Seatbelts

[Writer]

I'd say it's a good thing, but there are many people who don't follow it. I was going to a concert one time and when we got to the building it was in, there was a wrecked car on display. The driver had not been wearing a seatbelt and was killed.

 

Better be safe than sorry.

[JerAir1587249581]

my hair cutter's twin sister's family were driving somewhere in a SUV and got in a wreck. there were 2 little girls in the middle row.

well....

the mom and dad were not wearing a seatbelt, and.....

 

...you know what happened!

 

so.. you never know when you are going to get in a wreck, so

 

you better buckle up!

 

oh, and the orphaned girs were wearing seatbelts, and 1 got

 

hurt, and the other one is perfectly fine (besides emotionally)

 

I said it once, I'll say it again;

 

Better be safe than sorry!

[Kurgan]

Yes, it should remain a law.

 

Why? Because while statistically accidents actually INCREASE with seatbelt laws (people feel safer, so many drive more recklessly), it does tend to reduce accident FATALITIES.

 

 

So more accidents, but fewer deaths. I'm for it.

 

 

And yes, I think SUV's are a total waste of money and resources 99% of the time (I see rows and rows of them in my town with only one person in them each). And I'd rather I'll take a bruise from a seatbelt over getting my head through the windshield any day. ; p

[ShockV1.89]

And yes, I think SUV's are a total waste of money and resources 99% of the time

 

Wait until you get in an accident with one. I used to think the same thing...

 

But that's a different topic.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by ShockV1.89

Wait until you get in an accident with one. I used to think the same thing...

 

But that's a different topic.

 

This is as good a thread as a new one... I thought it was dead anyway

 

According to NHTSA, SUVs rollover in 37 percent of fatal crashes, compared to a 15 percent rollover rate for passenger cars._ Rollover crashes accounted for 53 percent of all SUV occupant deaths in single vehicle crashes in 1996. Only 19 percent of occupant fatalities in passenger cars occurred in similar crashes.

 

Smaller SUVs - with a wheelbase of less than 100 inches - had a disproportionately high incidence of fatal rollover crashes._ Small SUVs were involved in rollover crashes more than four times as often as the average passenger car.

 

Also, SUVs don't have to conform to the same safety standards as passenger cars... the standards for roof strength are insufficient according to Gillis (1988).

 

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) conducted a test designed to show how well vehicles protect the driver and passengers in a crash, midsized SUVs were given a rating of "good", "acceptable", "marginal" or "poor"._ None of the 13 SUVs tested was rated "good."_ Five were rated as "acceptable," three as "marginal," and five as "poor." Popular models including the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Nissan Pathfinder earned "marginal" ratings. "Poor" ratings went to models such as the Chevy Blazer, GMC Jimmy and the Isuzu Rodeo._ The tests measured how well head restraints and bumpers performed and damage to the vehicle's structure.

 

The largest SUVs had fewer driver deaths than average._ However mid-sized and smaller SUVs - like the Nissan Pathfinder, Suzuki Sidekick, and Jeep Wrangler - had driver death rates substantially higher than average._ In examining deaths per million passengers, SUVs had nearly the same death rates in accidents as small cars, but substantially more fatalities than mid-sized or large cars.

 

In a May 1999 study, the Institute found only two models of SUVs - the Mitsubishi Montero and certain models of the Chevy Blazer - had head restraints that merited a "good" rating. Most were listed as "marginal" or "poor."

 

SUVs and Light Trucks also are a danger to other, more conservative, drivers who are using passenger cars. Of the 5,259 fatalities caused when light trucks struck cars in 1996, 81 percent of the fatally injured were occupants of the car (Gabler, et al, 1998). In multiple-vehicle crashes, the occupants of the car are four times more likely to be killed than the occupants of the SUV (Traffic Safety Facts: 1998). In a side-impact collision with an SUV, car occupants are 27 times more likely to die (IIHS).

 

Auto manufacturers have maintained that the weight of SUVs make them dangerous to smaller cars, not the design. Yet a recent study (Bradsher, March 1999) by the NHTSA examined the design of many popular SUVs and found that the height and frames of SUVs make them extra lethal to people riding in smaller vehicles._ Differences in vehicle weight did not account for the extra risk.

 

Placement of headlights is also problematic for drivers of passenger cars, as the head lights of SUVs tend to be higher and shine into the front and, especially, the rear windscreens, blinding drivers of passenger cars. In addition, passenger cars have the ability to "see through" each other to see the brake lights (you know, the one mounted in the rear window) of other vehicles 1, 2, even 3 cars ahead. With an SUV in front, warning of sudden changes in traffic patterns is significantly reduced.

 

References:

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

 

Gillis, Jack, 1988. The truck, van and 4x4 book. pg. 5.

