Vote
37
up
2
down
report video
Crash with an Unbelted Rear-Seat Passenger
Posted 7 years ago by Saija in category: interesting
Comments (5)
DaveJoyce - 7 years ago [ Reply ]
0
up
0
down
Is it just me or does the unbelted guy look like he came out better? The whiplash on the belted passenger looked brutal.

 Reply to this post:
Add comment as a guest or [ login ] to use your username

tengu - 7 years ago [ Reply ]
0
up
0
down
DaveJoyce: yes; you're right - it's just you :>

 Reply to this post:
Add comment as a guest or [ login ] to use your username
DaveJoyce - 7 years ago
0
up
0
down
  ha! :) 

(guest) - 7 years ago [ Reply ]
0
up
3
down
The video would be more effective if it wasn't as patronizing. While it is true that seatbelts save lives and it is also true that seatbelt use in the back of cars save lives, I oppose it being enforced by law. It should be up to the driver and front seat passenger to decide if the person in the back has to wear a seatbelt. Not wearing a seatbealt in the back seat increases mortality rates by about 30% at most (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419765/). But dying in a crash is a very low risk (about 28 ppmillion/year in UK), so the 30% increase is not as horrible as it sounds. Less than 5% of all miles travelled are travelled on a back seat. The overall risk of dying in a car crash increase by about 1ppmillion to 29ppmillion/year. Therefore, the video is geared towards reducing a minimal risk increase (those factors combined makes it a 29ppmillion chance). The effectiveness of seatbelts is constantly overstated. Mostly beacause people are more complicated than policy-makers think. On 15 October 1985 the British Government had to concede that the indroduction of seatbelts had saved 200 (over a three year period) rather than the expected 1000 lives, because people - feeling safer with seatbelts would drive faster - causing more deadly accidents. Since then, and without relation to seatbelt laws, the overall increase in security features in cars have improved the number of deaths by significantly more than 200 per 3 year period. Down to about 1700 pa from 4000 in 1982 (without seatbelt laws) in the UK. Risk-taking should not be forbidden by law, if you don't hurt others. One sky dive is 4 times more dangerous (8 micromorts) than driving 100 miles without a seatbelt (2 micromorts); one base jump is 225 times more risky (450 micromorts); yet neither are forbidden. Riding a motorcyle is 80 times more risky than driving without a seatbelt, yet motorbikes are not forbidden. Therefore, in my opinion, it should not be forbidden to ride without a seatbelt. It's ok to inform people about the risk, but just cut the patronizing. Anyone should be able to take risks, be it for the thrill (like skydiving or motorcycling) or be it for convenience and comfort (like no seatbelt). I for one am fine with not wearing a seatbelt and knowing that I live 80 times safer than if I would ride a motorcycle.

 Reply to this post:
Add comment as a guest or [ login ] to use your username
LW (guest) - 4 years ago
0
up
0
down
  When society has to help you pay your medical bills, or loses a working and able body, your actions don't just affect you. 

Add comment as a guest or [ login ] to use your username