# Thread: So this popped up in my newsfeed...

1. yeah this guy is a retard,

but damn cops these days, all they care about is giving tickets..
literally last friday, I was walking to the library from school and at a chevron, two of them are just sitting on motorcycles, hiding just behind this large sign with gas prices..

"to serve and protect, your fucking salary"

confindence in humanity can't get any closer to zero

2. Seatbelts are for pussies.

3. Originally Posted by arunforce

Buddy, I'm almost a licensed mechanical engineer, I have a way better understanding of the physics of a car crash than you. Lets break it down:

Air bag deployment has a reduced mortality rate of 63%,
While the standard seatbelt reduced mortality rate by 72%.
Theoretically combined, that would lead to an 80% rate.

Source: Mortality Reduction with Air Bag and Seat Belt Use in Head-on Passenger Car Collisions

So you're saying a 17% chance of increasing my safety by discomfort and safety concerns is valid? Even after you factor in the chances of even being in a collision, then factoring in whether it's a head on collision or not, what speeds would be considered fatal, and whether that's enough force to send you through a windshield, whether you've had time to brace for impact or not, the entire idea that you need to be strapped to a 1+ ton moving object is the most primitive form of protection you can have. Even the fact that the force of the impact is enough to throw you out of your car is enough to kill you by the seatbelt alone.

I don't think you even know what you're talking about. The crumple zone ALONE is the biggest factor in safety an automobile can have. An inelastic collision kills, plain and simple, your body can't withstand a sudden drastic change in velocity, seatbelt or not. In fact, you'd have a better chance of flying through the air and landing on some soft cushion then having the seatbelt instantly kill you. A perfect elastic collision would absorb all the force of impact and protect the inner contents. Think of a pile of leaves, you can jump from a reasonable height and not receive any damage because the leaves CRUMPLE to absorb impact. They can build vehicles that are perfectly inelastic, won't stop everything inside from turning to mush. So I think you underestimate the usefulness of a crumple zone.

I'm contradicting my original statements? If I was overly worried about my safety, I wouldn't ride a bike, drive a motorcycle, take a walk on sidewalks near streets, probably not leave my house. Everything is a calculated risk. I'm not going to drive around in full body armor because I'm scared of a collision. If you're so worried about safety, why aren't you doing that? You might be able to boost your survival rate to 90%! Oh, it's an inconvenice, like a seatbelt! Imagine that, the only one contradicting themselves seems to be you.

There is a prevalent theme in the idea that you need to wear a helmet and strap on a seatbelt. A trade off of inconvenience for safety. No one wears a helmet while biking, are you going to complain about that too? If you even ride a motorcycle, saying that you need to wear a seatbelt is plain stupid and contradictory. If you don't understand the argument, don't assume it's pointless. I can assume that you'll never ride a motorcycle.

And I'll give you a hint what I was talking about a plane falling. Terminal velocity ~= 120 MP/H. Two vehicles head on at 60 MP/H... Though you have a far better chance of surviving the latter, the concept remains the same.

Sounds like you're tooting the government's horn instead of using your own logic to deduce what is a solution and what isn't.
---------

And FYI, the crumple zone is used to distribute the remaining force to the hardest part of the vehicle (the frame), not the weakest.
No, your argument is contradictory. In one sentence you say that being in a seatbelt is an inconvenience and potentially a safety risk, and yet later on you say that the chances of a seatbelt killing you is significantly low. Isn't that enough to justify the use of a seatbelt? Unless you say that safety is easily trumped by comfort. I would suggest going ahead and purchasing body armor for the sake of protection maybe overreacting, but when something can increase your chances of survival greatly (by your own admission wearing a seatbelt can increase your survival chances by up to 17%, not to mention the study I provided which shows that in low speed collisions a seatbelt can increase survival chances by up to 400%) and it is already provided inside the car, and takes all of two seconds to put on, does not restrict mobility, restricts unsafe mobility and does not impair vision then don't you think that it is something worth putting on. Simply forgoing such a thing purely for the sake of comfort is absurd.

I never said that the crumple zone is not the most important part of vehicle safety. I merely stated that it's benefits rapidly deteriorate the further away a vehicle deviates from a head-on collision and the higher the speed of impact (eventually once you hit a high enough speed the amount of deceleration offered by a crumple zone will not compensate enough for the inertia of the internal carriage).

