SEAT BELTS

[Fazda]

Everyone who does not wear the seatbelt all the time is IMO a brainless retard and should be pulled out of traffic and getting slapped in the face.

Stupidity really has no limits

+ 10 000

It would appear as if some people should have been drowned at birth

 

[Rosaudio]

Feels weird when I drive without a seatbelt. I want to feel as if im part of the car and with no seatbelt I just feel "loose"

SO yeah a seat belt is a must. Those sensor things dont bother me but sometimes my passengers get annoyed as it also beeps for the passenger seat

 

[Anony-mousse]

I don't even drive off if the passengers don't put the seatbelts on. I'm not keen on having this moron stuck in my back from the back seat after a frontal crash.

 

[AntiThesis]

I know my golf does the little light on the dash, nothing more. It's enough to remind me on the odd occasion that I forget. It does feel much better to have one on though - feels more solidly connected to the car itself.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Actually you are. You cannot easily maintain control of your car when you are doing an emergency braking move or swerve if you are not held into your seat. That will increase the chances of other occupants in the car or other cars getting hurt.

Also, people who are badly hurt in accidents because they are too cool (even though nobody else really cares) or fat to wear a seatbelt are incredibly expensive to treat. This uses my tax money, increases the fuel price (through the RAF) and increases my medical aid contributions.

It also points to a state of mind which is part of the reason why driving in SA is the way it is.

I own and use a sports car - no, not a 'hot' hatch, so I am not one of those crazy super safety advocates. The point is wearing a seatbelt is really such a tiny inconvenience.

As soon as you introduce probability then your argument loses ground, as it is no longer based on facts. Point me to a few studies that confirm your statement about harming others and then maybe I'll believe you. Almost every study about seat belts pertains to the person using it.

Anyway I'm not saying that I don't use a seat belt and that nobody else should either. I'd have to be downright retarded to argue against the merits of wearing a seat belt. I'm saying that it should not be illegal. If people want to be dumb and kill themselves, that's their choice too.

Oh, I did also do some volunteer work at EMS a while ago. While seatbelts won't save you everytime (and everyone knows a story of a friend's friend's friend whos live was maybe saved by not wearing one), I know which one I would choose everytime. Steering wheel+no seatbelt+abnomen+a rapid stop... or back of bakkie...

Also anyone who thinks the airbags will save you (or even go off) without a seatbelt is just wrong.

I don't really care if it is by law or not (it is not being enforced anyhow) - but I really believe you are fooling yourself thinking it makes no difference. Even smokers don't pretend that they aren't putting themselves and others at risk (I don't think smoking should be banned either).

It is interesting how all the car makers manuals are at pains to tell you to wear your seatbelt (although all they really have to do is to install it to tell you to how to wear it). Maybe they know something.

Now you're moving away from saying that it harms others, to saying how it harms you. I already know of the difference it makes! Please show me where I argued against the merits of wearing one? I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to say that you're just as safe not wearing one, even if you have airbags. We all know that crash test results are based on the occupants wearing a seat belt.

@ Anony-mouse: As with anything, people who don't teach their kids properly are asking for it. Whether something is against the law or not, it's up to the parents to have their kids educated and guided properly. That's what parents are there for after all. Unless you know something I don't?

PS: How's your Euro left hand drive M3? How can you expect anyone to take you seriously again after that stunt?

 

[Anony-mousse]

@ Anony-mouse: As with anything, people who don't teach their kids properly are asking for it. Whether something is against the law or not, it's up to the parents to have their kids educated and guided properly. That's what parents are there for after all. Unless you know something I don't?

PS: How's your Euro left hand drive M3? How can you expect anyone to take you seriously again after that stunt?

So you still call me a lier? FFS, now I perhaps have to excuse being Austrian and driving left hand drive over there or what? I am 30 years old, of course I had cars, what is your problem? I only live in SA for 3 years, so please spare me your nonsense and ignore me from now on.

