You're driving home for Christmas......

[Dan W]

Now I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that modern cars are designed to separate into sections and/or crumple easily so that the forces endured in the crash aren't as sudden as just stopping dead and is the reason why (in a high speed crash at least) they are much safer than a big 4x4 such as a landcruiser.
A landcruiser is so sturdy that the chassis is unlikely to deform or bend so all stopping forces are transferred to the driver resulting in death or serious injury, whereas newer cars deform and split on purpose to slow down more gradually.
So although it looks like it's a messy wreck it has in fact done its job.

 

[moggy1968]

I do have a problem with people not wearing seatbelts.

I've been a nurse for 24 years, the last 12 of those in A&E. I deal with the consequences on a daily basis and I don't want to have to deal with your family when you've been killed in a survivable accident because you were stupid enough to believe you were safer without a seatbelt.

Seatbelts save lives, fact, no discussion, no debate and no evidence to the contrary. In very very very rare occasions someone may survive a crash that would have otherwise been fatal by not wearing one, but that is so rare as to be beyond calculation. If you believe not wearing a seatbelt will save you then you are either deluded, stupid or both and you probably also think the world is flat.

Seatbelts do cause certain ppotentially fatal fatal injuries, but the magnitude of force in those crashes is such death was inevitable anyway.

Generally being ejected from a vehicle is the worst thing that can happen in a crash. The vehicle will protect you if your in it, if your out of it then it will probably kill you

A casual surf of youtube will show any number of accidents where people have been ejected in accidents, many of which are fatal.

Don't give me or my colleagues extra work. On or off road, wear your seat belt, be safe

 

[Shayne]

As i started the debate i guess its down to me to agree with you Moggy , and i do 100% . Even off road at 5mph a broken neck is a threat should you roll while not wearing a seat belt . The point i was trying to make is that when a crash is so spectacular and devastating as the one that started this thread and it seems obvious there were no survivors until someone says "they walked away" it is almost always followed by "they weren't wearing seat belts" . I guess its another catch 22 seat belts are great up to 60mph impact but after that at greater speed maybe not . And before anyone starts yabbering on about speed ask yourself how fast that other fella is driving towards you from the opposite direction .

On a side note i have never met a hospital worker who didn't think motorbikes should be banned , there is a Surgeon in the Isle of Man who refuses to treat motorcyclists because it's there own fault for owning a bike

 

[Crispin]

I'm not sure about Moggy - I think he is on the fence with this one

My mom is a radiographer and spent most of her career in a rather busy trauma unit in SA. A few injuries from seat-belts but the injuries from those not wearing were harsh. As Moggy said, being ejected through a toughened piece of laminated glass called a windshield was fun. The number of parents (in SA) who think it is ok for the kids to sit / stand / kneel on the front seat unrestrained is also quite interesting.

Sorry, to survive a crash with a seatbelt is far higher than without.

 

[moggy1968]

When you work in the emergency services, there is no fence to sit on, just a wall to bang your head against!!

over 60mph without a seatbelt, I think no chance. The faster you are going, the more the need for a seatbelt.
The death rate from RTCs dropped dramatically after the introduction of seatbelts, but, possibly more importantly, so did the incidence of devastating life changing injury. The other thing that has really made a difference is car design. Long in the tooth paramedics now see car wrecks, expecting to be doing body recovery, and the occupants are sat on the verge chatting on their phone.

 

[Crispin]

The other thing that has really made a difference is car design.

Videos like this are always "interesting" to watch.

1950s car crash test

 

[Shayne]

A little research just revealed some interesting facts which i think you will like Moggy .

Cars are crash tested to 40mph and not beyond . They are however designed to absorb an impact of 40mph while keeping the occupants safe providing they are wearing seat belts . If two modern cars of similar weight etc collide head on while each traveling at 40mph the resulting impact does not (as i previously assumed) multiply by 2 to make an 80mph impact . Instead each car will crumple to absorb 40mph meaning the occupants will not be subject to forces beyond 40mph which is well within the safety margins for seat belt use .

And so many of us , including myself , have obsolete ideas regarding seat belts .

 

[moggy1968]

that's why an impact with an inanimate object, like a tree, or a larger object, like a lorry, tends to be bad.

I would guess that Testing upto 40mph is partly done because beyond a certain point so much damage occurs analysis of the data is difficult and also because most accidents happen at or below that speed. Even on a 60mph road there would usually be some element of deceleration before impact. (Just ideas off the top of my head.)

