own peace of mind

[Msterbeau]

Oh, and since when on this board does derailing the fuck matter? wink wink wink smilie smilie

Since we're making an effort not to do so.

[sinmantyx]

They tried. Granholm (the bitch) vetoed it... last week I think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I'm sure that stupid bitch invests in HELMET sales! There is NO WAY that it has anything to do with objectively reviewing the pros and cons of the enacted law, by using data and evidence gathered during years that the state had and did not have this law. The stupid bitch is in it for some sort of nefarius purpose! She fucking sucks...and what's with the mole-thing on her face!

***This has been a sarcastic moment brought to you by sinmantyx***

What's really scary, is you are making a worse first impression on me than the person who wrote about how Alanis was a feminazi bitch, or whatever the hell that was. At least that was kinda funny.

Point is: Both sides of this debate are reasonable. If I were faced with the power to either continue or discontinue the helmet laws (or seat belt laws for that matter), it would be a difficult decision.

[cptdeath]

FFFFRRRRREEEEEEEDDDDOOOMMMMMMMMMMMM

[BrassFusion]

Let there be statistics!!

http://www.jtrauma.com/pt/re/jtrauma/abstr...#33;8091!-1

Anyone care to debunk this?

I also saw one that showed that when a helmet law was repealed in Florida... injury and death rates went up sharply. 

Something to note...  repealing helmet laws increases motorcyclist registrations.  So some of that increase could have come from more riders on the road.  Hard to say without all of the data.

Are we off topic yet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Go go gadget helmet laws then.

Now what the hell does this have to do with seatbelts? There's NO WAY enforcing seat belt laws would save the state as much money as the helmet thing you cited.

[HipsterDufus]

Go go gadget helmet laws then.

Now what the hell does this have to do with seatbelts? There's NO WAY enforcing seat belt laws would save the state as much money as the helmet thing you cited.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think what people aren't understanding here is that freedom isn't free (it costs a buck-oh-five, hehehe). However, it's up to us to maximize our freedoms as much as possible, because once you lose a freedom, you very rarely get it back (except in perhaps a revolution). I realize that this is going to be a bit of a stretch in this argument, but imagine, Marc, that someone wanted to stop you from racing because they didn't think it was safe enough? Now, remember, statistics can be made to do anything and I'm sure there are statistics out there that a greater percentage of people die racing (or get injured) than die flying, meaning it costs our society more. I'm just speaking theoretically, of course. I'm just saying, it's a lot easier to talk about removing someone else's freedom to choose to do something, but when it's turned around on us, we feel a bit differently. Just because a freedom is going to cost us, doesn't mean that it's not worth preserving.

[Msterbeau]

Go go gadget helmet laws then.

Now what the hell does this have to do with seatbelts? There's NO WAY enforcing seat belt laws would save the state as much money as the helmet thing you cited.

No. It would probably save MORE since there are far more cars on the road then bikes, and despite the ancdotal evidence presented by people in this thread to the contrary, seatbelts have been proven to save FAR more lives then they hurt. The last I rememeber, seat belt use is somewhere around 80-85%. I don't recall if that was just in Michigan or in the whole US. I recall it as being far lower 10 years ago. In the 55% - 65% range. I'm sure there are studies out there that compare death/injury rates before and after mandatory seatbelt laws were enacted. It's probably worth noting also that safety in general has become a much higher priority for consumers over the past 15-20 years, so that shift in attitudes will also be reflected in the numbers.

Yeah... so enough about helmets then. Buncha threadjackers. :innocent

[torn asunder]

i think one of the problems with any recent sealtbelt studies would be the fact that since the time seatbelt use has gone up, the safety of our vehicles has, too, with the addition of things like front & side airbags - how could one seperate out the data for seatbelts alone? i think it would be fairly difficult, to say the least...

No.  It would probably save MORE since there are far more cars on the road then bikes, and despite the ancdotal evidence presented by people in this thread to the contrary, seatbelts have been proven to save FAR more lives then they hurt.    The last I rememeber, seat belt use is somewhere around 80-85%.  I don't recall if that was just in Michigan or in the whole US.  I recall it as being far lower 10 years ago.  In the 55% - 65% range.  I'm sure there are studies out there that compare death/injury rates before and after mandatory seatbelt laws were enacted.  It's probably worth noting also that safety in general has become a much higher priority for consumers over the past 15-20 years, so that shift in attitudes will also be reflected in the numbers.

