On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:50:58 GMT, Johannes H Andersen wrote:
I'm of the opinion that the government should do whatever they can to help
you make yourself safe. Make sure the roads are in good shape, properly
lit, clear of debris, etc. Make sure car companies provide seat belts,
air bags, safety cages, etc. But, I have a hard time accepting that the
government should require me, an adult, to wear a seat belt. I'll accept
seatbelt laws for minors because they haven't developed common sense, but
once you're an adult, it should be up to you to look after yourself.

Someone I know runs a business that, by its very nature, presents a
moderate risk to the employees (heavy equipment, industrial machinery).
His feeling is "I'll do anything I can to protect you from this stuff, but
I'm not going to protect you from yourself."

Shane Almeida wrote:

Funny....I have never seen or heard of anyone objecting to putting on a
seatbelt when required to do so in a passenger aircraft...so why is it
such a big deal in a car where the benefits are much, much more likely
to be proven the hard way?

A friend of mine hit a stationary truck at 100 KPH (60 MPH) in a small
car. The car was fitted with a drivers airbag which failed to inflate
but she was mercifully wearing a standard european style lap/diagonal
seat belt and she survived with only minor cuts (from flying glass) and
a massive seatbelt shaped bruise where the belt decelerated her from 100
KPH rather quickly.

As an unrestrained front seat occupant of a motor vehicle (it doesn't
matter much what the vehicle is)in a head on collision with a solid
stationary object or a solid obect moving in the opposite direction,
your chances of surviving are close to nill. Your chance of surviving
without massive trauma and disfigurement are nill. There is nothing in a
car that can decelerate a human being from that sort of speed other than
a seatbelt or an airbag (or much better yet both) without the human
being being massively damaged.

Many years ago I had the dubious priviledge of seeing the result of a
head on collision (truck @ 60 KPH and car @ approx 100 KPH) in which
both the driver and passenger of the car were decapitated by the
*safetly* glass of the windscreen. The guy driving the car had been
married just 1 hour and the front seat passenger was his father in
law....I don't envy the person who had to break the news to the bride.
Neither party was wearing a seatbelt and this was a bit before the
invention of airbags.

Cheers

Paul BJ

Shane Almeida wrote:

Funny....I have never seen or heard of anyone objecting to putting on a
seatbelt when required to do so in a passenger aircraft...so why is it
such a big deal in a car where the benefits are much, much more likely
to be proven the hard way?

A friend of mine hit a stationary truck at 100 KPH (60 MPH) in a small
car. The car was fitted with a drivers airbag which failed to inflate
but she was mercifully wearing a standard european style lap/diagonal
seat belt and she survived with only minor cuts (from flying glass) and
a massive seatbelt shaped bruise where the belt decelerated her from 100
KPH rather quickly.

As an unrestrained front seat occupant of a motor vehicle (it doesn't
matter much what the vehicle is)in a head on collision with a solid
stationary object or a solid obect moving in the opposite direction,
your chances of surviving are close to nill. Your chance of surviving
without massive trauma and disfigurement are nill. There is nothing in a
car that can decelerate a human being from that sort of speed other than
a seatbelt or an airbag (or much better yet both) without the human
being being massively damaged.

Many years ago I had the dubious priviledge of seeing the result of a
head on collision (truck @ 60 KPH and car @ approx 100 KPH) in which
both the driver and passenger of the car were decapitated by the
*safetly* glass of the windscreen. The guy driving the car had been
married just 1 hour and the front seat passenger was his father in
law....I don't envy the person who had to break the news to the bride.
Neither party was wearing a seatbelt and this was a bit before the
invention of airbags.

Cheers

Paul BJ

Bengt Österdahl wrote:
This also holds for countries where the hospitals and health care are
funded more by insurance funds. All traffic injuries just increase the
insurance fee and I will have to pay for other peoples "freedom" to look
after themselves. Thus, people not wearing seatbelts are basically
stealing from those who are more cautious, wearing seatbelts and paying
their taxes/insurance fees.

Having legislation controlling seat belt usage is thus comparable with
having legislation controlling fraud, corruption etc.

--
th

"Colin Stamp" <colin (AT) stamp (DOT) plus.com> wrote

You heard wrong. The US Airbags are meant to be used in conjunction with
seatbelts just like yours.

-Fred W

Oh yeah, that has to be it... It's because all Americans are big, fat and
stupid, right?

Talk about predjudice and bigotry!
Do you folks actually believe half of the tripe that you spew?
Perhaps it is all just a case of sour grapes?

-Fred W

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:33:59 -0500, "Fred W." <Fred.Wills@'remove this
to reply to' myrealbox.com> wrote:

Where did I say they weren't meant to be used with seatbelts?
US airbags have an *extra* requirement above european ones - they have
to provide some last-ditch protection for beltless people. To meet
that requirement, they have to be bigger, more powerful and more
dangerous.

A casual Google seems to confirm. It seems I heard right after all.

Cheers,

Colin.

"Colin Stamp" <colin (AT) stamp (DOT) plus.com> wrote

Then let me clarify the intent of my reply: US airbags are only designed to
effectively protect the occupants during a crash if they are also wearing
their seatbelts. They are not designed to provide adequate protection when
seatbelts are not worn. Any airbag would provide *some* amount of
additional protection as compared to no airbag, even without seatbelts, but
that is not the intention of the design.

A casual Google gives me no sites that say otherwise. Please provide a link
to any credible site that does.

Thanks,
Fred W

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:16:43 -0500, "Fred W." <Fred.Wills@'remove this
to reply to' myrealbox.com> wrote:

Nothing can provide adequate protection to an unbelted person, but US
airbags seem to be subject to some standard requirement intended to
improve the chances of the belt-free.

It is the intention of the extra US requirement. The designers, as you
say, may not be under any such illusions but their hands are (were?*)
tied.

I already have. On this very thread even.
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl...hnsb%404ax.com

or there's this, which mentions legislation.
http://www.cars.com/carsapp/kentucky...gs_switch.tmpl

or how about this.
http://www.dotars.gov.au/transreg/str_airbag.htm

*One thing I haven't come across, is anything to say that the
legislation is still current.

Cheers,

Colin.

"Colin Stamp" <colin (AT) stamp (DOT) plus.com> wrote

Funny that there are more foreign (non-US based) web sites that make this
claim about the US situation that there are sites within the US. It does
seem to cast some doubt about the credidability of such claims.

I think more digging is in order. Perhaps as you say, this was the
intention at one time, but I'm pretty sure it is not any longer. I'll see
if I can find out more from NHTSA.

-Fred W