Why Should I Wear A Seat Belt
Last comment by Bryant 4 months, 3 weeks ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

Seat Belts. I hate them! And yet, if you see me in a car you will notice I am always wearing them. The reason? Very simple: I don’t want to die in a car accident! I’m old enough to remember when some of the first seat belts came out: leather straps that cut you in half across your waist. And that was when they were adjusted properly.

Historically speaking, the first seat belts were used to raise and/or lower people. The next important adaptation of seat belts was to hold pilots in their seats in planes when they were maneuvering up, down, and all around.

Now, get this! In the mid-1930’s, a number of doctors around the country began installing them in their own cars. Amazing! Scientist Nils Bohlin designed the first of the three-point seat belt harnesses for the 1959 Volvo line of cars. What we have now are multiple restraints with spring-loaded adjustments and quick release buttons which are almost like fluffy pillows caressing your chest compared to the first generation of belts.

So why do so many people still refuse to wear them when they’re driving? There is plenty of research, both from tests done in the laboratory, as well as from the hard and fast statistics compiled from deaths which were recorded in highway accidents, to make people want to wear them.

According to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, on the average over 7,000 lives a year would have been saved if seat belts had been worn. In the same study, over 13,000 peoples’ lives were discovered to have been saved because they were wearing them.

Still not convinced? In 2009, vehicle crashes killed over 33,000 people and injured some 2.2 million more. People are paying attention, for in 2010, seat belt usage had risen overall to some 85% of people buckling up. And yet, those same statistics show one out of seven drivers will get into their car and not buckle up. That is madness!

Having given the matter much thought, there is only one reason I have heard why anyone could logically refuse to wear them. Very simply put, if the person has a medical impairment or condition or injury which would be aggravated or worsened if a seat restraint were to be worn. Those suffering from such a condition might tell you finding some other means of restraint might be very expensive and might not even be possible due to their condition.

Believe it or not, there were nine other reasons people given more often in a State of Delaware study conducted to see why people weren't wearing them. The most common reason people given is that the person is afraid of getting stuck in a vehicle in an accident. If that’s you’re excuse, go ahead and feel comfortable in the knowledge that you probably won’t get stuck in your seat.

However, that won’t really matter because these same studies have shown if you’re not buckled up and get into a serious accident, according to these studies the chances are very high that you’ll be dead!

Guess what? Seat belts reduce deaths in passenger cars by 45% and light pickup trucks by 60% overall, and they have been shown to reduce the risk of serious injuries to the head, chest, and extremities (arms and legs) by between 50 and 88%.

The next three most common excuses are it irritates your skin, makes you fell restrained, or doesn’t fit. Ok, folks. First of all, they are adjustable. Once adjusted you won’t have to mess with them again. Second, that’s what they’re supposed to do: keep you from going flying through the windows or windshield of your car! Finally, if you are indeed too large for the range of size a regular seat belt will go around, just buy a seat belt extender! They’re cheap and oh-so-easy to use.

The next reason is that it prevents you from turning your head. If this is true, you need to adjust your seat belt really badly because once properly adjusted they will restrain your chest and not even touch your neck. I hate to say it, but the excuses from this point on range from laughable to ludicrous.

Now, the next excuse is, well, pretty dumb. It is “I forgot”. Folks, do you forget to breathe after you wake up! You need to be buckled up before you even think about starting the engine. After all, it’s not like you just robbed a bank and are making a quick getaway, right? On top of that, think how nice it’ll be once that stupid beeping sound that means you, or someone else, hasn’t buckled up finally stops.

Now, the next most common answer given is, I think, childish and slightly insane: ”Nobody can tell me what to do when I’m in my car.” In your driveway, maybe! Sheesh. First of all, driving is a privilege, not a constitutionally guaranteed right, like freedom of speech. Second, once you leave your driveway, you are in the public, and have to follow local, state, and federal laws. If you don’t, watch out!

Next up is the fact is because your car has air bags. OK, if you are one of those that believes this means you're safe, read this: air bags are not fluffy pillows intended to catch you when you fall – they inflate at some 250 miles per hour to fill the space between you and the car body upon impact, and then just as fast deflate. So, after you’re done hitting the air bag, you will then fly into whatever it was that you hit, or that hit you, and once again will most likely die or suffer serious injury. Really?

The next answer given makes me want to scream: “I can’t feed my baby or look at her when I wear my seat belt.” You have got to be kidding! For someone who has a child in their car, I would hope they would be focused on keeping them safe. If they are upset, or need to be fed, or even changed, pull over. For God’s sake, and that of your baby! Please!