Yeah... so enough about helmets then.  Buncha threadjackers.  :innocent

[BrassFusion]

i think one of the problems with any recent sealtbelt studies would be the fact that since the time seatbelt use has gone up, the safety of our vehicles has, too, with the addition of things like front & side airbags - how could one seperate out the data for seatbelts alone? i think it would be fairly difficult, to say the least...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. And Marc...

Severe injuries due to wearing seatbelts cost us more than death due to NOT wearing them...

Right?

[Msterbeau]

I agree. And Marc...

Severe injuries due to wearing seatbelts cost us more than death due to NOT wearing them...

Right?

Assuming that deaths cost us nothing, where as ANY injury that the hospital is involved in comes out of our pockets one way or another. I agree.

So what is that number? (Deaths/injuries directly attributible to seat belt use.)

[Msterbeau]

i think one of the problems with any recent sealtbelt studies would be the fact that since the time seatbelt use has gone up, the safety of our vehicles has, too, with the addition of things like front & side airbags - how could one seperate out the data for seatbelts alone? i think it would be fairly difficult, to say the least...

You would probably have to look at the data close to the time of change in laws so you can cancel out the long term technology changes. Obviously that means you can't make accurate studies over a long period of time, unless someone smarter then us knows how to isolate that data..

Something else comes to mind: I recall articles that discuss behavioral changes in driving as new technologies are introduced. Anti-lock brakes were the particular subject but it probably applies to others as well. Basically two things were going on. One... because their cars had ABS, people were driving faster and braking later on the assumption that the ABS would have their bacon. Two... Many people didn't (And don't) know what ABS really does and how to use it effectively, so they weren't seeing the benefits. So much for technology.... :doh

[sinmantyx]

I agree. And Marc...

Severe injuries due to wearing seatbelts cost us more than death due to NOT wearing them...

Right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but major injuries due to not wearing a seatbelt cost more than minor injuries during an accident where seat-belts were used. It seem people are assuming that if you don't wear a seatbelt and are in an accident that the only result is death?!

I've been in a minor accident or two. I have never been injured in an accident. Some guy ran a light and T-boned a car at about the same time I ran into the back side of his car. The car that was T-boned was practically totalled. My car made it out fine. I probably totalled the car I ran into (cheap car...so it wasn't that difficult). It was a minor accident. Nobody's air-bag deployed and nobody was hurt at all. My seatbelt decreased the risk of head injury....go me.

[Msterbeau]

Reguardless, the least they could do is give me my 4-point seat belts! 

A couple suppliers I worked for played around with them. I think too many people feel constrained by them. so they aren't going anywhere at the moment. I guess they'd rather have an airbag blow off in their face. :doh

[BrassFusion]

Yeah, but major injuries due to not wearing a seatbelt cost more than minor injuries during an accident where seat-belts were used.  It seem people are assuming that if you don't wear a seatbelt and are in an accident that the only result is death?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't assume that at all... but what needs to happen now is that people need to make brainless clone bodies, strap them in cars (or make some of them go without seat belts for a control group), and run the cars through a series of accidents-side, front, rear, TOP, whatever- to assess the injuries in every case, with and without seat belts, and then the cost of treating those injuries.

If it is proven that the control group that went beltless cost the state a significant amount more money than the group that wore the seatbelts in terms of healthcare for the uninsured, then...

AND ONLY THEN...

will I support mandatory seat belt laws.

[Msterbeau]

I didn't assume that at all... but what needs to happen now is that people need to make brainless clone bodies, strap them in cars (or make some of them go without seat belts for a control group), and run the cars through a series of accidents-side, front, rear, TOP, whatever- to assess the injuries in every case, with and without seat belts, and then the cost of treating those injuries.

If it is proven that the control group that went beltless cost the state a significant amount more money than the group that wore the seatbelts in terms of healthcare for the uninsured, then...

AND ONLY THEN...

will I support mandatory seat belt laws.

The crash test dummies that both the government and the automakers use are set up with sensors/gizmos that allow them to get a pretty accurate idea of the severity of the injuries people sustain. From that data and the film footage they always shoot, they could extrapolate what sorts of injuries were sustained based on physics and prior crash statistics.

I'm sure they've run belted and unbelted crash runs in the past. How far back? Who knows. If the government has done it, the data is probably available to see.

The star ratings that you see on the stickers of vehicals and in advertising is based on the tests the government performs with those dummies, BTW.

[sinmantyx]

A couple suppliers I worked for played around with them.  I think too many people feel constrained by them.  so they aren't going anywhere at the moment.  I guess they'd rather have an airbag blow off in their face.  :doh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see. Well, I don't have any "issues" about being contrained. In fact, I think it's kinda hot!

