Why you should wear seatbelts

[Kaido]

http://i.imgur.com/vnjFu1O.gif

Garry's mod, dat you?

Edit: Now with video: (thanks deadken)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYiED3ObZh8

 

[slugg]

I had no idea you were actually supposed to WEAR set belts. I thought their sole purpose was to complete the circuit in the buckle. My car sounds and alarm and flashes lights at you to let you know that the circuit is incomplete. As soon as you buckle in the seatbelt, the noises and lights go away. Then I just sit my ass on the seat, put on my sunglasses, bluetooth headset, hold my coffee out the window, and proceed to cut everyone off without using my blinkers. I love my BMW.

 

[Bartman39]

http://i.imgur.com/vnjFu1O.gif

Garry's mod, dat you?

Dem Damn Dummies...

 

[deadken]

The next time I'm sliding my car likely exceding the legal speed limit, perfectly perpendicular to the way I should be going, at an angle of over %20, with the lowest wheel elevated about a foot off the ground, and coming up to a point where the wheels could come to a sudden violent stop, I'll be sure to buckle up.

Seriously, I always wear a seatbelt. But, this video has NOTHING to do with why people SHOULD wear their seatbelts. This is a great video for many reasons. I just don't think it should dictate the way most people should live their life.

I'm a big Volvo guy. So, when I took my 1972 1800ES to the Volvo North American headquarters for the open house (IIRC in 2010), I watched the airbag demostration. When they blew off a side curtain airbag it stayed inflated pretty well for probably over a minute. When I asked why I was told to keep people from being ejected from the vehicle in case of a roll. So, if you are in a Volvo with side curtains, you still don't have to buckle up to be protected from ejection from the vehicle even in an absurdly unlikely situation as this.

 

[Fenixgoon]

The next time I'm sliding my car likely exceding the legal speed limit, perfectly perpendicular to the way I should be going, at an angle of over %20, with the lowest wheel elevated about a foot off the ground, and coming up to a point where the wheels could come to a sudden violent stop, I'll be sure to buckle up.

Seriously, I always wear a seatbelt. But, this video has NOTHING to do with why people SHOULD wear their seatbelts. This is a great video for many reasons. I just don't think it should dictate the way most people should live their life.

I'm a big Volvo guy. So, when I took my 1972 1800ES to the Volvo North American headquarters for the open house (IIRC in 2010), I watched the airbag demostration. When they blew off a side curtain airbag it stayed inflated pretty well for probably over a minute. When I asked why I was told to keep people from being ejected from the vehicle in case of a roll. So, if you are in a Volvo with side curtains, you still don't have to buckle up to be protected from ejection from the vehicle even in an absurdly unlikely situation as this.

so let's say you're in an SUV and make an emergency maneuver that results in your vehicle flipping.

you would in fact be going at or near the speed limit with your vehicle's front end perpendicular to the axis of travel. and that is why these tests are relevant

 

[BUTCH1]

The next time I'm sliding my car likely exceding the legal speed limit, perfectly perpendicular to the way I should be going, at an angle of over %20, with the lowest wheel elevated about a foot off the ground, and coming up to a point where the wheels could come to a sudden violent stop, I'll be sure to buckle up.

Seriously, I always wear a seatbelt. But, this video has NOTHING to do with why people SHOULD wear their seatbelts. This is a great video for many reasons. I just don't think it should dictate the way most people should live their life.

I'm a big Volvo guy. So, when I took my 1972 1800ES to the Volvo North American headquarters for the open house (IIRC in 2010), I watched the airbag demostration. When they blew off a side curtain airbag it stayed inflated pretty well for probably over a minute. When I asked why I was told to keep people from being ejected from the vehicle in case of a roll. So, if you are in a Volvo with side curtains, you still don't have to buckle up to be protected from ejection from the vehicle even in an absurdly unlikely situation as this.

