What's the explanation given for not wearing a seatbelt, which in London for
drivers would be lucky to get much above 50%?
Are some people lulled into a false sense of safety because of air bags?
Or is it because they don't understand Isaac Newton's laws of motion and
therefore they don't apply to them?
Martin.

Martin J wrote:
What's the explanation given for not wearing a seatbelt, which in
London for drivers would be lucky to get much above 50%?
Are some people lulled into a false sense of safety because of air
bags?
Or is it because they don't understand Isaac Newton's laws of motion
and therefore they don't apply to them?

Perhaps they recognise that the best way to avoid death and injury is to
avoid the collision in the first place and drive defensively.

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Piccadilly Pilot wrote:

Martin J wrote:

What's the explanation given for not wearing a seatbelt, which in
London for drivers would be lucky to get much above 50%? Are some
people lulled into a false sense of safety because of air bags? Or is
it because they don't understand Isaac Newton's laws of motion and
therefore they don't apply to them?

Perhaps they recognise that the best way to avoid death and injury is to
avoid the collision in the first place and drive defensively.

Also, AIUI, belts are really only important in high-speed accidents;
nothing high-speed is likely to happen in London traffic.

tom

--
NOW ALL ASS-KICKING UNTIL THE END

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Piccadilly Pilot wrote:

Martin J wrote:

What's the explanation given for not wearing a seatbelt, which in
London for drivers would be lucky to get much above 50%? Are some
people lulled into a false sense of safety because of air bags?
Or is it because they don't understand Isaac Newton's laws of
motion and therefore they don't apply to them?

Perhaps they recognise that the best way to avoid death and injury
is to avoid the collision in the first place and drive defensively.

Also, AIUI, belts are really only important in high-speed accidents;
nothing high-speed is likely to happen in London traffic.

Both the above comments are completely misguided. See, for example,
http://www.greenflag.co.uk/help/safe...ng_secure.html

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 19:01:13 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:



Also, AIUI, belts are really only important in high-speed accidents;
nothing high-speed is likely to happen in London traffic.


This is rubbish, and a lot of road safety publicity over the past few
decades has aimed to dispel this myth. I'm shocked to come across
somebody who still believes it.

Martin

Tom Anderson wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 9 Sep 2004:

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Piccadilly Pilot wrote:

Martin J wrote:

What's the explanation given for not wearing a seatbelt, which in
London for drivers would be lucky to get much above 50%? Are some
people lulled into a false sense of safety because of air bags? Or is
it because they don't understand Isaac Newton's laws of motion and
therefore they don't apply to them?

Perhaps they recognise that the best way to avoid death and injury is to
avoid the collision in the first place and drive defensively.

Also, AIUI, belts are really only important in high-speed accidents;
nothing high-speed is likely to happen in London traffic.

All the same, I'd rather not be knocked unconscious by head striking
windscreen - or, worse, killed by heavy body landing on me from behind,
even at 25 mph. One reason why I won't stand on buses if I can help it
- I've seen people get very nasty bangs when the driver has had to brake
sharply.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Martin Rich wrote:

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 19:01:13 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

Also, AIUI, belts are really only important in high-speed accidents;
nothing high-speed is likely to happen in London traffic.

This is rubbish, and a lot of road safety publicity over the past few
decades has aimed to dispel this myth. I'm shocked to come across
somebody who still believes it.

Well, given that i only learned to read in the early-to-mid 1980s, and
still don't drive, i'm afraid most of that publicity passed me by.

Still, thanks, and to Richard J, for correcting me.

tom

--
The revolving disc of plagues is particularly fun. -- greengolux

"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote:
Martin J wrote:
What's the explanation given for not wearing a seatbelt, which in
London for drivers would be lucky to get much above 50%?
Are some people lulled into a false sense of safety because of air
bags?
Or is it because they don't understand Isaac Newton's laws of motion
and therefore they don't apply to them?

Perhaps they recognise that the best way to avoid death and injury is to
avoid the collision in the first place and drive defensively.