My point isn't about maximizing safety wherever possible, it's about utilizing the options that are readily available. Obviously I'm not going to recommend someone wear a helmet whilst driving around on the streets in their daily, that may inhibit your ability to cover your blind spots and may restrict peripheral vision (depending on the helmet of course) and having such headgear with an airbag may in fact snap your neck (if you were wearing a full face helmet). Again it's about utilizing what is actually inbuilt into the car.

People don't wear helmets whilst cycling because they simply don't care about the risks of head trauma (also I see at least 200 cyclists a day when I'm working and I would guarantee that at least 99% of them wear a helmet), but that is none of my concern. What is my concern is if you start ridiculing people for taking extra precautionary measure when they are ALREADY PROVIDED. Also, no where did I say you should wear a seatbelt on a motorcycle, I'm not sure why you are making such a point, the two are completely different vehicles and their safety designs are very different. And I have ridden motorcycles my whole life, both as rider and pillion passenger. And all times I have worn a padded jacket and a helmet. I have come of a motorbike twice and have avoided any serious injury because of these precautionary measures. Again, I'm not understanding how it comes into play here when we are talking about using a safety feature that is a part of the vehicle.

Perhaps saying the frame is the weakest part wasn't correct. I would wager that it also isn't the hardest part. Deformation requires distributing force to weak points in a structure in order to crumple. This is what negates the force of impact, or "elasticity" as you call it.

I understand and agree with a lot of things you say, but I seriously think you are clutching onto straws when you see it as a matter of convenience vs safety, where convenience wins.

4. I don't use seatbelts. I ride a motorcycle.

5. ## The Following User Says Thank You to Dave84311 For This Useful Post:

WanQuiSheR (11-24-2012)

6. Originally Posted by Dave84311
I don't use seatbelts. I ride a motorcycle.
ofc dabe cake is your airbag

---------- Post added at 10:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 PM ----------

Originally Posted by FMDSatan
-.- you made a troll out of him but u didnt get what he said . he said he paid 150 bucks for not wearing seatbelt and he said no black ops for him cos he cant buy it now . cos he simply paid 150 bucks . he didnt say im not wearing seatbelts so i could buy blackops 2

next time when you troll on somebody make sure your right
You don't know him. He drives to and from school and knowing him... he is the person that won't wear a seatbelt. Here it is \$150 fine for not wearing a seatbelt. And also he is a CoD fan. What you say doesn't make sense as well... given he has to pay 150 to pay off his ticket and BO2 is \$150 here in New Zealand... put to two and two together, no money for BO2.

7. ## The Following User Says Thank You to Tall kiwi For This Useful Post:

WanQuiSheR (11-24-2012)

8. Originally Posted by Doc

No, your argument is contradictory. In one sentence you say that being in a seatbelt is an inconvenience and potentially a safety risk, and yet later on you say that the chances of a seatbelt killing you is significantly low. Isn't that enough to justify the use of a seatbelt? Unless you say that safety is easily trumped by comfort. I would suggest going ahead and purchasing body armor for the sake of protection maybe overreacting, but when something can increase your chances of survival greatly (by your own admission wearing a seatbelt can increase your survival chances by up to 17%, not to mention the study I provided which shows that in low speed collisions a seatbelt can increase survival chances by up to 400%) and it is already provided inside the car, and takes all of two seconds to put on, does not restrict mobility, restricts unsafe mobility and does not impair vision then don't you think that it is something worth putting on. Simply forgoing such a thing purely for the sake of comfort is absurd.

How is that contradictory? That's completely complementary. A safety risk and being low doesn't contradict each other. You're overreacting by putting a seat belt on just because you're travelling 30 *** down the street. I put on my seat belt when there is ice on the road (rare) and most of the time on the highway. It restricts mobility, that's the entire IDEA of a seatbelt and why it can also be a health risk, that's why I don't wear it. And not putting something on for the sake of comfort is absurd? Ok, I'll wait for you to put on full body armor and wear a helmet if you ever ride a bike.