I had a very small friend who sat right up to her steering wheel when she drove. If that air-bag every deployed it would most likely kill her. People really have to start putting their foot down; and realizing that what is good for the "normal" population may not be reasonable for the individual.

I'm really kinda stunned though, that this has become a conversation about whether seat belts save lives/save money/reduce injury when it seems so obvious to me that they do.

I'd be behind state sponsered "free" health care that stipulated many things: seat belt use, no smoking, maintain healthy weight, have at least one check-up a year, avoid illegal drugs, etc. So, it actually wouldn't be illegal, but you would be paying a high price for not taking care of yourself. I could see how it could run into some heavy legistical problems, but the general concept may be sound.

[BrassFusion]

I see.  Well, I don't have any "issues" about being contrained.  In fact, I think it's kinda hot!

I had a very small friend who sat right up to her steering wheel when she drove.  If that air-bag every deployed it would most likely kill her.  People really have to start putting their foot down; and realizing that what is good for the "normal" population may not be reasonable for the individual.

I'm really kinda stunned though, that this has become a conversation about whether seat belts save lives/save money/reduce injury when it seems so obvious to me that they do.

I'd be behind state sponsered "free" health care that stipulated many things: seat belt use, no smoking, maintain healthy weight, have at least one check-up a year, avoid illegal drugs, etc.  So, it actually wouldn't be illegal, but you would be paying a high price for not taking care of yourself.  I could see how it could run into some heavy legistical problems, but the general concept may be sound.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course seat belts save lives and money and reduce injury (that's why I wear mine all the time), but it's not worth the cost to our personal freedoms.

And as for the state-sponsored health care... putting those sorts of restrictions on it could turn into a slippery slope or bottomless pit. I didn't see you mention alcohol use. Also, what about people who have genetic or psychological difficulties maintaining a "healthy" weight, whatever that range is?

And illegal drugs? Would that include drugs that SHOULDN'T be illegal? Would it include addictive prescription drugs?

I can see, in a universal free health care scenario, wanting to keep the people healthier as preventive maintenance... but you can't deny the health care to anyone just because they don't take care of themselves as well. If you did, it would become a witch hunt. People would be denied health care for not exercising three days a week.

Back to Beau... where's the data, then?

[Msterbeau]

Back to Beau... where's the data, then?

You want it. You find it... :laughing

[sinmantyx]

Of course seat belts save lives and money and reduce injury (that's why I wear mine all the time), but it's not worth the cost to our personal freedoms.

And as for the state-sponsored health care... putting those sorts of restrictions on it could turn into a slippery slope or bottomless pit. I didn't see you mention alcohol use. Also, what about people who have genetic or psychological difficulties maintaining a "healthy" weight, whatever that range is?

And illegal drugs? Would that include drugs that SHOULDN'T be illegal? Would it include addictive prescription drugs?

I can see, in a universal free health care scenario, wanting to keep the people healthier as preventive maintenance... but you can't deny the health care to anyone just because they don't take care of themselves as well. If you did, it would become a witch hunt. People would be denied health care for not exercising three days a week.

Back to Beau... where's the data, then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, that's the legistical problems i was talking about. It's a might better than denying healthcare because someone is poor however. ...and all this, "have your freedom just as long as I don't pay for it" attitude that's coming off some of the arguments here point squarely at such a policy.

If you aren't going to pay for the injuries of someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt, why should you pay for the diabetes of an overweight person or the lung cancer of a smoker? You do all the time...with insurance premiums and what-not.

I'm not really arguing either way, just pointing out some consistencies of thought. It's easy to point the finger, but all of us do things (or not do things) that cost the population $$$.

[Guest Game of Chance]

How about healthcare/hospital costs?  All the uninsured motorists out there drive up the price for all of us when they get in accidents and can't pay.  If they were belted they would very like not sustain as much injury.  Same goes for helmet laws.  Even more so.

I'm not disagreeing with the Darwin thing, though...  More of a pocketbook issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll pay up to keep my personal rights. You really enjoy being told what to do?

[BrassFusion]

I'll pay up to keep my personal rights.  You really enjoy being told what to do?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*thundering applause*

[sinmantyx]

I'll pay up to keep my personal rights.  You really enjoy being told what to do?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree in principle, but I also wish that people would realize that their unhealthy choices do have consequences beyond themselves, and act accordingly, not out of the threat of force (the law) but out of a sense of social consideration.