 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, May 22, 1999. Status Report "Special Issue: Neck Injuries in Rear-End Crashes," Volume 34, No. 5.

 

Gabler, Hampton and Hollowell, William, March 1998.The Agressivity of Light Trucks and Vans in Traffic Crashes, U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Document 980908.

 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, December 1997. Traffic Safety Facts 1996: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System.

 

Bradsher, Keith, March 2, 1999. Study Cites Fatal Design of Sport Utility Vehicles. New York Times.

 

Man... you gotta love Nexis-Lexis! If anyone needs to do research for a paper, this is the place to go.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You've just gotta love a cuontry where people want to ban a car because it might roll over, but where sitting on the back of a freaking pickup truck is not considered hazardious enough to advocate a ban....

 

IMO, you're in far bigger trouble if you're on the back of a pickup that crashes, than if you are in an SUV that rolls over...

[SkinWalker]

In the state of Iowa, I found the following statistics at this .pdf document:

 

 

Fatalities & Injuries by Position

......................Number killed...................Number Injured

Driver............. 46........................ 3,229

Front Seat

Passenger........ 8........................... 1,008

Back Seat

Passenger........ 1............................. 158

Third+ Seat

Passenger........ 0............................. 1

Bus

Passenger........ 0............................. 0

Riding on

Exterior............. 2 (3.51%)........ 28 (0.63%)

{delted misc... such as mo-ped driver, etc.}

Total.................. 57 (100.00%).... 4,432 (100.00%)

 

I'm not sure what year these stats came from.... I didn't get that deep into the document, but "exterior" would be the bed of the pick up. If Iowa is indicative of the rest of the nation (and there is nothing to suggest that it is or isn't that I've seen), then riding in the bed of a pickup would be a negligible criteria.

 

Just to be sure though, I put the PickUp Truck in the same category as SUV... both are big, gas guzzling, heavy, and dangerous for other motorists... you know.. the ones in Saturns like mine

[ShockV1.89]

Pretty solid evidence there, Skinwalker.

 

But look at when many of those studies were done. SUVs are still an emerging product, and I'm sure many of those problems have been corrected (well, not the damn headlights).

 

If that evidence was more recent, I might trust it more. But heck, one of them even goes back to 1988! Surely things have changed by now, and car manufacturers arent dumb. They're gonna see these things, and make changes accordingly. I know I've seen some incredibly wide SUVs driving around. Maybe a response to increased roll rates in crashes?

 

In any case, car developers move fast. The effects of a study published in 1999 could conceivably be seen in 2001.

 

I have my own personal experience to go on. I know I'd be dead if I was in my car. But maybe I just got lucky.

 

And Dagobahn... In my state (NY), it is illegal to ride in the back of a pickup truck. No restraints there, no real protection, etc.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Fatalities & Injuries by Position

......................Number killed...................Number Injured

Driver............. 46........................ 3,229

Front Seat

Passenger........ 8........................... 1,008

Back Seat

Passenger........ 1............................. 158

Third+ Seat

Passenger........ 0............................. 1

Bus

Passenger........ 0............................. 0

Riding on

Exterior............. 2 (3.51%)........ 28 (0.63%)

{delted misc... such as mo-ped driver, etc.}

Total.................. 57 (100.00%).... 4,432 (100.00%)

Probably because a lot more people find themselves inside cars than the ones who find themselves on pickup backs.

 

Don't let the statistics fool you. If there was an equal amount of people riding on the back of pickups as there were people riding inside cars, sure, then the 46-to-1-scale would make sitting on the back of a pickup one of the safest mode of transportation around.

[Jubatus]

Originally posted by ShockV1.89

If that evidence was more recent, I might trust it more. But heck, one of them even goes back to 1988! Surely things have changed by now, and car manufacturers arent dumb. They're gonna see these things, and make changes accordingly. I know I've seen some incredibly wide SUVs driving around. Maybe a response to increased roll rates in crashes?

 

Don't be too sure about the 'Surely things have changed by now'. It is a pretty common experience that companies of any product or service will twist, stretch or obfuscate around any research and law against their shortcomings for as long as they possibly can if it means a higher profit. They'll utilize the cheapest resources, workforce and subcontractors as much as they can to give the consumer the cheapest product, and if necessary prolong any antagonism against them by ways of stretching the truth of their product information and lawyers (if affordable).

 

The funny thing is that the consumers are really to blame in that the majority care not to look beyond their wallet to examine if a cheap product really is viable against the standards set for the product of that type. But then again, it's not easy for a single customer to pry the truth from the dealer nor have the necessary insight to make a sound judgement on every aspect of a given product, such as a car.

 

But for seat belts, I think any aspirant for a license should be presented with 3 things:

 

1 - A demonstration of a test crash of a vehicle (with dummies not wearing the seat belts of course) doing no more than 20 mph - even at that relatively low speed the damage potential is quite remarkable.