I never said that the crumple zone is not the most important part of vehicle safety. I merely stated that it's benefits rapidly deteriorate the further away a vehicle deviates from a head-on collision and the higher the speed of impact (eventually once you hit a high enough speed the amount of deceleration offered by a crumple zone will not compensate enough for the inertia of the internal carriage).
I never said you said that. You said I overestimated the usefulness of a crumple zone, and there is no such thing. That's just simply laughable. Of course it's not going to protect everything, you don't have it on the side of your car (mostly). And this speed that would make a crumple zone relatively useless is speeds normals cars don't travel on normal roads, so I fail to see what you're getting at?

My point isn't about maximizing safety wherever possible, it's about utilizing the options that are readily available. Obviously I'm not going to recommend someone wear a helmet whilst driving around on the streets in their daily, that may inhibit your ability to cover your blind spots and may restrict peripheral vision (depending on the helmet of course) and having such headgear with an airbag may in fact snap your neck (if you were wearing a full face helmet). Again it's about utilizing what is actually inbuilt into the car.
I don't see race car drivers complaining or neck snapping, sounds like hypocrisy to me. But don't worry, you can wear it because if you're ever in an accident caused by it, at least you'll have it.

People don't wear helmets whilst cycling because they simply don't care about the risks of head trauma (also I see at least 200 cyclists a day when I'm working and I would guarantee that at least 99% of them wear a helmet), but that is none of my concern. What is my concern is if you start ridiculing people for taking extra precautionary measure when they are ALREADY PROVIDED. Also, no where did I say you should wear a seatbelt on a motorcycle, I'm not sure why you are making such a point, the two are completely different vehicles and their safety designs are very different. And I have ridden motorcycles my whole life, both as rider and pillion passenger. And all times I have worn a padded jacket and a helmet. I have come of a motorbike twice and have avoided any serious injury because of these precautionary measures. Again, I'm not understanding how it comes into play here when we are talking about using a safety feature that is a part of the vehicle.
People don't wear helmets because PEOPLE DONT FUCKING FALL ON THEIR HEAD EVERY SINGLE DAY or are at significant risk of doing so (riding on the street, extended distances). You sound like the god damn government, fear mongering about shit that could happen so we should go fucking spend 2 trillion dollars to fight off something that happens once in a blue moon. How did I ridicule anyone about wearing a seat belt, that's your own damn business and none of my concern. But you don't have any business telling me I should wear my seatbelt because you're scared of getting in a wreck. My point about motorcycles are that they are a more significant risk to your health than any vehicle without a seatbelt. If you're so scared of getting hurt in a vehicle because you're not wearing a seatbelt, you have no business getting in a motorcycle, it's simply hypocritical.

Perhaps saying the frame is the weakest part wasn't correct. I would wager that it also isn't the hardest part. Deformation requires distributing force to weak points in a structure in order to crumple. This is what negates the force of impact, or "elasticity" as you call it.
It is the hardest part, it's the part that's designed NOT to crumple because people are directly inside of it. The crumple zone is the the only place where deformation is intended, there's absolutely no point in having the cage crumple.

I understand and agree with a lot of things you say, but I seriously think you are clutching onto straws when you see it as a matter of convenience vs safety, where convenience wins.
Ironic, I was thinking the same thing about clutching onto straws. That same logic of safety earned us the TSA. I'll take my convenience, and risk that 1/7m chance that my plane has a fucking terrorist.

9. Meh, i know friends which drive cars and they are 16 and don't use a seatbelt

10. I put my seatbelt on automaticly...

11. Originally Posted by arunforce
I don't use a seatbelt, most of the time...
you dont need a seatbelt on the back of a motor cycle

12. Originally Posted by arunforce

How is that contradictory? That's completely complementary. A safety risk and being low doesn't contradict each other. You're overreacting by putting a seat belt on just because you're travelling 30 *** down the street. I put on my seat belt when there is ice on the road (rare) and most of the time on the highway. It restricts mobility, that's the entire IDEA of a seatbelt and why it can also be a health risk, that's why I don't wear it. And not putting something on for the sake of comfort is absurd? Ok, I'll wait for you to put on full body armor and wear a helmet if you ever ride a bike.
It does not restrict general mobility, it restricts unsafe mobility that will impair your ability to drive. It's not overreacting when there next to NO benefit of not wearing one compared to the benefits of not flying face first into a) the airbag b) the steering wheel c) the windshield. Yes I always put on full coverage clothing and a full face helmet when I ride a motorcycle. Did you not read my post?

