What's so difficult to understand? I don't like wearing my seatbelt when driving, most likely won't until I'm older and have kids in my car.
Are you a seat belt offender?
- Thread starter Orionaut
- Start date
What's so difficult to understand? I don't like wearing my seatbelt when driving, most likely won't until I'm older and have kids in my car.
My dad has an incredibly annoying habit of putting his seat belt on once he's already moving, usually when taking the bend at the end of his street. It is like some sort of routine/ritual he follows on autopilot, and eventually he'll probably get spotted by a policeman I guess.
He also got really annoyed that a garage wouldn't disable the seat belt alarms when he bought a new car that had them
He also got really annoyed that a garage wouldn't disable the seat belt alarms when he bought a new car that had them
I vote admins change your forum name to "Dashboard Face" in anticipation for the future when it is likely you will have a bump or two.
It's one of those things that just annoy me, why *wouldn't* you wear a seatbelt? It's obvious that it is designed to save your life.
It seems that your solution to the previous accident you had (which i note you seemed to have survived), is to risk being thrown into the path of an on coming car/a tree/a rock/the road instead. Great logic.
I really, really believe people need to see photos of people who did not wear their seatbelts at accidents, because my God, it's not pretty, especially if they've been thrown from the car.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,778
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
You didn't say that though, you originally said you feel more comfortable driving without it and then said you preferred to feel free and I've never known any seat belts to make me feel uncomfortable or give me a feeling I'm not free.
Then lets not forget your very first excuse that you couldn't get out of a car because you had one on.
I will accept your 4th excuse though because that is finally being truthful.
It means the same whichever way I say it, not wearing it makes me feel comfortable and free behind the wheel. Like I said earlier, wearing a seatbelt isn't actually uncomfortable, I just prefer not to wear it.
This is only when driving though, as a passenger I wear it as I'm more relaxed and not as alert so I wouldn't have time to react properly.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,778
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Oh I see and you have perfect reactions when you're driving.
Nothing more needs to be said.
I'm curious, how would you react, as in how much more alert would you be as a driver as opposed to a passenger if you were to be T-boned by a transit van which was doing 40mph in a 30 zone jumping a red light through a box junction?
Would you somehow manage to brace yourself better?
I'm all interested in the "when I was a kid I had an accident and couldn't get free....." argument.
You've failed to say if wearing the seatbelt when you were a kid and were unable to get free, was it the seatbelt that actually saved your life? You're posting here now, so if you weren't wearing a seatbelt back then would you now be dead?
Because I'm thinking - trapped in a car wearing a seatbelt or squished and smashed up on the road, but free, by not wearing one, I know which option I'd prefer.
It all seems rather odd that if it's a highly unlikely situation where not wearing a seatbelt would be the better option - which is shown by the sheer number of lives saved by wearing a belt, so lets say that 1 in ever 10000 accidents it would be better not to wear one.
Well I'd rather be prepared for the 9999 accidents where a belt saves my life rather than the 1 where it wouldn't.
You've failed to say if wearing the seatbelt when you were a kid and were unable to get free, was it the seatbelt that actually saved your life? You're posting here now, so if you weren't wearing a seatbelt back then would you now be dead?
Because I'm thinking - trapped in a car wearing a seatbelt or squished and smashed up on the road, but free, by not wearing one, I know which option I'd prefer.
It all seems rather odd that if it's a highly unlikely situation where not wearing a seatbelt would be the better option - which is shown by the sheer number of lives saved by wearing a belt, so lets say that 1 in ever 10000 accidents it would be better not to wear one.
Well I'd rather be prepared for the 9999 accidents where a belt saves my life rather than the 1 where it wouldn't.
Last edited:
You are not going to overcome the bodies natural instinct in a panic/flinch situation.
What makes you think you are going to be able to do ANYTHING in a crash situation?
What reaction are you hoping to have? Even with said reaction, what exactly is it that will offer you more protection than a seatbelt that is designed to work in tandem with the other safety features of the vehicle? What you going to do, jump out of the window?!
My cousin was involved in a serious car accident where not wearing a seatbelt possibly saved his life. He was thrown through the back window of the car before the back of the car, where he was sat, hit a tree.
I say "possibly" saved, because we'll never know whether the injuries received being ejected from the car were worse or less severe than what may have happened had he still been in it. Despite this he always wears his seatbelt now but is instead, wisely, a little cautious of people driving like tools.
I say "possibly" saved, because we'll never know whether the injuries received being ejected from the car were worse or less severe than what may have happened had he still been in it. Despite this he always wears his seatbelt now but is instead, wisely, a little cautious of people driving like tools.
Last edited:
Not to mention the forces involved in an accident. I don't think he understands how hard he would be flying forward.
Always wear mine unless I'm doing an awkward manoeuvre, I really can't understand why anyone wouldn't? Not only because of the extra protection in the case of an accident, but it helps me stay in the seat, meaning I'm not having to use the steering wheel to do so, reducing my ability to control the car.
That sounds like a great idea, using the thing that controls the direction of the car to stop yourself instead of... I don't know, using it to control the direction of the car...
That's completely disregarding the huge forces involved in an accident meaning you would have absolutely no hope of maintaining your grip on the wheel, and instead the only thing stopping you from becoming a human cannonball would be your face hitting the "great big round thing". That's assuming that the airbag doesn't trigger, breaking your neck.
That's based on the assumption you're going to live that long?
Do you also disable the brakes and make sure you have no tread on your tires to be cool and stick it to the man?
That sounds like a great idea, using the thing that controls the direction of the car to stop yourself instead of... I don't know, using it to control the direction of the car...
That's completely disregarding the huge forces involved in an accident meaning you would have absolutely no hope of maintaining your grip on the wheel, and instead the only thing stopping you from becoming a human cannonball would be your face hitting the "great big round thing". That's assuming that the airbag doesn't trigger, breaking your neck.
That's based on the assumption you're going to live that long?
Do you also disable the brakes and make sure you have no tread on your tires to be cool and stick it to the man?
Was walking down Broad Street in Birmingham years ago and car stopped at zebra crossing - wet road and Triumph Herald didn't stop - The young lad sitting in back seat flew between front seats and took all his teeth out on dashboard,
My 1965 Ford Zodiac was first car I had with seat belts and I used them mainly on main roads to start then when used to them all time.
Made girlfriend - now wife wear her's and we both never fail to use them.
If it was up to me I would make it a £1k fine and 6 points for not wearing one.
The wife was saved by her belt when a car in line of traffic coming towards her just veered out of line and hit her head on - she had a 3 door Mazda 323 which was one of first cars where engine went under if hit from front - she only had a cut on leg - the other guys feet were under his seat.
Dave
My 1965 Ford Zodiac was first car I had with seat belts and I used them mainly on main roads to start then when used to them all time.
Made girlfriend - now wife wear her's and we both never fail to use them.
If it was up to me I would make it a £1k fine and 6 points for not wearing one.
The wife was saved by her belt when a car in line of traffic coming towards her just veered out of line and hit her head on - she had a 3 door Mazda 323 which was one of first cars where engine went under if hit from front - she only had a cut on leg - the other guys feet were under his seat.
Dave
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,749
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I think this demonstrates the absurdity of the situation. I just hope people realise that not wearing your seatbelts does affect people other than yourself.
Having rapidly left a motorcycle following a rear wheel blowout and impact with a kerb, I know what rapid deceleration is and you cannot resist it.
I am lucky to have reached 62 years old as it happened before the helmet law and I was not wearing one.
I am lucky to have reached 62 years old as it happened before the helmet law and I was not wearing one.
Clov!s
Using the ancient government stopping figures - 75m (once started braking) @ 70mph => average speed 35mph => ~4.8s to stop
Therefore G-forces are at least 0.66 with normal braking (in any modern car your stopping distance should be considerably less so probably nearer 1G).
What this means is, if you're holding onto the steering wheel and ready you can fairly easily keep in place during an emergency stop without a seatbelt - as long as you can do a push-up fairly comfortably.
To change the equation slightly, say an emergency stop from 40mph followed by a swerve to avoid a child and a crash into a fairly immobile object - or a crash into a large vehicle that just pulled out in front of you - assuming you'll be able to scrub 10mph off your speed in 0.7s:
Deceleration from 40mph-30mph takes roughly 0.7s at which point front bumper contacts immovable object.
In my Jag S-type with an obscenely long bonnet it's a full 2m from the numberplate to the steering wheel; normally cars will be more like 1-1.5m, but let's use it anyway as it demonstrates the point that even best case scenario is as follows:
Deceleration from 30mph to 0mph in 2m is effective deceleration force of over 44m/s/s. This works out to over 4.5G force which is equivalent to you doing a push up with four of your mates and your mrs sitting on you. If you're an average 72kg male it's equivalent to bench-pressing a third of a ton and if you're more like 17-18st it's over half a ton - at 30mph
Even at 15mph with a more typical 1.5m crumple zone the forces are over 1.5G which most people will struggle to withstand.