And finally, another argument I have heard occasionally, but which wasn’t in this study, is one I consider both specious and irresponsible. The vehicle doesn’t have any. Hard to believe but there are some vintage cars without seat belts driving around on the roads. Retrofitting them, the owners would probably tell you, would be both costly and aggravating and would destroy the ‘feel’ of the vehicle.

The bottom line: The same National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration study has determined that another person in the United States will die in a car accident every 13 minutes. The question that you should ask yourself every time you get into a car is, “Do I want it to be me?”


Latest Activity: Jun 27, 2014 at 9:40 PM


Bookmark and Share
Forward This Blog
Print Blog
More Blogs by Regional
Send Regional a Message
Report Inappropriate Content


Blog has been viewed (363) times.

Bryant commented on Saturday, Jun 28, 2014 at 13:43 PM

I always wear my seat belt because of other drivers. First, because there are more of them than ever. Second, a large percentage of them are idiots, impaired or on the damn phone. Third, years ago I used to be part of the large percentage. And nowadays, I would not like seeing my former self coming toward me on the highway.

That said, Regional. your cite "...over 7,000 lives a year would have been saved if seat belts had been worn'" is not worrisome to me. Most of those probably shouldn't have been allowed in the gene pool anyway.

Everyone, drive carefully and look out for "those" other people that can't drive. And, buckle up.

Scindapsus commented on Monday, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:47 PM

In these parts, the only anti-seat belt reason I've ever heard has been the "Nanny state taking away my freedom" argument. However, it seems that what these supposedly anti-government pro-capitalism types really want is the "benefit" without the cost.

See, I've found that the quickest way to end this discussion is to note, quite truthfully, that I'd be fine with making seat belts optional, but insurance companies wouldn't unless they were allowed to enter the well-established risks of not using seat belts into their actuarial tables. Then when you signed up for car insurance, you would have to tell them if you're a seat belt user or not (just like you have to tell them if you're a smoker or engage in other high risk activities). You can bet that the price of this particular freedom would immediately appear in your insurance premiums long before (hopefully!) the much greater price you'd pay in a serious accident. But your freedom would be preserved, right?

And of course, part of this escape from the nanny state would be that the insurance company would be under no obligation to cover you in the event of an accident in which you weren't wearing your seat belt if you'd selected the cheaper seat belt user's policy. Or, perhaps more realistically, they would be entitled to reclaim their costs and/or it could be made a criminal offense to lie about this particular statement.

Presenting this free-market alternative to the current "nanny state" will quickly make it clear that most of these folks want the freedom to not wear seat belts but they oppose allowing insurance companies to raise their rates in response, and they certainly do not want to be held legally accountable if they are found not abiding by the rules. Indeed, based on similar controversies, I wouldn't be surprised if, when push came to shove, they would deny the negative relationship between seat belts and severe injury in accidents, start producing studies showing a positive relationship between seat belts and severe injury, and start pressuring Congress to stop funding any further research on the subject!

Bryant commented on Monday, Jun 30, 2014 at 15:43 PM

Interesting take - and accurate in my opinion.


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by Regional
 
Smoke Detectors
November 11, 2014
Why don't people buy them? Why don't people use them? Why don't people maintain them? In the last week, more people than I can count on my hands and feet have died.....and in every case it was stated right up front by the fire inspector the house didn't have smoke ...
Read More »
 
Georgia House Race Ratings:
October 28, 2014
here are the ratings for the 12th District: The survey group RealClearPolitics says its a 'real toss up' between John Barrow and Rick Allen The survey group Sabato's Crystal ball is 'leaning towards' Barrow. The race is, however, extremely tight. The survey group Cook's Political Report is 'leaning towards' Barrow. ...
Read More »
 
Ga Senate Candidates: Ratings
October 28, 2014
here are their ratings: The survey group "Cook's Political Report" says its a 'toss up' between David Perdue and Michelle Nunn. The survey group "Sabato's Crystal Ball" survey group says David Perdue has the advantage. RealClear Politics says three survey groups believe Perdue is ahead: Insider Advantage (by 9 points), ...
Read More »
 
Ga. Governors race
October 28, 2014
the latest ratings from the major pollsters: Atlanta Journal Constitution: Deal up by 5 points CBS News: Deal up by 4 points WSB TV/Landmark: Deal up by 3 points SurveyUSA: Deal up by 2 points Insider Advantage: 'a tie' between Deal and Carter --I say Governor Deal has earned four ...
Read More »
 
Ga. School Superintendent Race
October 28, 2014
here's the latest news: On October 23rd, writer Maureen Downey wrote in the Atlanta Constitution Journal that "With his noon endorsement of Democrat Valarie Wilson today, Republican State School Superintendent John Barge is leaving his office in the same manner he arrived and served — bucking a GOP establishment that ...
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]





 
Powered by
Morris Technology