 

2 - Be presented with this question: Just because you feel confident enough to drive without a seat belt fastened, do you trust your fellow drivers to be as "competent" as you? - You're not alone on the road.

 

3 - Be presented with this question: Do you think that the ones that do crash and are seriously injured or killed because they didn't wear their seat belt felt any less confident about their driving skills than you do?

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by ShockV1.89

But look at when many of those studies were done. SUVs are still an emerging product, and I'm sure many of those problems have been corrected (well, not the damn headlights).

 

If that evidence was more recent, I might trust it more.

 

I have to admit that the studies are a bit more in favor of SUV's in some instances (I went to the IIHS website to see what was current).

 

Of the current models of mid-sized SUVs, 29 were evaluated for Frontal offset crashworthiness. Crashworthiness refers to how well a vehicle protects its occupants in a crash (IIHS, 2003).

 

11 received an overall "Good" rating , including the Volvo, BMW and Acura as well as the Lincoln Aviator and the Lexus SUVs.

 

6 received an overall "Average" rating, which included the Xterra, Land Rover and Durango.

 

10 received a "Marginal" rating, including Jeep Cherokee/Liberty, Pathfinder, Aztec, Rodeo, and Passport.

 

3 received an overall "Poor" rating, which were the Chevy Blazer, the Olds Bravada, and the GMC Jimmy/Envoy. The last two were the oldest models tested, but the Blazer included all models from 1995 to 2003.

 

A representative of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated before a congressional committe, "pickups and SUVs are involved in a higher percentage of rollovers than passenger cars" (NHTSA Statement, February 26, 2003). He went on to say:

the rate of fatal rollovers for pickups is twice that for passenger cars and the rate for SUVs is almost three times the passenger car rate. Overall, rollover affects about three percent of passenger vehicles involved in crashes but accounts for 32 percent of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities. Single vehicle rollover crashes accounted for 8,400 fatalities in 2001. Rollover crashes involving more than one vehicle accounted for another 1,700 fatalities, bringing the total fatality count to more than 10,000.

 

The NHTSA also raised the issue of compatibility and stated that (in 2001) light trucks, which includes SUVs, were involved in about half of all two-vehicle accidents with passenger cars which resulted in fatalities. Of these crashes, 80% of the fatalities were of the passenger cars' occupants.

 

Other issues were discussed as correlators, such as seat belts and alcohol, but one cannot ignore the significance of the SUV. The SUV occupant survives the crash, but the passenger car occupant is killed more frequently.

 

SUVs have no purpose. Not for the average consumer anyway. The SUVs I see in Dallas are tricked out with rims and tires that I'm certain would never see the mud, rocks or rough terrain advertised in their television commercials.

 

They are oversized representations of oversized egos and compensation for those of low self-esteem and confidence. In short, they're status symbols. Just today, I passed an Excursion with no less than four Flat Screens showing some porno... and only one driver. I expect he's still alone, though probably occupied.

 

SUVs drink gas like thirsty elephants. They create problems in overcrowded parking lots. They back into other cars/people because their drivers can't operate them efficiently. They completely obliterate visibility of the road to other drivers behind them (other SUVs included!). They contribute to increased pollution by having more engine oil and places for it to drip from. They contribute to the increased depletion of petroleum reserves. They cost too much money.

 

And their added average length, when mathmatically calculated, contributes to a tremendous amount of additional traffic burden to street/highway intersections. --- Don't believe me... do the math. The average SUV is a couple feet longer than my car. Multiply two feet times the number of SUVs that go through a given intersection. Multiply this times the number of intersections in a given metropolitan area.

 

 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, (2003). MIDSIZE SUVS

Frontal offset crashworthiness evaluations: current models. Found at: http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_midsuv.htm

 

NHTSA, (February 26, 2003).Statement for House hearing on SUV Safety Found at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/testimony/SUVtestimony02-26-03.htm

[Kurgan]

I was shocked to learn that volvo (with its reputation for building safe vehicles) had made an SUV... but I guess they were bought out by Ford awhile back, so I should have seen it coming.

 

 

Wasn't there a similar thing going on with the safety of mini-vans a decade or so ago?

 

Are full size vans as safe or less safe than Sport Utility Vehicles?

 

 

I guess statistically its still safer to fly, but more expensive and has more hassle involved (plus if you ARE in an accident, the chances of dying are much higher, just the chances of an accident very low compared to cars).

[Datheus]

Yeah, it should be... Only because if you don't end up getting killed... I'm paying taxes so that your life can be saved because you were to stupid to wear a seatbelt in the first place...

[vegietto]

i think no because u can still die with one on and i don't like it i think we have our freedoms so i think we should be able to choice if we want to wear them or not