Do You Buckle
June 8th, 2011, 08:34 AM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NW PA
Posts: 115
4WD jeep cherokee (differential/axle housing is shaped like a pumpkin)
June 8th, 2011, 08:38 AM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NW PA
Posts: 115
thank you. "fixable" is to the tune of $900,000. to someone who surfs, skates, and snowboards for his sanity, it is priceless.
June 8th, 2011, 08:54 AM
#43
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 48,269
With all of the efforts by police to enforce seat belt use and the money spent to promote the use of seat belts, I still find it ironic that most kids ride to school in a bus that does not have seat belts. Big padded seats...yes... but no seat belts. Makes no sense to me. There have been accidents where a bus will roll over and the kids go flying everywhere.
And frankly, the whole issue of seat belts in school buses is a probability argument. Sure, you can always find a well-publicized bus accident where kids are injured, but the reality is that the likelyhood of a child being hurt in a school bus accident is small compared to the likelyhood of being hurt in a car accident. Death rates in school bus accidents are about 0.1 deaths per 100 million miles travelled (or, one death per BILLION miles travelled). Death rate in automobiles was 1.13 per 100 million miles traveled.
Note also that these are vehicle miles traveled, not passenger miles. Since a bus will have at least 10 or 20 times the number of passengers per mile than a car, the death rate per passenger mile traveled is two orders of magnitude lower than in a car.
June 8th, 2011, 11:54 AM
#44
1971 Cutlass S
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North Cape May, NJ
Posts: 179
My 71 has lap belts with the shoulder belts separate. There are no tensioners on the shoulder belts though - and I have been told by many that they are dangerous to wear, due to the fact that if you wreck and the roof gets crushed they will have no give in them and hurt you worse. I wear the lap belts all the time - what do all of you think about the shoulder belts bolted right to the roof? Do you wear them?
June 8th, 2011, 01:00 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,665
Good luck trying to enforce seat belt use on a school bus. The drivers can't even keep the kids from assaulting each other.
And frankly, the whole issue of seat belts in school buses is a probability argument. Sure, you can always find a well-publicized bus accident where kids are injured, but the reality is that the likelyhood of a child being hurt in a school bus accident is small compared to the likelyhood of being hurt in a car accident. Death rates in school bus accidents are about 0.1 deaths per 100 million miles travelled (or, one death per BILLION miles travelled). Death rate in automobiles was 1.13 per 100 million miles traveled.
Note also that these are vehicle miles traveled, not passenger miles. Since a bus will have at least 10 or 20 times the number of passengers per mile than a car, the death rate per passenger mile traveled is two orders of magnitude lower than in a car.
And frankly, the whole issue of seat belts in school buses is a probability argument. Sure, you can always find a well-publicized bus accident where kids are injured, but the reality is that the likelyhood of a child being hurt in a school bus accident is small compared to the likelyhood of being hurt in a car accident. Death rates in school bus accidents are about 0.1 deaths per 100 million miles travelled (or, one death per BILLION miles travelled). Death rate in automobiles was 1.13 per 100 million miles traveled.
Note also that these are vehicle miles traveled, not passenger miles. Since a bus will have at least 10 or 20 times the number of passengers per mile than a car, the death rate per passenger mile traveled is two orders of magnitude lower than in a car.
I hear your argument and agree that school bus accidents are rare compared to other motor vehicle accidents. several years ago MD had a year where there were several bus accidents and a few kids were killed. As you can imagine, this received a lot of news attention. The issue of seat belts was raised and in the end it was reported that one of the main issues on not installing them was money. People were livid! It eventually blew over but there were quite a few changes in how schools delayed the start of school for fog, snow etc. I think most of those bus accients that year were related to early moring fog. To me it's more about the message being given to kids. The kids are buckled in car seats, booster seats (MD now requires a booster seat until age 8 I believe), TV promotes seat belt use, day care promotes it, kindergarden, parents, grandparents etc. The message is pounded into the kids from day one. But then they ride to school without seat belts. We had a kid in the neighborhood (his mom was one of the over protective ones) and when it came time for him to go to kindergarden and ride the bus, the kid freaked out because there were no seat belts. He wouldn't get on the bus so his mom had to drive him to school every day. I think this lasted up through 2nd grade before the parents got the kid convinced he would be OK on the bus.