Perhaps they don't realize that the reason it's called an "accident"
is because it goes against ALL planning. You could be driving
perfectly safe and have a lorry run smack into you!
And if that isn't enough, maybe they should consider that airbags are
only truly effective when use WITH seatbelts... Otherwise the airbag
just bats you about like a ping-pong ball...

One of my favorite quotes: "I wasn't planning on having an accident".
Well, it's like planning an accidental-pregnacy... life is what
happens while you had other things PLANNED. So, just take the
additional safety options available to you... It doesn't really take
that much addition time to use your seat belts... and seat belts have
been known to save lives... is your life worth saving... at least to
you?

wrote:
"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote:
Martin J wrote:
What's the explanation given for not wearing a seatbelt, which in
London for drivers would be lucky to get much above 50%?
Are some people lulled into a false sense of safety because of air
bags?
Or is it because they don't understand Isaac Newton's laws of motion
and therefore they don't apply to them?

Perhaps they recognise that the best way to avoid death and injury
is to avoid the collision in the first place and drive defensively.

Perhaps they don't realize that the reason it's called an "accident"
is because it goes against ALL planning. You could be driving
perfectly safe and have a lorry run smack into you!
And if that isn't enough, maybe they should consider that airbags are
only truly effective when use WITH seatbelts... Otherwise the airbag
just bats you about like a ping-pong ball...

One of my favorite quotes: "I wasn't planning on having an accident".
Well, it's like planning an accidental-pregnacy... life is what
happens while you had other things PLANNED. So, just take the
additional safety options available to you... It doesn't really take
that much addition time to use your seat belts... and seat belts have
been known to save lives... is your life worth saving... at least to
you?

I don't plan to have accidents - which they're not. I work to avoid
collisions. I passed my car test in 1975 and have never yet, even when
driving up to 1000 miles a week for my living, been anywhere near a
situation where a belt might have been needed.

It's my belief that drivers should not wear seat belts since they bring
about a false sense of security. All drivers should feel unsafe. If you
think this is some sort of illusion try riding a motorcycle and then driving
a Transit or somesuch. See which one gets the most clearance afforded by car
drivers.

It was interesting that before the wearing of seatbelts was made compulsory
the government published not only the number of deaths and injuries, but the
number of "accidents" as well. Since that time they've stopped publicising
the accident figure. I wonder why?

Piccadilly Pilot wrote:

wrote:

"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote:
Martin J wrote:
Perhaps they don't realize that the reason it's called an "accident"
is because it goes against ALL planning. You could be driving
perfectly safe and have a lorry run smack into you!
And if that isn't enough, maybe they should consider that airbags are
only truly effective when use WITH seatbelts... Otherwise the airbag
just bats you about like a ping-pong ball...

One of my favorite quotes: "I wasn't planning on having an accident".
Well, it's like planning an accidental-pregnacy... life is what
happens while you had other things PLANNED. So, just take the
additional safety options available to you... It doesn't really take
that much addition time to use your seat belts... and seat belts have
been known to save lives... is your life worth saving... at least to
you?

I don't plan to have accidents - which they're not. I work to avoid
collisions. I passed my car test in 1975 and have never yet, even when
driving up to 1000 miles a week for my living, been anywhere near a
situation where a belt might have been needed.

It's my belief that drivers should not wear seat belts since they bring
about a false sense of security. All drivers should feel unsafe. If you
think this is some sort of illusion try riding a motorcycle and then driving
a Transit or somesuch. See which one gets the most clearance afforded by car
drivers.

It was interesting that before the wearing of seatbelts was made compulsory
the government published not only the number of deaths and injuries, but the
number of "accidents" as well. Since that time they've stopped publicising
the accident figure. I wonder why?

Spot on. And I would add, most road collisions are caused by people
taking small risks lots of times, because they get away with it most
of the time but not all the time.

Others, of course, are caused by people taking large risks in the
belief they're small ones.

The most rational approach to seatbelt wearing in cars is for all
occupants except the driver to wear them. Pity the law doesn't allow it.

Colin McKenzie
--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!