Cycling UK Forum

Do we believe in risk compensation on this thread?
(See also thread about disc brakes)

Risk compensation rules OK!

Phil Fouracre wrote:Risk compensation rules OK!

Aren't you taking a risk with such a bold statement?

Cugel wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:I was being ironic with the “bulletproof vests save lives all the time”and I chose bulletproof vests deliberately because in many ways they are similar to helmets

Like the Helmets save lives all the time, The mythology of their efficiency and confidence in their effectiveness expounded by the ill informed about both helmets and bulletproof vests is misplaced


Advocates make all sorts of claims, but in fact their efficiency is dubious and limited really to low speed, low impact bullets,

Also like helmets poorly fitting bulletproof vests can be ineffective, and exacerbate injury

You learn sumfink every day!

I must confess to having avoided even knowing about bullet proof vests, let alone inserting myself into a place (such as Yankland) where one might be considered. Do risk compensators go about in their not-so bang-proof vest inducing armed loons to shoot at them then? What channel is it on?

Cugel

Sadly they do:

[youtube]nQM6zLiSn1E[/youtube]

Slightly off topic, but they have been mentioned on this thread .............. car seatbelts.

Now cars have six or eight airbags, crumple-zones, ABS, collapsable steering columns, laminated glass, head restraints .......... etc etc etc etc, do we need seatbelts any more?
Excellent idea in the old days, but do we really need them now?

Mick F wrote:Slightly off topic, but they have been mentioned on this thread .............. car seatbelts.

Now cars have six or eight airbags, crumple-zones, ABS, collapsable steering columns, laminated glass, head restraints .......... etc etc etc etc, do we need seatbelts any more?
Excellent idea in the old days, but do we really need them now?

It would be interesting to see research on this. Head injuries are still a significant cause of death in vehicle fatalities, so heads still hit surfaces with monotonous regularity

Hi,
Its not rocket science.
[youtube]Nmf_Cj0zFDY[/youtube]
[youtube]xenNCTEnMhI[/youtube]

Mick F wrote:Slightly off topic, but they have been mentioned on this thread .............. car seatbelts.

Now cars have six or eight airbags, crumple-zones, ABS, collapsable steering columns, laminated glass, head restraints .......... etc etc etc etc, do we need seatbelts any more?
Excellent idea in the old days, but do we really need them now?

Yes in that the airbags, etc.. are designed on the assumption of seatbelts being worn by the occupants. So, remove the seatbelt from the car and the airbag design/deployment is now wrong, possibly made sufficiently "wrong" to cause more injuries than it might prevent.
You'll also find that many (most/all?) cars have seat-belt tensioning devices fitted which rapidly tighten the belts in the event of an accident which deploys airbag (the tightening device is often a small explosive cartridge). This pulls the occupant further into their seat as part of the process of keeping the occupant away from the hard parts of a car during an accident. The pull into the seat is also to reduce neck injuries as a backwards movement of the head will now be prevented by the head restraint, rather than the body moving away from the head restraint.

Nice reply.
Thanks.

Next question considering your good info.
Why aren't the airbags etc designed so you don't need seatbelts?

I am aware that there are accidents where the wearing of seatbelts is a big problem.
Overturned cars, cars driving into rivers and floods, and etc where the occupants can't get out because they are strapped in.

This is only partially substantiated, so treat it as a personal opinion


There is an organisation called Euro NCAP that tests vehicles

They rate vehicles on various criteria including occupsnt safety and that of other road users

There are vehicles out there with Zero scores!

As long as the Motor Lobby get away with the propoganda that allows dangerous and unsafe vehicles then there will never be a safe vehicle

Mick F wrote:Nice reply.
Thanks.

Next question considering your good info.
Why aren't the airbags etc designed so you don't need seatbelts?

There are, anywhere seat belts aren't mandatory has them.
But because the airbag has to do more, they need to inflate faster.
This ups the risk of injury from the airbag itself.

Mick F wrote:Nice reply.
Thanks.

Next question considering your good info.
Why aren't the airbags etc designed so you don't need seatbelts?

As Tigerbiten said, they do exist in some markets. And have bigger more explosive airbags, which can cause more injuries as a side-effect of the airbag deploying. The injuries are to hearing (explosion going off), burns (as explosive burns), lacerations (as stuff flies past occupant at very high speed). Plus whip-lash to neck which belts with tighteners are trying to reduce.

I am aware that there are accidents where the wearing of seatbelts is a big problem.
Overturned cars, cars driving into rivers and floods, and etc where the occupants can't get out because they are strapped in.

I'm sure such do happen, but very very rarely. Taken as a whole, for the vehicle occupant, a seatbelt+set-of-airbags+collision-avoidance-software results in a higher survival chance across the accidents that do happen.
That said, the driver's behaviour (to be clear, the "innocent" driver, not the at-fault person) prior to the accident is probably the biggest factor: sure there will be the odd accident where the driver could do absolutely nothing to avoid it, but in most cases there is something the driver could have done better - left a bigger gap, anticipated something might be there, etc.. etc..

.. &c.. speeding crime is the greatest cause of "accidents"

Said it before ............................ if they did away with seatbelts and airbags, and fitted daggers and swords instead, that deployed into you in the event of a collision, we would all drive very very carefully indeed. In fact it would put off people from driving altogether.

Hi,

Mick F wrote:Nice reply.
Thanks.

Next question considering your good info.
Why aren't the airbags etc designed so you don't need seatbelts?

I am aware that there are accidents where the wearing of seatbelts is a big problem.
Overturned cars, cars driving into rivers and floods, and etc where the occupants can't get out because they are strapped in.

Its not rocket science-
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/ca ... eo-Florida
We digress, but unlike helmets there are not many incidents (remember you may be the safest driver but no account for other drivers actions!) in a car where you are better off without seat belt.
Old story when I was 21 and fittest probably I was involved in a car that hit a bank, I was wearing front seat belt and saw it coming but I failed to have the strength to brace myself against the floor (feet) and dash (hands) to stop my knees hitting dash, I was uninjured.

And a classic where the person died, estimated that she was best position in car to survive.............the only survivor went onto write a book etc....................he was wearing a seat belt and was the body guard................gov buried all this as it was not thought to be in the publics best interest...............
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/84 ... yal-Family