If 40% weren't wearing seat belts, that means 60% were wearing seat belts. So, you're better off not wearing a seat belt?
If 40% weren't wearing seat belts, that means 60% were wearing seat belts. So, you're better off not wearing a seat belt?
Performance eval wrote:
If 40% weren't wearing seat belts, that means 60% were wearing seat belts. So, you're better off not wearing a seat belt?
Logical fallacy. It just means that the 60% had were in crashes so severe that they weren't going to be saved. It also means that of the 40% that weren't wearing seatbelts there are an unknown percentage that would have survived had they been buckled up, many of them died from vehicle ejections.
large thinker wrote:
Performance eval wrote:If 40% weren't wearing seat belts, that means 60% were wearing seat belts. So, you're better off not wearing a seat belt?
Logical fallacy. It just means that the 60% had were in crashes so severe that they weren't going to be saved. It also means that of the 40% that weren't wearing seatbelts there are an unknown percentage that would have survived had they been buckled up, many of them died from vehicle ejections.
Regardless, wearing a seat belt is the smart thing to do. It might not only save your life but could reduce the level of damage.
Depending on which survey you choose to believe, seat belt use is around 80%, so 20% of the population is doing 40% of the dying. It follows that one is about twice as likely to be killed in a collision if they are not wearing a seat belt.
The only argument against seat belts was that the sudden decelleration in an accident would cause life threatening injuries to internal organs as they thrash around inside you during an accident. But, vehicle designs have reduced this risk by incorporating crumple zones that reduce the impact and rate of decelleration. Not wearing a seat belt increases the risk of ejection, which is usually the cause of death in serious accidents.
A much smaller percentage of drivers wearing seat belts are killed than those not wearing seat belts.
"Statistics show that seat belts save lives. When used correctly, wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of fatal injury to front seat passenger car occupants by 45%, and risk of moderate-to-critical injury by 50%. "
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/accidents/accident-statistics.html
You are missing a critical piece of information: what percent of vehicle drivers and passengers wear seat belts in the first place. If 90% of people wear seat belts than the percent of total traffic deaths amongst those wearing seat belts will likely be higher due to the much larger base.
Take a random sample of 1 million and assume there are 1,000 traffic deaths. Now assume 90% of those 1 million always wear seat belts. Applying your data - 40% of traffic deaths were not wearing seat belts and 60% were wearing belts:
400/100,000 - not wearing belts
600/900,000 - wearing belts
In this scenario, someone not wearing a seat belt is about 6 times more likely to die than someone wearing a belt.
Don't use a seat belt, it's better to be thrown clear.
IT IS MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN TO NOT WEAR A SEATBELT. DONT TREAD ON ME MOTHERF*CKER
Thanks guys!
1960s Mentality wrote:
Don't use a seat belt, it's better to be thrown clear.
Yep. Seat belts were actually a commie ploy to trap people in burning cars.
large thinker wrote:
Logical fallacy. It just means that the 60% had were in crashes so severe that they weren't going to be saved. It also means that of the 40% that weren't wearing seatbelts there are an unknown percentage that would have survived had they been buckled up, many of them died from vehicle ejections.
It also means that you are ignoring the unknown percentage of the 60% that would have survived had they not been buckled up.
The 40% are just doing their bit for the future of the species.
"Hey! You! Outta the gene pool! Now!"
People using seat belts with airbags are more likely to suffer serious injuries or death compared to those using seatbelts and no airbags.
Airbags are dangerous, and more likely to cause death or serious injuries.
J.R. wrote:
People using seat belts with airbags are more likely to suffer serious injuries or death compared to those using seatbelts and no airbags.
Airbags are dangerous, and more likely to cause death or serious injuries.
Do you have a source for that info?
Lies. Absolutely false. I've been a paramedic for more than 20 years, so I've been to a few car crashes. People who don't wear seat belts die or have serious injuries. Airbags save lives and reduce the severity of injuries in crashes. If you are in a crash in a vehicle with airbags and are wearing a seatbelt,the airbags deploy as designed and protect you from serious injury or death. It's true, airbags sometimes cause some injuries, but the minor wrist burns, infrequent fractures, and occasional minor laceration which are most common pale in comparison to the carnage without seatbelts. Without the seatbelts there is no telling where you end up in or out of the vehicle after the crash. When the airbags deploy as designed they may well cause serious injuries because the person is not where they are supposed to be. I can't begin to count the number of people I've seen dead or with serious injuries, permanent disfigurement or disability who would have walked away uninjured or with minor cuts and bruises had they been wearing seatbelts. Airbags are part of the protection package in your vehicle, and are designed to be used with seatbelts.
Off topic question:
People die easily from blunt force trauma (lets say falling out of a moving car at 80mph, which most of us would agree would lead to serious injury or death). How is a cheetah or similarly fast running cat able to survive moving at that speed?
Obviously as long as they are in control, on their feet, they would be fine but don't they fall and tumble sometimes? Why no organ damage or broken bones?
If people fell from two inches off the ground rolling onto the open tundra, they might fare okay.
But it's safe to say that cheetahs have better bodies than we do for that kind of thing.
Similarly, birds do better when hurled into the air.