Nope.
It isn't something under conscious control, you know.
I refer you to: "Target Risk" by Prof Gerald J.S. Wilde [PDE Publications, 1994] "Risk" by Prof John Adams [Taylor and Francis, 1995]
???
It might be for some but it's an argument I've never understood.
And I'm not convinced by statistics, even those which show that women are safer drivers than men!
Mary
No. It is for everyone.
You know that for sure?
You've observed ALL the belted and non-belted drivers in the world during every one of their journeys?
Cor.
Mary
What amazes me about those who feel that they are safer without belts (because THEY are driving safely) is that they forget that there are others out there who may not be driving safely, and can ram into them or otherwise cause an accident.
Sheila
Omniprescent? Or just relying on generalisations, as all statisticians do?
I am living proof that seat belts are not always safer
The science - of which I have read a great deal over the last 20 years - is convincing.
but on the whole, more lives are saved by seatbelts than those lost so in general it's a good idea to wear one.
That is my understanding also.
Then they discovered they helped with belts as well.
Americamns don't wear belts, or havbe them swing away when th edors open, because they can't reach round their enormous guts.
Indeed. Possibly its related to teh fact that they are statistically more likley to do short hops, not under quite so much time pressure, and the damage they do in the supermarket car parks never gets into the statistics :-)
Anecdotally women can be as good as men in driving. They just aren't often interested in being good. Men try harder, but that often makes them worse...*shrug* its a funny old world.
Precisely.
If you REALLY want to feel insecure, the obvious example is to ride a motorcycle. Arguably motortcyclists are amomngst the bets drivers there are - they have to be. The death rate is still higher tho.
Personally, I would willingly trade the additional paranoia of not having a belt, ffor self induced paranoia, and the knowledge that if te worst DOES come to the worst, I personally meay be able to walk shakily away from a twisted lump of metal.
Possibly not - how many times do you change religion - but section 8.2 was a very interesing read for (anti-religious) me.
Geo
All the evidence I have seen says this isn't true. The fatalties are merely transferred (because of seat belts) from car drivers to other road users.
So what is your source for this claim?
... still missing the point.
That's right. You personally may be able to. At the same time every other bugger is thereby placed at greater risk from you. You increase the likelihood of the "twisted lump of metal" occuring.
That's the point.
You wish to minimise risk to yourself. I wish to minimise risk to other road users. We have different objectives and each adopt the strategy best suited to our respective objectives.
sg> I wish to minimise risk to other road users.
Sell your car.
Prof Adams most recent paper should be retrievable via , I think.
Not very Dawrinina of you, but even if its true - and staitistics only show co-incidence, not necessarily correlation and certainly not necessarily causality - then isn';t it time the pedestrians had seat belts of their own?
:-0)
The Natural Philosopher wrote:ise
Usually due to being run over by following vehicles...
Niel, former instructor/examiner motorcyclist...
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.