June 8th, 2011, 01:05 PM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 259
Went on a trip to China and met my girlfriend's friends and family. One family member drove us around and said "Ah! don't worry about using the seatbelt." and nobody in the car was wearing one. Most of the conversation was in Chinese, and on top of that I had a bad flu... I was a bit out of it, but I felt naked without a seatbelt, and was almost shocked at this person's attitude towards them.
I'm definately not going without a belt again. That was stupid.
And yeah, the lap only belt in my Olds worries me a bit. I keep thinking of the Sammy Davis Jr. story where he lost an eye from hitting the steering wheel of his Caddy in an accident... among many other bad stories.
I'm definately not going without a belt again. That was stupid.
And yeah, the lap only belt in my Olds worries me a bit. I keep thinking of the Sammy Davis Jr. story where he lost an eye from hitting the steering wheel of his Caddy in an accident... among many other bad stories.
June 8th, 2011, 01:21 PM
#47
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 48,269
My 71 has lap belts with the shoulder belts separate. There are no tensioners on the shoulder belts though - and I have been told by many that they are dangerous to wear, due to the fact that if you wreck and the roof gets crushed they will have no give in them and hurt you worse. I wear the lap belts all the time - what do all of you think about the shoulder belts bolted right to the roof? Do you wear them?
As for being worried about a rollover, well, contrary to what Hollywood has shown, it is VERY difficult to roll an American car on flat pavement. I'm not talking about an Explorer with Firestone tires, I'm talking about a 1960s-70 American car. Also, belt yourself into the driver's seat of your Olds, tighten the shoulder belt, then lean to the right. You'll have no problem ducking down that way if you feel the need.
This whole line of misinformation reminds me of the people who refuse to wear belts because of the threat of being trapped in a burning car. This, despite the fact that less than one-half of one percent of all accidents involve fire.
June 8th, 2011, 01:31 PM
#48
Got wood? I do! (an '89)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Southeast Michigan
Posts: 310
With all of the efforts by police to enforce seat belt use and the money spent to promote the use of seat belts, I still find it ironic that most kids ride to school in a bus that does not have seat belts. Big padded seats...yes... but no seat belts. Makes no sense to me. There have been accidents where a bus will roll over and the kids go flying everywhere.
Tests have shown that because the room around the seat (back cushion FRONT to back cushion REAR) is so small that it adds a "restraining effect" and therefore is "safe enough."
Right or wrong, that's why belts and buses don't have to mix.
As for CAR belts, you are NEVER better off without one. Sure, people like Dale the First were killed while in a "harness" belt and some people survive because they were "thrown clear" rather than "trapped," but properly-fitted belts--even just "lap" ones--offer far more benefits than hazards.
[You don't think automakers would've spent the extra $1.50 per car it costs to put in a seatbelt if they could make the case that they were MORE dangerous, do you?...
]
June 8th, 2011, 02:38 PM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tampa
Posts: 205
Well, despite every yokel telling me I can't get hurt in an accident in an old car (the whole built like a tank thing), I still wear them. Lap belts, too, only i've figured by adjusting them a little loose, you'd be able to move forward a bit before your body snaps, making the steering wheel the first interior part you impact (with your chest, of course).
Any weight to this claim?
Any weight to this claim?
June 8th, 2011, 04:03 PM
#50
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Colts Neck, NJ
Posts: 735
Hopefully I can add a little insight to this topic. I work in auto insurance claims, so I deal with car accidents all day, every day. Tens of thousands of them over my career.
