Seat belt use
Related Topics
"George E. Cawthon" GeorgeC-Bo...@worldnet.att.net
This doesn't tell much about the effectiveness of seat belts but it does indicate that those law enforcement officers and undertakers that never had a "patient" that died while wearing seat belts are not too experienced.
In Idaho, which has a relatively small population, 237 people over the age of 4 died in motor vehicle collisions in 1999. Of those, 183 of those were not wearing seat belts and 64 were wearing seat belts. Seat belt usage was estimated at 58 percent and varied from 62 percent in the north to 46 percent in the southwest. Compiled by Idaho Statesman (newspaper) staff from Idaho Transportation Department Office of Highway Safety reports.
deneb ...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim)
What about the other 10, where they in the process of putting them on at the time?
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated * * newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org * * moderator contact address: b5mod-requ...@deepthot.org * * personal contact address: deneb...@deepthot.org *
"Carl A." chai...@prodigy.net
Jay, the sum of the wearers and the non-wearers totals 247, not 227.
Is it likely that 10 rose from the dead?
--
Carl A.
http://pages.prodigy.net/chainnj/Journal.htm
"George E. Cawthon" GeorgeC-Bo...@worldnet.att.net
Nope, they were helping out the ghost of arithmetic. The correct number of nonwearers is 54. Sorry about that.
"George E. Cawthon" GeorgeC-Bo...@worldnet.att.net
Oh damn! You just made as big a mistake as I did. No need to rise from the dead, they still total 237, correct number is 183 and 54. How come nobody asked about the under four?
"Joseph M. Wax" joe_remove_...@hp.com
George, It does seem to imply that you are roughly 4 times more likely to die if you don't wear seat belts.
Joe "George E. Cawthon" <GeorgeC-Bo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message ...
"George E. Cawthon" GeorgeC-Bo...@worldnet.att.net
Actually the ratio is 54/183 which is closer to 1/3. It is true that, for whatever reason, you (collectively) are 3 times more likely to die if you don't wear a seat belt. But that implies a cause an effect relationship of seat belt usage which may just be coincidence. For example, if all 183 were teenagers and all 54 were over the age of 20, what would you say about the deaths? Or for instance what if all 183 were intoxicate and the 54 were not, what you say about cause of death.
Thus you (specifically) may not be in the category that dies, regardless of seatbelt usage. As for the seat belt effectiveness, you don't know how many would die if the 183 had all been buckled up. It could be 0 or in could be 183. And you don't know how many seat belt users would have died if they had not been using seat belts, it could have been just 54 or it might have been several hundred.
However, that wasn't my main point. The point was that people do die in car crashes while wearing seatbelts.
"Young" fyo...@lakefield.net
It obviously depends on the severity of the crash. In an aircraft everybody wears a seat belt, but it has to be a limited form of crash for wearing or not wearing to have much effect on the casualties.
I think the much reduced numbers wearing seat belts in the south seems to indicate a local social attitude. Damned government gets into everything<G> Frederick "George E. Cawthon" <GeorgeC-Bo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message ...
"George E. Cawthon" GeorgeC-Bo...@worldnet.att.net
Yep. As for the south, just the statistic doesn't tell anything much.
There are a lot more people in southern Idaho, the roads are generally better, there are more freeways, and they are lots more out of state drivers, lots more tourist, lots more RV's driving through, and a myriad of other differences. Oh, and lots more teenagers to go along with the lots more people. Don't know the reason for the difference, but some people would attribute it to all sorts of reasons from religious to ethnic differences, whatever their pet peeve.
Stonie sst...@socket.net
Not gonna get into any argument about seatbelts, but....
After spending about 25 years as one of those guys who dug folks out of crunched and folded metal, I will say this: Those that die are PROBABLY wearing their seatbelts incorrectly.
Fact is, there are just some crashes that are just so horrendous nothing would save anyone. But, from where I watched...and as an ER nurse now, I have absolutely NO problem with my statement above. Folks simply aren't wearing them correctly.
Either they have them too loose, or they wear them WAY too high (oh yeah, that's good on intra-abdominal pressures).
Y'all do what you wanna do, but this ole man puts his on BEFORE starting the vehicle...and will continue to do so.
Stephen Stone
--
Stephen and Mary Ann Stone '89 Honda Aspencade "H***le Haven" Wineberry Just north of Columbia, MO.
EEEhhhaaaahhhhhh!!!!
GWRRA # 151486 and 86-1 =============================== Roo Flag Relay 2000 =============================== Interesting that a thought is worth only a penny, yet an opinion is worth two cents!
"George E. Cawthon" GeorgeC-Bo...@worldnet.att.net
Not suggesting anyone not wear one, just saying that it is not a guarantee to keep you alive. How do you wear one incorrectly or too loosely? They adjust automatically. Yes, I've seen someone move the shoulder belt out of the way, but that isn't wearing it incorrectly, it's just not wearing it.
mark97 ...@my-deja.com
I think Stonie was talking more about the lap belt part. If that one's not adjusted properly, some serious internal damage can result. And I've seen a few people wear the shoulder belt strangely, like a driver (for example) with the shoulder belt coming up from the right and then putting it under the left armpit... dunno' why they did it but I'd think in a crash that there would be some serious shoulder damage.
Mark Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Stonie sst...@socket.net
Shoot, George, last I heard there weren't ANY guarantees about that, no matter what the manufacturers say. (grin) With lapbelts, it's evident. With shoulder harnesses, I'm not sure, but I've no doubt there are folks who've figured out a way. (grin) In my pick-up, in order to snug the lapbelt, you pull on the chest restraint. The same in my wife's car.