Another important issue is without wearing the belt a frontal impact would have your face very close to the airbag as it deploys, this would be a bad thing.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Good luck on finding a military pilot/flight officer that does not believe in seat belts

 

[JulesMaximus]

The next time I'm sliding my car likely exceding the legal speed limit, perfectly perpendicular to the way I should be going, at an angle of over %20, with the lowest wheel elevated about a foot off the ground, and coming up to a point where the wheels could come to a sudden violent stop, I'll be sure to buckle up.

Seriously, I always wear a seatbelt. But, this video has NOTHING to do with why people SHOULD wear their seatbelts. This is a great video for many reasons. I just don't think it should dictate the way most people should live their life.

I'm a big Volvo guy. So, when I took my 1972 1800ES to the Volvo North American headquarters for the open house (IIRC in 2010), I watched the airbag demostration. When they blew off a side curtain airbag it stayed inflated pretty well for probably over a minute. When I asked why I was told to keep people from being ejected from the vehicle in case of a roll. So, if you are in a Volvo with side curtains, you still don't have to buckle up to be protected from ejection from the vehicle even in an absurdly unlikely situation as this.

No, of course not. We have laws for that.

 

[deadken]

so let's say you're in an SUV and make an emergency maneuver that results in your vehicle flipping.

you would in fact be going at or near the speed limit with your vehicle's front end perpendicular to the axis of travel. and that is why these tests are relevant

I didn't say that the test wasn't relevant. I simply pointed out that the factors used in this demonstation / test aren't typical. The demonstration / test just doesn't use a likely set of parameters, which is one reason why it is such a spectacular video. It's kind of like Dateline NBC using model rocket engines to ignite the side tanks of a GM pickup in their 'investigation'. It doesn't mean that the 'side saddle' gas tanks couldn't ignite in an accident. The model rocket engines were added to MAKE SURE the gas tanks ignited. The Dateline NBC demonstration / test was purely done for maximum effect. Not realistic, not common, not fact, but great showmanship. See the correlation?

I also pointed out that I always wear a seatbelt. Then, I went as far as to point out why people likely wouldn't be ejected in the newer SUV's with the side curtain airbags. Now, could people get really badly hurt being rolled around inside an SUV? Sure. But would they be ejected? Likely not.

Hey BUTCH1, could you tell me why you quoted my post? I don't understand why it'd be relevant to what you wrote. I think I understand what you mean, but I have no idea why my post would be relevant. Well, unless you didn't read or fully comprehend what I wrote. BTW: a PM would be fine.

Thanks Jules! This thread needed a good dose of sarcastic wit.

Well, I better end this email here and get back to driving, some idiot in front of me isn't watching what he is doing....

 

[EagleKeeper]

Well, I better end this email here and get back to driving, some idiot in front of me isn't watching what he is doing....

Of course not; he is reading your post here.:hmm:

 

[Fenixgoon]

I didn't say that the test wasn't relevant. I simply pointed out that the factors used in this demonstation / test aren't typical. The demonstration / test just doesn't use a likely set of parameters, which is one reason why it is such a spectacular video. It's kind of like Dateline NBC using model rocket engines to ignite the side tanks of a GM pickup in their 'investigation'. It doesn't mean that the 'side saddle' gas tanks couldn't ignite in an accident. The model rocket engines were added to MAKE SURE the gas tanks ignited. The Dateline NBC demonstration / test was purely done for maximum effect. Not realistic, not common, not fact, but great showmanship. See the correlation?

I also pointed out that I always wear a seatbelt. Then, I went as far as to point out why people likely wouldn't be ejected in the newer SUV's with the side curtain airbags. Now, could people get really badly hurt being rolled around inside an SUV? Sure. But would they be ejected? Likely not.

Hey BUTCH1, could you tell me why you quoted my post? I don't understand why it'd be relevant to what you wrote. I think I understand what you mean, but I have no idea why my post would be relevant. Well, unless you didn't read or fully comprehend what I wrote. BTW: a PM would be fine.

Thanks Jules! This thread needed a good dose of sarcastic wit.

Well, I better end this email here and get back to driving, some idiot in front of me isn't watching what he is doing....

so which cars come with model rocket engines next to the gas tank?