If your car has a proper lap and shoulder belt, it's just plain foolish not to wear it at all times. They do their job. Lap only belts are an entirely different story. The argument could easily be made that they cause more harm than good. In a head on crash, they'll cause your upper body to whip forward. So your face will smash the steering wheel at an incredible rate of speed, easily breaking your neck. For a passenger, the lap belt can easily break a spine, cause internal injuries and/or still allow your head to hit the dash or seatback (for rear seat passengers). They're no good.
If your car has a proper lap and shoulder belt, it's just plain foolish not to wear it at all times. They do their job. Lap only belts are an entirely different story. The argument could easily be made that they cause more harm than good. In a head on crash, they'll cause your upper body to whip forward. So your face will smash the steering wheel at an incredible rate of speed, easily breaking your neck. For a passenger, the lap belt can easily break a spine, cause internal injuries and/or still allow your head to hit the dash or seatback (for rear seat passengers). They're no good.
In all my new cars I wear the belts (lap and shoulder are always one unit) .
I am also very aware of how violent a crash can be. In 1975 I slide on ice into a 3" thick tree. I was riding in a 1971 Dodge Challenger and going about 25 mph. My hands bent the 3 spoke steering wheel back (i.e. the spokes bent backward), the steering column did not collapse (don't think it was collapsable), and my head hit the upper part of windshild. I got a gash on my forehead....which mostly bled a lot and my wrists hurt.
The tree sliced into my front up to the water pump. Luckily it was like -10 and I drove the 4 miles back home without overheating.
Well, the good things were:
a) I leared how to do extensive body work including frame welding
b) From that point on I wanted only to drive heavy metal. I don't car how good a small car tests in a single car crash test, it will lose all the time to the heavier vehicle. It is not just the crushing it is the fact that the mass of the larger vehicle will enable it to overcome the small vehicle's forward momentum and violently reverse it. That kind of thing can whip your insides around.
June 8th, 2011, 04:31 PM
#51
A significant portion of my professional career was in Safety and to be specific it was in side air bags for head and neck protection. I interfaced with all the other air bag Engineers as well as the seat belt Engineers. Was involved in tons of simulated crash testing on the cars that had my specific product in it.
Air Bags and Seat Belts save lives, there is no question about that. Crush zones from frontal and side impacts continue to improve. However, not all cars are made the same and the IIHS website is a good place to go to see the safety performance of new and used cars and trucks you may be looking at.
Police traps for unbuckled motorists is just a way to increase revenue. Nothing more or less.
To clarify some things I've read here. Seatbelt systems are not intended to "lock up". It is the goal in any safety system to slow momentum of the body and to use as much travel as possible without the body touching whatever is trying to come into the cab of the vehicle. It's akin to falling from a high place. The falling doesn't hurt at all, it is the sudden stop at the end. The same is true in an accident. Internal organs are moving with the body, all of it must decelerate, as a system, when those safety systems come into play.
Belts allow expansion and some belts have tear away stitching to allow more slack. Pre-tensioners take slack out of the belt system but then relax and act as a shock absorber.
Air bags operate on the principle of allowing body parts to ride down as far as possible with the intrusion directly perpendicular to that body part. The further the ride down, the better the measured value (called the "HIC" value).
Regards,
Mike
Air Bags and Seat Belts save lives, there is no question about that. Crush zones from frontal and side impacts continue to improve. However, not all cars are made the same and the IIHS website is a good place to go to see the safety performance of new and used cars and trucks you may be looking at.
Police traps for unbuckled motorists is just a way to increase revenue. Nothing more or less.
To clarify some things I've read here. Seatbelt systems are not intended to "lock up". It is the goal in any safety system to slow momentum of the body and to use as much travel as possible without the body touching whatever is trying to come into the cab of the vehicle. It's akin to falling from a high place. The falling doesn't hurt at all, it is the sudden stop at the end. The same is true in an accident. Internal organs are moving with the body, all of it must decelerate, as a system, when those safety systems come into play.
