Do you fasten your seatbelt for every journey?.....really?......I don't

Gandalfthesecond

bigjl wrote: »

It is the law. Simples.

Also have you ever attended an RTC in a professional capacity when the occupants were unrestrained, I have, many times, you would be surprised how many bits the human body can be torn into when you are ejected from a car.

People will say, but that is at speed, well I work in East London, not the M1.

When two cars hit each other doing 30 mph that is a closing speed of 60mph, exerted on any unrestrained passenger the resultant accident though fairly low speed will have serious consequences.

Such an accident occured on the Romford RD is E15 a few years ago, young family, several unrestrained, including several young children, the family now has to deal with the injuries sustained for life.

The drunk in the car that caused the RTC was wearing his belt and was fine.

Just think about it that way.

Not according to Mythbusters. I agee with the closing speeds but it's not the same as a 60mph impact into a solid object.

maryke

YES !

Not wearing a seat belt is stupid.

Asside from the fact that for some reason you are assuming that you know the place of your would-be accident (only on the highway?) - you are endangering your passengers even if they are buckled in.
In case of an accident you WILL start smashing into things inside your car, including your buckled up passengers.
You WILL NOT stay in place, I guarantee it and Newton seconds me.

Sorry to be so graphic but wearing a seat belt is THE most effective way to save lives on the road and it's so easy to do.

bigjl

wba31 wrote: »

I got shunted from behind when i was 21, and the seatbelt caused my collar bone to break, i do wonder how much worse off i would have been minus a seatbelt, possibly in a condition similar to what the paramedic described...

The chap that posted previously is volunteer not a Paramedic, please don't confuse the two.

One thing that you learn working in prehospital care is there are no absolutes, absolutes exist only in textbooks.

Most of the injuries he quotes can and do occur when restrained, the seatbelt is part of a safety system engineered into your car, and one reason why I won't buy a car without a minimum of 4 NCAP stars, but would prefer a 5 star car.

There will be the odd freak story of survival without a belt.

Ther main benefit that a seatbelt gives is that it keeps you secured into the car which has been engineered to provide as much protection as possible in the event of an RTC.

I once looked closely at an LDV Ambulance that was involved in an RTC at about 35mph, welds had given way, the chassis had bent as the weight of the Ambulance body had crushed it against what it hit. Both occupants survived with some injuries, but they weren't ejected, as that tends to have a nigh on 100% fatality rate.

Gandalfthesecond

maryke wrote: »

YES !

Not wearing a seat belt is stupid.

Asside from the fact that for some reason you are assuming that you know the place of your would-be accident (only on the highway?) - you are endangering your passengers even if they are buckled in.
In case of an accident you WILL start smashing into things inside your car, including your buckled up passengers.
You WILL NOT stay in place, I guarantee it and Newton seconds me.

Sorry to be so graphic but wearing a seat belt is THE most effective way to save lives on the road and it's so easy to do.

Depends on where your car crushes and what body parts are wedged in place. Run into the back of a truck that's stopped on a motorway when you haven't and a seatbelt won't make much difference. Newton didn't factor in seatbelts, LGV's and motorways.

Gandalfthesecond

bigjl wrote: »

I once looked closely at an LDV Ambulance that was involved in an RTC at about 35mph, welds had given way, the chassis had bent as the weight of the Ambulance body had crushed it against what it hit. Both occupants survived with some injuries, but they weren't ejected, as that tends to have a nigh on 100% fatality rate.

I saw one lucky so and so ejected from his lorry cab over the central barrier and into lane 3 of the other carriageway. Result two grazed palms. Told him he should buy a lottery ticket.

bigjl

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

Not according to Mythbusters. I agee with the closing speeds but it's not the same as a 60mph impact into a solid object.

I have watched MythBusters once or twice and some of their "results" leave a lot to be desired and their experients are biased to get the result they want.

Don't know what they did or how they got their results, but there is the same forces involved in a 60mph impact against a stationary object as there are in a collision between two objects doing 30 mph.

There are many variables, were the objects concerned solid or could they deform etc.

A 60 mph impact against a wall will have broadly the same "Mechanism of Injury" as a collision between two objects doing 30mph.

I will believe what I have seen and been taught rather than a TV program to be honest.

bigjl

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

I saw one lucky so and so ejected from his lorry cab over the central barrier and into lane 3 of the other carriageway. Result two grazed palms. Told him he should buy a lottery ticket.

NO, NO, NO. You are so wrong!!!!!!!!!

I can't believe you said that!!!!!!!

You should have asked him to buy YOU a lottery ticket!!!!:D

maryke

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

Depends on where your car crushes and what body parts are wedged in place. Run into the back of a truck that's stopped on a motorway when you haven't and a seatbelt won't make much difference. Newton didn't factor in seatbelts, LGV's and motorways.

Actually Newton took all of that into account. If the back of the truck is stopped by your car chasis far enough from your head - a seatbealt would save your life.
If a body part gets wedged in place then you would really want to have your seat belt on. The force of the impact is absorbed by your flexible chest and flexible seat belt, instead of having your stuck limb get the most of it.

Either way, in the vast majority of cases - seat belts absorb energy, while keeping you exactly where the safety engineers of the car intended you to be.

Gandalfthesecond

bigjl wrote: »

I have watched MythBusters once or twice and some of their "results" leave a lot to be desired and their experients are biased to get the result they want.

Don't know what they did or how they got their results, but there is the same forces involved in a 60mph impact against a stationary object as there are in a collision between two objects doing 30 mph.

There are many variables, were the objects concerned solid or could they deform etc.

A 60 mph impact against a wall will have broadly the same "Mechanism of Injury" as a collision between two objects doing 30mph.

I will believe what I have seen and been taught rather than a TV program to be honest.

I can't argue the injury but 60mph into a wall is a far greater impact than two cars head on each doing 30. Cars are designed to crumple in an impact to absorb energy. Two cars is two times absorbed energy. They will either move up or down on impact and a wall won't do this. That is what I was taught and not from tv.

Gandalfthesecond

maryke wrote: »

Actually Newton took all of that into account. If the back of the truck is stopped by your car chasis far enough from your head - a seatbealt would save your life.
If a body part gets wedged in place then you would really want to have your seat belt on. The force of the impact is absorbed by your flexible chest and flexible seat belt, instead of having your stuck limb get the most of it.

Either way, in the vast majority of cases - seat belts absorb energy, while keeping you exactly where the safety engineers of the car intended you to be.

Not if the under run bar takes your head off.