"completely fabricated" is not the same as

"highly unlikely but possible event that DOES occur during 'normal' driving conditions"

rolling over is a completely natural tendency of a vehicle with a high center of gravity under high steering rate conditions. it's the laws of physics.

 

[nerp]

Making a statement about personal liberties with seatbelts is just idiotic. Pick something that actually affects our freedom of speech in a fundamental way instead of potentially costing society more money due to your negligence.

 

[deadken]

so which cars come with model rocket engines next to the gas tank?

"completely fabricated" is not the same as

"highly unlikely but possible event that DOES occur during 'normal' driving conditions"

rolling over is a completely natural tendency of a vehicle with a high center of gravity under high steering rate conditions. it's the laws of physics.

I believe that the only reason Dateline NBC even did that episode was because of the large number of fiery accidents involving GM pickup trucks. GM had faced more than 100 lawsuits stemming from death-and-injury crashes involving the trucks, around the time of the Dateline piece (therefore meeting the "highly unlikely but possible event that DOES occur" part of your arguement). Without rocket engines the fiery accidents were still VERY real. The point I was trying to make is that the rollover video and Dateline video were both done to deliberately make sure a certain outcome occured.

BTW: Did you notice that I cut off the "during 'normal' driving conditions" part of your statement? I did that because in your previous post, when you talked about the test being relevant, you stated "so let's say you're in an SUV and make an emergency maneuver that results in your vehicle flipping". Gee, that doesn't seem like a 'normal' driving conditions. Please, re-group your thoughts. Get them all on the same page and stop contradicting yourself. It comes off as you twisting things around to make them fit what you are trying to say at the moment.

Did you watch the part of the video where they show the side shot of the dolly / rig used to get the truck to flip like that? Does that dolly / rig meet your standard of what "DOES occur during 'normal' driving conditions"?!? Please, feel free to explain how...

Now, let's move on to the next part of your statement. You state that "rolling over is a completely natural tendency of a vehicle with a high center of gravity under high steering rate conditions". Could you please tell me where in that video you see "high steering rate conditions"? Because, when I watch that video, I see that the steering is LOCKED STRAIGHT ON. In (4) rolls, the steering angle never changes. Even when the right rear wheel gets broken and twisted (BTW: on a SOLID axle, not IRS), the front wheels stay locked forward. Ohh well, so much for high steering rate conditions. But, it does add another self contradiction on your part.

Ok, onto the last sentence in your reply " it's the laws of physics". I'm not disputing, at all, that what happened in that video goes against the laws of physics! I'm suggesting that the 'demonstration / test' was designed to get the result you saw. Based on what I can see, someone with a knowledge of physics designed that rig and demostration to get that end result (the truck rolling over and over 4 times). Please, go back and read that part again.

AGAIN: I wear my seat belt. I always do. In my Jetta I have a 4-point belt, and I still wear it even when just driving around the block. I just disagree that this video should be the reason why people should. There are many more ways that a seat belt will help you over keeping you inside in the case of a roll over situation like the one in this video.

So, how about this? We just say: We differ in our opinions. That's all. You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. You have your reasons and I have mine. I respect your right to believe what I don't agree with. I hope you respect mine.

For anyone who is interested, here is the video that shows the different camera angles. Because it is a video and not a GIF, you can pause it for closer review. FWIW: I only found this video after I saw how the steering angle never changed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYiED3ObZh8

And here is a link to a story, that is likely of the kind, that brought on the Dateline NBC episode:
http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N3/gm.03w.html
$101 Million in punitive damages on top of $4.2 million in compensatory damages. That case ended in Feb 1993, the Dateline NBC story aired on November 17, 1992. I wonder if the Dateline piece had an influence?

Of course, in June of 1994 the $105.2 Million judgement was reversed. In September 1995 GM came to an undisclosed settlement in the Mosley case.
http://www.choicesvideo.net/guidebooks/WAV/LanCon_automobile.pdf

 

[mmntech]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson says he asks people he sees not wearing seatbelts if they've ever taken a class in physics. The vast majority of them haven't. Newton's first law yo.

