So this popped up in my newsfeed...

[Larity2056]

You should know Black Ops 2 is more important then anything

[[MPGH]Doc]

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.

Moetard.

The difference is that it's insta-death if your in a car without a seatbelt and you end up in a head on. Even with an airbag, airbags are designed to work in conjunction with a seatbelt, no seatbelt=crushed chest. Not to mention a glass death trap right in front of you. Wear a seatbelt, and you might make it out with just some cracked ribs and a sore neck.

[Lehsyrus]

why do you have to hate on swagfags?
we will overpopulate newzeland and take over the world.

So you admit to being gay?

[Hux]

So you admit to being gay?

why do you have to hate on me?
hatrs are motivatrs

[Sussie]

This dumb cunt is in a couple of my classes and is not very bright... He values a video game more than his safety

COMBO FACE DESK!

CONGRATULATIONS! ACHIEVED BROKEN HEAD!!!111one!!1




(/block them pls)

[Tall kiwi]

COMBO FACE DESK!

CONGRATULATIONS! ACHIEVED BROKEN HEAD!!!111one!!1



Facebook is another dumb social network , I guess ignoring will be better than seeing more flaming comments

(/block them pls)

Please don't comment again

[Sussie]

Please don't comment again

Okay...

[[MPGH]Doc]

COMBO FACE DESK!

CONGRATULATIONS! ACHIEVED BROKEN HEAD!!!111one!!1




(/block them pls)

WTF kind of retarded is this comment.

[[MPGH]arunforce]

The difference is that it's insta-death if your in a car without a seatbelt and you end up in a head on. Even with an airbag, airbags are designed to work in conjunction with a seatbelt, no seatbelt=crushed chest. Not to mention a glass death trap right in front of you. Wear a seatbelt, and you might make it out with just some cracked ribs and a sore neck.

I don't know what bullshit you're spouting, but you can survive a head on collision with just an airbag, and no they are designed to work only together, they're mutually independent safety mechanisms, even though it's riskier slamming head first into an airbag without a restraint. The biggest factors in safety is the speed you're travelling at and where the collision occurs, I'm more inclined to wear a seatbelt while on the highway then anywhere else. A seatbelt would help if you car flips over, you'd want to be trapped to your seat. You're also dead if you get t-boned on your driver seat and cant move because you're trapped to your seat. They also say wear a helmet when riding a bike, so in the case that you fall on your head you don't incur serious injury, yet no one does.

All these devices do is stack safety on top of safety. You can still survive an impact on the front of your car without an airbag or seatbelt, it happens to be the designed for crumpling, but even then the success rate is probably marginal. Even then, the airbag alone is good enough to stop serious damage, stack it with a seatbelt and you have a really good chance. Being aware alone increases your chances of survival, your body reacts differently to things differently that you see coming, bracing for impact is a huge factor on how your body responds to getting hurt.

Just because you feel insecure about travelling on the road unprotected doesn't mean you have to push your views onto other people. No amount of seatbelts is going to protect you when your air plane comes crashing into the ground.

[[MPGH]Doc]

I don't know what bullshit you're spouting, but you can survive a head on collision with just an airbag, and no they are designed to work only together, they're mutually independent safety mechanisms, even though it's riskier slamming head first into an airbag without a restraint. The biggest factors in safety is the speed you're travelling at and where the collision occurs, I'm more inclined to wear a seatbelt while on the highway then anywhere else. A seatbelt would help if you car flips over, you'd want to be trapped to your seat. You're also dead if you get t-boned on your driver seat and cant move because you're trapped to your seat. They also say wear a helmet when riding a bike, so in the case that you fall on your head you don't incur serious injury, yet no one does.

All these devices do is stack safety on top of safety. You can still survive an impact on the front of your car without an airbag or seatbelt, it happens to be the designed for crumpling, but even then the success rate is probably marginal. Even then, the airbag alone is good enough to stop serious damage, stack it with a seatbelt and you have a really good chance. Being aware alone increases your chances of survival, your body reacts differently to things differently that you see coming, bracing for impact is a huge factor on how your body responds to getting hurt.