Originally Posted by arunforce

I never said you said that. You said I overestimated the usefulness of a crumple zone, and there is no such thing. That's just simply laughable. Of course it's not going to protect everything, you don't have it on the side of your car (mostly). And this speed that would make a crumple zone relatively useless is speeds normals cars don't travel on normal roads, so I fail to see what you're getting at?
You said that without airbags, without seatbelts the crumple zones alone will be enough to protect you from most fatalities. That is simply not true unless you are are talking about very low impact speeds say maybe <50 m/ph total impact speed, where deceleration happens at a much slower rate. I acknowledge that we both agree that these mechanism are only ever going to be useful for head on collisions and are going to do fuck all to protect us from side-on collisions.

I wouldn't say that the "speed of no return" is invalid simply because normal cars don't do abnormal speeds on normal roads. If anything most accidents aren't normal, there's is always a contributing factor that would have been a catalyst, whilst you may doing 30m/ph some other fuckhead might decide to do 60m/ph down the same street, loses control and collides with your car. Having a seatbelt will benefit you in this situation. Simply just putting it on when you expect that YOU may lose control or you are on a high speed highway partly defeats the purpose. You aren't always the one in control, sometimes there are other drivers that you cannot account for that may make you wish you were wearing that seatbelt on that normal street. This is part of the point I'm making. Unless you can actually explain to me HOW the seatbelt impedes your ability to drive or HOW it's so uncomfortable for you that you'd rather risk it, then it just looks like a strawman argument. So far you've just been stating your advocacy of other safety features whilst barely elaborating on the negatives other than "its uncomfortable".

Originally Posted by arunforce

I don't see race car drivers complaining or neck snapping, sounds like hypocrisy to me. But don't worry, you can wear it because if you're ever in an accident caused by it, at least you'll have it.
Most race cars do not have airbags because of the reason I state. Because of the design of the full face helmet, forward movement colliding against a deploying airbag will cause an incredible amount of upwards force applied to the chin of the helmet causing incredible whiplash and very likely to result in a broken neck. This is why most race car drivers have a safety harness and a helmet strap, this removes the need for an airbag and reducing neck injury.

Originally Posted by arunforce

People don't wear helmets because PEOPLE DONT FUCKING FALL ON THEIR HEAD EVERY SINGLE DAY or are at significant risk of doing so (riding on the street, extended distances). You sound like the god damn government, fear mongering about shit that could happen so we should go fucking spend 2 trillion dollars to fight off something that happens once in a blue moon. How did I ridicule anyone about wearing a seat belt, that's your own damn business and none of my concern. But you don't have any business telling me I should wear my seatbelt because you're scared of getting in a wreck. My point about motorcycles are that they are a more significant risk to your health than any vehicle without a seatbelt. If you're so scared of getting hurt in a vehicle because you're not wearing a seatbelt, you have no business getting in a motorcycle, it's simply hypocritical.
That is just not a good argument to make. All it takes is for one car to pull out of a blind corner, or for the cyclist to become complacent and clip the curb and the head colliding with the pavement to potentially cause permanent brain damage. It is not fear-mongering. For you to suggest so and make some assumption that we should spend 2 trillion dollars is ridiculous. Surely you see the absurdity of such a thing.

I have no business? You were the one ridiculing people who are "safety first".

And I quote "Yeah, will do. Why don't you drive around in full body motorcycle suit, and foam up the sides so you don't risk getting injured while you're at it? Oh what?!?! You're not?!?! OMG U WANT TO DIE LOLOLOLOLO NOOB."

Tall Kiwi was simply giving a remark. I understand he was the instigator but you are the one ridiculing everyone who wears a seatbelt for safety reason by saying that we are overreacting.

Also I am not scared of getting into a vehicle with no seatbelt. I am perfectly fine and my grandfathers Mustang, and I have been fine riding a motorcycle for the last 14 years of my life. But when there are seatbelts available I use them. Because if I were to be in an accident I am more likely to be thankful for them then to regret putting them on.