??? I AM European, and I never said I had this car in South Africa. I have tons of pictures of both of them on my computer. If it prevents you from talking crap I would love to send them to you. Do you also want to see registration papers and contracts perhaps?

 

[LancelotSA]

Why the hell bother about arguing the merits of a law stating you need to wear a seatbelt when you seem to agree that it is idiotic not to wear one?!?!?

 

[LancelotSA]

I only live in SA for 3 years, so please spare me your nonsense and ignore me from now on.

At least having spent three years here yourself you are no doubt aware that we are not all idiots...

 

[Anony-mousse]

At least having spent three years here yourself you are no doubt aware that we are not all idiots...

As if I would have tried to fool anyone but I am accused of lying about a stupid car. Can anyone tell me what would be the point of that?

Besides, if South Africans all were idiots, I wouldn't live here. But I just don't understand those ridiculous accusations. So why am I talked down onto like a bull****er?

 

[LancelotSA]

As soon as you introduce probability then your argument loses ground, as it is no longer based on facts. Point me to a few studies that confirm your statement about harming others and then maybe I'll believe you. Almost every study about seat belts pertains to the person using it.

....

If you are travelling at 50kph and are involved in an accident you would be thrown forward at a force equal to thirty times the weight of your body. Say you weigh 70kg, which is the average weight of dummies used to test cars, and you travelled at 50kph and are involved in a collision, you would travel forward at a force equivalent to 2.1 tons. If you were travelling at 100kph, a more appropriate speed for South African roads, the force would increase to 4.2 tons.

Do you seriously need us to quote a study which shows the dangers of a 4.2 ton mass being thrown around a public road?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Do you seriously need us to quote a study which shows the dangers of a 4.2 ton mass being thrown around a public road?

I fail to see how a force can be 4.2 tons (what does that even mean???), when it is measured in Newtons. And Newton's 2nd law (which even a high school kid can allude to) implies that a force can only act on a mass under acceleration. How about a link to your source?

@Anony-mouse: calm down man, no need to get all emo again

 

[Turbo_Aspiration]

....

Anyway I'm not saying that I don't use a seat belt and that nobody else should either. I'd have to be downright retarded to argue against the merits of wearing a seat belt. I'm saying that it should not be illegal. If people want to be dumb and kill themselves, that's their choice too.

....

I've hardly ever seen the seat belt law enforced but I'm a big believer it should be. Jaywalking should also be frowned upon more sternly. With these two measures we decrease the number of people requiring treatment from crashing through a windscreen (from the inside and outside) and help out our failing public health system. This is besides the benefits which should be released by the RAF and medical aids which has been mentioned already.

At the end of the day this does hurt the individual as it is their tax, petrol funds and medical aid payments which are being spent.

 

[Turbo_Aspiration]

I fail to see how a force can be 4.2 tons (what does that even mean???), when it is measured in Newtons.

[EDIT] 1 Ton Force = 10 000N

And Newton's 2nd law (which even a high school kid can allude to) implies that a force can only act on a mass under acceleration.

What???

Newtons 2nd states (put simply) that a force, when acting on an object, produces a proportional acceleration on that object.

In the seat belt argument, you're better off using Newton's 1st which (again simply) deals with inertia.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

[EDIT] 1 Ton Force = 10 000N

Yo're assuming gravitational acceleration of 10 m/s^2. Can you say with any certainty that all cars accelerate at the same rate as gravitational acceleration?

What???

Newtons 2nd states (put simply) that a force, when acting on an object, produces a proportional acceleration on that object.

In the seat belt argument, you're better off using Newton's 1st which (again simply) deals with inertia.

It doesn't matter which way you look at it, it's still F = MA. Therefore a force can only be present when an object is accelerating, provided that the mass remains constant. His post states constant velocities of 50 km/h and 100 km/h, i.e. no acceleration present and therefore no force present. If we're talking momentum, that's something entirely different.

 

[Turbo_Aspiration]

Yo're assuming gravitational acceleration of 10 m/s^2. Can you say with any certainty that all cars accelerate at the same rate as gravitational acceleration?