Belts allow expansion and some belts have tear away stitching to allow more slack. Pre-tensioners take slack out of the belt system but then relax and act as a shock absorber.
Air bags operate on the principle of allowing body parts to ride down as far as possible with the intrusion directly perpendicular to that body part. The further the ride down, the better the measured value (called the "HIC" value).
Regards,
Mike
June 9th, 2011, 01:45 AM
#52
'87 Delta 88 Royale
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Margate, England
Posts: 2,514
I never needed a law to make me buckle up, it took physics classes at school when we were dealing with Newtons laws, the class was shown some footage of crash testing to demonstrate some of the the effects. Then the teacher (wise man that he was) showed us scars on his chest that were a result of a wreck he got into sometime, this was before cars had belts fitted.
In the UK around 5000 people died in road accidents every year until 1983, then wearing belts became compulsory, next year it dropped to 3500 and has stayed that way ever since.
Helmet law for motorcycles came in around 1970, it didn't affect death rates a great deal strangely enough - the dynamics of bike crashes aren't the same as for cars, but there was a significant reduction in the amount of bike crash survivors with brain damage.
To me not wearing a belt is just plain dumb, it's there free to use, you would surely turn on your cars heater if it got cold.
I dont totally agree a big car is safer than a small one either, the cars design is a very big factor in its crashworthiness. BBC's Top Gear tv show demonstrated this when they crashed a Renault Megane (a Ford Focus size car) into a Land Rover Discovery (Jeep Cherokee Size) at 30 mph. Both cars were destroyed, but the Land Rover pedals had been pushed into the floorwell enough to crush the legs of the occupant,the steering wheel also was pushed back and the seat back had moved forward. The doors couldn't be opened either. The Renault pedals and steering column had moved away from the occupant, the seat held firm and the doors opened like nothing had happened.
Body on frame cars can't absorb energy before it is transmitted to the passenger compartment like a well designed modern car.
We can get low rates for insuring our classics over here mainly because they get driven in a very risk averse manner, probably largely because we dont want to damage our pride & joy. Ocassionally I get to drive a friends '59 Cadillac, you bet my mind is wonderfully concentrated on avoiding any risks!. But that doesn't mean I won't get in a wreck for whatever reason and I feel naked & vulnerable not wearing a belt.
Airline seats have only lap belts, I wonder how effective they would be in a crash, not falling out of sky but a runway collision perhaps.
In the UK around 5000 people died in road accidents every year until 1983, then wearing belts became compulsory, next year it dropped to 3500 and has stayed that way ever since.
Helmet law for motorcycles came in around 1970, it didn't affect death rates a great deal strangely enough - the dynamics of bike crashes aren't the same as for cars, but there was a significant reduction in the amount of bike crash survivors with brain damage.
To me not wearing a belt is just plain dumb, it's there free to use, you would surely turn on your cars heater if it got cold.
I dont totally agree a big car is safer than a small one either, the cars design is a very big factor in its crashworthiness. BBC's Top Gear tv show demonstrated this when they crashed a Renault Megane (a Ford Focus size car) into a Land Rover Discovery (Jeep Cherokee Size) at 30 mph. Both cars were destroyed, but the Land Rover pedals had been pushed into the floorwell enough to crush the legs of the occupant,the steering wheel also was pushed back and the seat back had moved forward. The doors couldn't be opened either. The Renault pedals and steering column had moved away from the occupant, the seat held firm and the doors opened like nothing had happened.
Body on frame cars can't absorb energy before it is transmitted to the passenger compartment like a well designed modern car.
We can get low rates for insuring our classics over here mainly because they get driven in a very risk averse manner, probably largely because we dont want to damage our pride & joy. Ocassionally I get to drive a friends '59 Cadillac, you bet my mind is wonderfully concentrated on avoiding any risks!. But that doesn't mean I won't get in a wreck for whatever reason and I feel naked & vulnerable not wearing a belt.