Originally Posted by arunforce

It is the hardest part, it's the part that's designed NOT to crumple because people are directly inside of it. The crumple zone is the the only place where deformation is intended, there's absolutely no point in having the cage crumple.
Then you concede that you're earlier statement is incorrect, "And FYI, the crumple zone is used to distribute the remaining force to the hardest part of the vehicle (the frame), not the weakest.". Considering crumple zones rely on deformation to distribute the force of impact away from the carriage and to negate intertia, then for this to happen the forces need to be distributed to the weak points of the car thus allowing deformation. After all, if the frame is the hardest part and forces are distributed TO the frame then the occupants will be reduced to mince meat.

Originally Posted by arunforce

Ironic, I was thinking the same thing about clutching onto straws. That same logic of safety earned us the TSA. I'll take my convenience, and risk that 1/7m chance that my plane has a fucking terrorist.
Yes, compare car safety to an an anti-terrorist safety organisation that has been proven to be grossly ineffective whereas seatbelts have been proven to be of great effectiveness in conjunction to other safety features.

Just tell me how seatbelts really inconvenience you. Stop avoiding the question by making comparisons to what other people do or how other completely different vehicles lack it therefore you don't need it. Tell my why you feel that the seatbelt designed for your car to work alongside the airbags and crumple zones and every other feature of the car "inconveniences" you.

13. Originally Posted by Doc

It does not restrict general mobility, it restricts unsafe mobility that will impair your ability to drive. It's not overreacting when there next to NO benefit of not wearing one compared to the benefits of not flying face first into a) the airbag b) the steering wheel c) the windshield. Yes I always put on full coverage clothing and a full face helmet when I ride a motorcycle. Did you not read my post?

If it didn't restrict general mobility, it wouldn't be able to save you... Your ass is stuck in one place the moment you put it on, that is THE DEFINITION of restricting mobility. My quote was "I'll wait for you to put on full body armor and wear a helmet if you ever ride a bike," but I meant "full body armor" as in for driving and helmet for biking. (not motorbiking)

You said that without airbags, without seatbelts the crumple zones alone will be enough to protect you from most fatalities. That is simply not true unless you are are talking about very low impact speeds say maybe <50 m/ph total impact speed, where deceleration happens at a much slower rate. I acknowledge that we both agree that these mechanism are only ever going to be useful for head on collisions and are going to do fuck all to protect us from side-on collisions.

Without a crumple zone, you chances of surviving a head on collision is essentially none, it is by far the most useful out of the rest. I never said it alone would be enough, I said that in perfectly elastic collision would be enough. With the right material, it would absorb the entire impact and leave the passengers unhurt. And that's why scientists are still researching it to this day.

I wouldn't say that the "speed of no return" is invalid simply because normal cars don't do abnormal speeds on normal roads. If anything most accidents aren't normal, there's is always a contributing factor that would have been a catalyst, whilst you may doing 30m/ph some other fuckhead might decide to do 60m/ph down the same street, loses control and collides with your car. Having a seatbelt will benefit you in this situation. Simply just putting it on when you expect that YOU may lose control or you are on a high speed highway partly defeats the purpose. You aren't always the one in control, sometimes there are other drivers that you cannot account for that may make you wish you were wearing that seatbelt on that normal street. This is part of the point I'm making. Unless you can actually explain to me HOW the seatbelt impedes your ability to drive or HOW it's so uncomfortable for you that you'd rather risk it, then it just looks like a strawman argument. So far you've just been stating your advocacy of other safety features whilst barely elaborating on the negatives other than "its uncomfortable".

The speed that would make a crumple zone relatively useless is largely dependent on the mass of both vehicles and the speed that they're going at. Two regular sized cars going 60 mp/h head on a collision would work, they regularly test vehicles to make sure that people survive. A freaking solid metal block sized refrigerator at 500 mp/h isn't going to be stopped by a crumple zone. Either way, you're not walking out of there just because you have a seatbelt. You at least have a chance on the highway depending on the location of impact. If I recall correctly 90% of all accidents happen within 5 miles or within 10 minutes of leavingiving from home or something like that.
Freak accidents happen, but that's not a reason to wear a seatbelt travelling down the street 35 MP/H, or get your ass violated by the TSA. That's called fear mongering. Either way I'm not going flying out of my window at 30 MP/H.

