Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnS
I'm all for personal choice. So long as you belt-up your under-18 kids/passengers, do what you want for yourself. If you want to risk your own life, be my guest.
But it seems to me that since you are aware that you're driving more safely NOT belted-in, it doesn't make sense to actually drive that way. I mean no disrespect, but you're not Pavolv's dog. "NO BELT? I need to drive safely. BELT? I can drive a little more crazily." You've used your mind to figure out the difference in your driving style both ways. And from your post, I can tell you are an intelligent individual. Seems to me you can click your belt on and still drive in your "non-belt mode".
I don't mean to sound preachy. But it just seems kind of silly to risk driving without your belt secured when you can drive in a similar fashion with it hooked up.
As to the part about "YOU knowing that you are not wearing the seatbelt and you are driving with this consciousness": the flaw in that argument is the other guy...who is barreling towards you on the wrong side of the road or who just ran a red light...who DOESN'T know about your seatbelt situation. Is he driving any safer? You can be the safest driver in the world but without the belt, you'll be in a world of hurt.
Even if your "belt-on, belt-off" theory were true...is it worth risking your life for the small gain in FE? I can't answer that one for you. But I know what my answer would be.
Sorry if I'm coming off as mean. That wasn't my intention.
John
|
John, thankyou for your very fair answer. I seem to have opened a can of worms here but I would not have attempted to suggest such a thing or do this experiment if the efficacy of seatbelts was in no doubt.
I also dont want to drift too far from the main topic here.
Seatbelt law started right here where I am in 1971. Everybody here believes in it because when the number of road deaths had dropped from over 1000 in 1971 to about 600-700 by 1974 we believed it was due to seatbelt law.
The problem is the same drop was recorded everywhere in the world, even greater in some places.
The death rate turns out to be inversely connected to oil prices and the oil crisis was on.
In 1975 the Dutch and Swedish put in seatbelt laws and they made no difference - the Swedish deaths actually increased- as the price of oil had begun to come down.
There were lives saved but the accident rate increased.
What it seems happened also is the deaths shifted from the front seats of cars to everywhere else, particularly pedestrians and cyclists. Back seat deaths increased also and most countries went then for compulsion for the back seats. The only drivers whose accident rate did not increase were truck drivers as the law didnt apply to them.
I know I am annoying people saying this but one could almost argue that we drive more considerately if we feel less safe and protected ourselves.
I have known about the increase in pedestrian deaths here for years and found it disturbing.
This is a devil of a discovery.
I was close to giving up the experiment as I figured how could anything make me drive more carefully anyway. I have always been one of the most frightened people when driving that I know.
You're very right in that the biggest problem is still the other bloke.