Airline seats have only lap belts, I wonder how effective they would be in a crash, not falling out of sky but a runway collision perhaps.
June 9th, 2011, 03:38 AM
#53
Connoisseur d'Junque
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Hudson Valley
Posts: 21,183
The best (and least dramatic - drama tends to turn people off) argument I've found in favor of seatbelts is to point out that, according to basic physics, if you're in a car travelling at 20mph, and the car suddenly stops, but you don't (even if it's only stopping because the driver jammed on the brakes), the 20mph speed at which your face will hit the windshield is the same speed you would obtain if you'd jumped face-first from the roof of a two-story house.
So, if you're inclined to dive off your roof head-first onto your driveway (the windshield is about as hard as concrete), then I guess you may as well not wear your seatbelt. Otherwise, it's probably a good idea.
Of course, that was for 20mph (if you jump from a height of 16 feet, you will hit the ground at a speed of 22mph). At 65mph, you will hit the windshield at a speed equivalent to jumping off a 16 story building (height of 145 feet), which is why people don't do so well in high-speed crashes without seatbelts.
Also, in the "It could happen" department, I have personally pulled a formerly healthy person, unrestrained, out of the back seat of a car with a full spinal cord transection (permanent quadriplegic) after a minor 35mph accident with minimal damage to the car, and both (restrained) front seat passengers walking around fine saying, "Wow, that could have been serious." There but for the grace of God...
As for airliner seatbelts, I don't believe they're supposed to protect you in case of a crash - I believe that, since airplanes can move in all three dimensions, they are designed to keep you in your seat, and not flying around the inside of the plane, presenting a hazard to others.
- Eric
So, if you're inclined to dive off your roof head-first onto your driveway (the windshield is about as hard as concrete), then I guess you may as well not wear your seatbelt. Otherwise, it's probably a good idea.
Of course, that was for 20mph (if you jump from a height of 16 feet, you will hit the ground at a speed of 22mph). At 65mph, you will hit the windshield at a speed equivalent to jumping off a 16 story building (height of 145 feet), which is why people don't do so well in high-speed crashes without seatbelts.
Also, in the "It could happen" department, I have personally pulled a formerly healthy person, unrestrained, out of the back seat of a car with a full spinal cord transection (permanent quadriplegic) after a minor 35mph accident with minimal damage to the car, and both (restrained) front seat passengers walking around fine saying, "Wow, that could have been serious." There but for the grace of God...
As for airliner seatbelts, I don't believe they're supposed to protect you in case of a crash - I believe that, since airplanes can move in all three dimensions, they are designed to keep you in your seat, and not flying around the inside of the plane, presenting a hazard to others.
- Eric
June 9th, 2011, 09:57 AM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Chi-town
Posts: 4,532
convertible shoulder belts
My convertible has shoulder belts for the front occupants, they were an option in 1970 including for the rear occupants as well. I always wear seat-belts in all my cars even the 70 I feel just lap belts are better than nothing especially in a convertible. I have read that the shoulder belts in the convertibles are not really that save either as the mounting point is below 15 degrees below the shoulder. So that's an issue as well
My convertible has shoulder belts for the front occupants, they were an option in 1970 including for the rear occupants as well. I always wear seat-belts in all my cars even the 70 I feel just lap belts are better than nothing especially in a convertible. I have read that the shoulder belts in the convertibles are not really that save either as the mounting point is below 15 degrees below the shoulder. So that's an issue as well
June 10th, 2011, 06:07 AM
#55
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 17,732
Joe,
With all due respect, There may be an exception. At least Ralph Nader taught there was when he wrote, "Unsafe at any Speed"
IMHO, I think the Corvair was a whole lot safer that the VW Bug.