That is just not a good argument to make. All it takes is for one car to pull out of a blind corner, or for the cyclist to become complacent and clip the curb and the head colliding with the pavement to potentially cause permanent brain damage. It is not fear-mongering. For you to suggest so and make some assumption that we should spend 2 trillion dollars is ridiculous. Surely you see the absurdity of such a thing.

Shit happens. People die, thunder strikes, people get murdered, houses catch on fire, nuclear radiation happens, natural disasters occur, asteroids collide into the earth. I don't feel the need to pretend I'm going to die in a car crash of all things. The chances of being in a car wreck that is life threatening isn't that damn high to need to strap myself to my car (under normal conditions).

I have no business? You were the one ridiculing people who are "safety first".

And I quote "Yeah, will do. Why don't you drive around in full body motorcycle suit, and foam up the sides so you don't risk getting injured while you're at it? Oh what?!?! You're not?!?! OMG U WANT TO DIE LOLOLOLOLO NOOB."

Tall Kiwi was simply giving a remark. I understand he was the instigator but you are the one ridiculing everyone who wears a seatbelt for safety reason by saying that we are overreacting.
........................I was imitating Mr Fear Mongerer over here with his dumb ass attitude. I never said don't wear seatbelts, I said oh man I'm not wearing a seatbelt, you're not wearing full body armor, you're going to die dumb bitch. Once again, I never said to not wear seatbelts, there's nothing wrong with it, and there's nothing wrong with not wearing it under normal conditions. Don't try to pull that stupid bullshit card of increasing your safety to the maximum percentage means wearing full body armor while driving, wearing a helmet at any time on a bike, never driving a motorcycle and all that hypocritical shit you people telling me I need to wear a damn seat belt.

Also I am not scared of getting into a vehicle with no seatbelt. I am perfectly fine and my grandfathers Mustang, and I have been fine riding a motorcycle for the last 14 years of my life. But when there are seatbelts available I use them. Because if I were to be in an accident I am more likely to be thankful for them then to regret putting them on.
Good for you. Don't go telling other people they need to put it on.

Then you concede that you're earlier statement is incorrect, "And FYI, the crumple zone is used to distribute the remaining force to the hardest part of the vehicle (the frame), not the weakest.". Considering crumple zones rely on deformation to distribute the force of impact away from the carriage and to negate intertia, then for this to happen the forces need to be distributed to the weak points of the car thus allowing deformation. After all, if the frame is the hardest part and forces are distributed TO the frame then the occupants will be reduced to mince meat.

What are you talking about? Why is this so hard to understand? It's fairly simple. There is 2 parts to car safety. There is the hard part (the frame), and the soft part (the crumple zone) designed to reduce the force transferred to the harder part, which is inevitable. It absorbs some if not all of the impact and transfers the remaining force and momentum to your frame, which is the net result of what you're going to feel when your car suddenly comes to a stop. The more you absorb, the less you feel, but once you reach the end of the crumple zone, you're going to hit body parts, and that's exactly where the frame begins, which happens to be the strongest object of the car...

Yes, compare car safety to an an anti-terrorist safety organisation that has been proven to be grossly ineffective whereas seatbelts have been proven to be of great effectiveness in conjunction to other safety features.

Just tell me how seatbelts really inconvenience you. Stop avoiding the question by making comparisons to what other people do or how other completely different vehicles lack it therefore you don't need it. Tell my why you feel that the seatbelt designed for your car to work alongside the airbags and crumple zones and every other feature of the car "inconveniences" you.

It's a pretty fair comparison, both started from lone voices crying out that you will die unless you give away your freedom. There is nothing to tell how it inconveniences me. It's common sense, it's not like its some rouge agenda that I'm the only person in the world shares. I only need two seconds to jump out of a vehicle on a crash collision with me. I only need a second to scoot my hips out of the way of a car T-Boning me. You know what a seatbelt does? Restricts freedom of movement. My hips are locked to that seat because I'm scared of the inconceivably small chances of being thrown out of a window, not even getting started on the inconvenience of having a seatbelt around you for the entire duration of being in a car. This is 2012, not the 1960s...

14. @Doc @arunforce.. calm down guys Take it to debate section maybe?

Page 3 of 3 First 123