As for me, I'll wear them both. I've seen flail chests and brother, the LAST thing I want done to me in an ER is having a chest tube inserted. Thanks but no thanks. And I've even seen short-legged folks impact the windshield with their lap belt on, but no shoulder harness.
Oh well, I'm an advocate, but not a crusader, for both. What other folks wanna do is their business.
Stonie
Enos lavitagua...@zdnetonebox.com
I really don't care what any statistics are. Laws that require adult drivers to buckle up are immoral and unconstitutional. It's my body and my life and I don't want anyone ordering me what to do with it. Next thing you know, the government will be requiring us to brush our teeth!
--
---------------------------
Ginsberg's Theorem: 1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can't quit the game.
---------------------------
Greg Surratt glsurr...@att.net
My wife used to wear them under the armpit because they chaffed her collarbone. Somewhere along the way, it got easier to just wear it right than to put it on wrong.
Seems to me that if you want somebody to do something, you have to make an attractive offer (comfort, in this case) otherwise, they'll ignore it or do it wrong and damn the legal or other consequences.
Greg
Stonie sst...@socket.net
Fantastic. I've always wanted to ask an attorney about the illegality of seatbelt laws? Would you be so good as to give me a bit of insight into the case law substantiating your claim of "unconstitutional"? I'd love to be able to show it to a LEO on the off chance I might be ticketed for not wearing.
In all honesty, I really don't have a bit of trouble with this. For me, it's known as "job security". And, as long as you aren't expecting me and the rest of these folks here to cover your medical expenses should (god forbid) the occasion ever arise that you might have a crash good for you. I'm with ya all the way. Lord knows we have enough governmental intrusion in our lives.
But, should you ever be in a roll-over crash and get tossed because you absolutely, positively, will NOT be dictated to by anyone, please follow through by doing the honorable thing and skip the part about months and months of rehabilitation OUR insurance pays for, ok?
I'm sorry. Since it could be equally argued that state mandated insurance is also unconstitutional (after all, this is MY body and MY billfold), you probably won't have a policy to file on, right? After all, being "forced" by the State to buy something is equally unconscionable and you ARE a man of your convictions, right?
(Frankly, I'm sorry I even mentioned that for I've no doubt a person with your convictions WOULD do the right and proper thing. My apologies!) On a related note, does anyone know of ANY insurance companies that expressly state they will not pay injury claims resulting from not having a seatbelt on in the event of a crash?
Stonie
Lon VanOstran RV...@voyager.net
See what happens when we allow "do-gooders" to help others? Once they start spending public money they claim the right to control every aspect of our lives because they are "paying" for the results of our decisions.
Freedom can't long survive such "logic". Soon we start weighing one man's rights against the rights of the "collective", and the rights of the individual are deemed to cost too much.
Lon, who resists attempts to vote away the individual's rights.
"Young" fyo...@lakefield.net
If you have followed what you appear to be advocating then presumably you are now able to clean your teeth overnight.
The law, and that includes the constitution does not allow you to do something that unreasonably affects someone else. When traffic fatalities rise, so do insurance rates, because those extra fatalities have to be payed out. So your demand to do what you want costs me money. Therefore whether you like it or not, I have a stake in you doing things that avoid your sudden demise.
I'm really only concerned with the increased cost. If you chose to knock yourself off in a way that doesn't cost me anything. Feel freed of your obligation to me.
Frederick ...
"George E. Cawthon" GeorgeC-Bo...@worldnet.att.net
You have a point. Government is certainly intrusive. However, not wearing a seatbelt is like breaking your nose to spite your face.
"George E. Cawthon" GeorgeC-Bo...@worldnet.att.net
The law may have something to do with it, but the Constitution doesn't.
There is no constitutional right to drive a car (that's why you have to get a license). But you do have a point. When government intrudes into what many of considered not governmental areas, then everything gets rather scrambled. In this case it is the requirement to buy insurance and that certainly changes with accident rates. I remember when I was young that you had the option to buy insurance or not buy insurance and when you had an accident, post a bond or get a release from the other person for the damages caused. Nobody gave a damn your own own injuries, (that wasn't part of the insurance) that was your responsibility. Nowadays, that probably wouldn't work because the emergency people would probably treat you without asking about insurance. They would be somewhat reluctant to leave a person lying beside the road just because he had no financial capability to pay for treatment. So now we have to pay for insurance.
Stonie sst...@socket.net
Damn I hate to break this to you, but the single most elegant, brilliant, incredible document ever devised did just exactly that. It weighed (and continues to) one man's rights against the rights of the "collective". It's called The Constitution of the United States of America.
Awesome information, eh?
And just think. It was a bunch of "do-gooders" who wrote it.
Stonie
"Young" fyo...@lakefield.net
Bill, The example you quote is a bad one. Why? Well society has an investment in it's children, and ensuring that their development is not impaired is part of that investment. I have no investment in somebody who doesn't like wearing a seat belt because he feels that it encroaches on his freedoms. With children there is a return to society. with the noncholant seat beltless driver, there is none, just a cost.
What is reasonable is usually defined by the consensus within that society, to which you and I obviously don't belong. <G> Frederick
Greg Surratt glsurr...@att.net
I'd have to dig my policy out to see about seat belts, but GEICO requires a statement that I won't own/operate a radar detector. No problem since Virginia has some (probably unconstitutional in somebody's mind) laws about owning and operating them anyways.
Greg
| To Top |