Things I Hate

[pixletwin]

I meant someone flying out and hitting someone on the sidewalk, and was making a joke. I understand what a seatbelt does


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who said anything about hitting someone on a sidewalk? I suppose that’s in the realm of possibility though.

 

[ali032373]

Yeah, it's unheard of that an unrestrained occupant fly out and hit another person. Million to one. He/she is most likely to hit asphalt. Even more unfortunate, striking a tree or telephone/utility pole can occur, which is worse.

 

[The Ween]

No, he did. You asserted that seatbelts have been known to cause deaths and he rebutted with its user error of seatbelts which have been known to cause deaths.

​Well, I'm not going to argue about it. I know there have been cases not due to error.

 

[The Ween]

Only if they're not properly fitted though. Shorter adults (below 150cm) should consider a booster seat if the car seat cannot be adequately adjusted to the seatbelt. Not sure about the US but in Oz kids have to ride in a harnessed booster suit 'til they're tall/heavy enough to sit in a regular seat.



Really?

​I was talking about airbags.

 

[The Ween]

Admit it weenie. You were incorrect about this one.

​Sorry, nope.

 

[pixletwin]

​Sorry, nope.

Therefore, what?

 

[Lejuan]

​I was talking about airbags.

Gotcha. I'm not sure how it is in the US these days, but I remember reading reports about how ridiculously powerful they were compared with other parts of the world. I think it was in the 90s that there were a few deaths in the States resulting from airbags.

 

[The Ween]

Therefore, what?

I don't feel I'm wrong.

I have nothing against air bags or seat belts. The end.

 

[pixletwin]

 

[hockeyflow33]

Gotcha. I'm not sure how it is in the US these days, but I remember reading reports about how ridiculously powerful they were compared with other parts of the world. I think it was in the 90s that there were a few deaths in the States resulting from airbags.

They still break noses, ribs, etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[crows]

. .

 

[The Ween]

 

[pixletwin]

 

[The Ween]

Nighties!

 

[crows]

Nighties!

 

[xipotec]

Seat belts are not , nor have they ever been dangerous. Any accident that would harm you if you were wearing a seatbelt would KILL you if you were not wearing them.

It like saying you do not want to get a vaccine because of a rare side effect......and ignoring the historical proof of people who died from preventable disease.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[crows]

Seat belts are not , nor have they ever been dangerous. Any accident that would harm you if you were wearing a seatbelt would KILL you if you were not wearing them.

It like saying you do not want to get a vaccine because of a rare side effect......and ignoring the historical proof of people who died from preventable disease.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh god dont get weener started on vaccines!!

 

[Spazz]

Your larger issue of mandating safety vs personal freedom loses traction for me when the injured party then turns to the govt for care (which happens a TON). At that point taxpayers are paying for his/her poor safety decisions. And we dont have the stomach as a society to simply allow injured people to suffer and/or die.

This is the most interesting aspect of the seat belt debate, if you ask me. I agree that if you're wearing a seat belt during an accident, you have a much greater chance of avoiding serious injury or death. However, I don't agree that on a societal level, enforcement results in fewer car-related fatalities, or less burden on the welfare state.

While seat belts help individuals survive accidents, drivers engage in riskier behavior when they feel safe. There's an interesting article on this subject:

https://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,00.html

Arguments for authority usually appeal to some sort of "greater good", where presumably a more authoritarian society will result in less harm. We're told that it's in our mutual interest to forfeit our liberty. I disagree. When we forfeit our freedom in exchange for safety and protection, people also tend to shirk their sense of personal responsibility. We become both reckless and indifferent. Statistically, this might actually increase car related fatalities.

I think it's a good analogy for authoritarianism in general. Live in a country where the state has an acute monopoly over the use of violence, like in Canada, and people will stand there with their cell phones, recording your suffering while waiting for the police to arrive when you're being assaulted. I've seen this sort of thing in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, where over a dozen people waiting for the bus will stand there, watching an assault take place. They have no sense of responsibility. When you try to convince people to help you intervene, they're reluctant. That's not a community. It's a clustered group of indifferent individuals, weaving through one another like cars speeding down a highway.

I'm not an idealist, but I'd feel safer living in a community that emphasized freedom and personal responsibility, than a risk-averse society that is heavily policed.

 

[Lejuan]

The "risk compensation" theory perpetuated by Adams et al with respect to the efficacy of seat belts in reducing traffic-related deaths and injury has been widely refuted by other researchers and insurers, citing flawed methodologies and the dubious interpretation of data. Here's a paper by Houston and Richardson:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42956203?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

...and another by Cohen and Einav:

https://web.stanford.edu/~leinav/pubs/RESTAT2003.pdf

...and a lay article:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/buckle-up-your-seatbelt-and-behave-117182619/

 

[WellCQCaboutthat]

Seatbelts are gay, im invincible.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk