It's true. I refer you to the two references I have repeatedly given you.
The arguments and demonstrations of "risk homeostasis" do not rest solely on statistics but also on experiment showing mechanism, cause and effect.
So, the "one third" so often quoted by the camera fascists is *still* a lie.
"We believe" = "a guess".
AKA their own private air bags
ha ha
I'm living proof that they sometimes are.
Mary
Safer for whom? Nobody doubts that they increase the safety of the driver. In what sense are you the "living proof" that they increase the safety of anyone else rather than decrease it?
This is all very fine and large, Simon, and I can appreciate your statistical arguments, but to be honest I don't know that many people, who when push comes to shove would knowlingly put themselves in a position of increased danger on the road to the benefit of others.
I'm talking of Mr Average Motorist here, rather than perhaps emergency services and others who might do that from choice.
With these specifics taken out of the equation, it doesn't strike me that most people would go unbelted on the argument that it is safer for the other guy. I can see the logic, but it is counter-intiuitive,
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Well you know one. I'd prefer not to have the accident in the first place. Not wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of my being involved in an accident.
I'm not asking anyone else to prefer it. I'm explaining why I personally don't wear a seat belt for perfectly logical reasons and why the claim that "seatbelts save lives" is in fact untrue. They don't. The claim "seat belts are safer" is similarly bogus.
In the words of Prof Adams [reference above]: "The evidence from Britain, which has been singled out as the only jurisdiction in the world in which it is possible to measure fatality changes directly attributable to a seat belt law, suggests that the law produced no net saving of lives. It did, however, redistribute the burden of risk from those inside vehicles, who were already the best protected, to those outside vehicles, who were the most vulnerable."
And increases the chances of you being KSI. So, not all bad news, then. Try and die quickly to reduce the amount of my taxes you piss away, won't you?
OK, I see what you are saying. Accepting what Prof. Adams says (no reason not to); the implication is that you feel that you are less likely to be involved in an accident because you feel that not wearing a seatbelt will make you more likely to be careful as I understand what you are saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Therefore from the fatalities and accidents point of view, you can perhaps argue that because you are being safer, you stand less chance of being involved in an accident with the more vulnerable pedestrian. Even if they cause an accident by being drunk, stupid or not paying attention they would appear to be less likely to be as harmed because you had been driving carefully? OK, fair enough.
However, if you then consider other car users who are wearing seat belts, and the argument runs that they are being less careful as a result, it seems to me that in that scenario, your not wearing a seatbelt reduces the risk of you having an accident caused by you, but not one caused by everybody else. I'm not sure of the applicable statistics here, but although you have reduced the risk on your side, overall for you it is not reduced that much because of everybody else's stupidity. Let's say hypothetically that the penalty for not wearing a seatbelt was unacceptable to you (doesn't matter what the penalty would need to be) and as a result you did wear a seatbelt; I am not sure that the situation would have changed since you with your view regarding pedestrian vulnerability yu would drive carefully anyway.
On the subject of penalties, presumably at some point you will be stopped and prosecuted. I don't know what the penalty is off hand (money plus points presumably). Would you just pay up or do you feel that you would contest the issue?
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
It's not what I feel in particular. Every driver not wearing a seat belt is thereby less likely to be involved in an accident. That's what the demonstrations of risk homeostasis show. It remains the case that in the event of them nevertheless being involved in one of these (less likely) accidents, then the probability of death or more serious injury for each of those drivers who has been so involved is more likely because in the event of an accident a seatbelt protects you more.
Correct - or indeed less chance of being involved in an accident with anyone else.
As long as you understand that this greater caution on the part of the unbelted driver is not a conscious matter.
No. It does not so follow. The fact that you are more cautious increases the chance of you avoiding an accident - period. That includes an increase in the probability of you avoiding an accident that is (as you put it) "caused by someone else" - because you are more cautious generally. It doesn't mean (as some idiots have suggested) that I am saying you can avoid all accidents. There are some scenarios whereby there can never be any conceivable way for you to avoid them - however alert and careful you are. But equally there are numerous accidents that are "caused by someone else" which you can avoid being involved in by imposing an increase in caution on yourself.
I agree that if every driver did not wear a seat belt then there would indeed be less accidents in total. I don't see that ever happening.
Yes it has (see above).
10 last time I was knicked about 10 years ago
It's not a matter of my "view" at all. Risk homeostatsis is not something occuring at the conscious level.
However you consciously choose to drive, you are more cautious un-belted because you personally feel more vulnerable - every second.
Twice in 20 years
Nope. Just a fine (see above).
What's to contest? The law is quite clear - albeit quite wrong.
Generally speaking it never comes to it. Generally, I have found that an explanation of why I don't wear a seat belt to the copper concerned results in them just walking away. Funnily enough, I have found that the average plod seems to have far less difficulty grasping these fairly simple concepts than the average usenetter.
I can't believe that people are still responding to this thread. It has nowt to do with DIY, and quite frankly if someone feels that they don't want to wear a seat belt then that's their business - no animals or children are harmed by this difference of opinion - and it occurs to me that no amount of ya-boo-sucks arguments are going to change minds on either side.
My own position is that I happen to wear a seat belt, and insist on my family wearing seat belts, because I am persuaded that they are a good idea and could have a seriously beneficial effect in the event of a collision. But if someone else has a different view that's cool, it's their life to do as they wish with, and the only time this would cause me a problem is if that person were a passenger in my vehicle. Aside from that (which isn't going to happen anyway) I couldn't give a flying toss about the argument either way.
Any chance we could all drop this rather ridiculous argument and get back to what this forum is supposed to be about?
PoP
So you then decide you are going to rehash it all and go back to the beginning.
Very logical.
Presumably, because you are entirely sanguine at the increased risk you are placing other road users.
Of course. And you are happy that you thereby are more likely to have an accident.
I said nothing about logic, just a simple statement of fact
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.