I'm not sure why this makes ideas about seatbelt use obsolete?

Just because they aren't formally tested above 40mph doesn't mean above 40mph wearing a seatbelt will not offer significant protection, it just means it's not part of the formal testing procedure. It's not part of the formal test procedure to push your vehicle off a cliff whistling yankee doodle dandy, that doesn't mean the results aren't predictable if you do!!

What you can do is look at survivability in high speed accidents, and from that establish the benefits of seatbelt useage in terms of survivability and mobidity. Lab testing isn't the only way of obtaining meaningful data.The evidence is overwhelming. Seatbelts save lives.

 

[moggy1968]

Videos like this are always "interesting" to watch.

1950s car crash test

that's scary shit, especially the fire at the end.

 

[moggy1968]

I'm not sure about Moggy - I think he is on the fence with this one

My mom is a radiographer and spent most of her career in a rather busy trauma unit in SA. A few injuries from seat-belts but the injuries from those not wearing were harsh. As Moggy said, being ejected through a toughened piece of laminated glass called a windshield was fun. The number of parents (in SA) who think it is ok for the kids to sit / stand / kneel on the front seat unrestrained is also quite interesting.

Sorry, to survive a crash with a seatbelt is far higher than without.

trauma in SA mucho respecto

 

[Shayne]

Obsolete = outdated - skepticism about seat belts probably harks back to the days when only Volvo's had crumple zones etc .

 

[Paddler Ed]

That car was an Audi.

I wonder though, the impact would not have been that bad. If he hit a pole then it would have sliced the car in half with "little" effort. Had he slid, side-on or forwards into a wall, he would have been dead but with car just gave way.

Two others I recall: (This is the same car in the pic - front and rear)
View attachment 10493

and

View attachment 10494

Allegedly both drivers walked away (and are in the photos)

I've had a friend die in a seemingly silly accident and others walk away from carnage. Like has been said, if there is still something important to do, it's not your time

The giveaway in that photo is the Luxembourg registration plates... I have a mate from Uni who lived in the corner of France that butts up to Germany and Luxembourg; that area the Autoroutes are dangerous because of the Luxembourg drivers... the only ones that are worse are the Belgians... Here's a picture of his Lotus Elise after being hit by a Belgian driver on the autoroute:

A little research just revealed some interesting facts which i think you will like Moggy .

Cars are crash tested to 40mph and not beyond . They are however designed to absorb an impact of 40mph while keeping the occupants safe providing they are wearing seat belts . If two modern cars of similar weight etc collide head on while each traveling at 40mph the resulting impact does not (as i previously assumed) multiply by 2 to make an 80mph impact . Instead each car will crumple to absorb 40mph meaning the occupants will not be subject to forces beyond 40mph which is well within the safety margins for seat belt use .

And so many of us , including myself , have obsolete ideas regarding seat belts .

Both Volvo and Mercedes have (in Mercedes case had?) agreements with local emergency services that when an incident involved one of their vehicles within a certain radius (or above a certain severity) they would send out their own team to investigate and examine the performance of the car in the incident. Volvo have been doing that since 1970, and it includes heavy vehicles as well as cars, so that allows them to work out what improvements need to be incorporated into real life safety stuff... that helps get them to withstand those larger impacts that Shayne mentioned.

 

[moggy1968]

Obsolete = outdated - skepticism about seat belts probably harks back to the days when only Volvo's had crumple zones etc .

scepticism that they are needed or not needed, sorry, I'm being a bit thick here. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

 

[Shayne]

scepticism that they are needed or not needed, sorry, I'm being a bit thick here. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

What i am trying to say is having done a little fact finding about seat belts and crash testing etc i have come to realize my previous doubts about there worth result from out dated ideas . I now know crash testing beyond 40mph is pointless because cars are designed to absorb a 40mph impact while the seat belt is designed to protect the wearer for an additional 40mph . So in modern times we are protected (as best as possible) from an accident up to 80mph due to crumple zones and seat belts . Surviving any accident beyond 80mph results from nothing more than luck . So what i'm saying Mog is yes agree with you , its time to update my ideas and accept 99.5% of the time those wearing a seat belt will fare much better in an accident than those without .

 

[moggy1968]

ah, gottcha, thanks for the clarification and extra info