So that's a best case scenario for a low speed crash at 30mph. It is physically impossible to hold yourself in your seat by pushing against the steering wheel in almost any crash situation - even before side impacts and other variables come into play.
Based on those figures, I struggle to understand how holding onto the steering wheel is a viable option.
Edit: and this assumes your car will let you use the entirety of the bonnet and dashboard section as a crumple zone, which seems.. optimistic.
Using the ancient government stopping figures - 75m (once started braking) @ 70mph => average speed 35mph => ~4.8s to stop
Therefore G-forces are at least 0.66 with normal braking (in any modern car your stopping distance should be considerably less so probably nearer 1G).
What this means is, if you're holding onto the steering wheel and ready you can fairly easily keep in place during an emergency stop without a seatbelt - as long as you can do a push-up fairly comfortably.
70mph = 31.1m/s
31/2 = 15.56m/s average speed
75/15.5 = 4.82s
31.1/4.82 = 6.45m/s/s deceleration
6.45/9.8 = 0.66G
31/2 = 15.56m/s average speed
75/15.5 = 4.82s
31.1/4.82 = 6.45m/s/s deceleration
6.45/9.8 = 0.66G
To change the equation slightly, say an emergency stop from 40mph followed by a swerve to avoid a child and a crash into a fairly immobile object - or a crash into a large vehicle that just pulled out in front of you - assuming you'll be able to scrub 10mph off your speed in 0.7s:
Deceleration from 40mph-30mph takes roughly 0.7s at which point front bumper contacts immovable object.
In my Jag S-type with an obscenely long bonnet it's a full 2m from the numberplate to the steering wheel; normally cars will be more like 1-1.5m, but let's use it anyway as it demonstrates the point that even best case scenario is as follows:
Deceleration from 30mph to 0mph in 2m is effective deceleration force of over 44m/s/s. This works out to over 4.5G force which is equivalent to you doing a push up with four of your mates and your mrs sitting on you. If you're an average 72kg male it's equivalent to bench-pressing a third of a ton and if you're more like 17-18st it's over half a ton - at 30mph
40mph = 17.77m/s
30mph = 13.33m/s
difference = 4.44m/s
given deceleration = 6.45m/s/s, time taken = 4.44/6.45 = 0.69s
Average speed during deceleration from 13.33m/s to 0m/s = 6.67m/s
(Note this is best case scenario since in reality there will be less deceleration initially and more deceleration later)
2m (stopping distance)/6.67m/s = 0.3s stopping time
13.33m/s / 0.3 = 44.44m/s/s/ deceleration time
44.44/9.8 = 4.54G (absolute best case scenario in crashing into immobile object at 30mph)
30mph = 13.33m/s
difference = 4.44m/s
given deceleration = 6.45m/s/s, time taken = 4.44/6.45 = 0.69s
Average speed during deceleration from 13.33m/s to 0m/s = 6.67m/s
(Note this is best case scenario since in reality there will be less deceleration initially and more deceleration later)
2m (stopping distance)/6.67m/s = 0.3s stopping time
13.33m/s / 0.3 = 44.44m/s/s/ deceleration time
44.44/9.8 = 4.54G (absolute best case scenario in crashing into immobile object at 30mph)
Even at 15mph with a more typical 1.5m crumple zone the forces are over 1.5G which most people will struggle to withstand.
So that's a best case scenario for a low speed crash at 30mph. It is physically impossible to hold yourself in your seat by pushing against the steering wheel in almost any crash situation - even before side impacts and other variables come into play.
Based on those figures, I struggle to understand how holding onto the steering wheel is a viable option.
Edit: and this assumes your car will let you use the entirety of the bonnet and dashboard section as a crumple zone, which seems.. optimistic.
/\This is what I was getting at regarding my quoted post above.
If you cannot hold onto the steering wheel and brake violently (without hitting anything) without your seatbelt on, there is something wrong with your grip/wrist strength.
I did however some how insert the word "accident" which I suppose led to Haggismans reply.
If you cannot hold onto the steering wheel and brake violently (without hitting anything) without your seatbelt on, there is something wrong with your grip/wrist strength.
I did however some how insert the word "accident" which I suppose led to Haggismans reply.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,778
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
but what are the figures for Clov!s?