Nice People Thread Number 10 -the official residence of Nice People

lostinrates

venetianlagoon wrote: »

I am quite short too, I will have a look at those products as I always have to fight the tendency to stick the belt under my armpits! Thanks.

Welcome Venetian lagoon.

poet123

lostinrates wrote: »

Poet I am very glad you have found your way here :T

Many thanks, I have been "away" for a while, it is nice to be back;)

PasturesNew

This New Year's Eve malarky - who is in and who is out tonight?

Strangely enough ... my diary seems unusually empty, so I am "in".

SingleSue

I'm going out for the first time in over a decade on New Years eve....the boys are seeing it in at my parent's and we will pick them up on the way home.

LydiaJ

venetianlagoon wrote: »

I am quite short too, I will have a look at those products as I always have to fight the tendency to stick the belt under my armpits! Thanks.

Welcome venetianlagoon :hello: and welcome back Poet :hello:

PasturesNew wrote: »

Booster cushion - then I can't reach the pedals in many cars.

Clip - hadn't thought of that. A big bulldog clip would work for that

Halfords - yeah, not for drivers. Although it's for people up to 160cm.... I'm 156cm.... although I might have shrunk as my sister sometimes says "Jesus you're short ... have you shrunk?"

The cushion in the picture looks as though it raises your bum without changing the height of your knees, so you might still be able to reach the pedals.

In the summer when I am wearing fewer layers of clothes and am more likely to have exposed skin from, for example, a V-neck top, I find the seat belt irritates me when it rubs, even though I am tall enough for it not to be on my neck. I use one of these: http://www.fastmotorcare.co.uk/products/Seat-Belt-Comfort-Pad-Black-.html

That might make things more comfortable, although it wouldn't put the belt in the right position to maximise safety.

SingleSue wrote: »

I'm going out for the first time in over a decade on New Years eve....the boys are seeing it in at my parent's and we will pick them up on the way home.

Have a lovely time Sue. Will you be with loverrrr?

We will be in, as usual. Most of my friends seem to be away, and I haven't pulled my finger out to organise anything.

LydiaJ

lostinrates wrote: »

Incidentally on the seat belt issue I know if cleaver where here he would remind us that when seat belts came in fatalities went up. Believe this is covered In freakonomics?

I can't find it in Freakonomics. I know there's a lot about seat belts in Superfreakonomics, but I can't find my copy ATM.

My recollection of Superfreakonomics is that it says a lot about children over the age of 3 being only slightly safer (injuries less severe but no significant change in death rate) with a child seat than with an adult seat belt. It also says a lot about seat belts being cheap and effective and saving lots of lives.

I think it may also have said something about the injury rate going up when seat belts became compulsory, because people wearing them were less likely to be killed and therefore more likely to be in the injury stats. Or something like that, but my memory's a bit hazy about that one.

Googling for stats on seat belt compulsion and road death rates produces unanimity about death rates going down when belts are mandatory. There are papers about how much it goes down by, and how to explain various unexpectednesses in the extent to which it goes down, but I'm not finding anything to support an increase in the death rate.

lostinrates

LydiaJ wrote: »

I can't find it in Freakonomics. I know there's a lot about seat belts in Superfreakonomics, but I can't find my copy ATM.

My recollection of Superfreakonomics is that it says a lot about children over the age of 3 being only slightly safer (injuries less severe but no significant change in death rate) with a child seat than with an adult seat belt. It also says a lot about seat belts being cheap and effective and saving lots of lives.

I think it may also have said something about the injury rate going up when seat belts became compulsory, because people wearing them were less likely to be killed and therefore more likely to be in the injury stats. Or something like that, but my memory's a bit hazy about that one.

Googling for stats on seat belt compulsion and road death rates produces unanimity about death rates going down when belts are mandatory. There are papers about how much it goes down by, and how to explain various unexpectednesses in the extent to which it goes down, but I'm not finding anything to support an increase in the death rate.

Ok...we all know my memory is shot, so I have probably got the book wrong. Maybe its not fatalities but crashes . I seems o remember the explanation as being that because people felt 'protected' they drove faster/with less care to avoid impact or some such. Less cautiously.

SingleSue

Nope, not with loverrr. Going out with a friend to a pub to watch another friend of mine who is a singer in a band.

Should be a good night, it's an excellent band and the atmosphere there is usually great.

zagubov

tomterm8 wrote: »

How is it more dangerous than just shaking hands with people?

That's the standard way of catching colds IIRC. Hand touches face, handshake, next persons hand touches face.

For flus and TB it's droplet inhalation (e.g sneezes and coughs)

Nikkster

lostinrates wrote: »

Ok...we all know my memory is shot, so I have probably got the book wrong. Maybe its not fatalities but crashes . I seems o remember the explanation as being that because people felt 'protected' they drove faster/with less care to avoid impact or some such. Less cautiously.

A bit like unplanned pregnancies increasing when the pill became available.