 

[Kaido]

For anyone who is interested, here is the video that shows the different camera angles. Because it is a video and not a GIF, you can pause it for closer review. FWIW: I only found this video after I saw how the steering angle never changed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYiED3ObZh8

Updated OP with link, nice find! That's some scary stuff

 

[Mermaidman]

This hits close to home. My friend was riding with 6 people in an SUV that rolled. A couple of passengers were thrown from the SUV and died. The driver was buckled in and was pulled to safety by one bystander. The SUV then caught fire and the remaining passengers in the SUV were burned to death, if they were still alive.

 

[olds]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbSiZF-XO3g

 

[afreeman]

It`s hard for me to argue why or why not to wear a seat belt . I know of instances where people have died from wearing one and lived because they were not as well as the other way around . I think the driver or the passenger(s) should be able to decide themselves. It`s a good topic to argue over how about what is better for you steak or chicken ? Personally I think the time spent arguing or researching it would be better spent on preventing accidents .

 

[JCH13]

I say let the people who think seat belts are stupid drive without seat belts.

Eventually the problem will solve itself.

Of course emergency driving is not "normal", that's why we call it "emergency driving". It does, however, happen to normal people. The type of roll-over from the GIF/video can happen to SUVs in a variety of circumstances, including trying to avoid something in the road, being t-boned, sliding/spinning (ice, snow, rain, oil, etc.) and hitting a curb sideways...

 

[mafia]

Man that Expedition has a very weak roof. I think even with seat belts on there still would be serious injuries.

 

[vi edit]

Seat belts also help *prevent* accidents. If you have to slam on the brakes to make an emergency manuever it's hard to control your car if your sternum or forehead is crushed against the steering wheel. With a seatbelt holding you in place you may have a chance to actually navigate away from whatever object has entered in your path.

 

[Jimzz]

Seat belts also help *prevent* accidents. If you have to slam on the brakes to make an emergency manuever it's hard to control your car if your sternum or forehead is crushed against the steering wheel. With a seatbelt holding you in place you may have a chance to actually navigate away from whatever object has entered in your path.

Helps while driving a boat as well

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNLSf2IZFus

 

[JCH13]

Helps while driving a boat as well

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNLSf2IZFus

Well... not so much... that idiot should have had his kill cord connected to himself for one, that would have stopped the accident after the first bump where he was knocked off the controls. Also, I would not want to be strapped to a boat that was sinking. No boat seat belts for me. Just a kill cord and a life vest.

 

[JulesMaximus]

It`s hard for me to argue why or why not to wear a seat belt . I know of instances where people have died from wearing one and lived because they were not as well as the other way around . I think the driver or the passenger(s) should be able to decide themselves. It`s a good topic to argue over how about what is better for you steak or chicken ? Personally I think the time spent arguing or researching it would be better spent on preventing accidents .

There is nothing to debate. Wearing a seatbelt saves lives... period. Even if you "know of instances where people have died from wearing one" the number of people who have been saved from serious injury or death by wearing them far outweighs the statistically insignificant number of people who were killed because they were wearing them.

I have zero problem with mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws. It is a minor inconvenience that happens to have a very real effect on overall safety.

Fine anyone stupid enough not to wear one. It is a good source of revenue for the state.

 

[jagec]

BTW: Did you notice that I cut off the "during 'normal' driving conditions" part of your statement? I did that because in your previous post, when you talked about the test being relevant, you stated "so let's say you're in an SUV and make an emergency maneuver that results in your vehicle flipping". Gee, that doesn't seem like a 'normal' driving conditions.

You have GOT to be trolling. Why have any safety devices at all, since "during normal driving conditions" people don't crash?

SUVs and other high-CG vehicles (15-passenger vans, anyone?) tend to roll when people swerve sharply. The test in the video is designed to simulate those conditions.

Here is a video of one real-life rollover accident, and there are many others on Youtube. Note how once the SUV starts rolling, it looks very much the same as the video in the OP...except that the driver is not ejected, since she is buckled in.