June 10th, 2011, 10:30 AM
#56
The VW Bug, with no front protection whatsoever... talk about the front bumper hitting you in the teeth. In the late 60's our family had a VW Bug convertible. Our parents allowed us to sit on the top of the "Top" when it was down, as our feet dangled in the backseat. Talk about no seat belts!!
Last edited by 71 Cutlass; June 10th, 2011 at 10:34 AM.
June 10th, 2011, 10:45 AM
#57
Just an Olds Guy
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
I think the key point is in the legislation for your state/province and the applicable rules related to the automobile. I, for one, don't believe that cars were built with seat belts for any other reason but to help save lives and prevent serious injury in a car crash. Thank you Ralph Nader and Edsel Ford!
If you have seat belts that were originally built into the car and your state/province legislates wearing seatbelts, then you are required to comply or face the consequences. My 72 has both the shoulder harness and lap belt. I don't wear the shoulder harness because it doesn't have inertial locking; it's a fixed belt that really restricts the upper body. I DO wear my lap belt because our province requires that seat belts must be worn while operating a motor vehicle. I also used the lap belts when the car was new because Dad told me to. It was a good habit to get into; and it's only the bad habits that need to change.
The only car I remember we didn't have to wear seat belts was Dads 52 Chevy sedan, and his 59 Chevy wagon. I don't think they were even made with seat belts. So if the car never had them and you drive without a seat belt, be extra cautious because you are even more vulnerable in a crash. Aceshigh is 100% right in his assessment of peoples attitude about skill vs collision.
If you have seat belts that were originally built into the car and your state/province legislates wearing seatbelts, then you are required to comply or face the consequences. My 72 has both the shoulder harness and lap belt. I don't wear the shoulder harness because it doesn't have inertial locking; it's a fixed belt that really restricts the upper body. I DO wear my lap belt because our province requires that seat belts must be worn while operating a motor vehicle. I also used the lap belts when the car was new because Dad told me to. It was a good habit to get into; and it's only the bad habits that need to change.
The only car I remember we didn't have to wear seat belts was Dads 52 Chevy sedan, and his 59 Chevy wagon. I don't think they were even made with seat belts. So if the car never had them and you drive without a seat belt, be extra cautious because you are even more vulnerable in a crash. Aceshigh is 100% right in his assessment of peoples attitude about skill vs collision.
June 11th, 2011, 08:05 AM
#58
Connoisseur d'Junque
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Hudson Valley
Posts: 21,183
My father used to take photos for lawyers on the side years ago.
I still remember a series he took of a guy who hit a tree in a Beetle - the gas tank ruptured (it's in the driver's lap). Not pretty.
- Eric
I still remember a series he took of a guy who hit a tree in a Beetle - the gas tank ruptured (it's in the driver's lap). Not pretty.
- Eric
June 11th, 2011, 09:57 AM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 222
Of course, my Olds is shoulder/lap era... But I wear it regardless. The Mustang, I wear it...
The Firetruck I drive for a living... I wear it. In fact, I don't put it in gear without having it on.
The Firetruck I drive for a living... I wear it. In fact, I don't put it in gear without having it on.
June 11th, 2011, 10:47 AM
#60
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Fallston, MD
Posts: 195
I have a 70 Chevelle which has seperate lap and shoulder belts. I assume it is the same in the 70-72 Cutlass. I always put on the lap belt but don't mess with the shoulder belt. Always wondered here in Maryland if I could get a "failure to buckle" ticket without them both.
If you have them, wear them. Eating a steering wheel or windshield can't taste good.
If you have them, wear them. Eating a steering wheel or windshield can't taste good.
June 11th, 2011, 08:16 PM
#61
Just an Olds Guy
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
I have a 70 Chevelle which has seperate lap and shoulder belts. I assume it is the same in the 70-72 Cutlass. I always put on the lap belt but don't mess with the shoulder belt. Always wondered here in Maryland if I could get a "failure to buckle" ticket without them both..............
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