Weight is a downward force determined by gravity. 1N is equal to the downward force of a 1KG mass induced by earth's gravity.

It doesn't matter which way you look at it, it's still F = MA. Therefore a force can only be present when an object is accelerating, provided that the mass remains constant. His post states constant velocities of 50 km/h and 100 km/h, i.e. no acceleration present and therefore no force present. If we're talking momentum, that's something entirely different.

There is a negetive acceleration caused by the accident (ie sudden stop - in reality a 0.1s to 0.5s stop which they seem to use in his post). The negetive acceleration is induced by the force of the wall/car/whatever you hit.

I have to ask: Why are you debating the fact that there is force involved in an accident?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Weight is a downward force determined by gravity. 1N is equal to the downward force of a 1KG mass induced by earth's gravity.

The downward force is always there, and therefore has no bearing on the accident anyway. We live in 3 dimensions.

There is a negetive acceleration caused by the accident (ie sudden stop - in reality a 0.1s to 0.5s stop which they seem to use in his post). The negetive acceleration is induced by the force of the wall/car/whatever you hit.

Agreed, though I didn't argue against it being the case.

I have to ask: Why are you debating the fact that there is force involved in an accident?

To show that his source (which he still hasn't linked to) is full of factual inconsistencies, and therefore a bunch of tripe. "If you are travelling at 50kph and are involved in an accident you would be thrown forward at a force equal to thirty times the weight of your body." I mean who comes up with this?

 

[Turbo_Aspiration]

The downward force is always there, and therefore has no bearing on the accident anyway. We live in 3 dimensions.

It has nothing to do with any of that. By definition 1 Ton Force = 10 000N. Thats all. I get what you're saying. The article does use some terms incorrectly.

To show that his source (which he still hasn't linked to) is full of factual inconsistencies, and therefore a bunch of tripe. "If you are travelling at 50kph and are involved in an accident you would be thrown forward at a force equal to thirty times the weight of your body." I mean who comes up with this?

I agree, the way the information is presented is not entirely true (eg: you do not travel at a "force"). However, it doesn't sound like its aimed at an academic audience. The points it puts across helps the average person understand the theory (a sound one at that) of how much it sucks when you're flying through your steering wheel.

 

[semiautomatix]

...well some people really value their lives....

Mine does not beep but I get a dash light staying on if I don't belt up. The doors do lock at about 25km/h

Its not the crash but the speed of the airbag inflating that's gonna snap your neck if you don't buckle up!

 

[Turbo_Aspiration]

In reference to rear passengers that moan about wearing seatbelts:

"Method to evaluate the effect of safety belt use by rear seat passengers on
the injury severity of front seat occupants" (M. Shimamura et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 37 (2005) 5–17) did some some investigation into how this effects the front passengers.

It concluded:

In the case of vehicles with belted rear seat passengers, the injury severity of front occupants (a driver or a front seat passenger) is lower than in case of vehicles with unbelted rear seat passengers.

The number of vehicles with the killed or seriously injured is expected to decrease by about 25% for drivers and by about 28% for front seat passengers, once unbelted rear seat passengers come to wear seat belts.

 

[Waaib]

I hate those things. If a car has it I will have it turned off.

VW doesn't implement crap to annoy you and force you against your will to wear a seatbelt, like governments and other manufacturers tend to do. So I wouldn't really know

My wifes Golf 5 has a safety beep and dash warning plus the doors lock at about 20kms. My Jeep beeps after about 30 seconds when the engine is on. The doors only lock at 20kms but the beep starts even if the car is not moving.

I've asked both VW and Jeep dealerships to turn off the sound. A colleague asked Volvo. All refused stating they didn't want to be help liable and where not legally permitted to disable safety features. I'm sure non-dealership garages could do it though.

Also in the Jeep you have to use the key to open the petrol tank which means you can't have the radio on and fill up at the same time. Apparently this is regulation in the US. The ignition has a special position for operating the radio without the motor running.