Just because you feel insecure about travelling on the road unprotected doesn't mean you have to push your views onto other people. No amount of seatbelts is going to protect you when your air plane comes crashing into the ground.

I think you've missed the point of the argument. It's not about mutually exclusive safety mechanisms and their ability to function independently, it's about restraint and increasing your chance of survival. The airbag is most definitely designed to work with the seatbelt. From your fantasies it seems like you don't know the amount of force airbag deployment creates. Couple that with no seatbelt and incredible deceleration and you'll be lucky to make it out alive and even then your chances of making it out with any of your upper vertebrae intact is incredibly unlikely without a seatbelt. Again the seatbelt is for restraint from both initial airbag deployment and to stop you from flying out the windscreen in the event of airbag malfunction or simply if you don't have one.

Consider this study which shows that airbags alone with NO seatbelt increases the likelihood of a fatality by up to four times then those who use it in conjunction with a seatbelt or those with just a seatbelt and no airbag.

Airbags Associated With Increased Automobile Accident Deaths, According To New UGA Study

I think you over estimate the usefulness of a crumple zone. It's intent is to reduce the amount of deceleration and to redistribute the force away from the driver seat and into the weaker points of the car, but it's effectiveness derives from the initial speed of contact and is most effective at lower speed head-on collision. Any other angle will inhibit force distribution rapidly. That is where airbags AND seatbelts come into play.

You also say stacking safety features increases your chance of survival. Does this not contradict your initial statements? That being that you don't wear seatbelts due to its lack of usefulness. Isn't it best practice to increase the chance of survival whilst disregarding outlying factors in favour of overwhelming effectiveness?

I don't understand your comparison to cyclists. If they choose to risk head safety then that is their wish, that shouldn't be a factor in considering your options regarding safety. If your reasoning for forgoing the use of a seatbelt is because so and so doesn't wear a helmet then I must question your capability as a driver. Also your argument for the use of seatbelt on planes is completely irrelevant as they are two separate and completely different designs and they have different purposes. Please don't resort to irrationality for sake of it.

TL;DR why would you lower your chance of survival for no apparent gains other than a chance of surviving a single situation whilst severely impairing your chance of survival in every other situation?

[Tall kiwi]

Didn't know it would spark a war

[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

[Logical.]

Who gives a fuck if he doesn't wear a seat belt?

[[MPGH]arunforce]

I think you've missed the point of the argument. It's not about mutually exclusive safety mechanisms and their ability to function independently, it's about restraint and increasing your chance of survival. The airbag is most definitely designed to work with the seatbelt. From your fantasies it seems like you don't know the amount of force airbag deployment creates. Couple that with no seatbelt and incredible deceleration and you'll be lucky to make it out alive and even then your chances of making it out with any of your upper vertebrae intact is incredibly unlikely without a seatbelt. Again the seatbelt is for restraint from both initial airbag deployment and to stop you from flying out the windscreen in the event of airbag malfunction or simply if you don't have one.

Consider this study which shows that airbags alone with NO seatbelt increases the likelihood of a fatality by up to four times then those who use it in conjunction with a seatbelt or those with just a seatbelt and no airbag.

Airbags Associated With Increased Automobile Accident Deaths, According To New UGA Study

I think you over estimate the usefulness of a crumple zone. It's intent is to reduce the amount of deceleration and to redistribute the force away from the driver seat and into the weaker points of the car, but it's effectiveness derives from the initial speed of contact and is most effective at lower speed head-on collision. Any other angle will inhibit force distribution rapidly. That is where airbags AND seatbelts come into play.

You also say stacking safety features increases your chance of survival. Does this not contradict your initial statements? That being that you don't wear seatbelts due to its lack of usefulness. Isn't it best practice to increase the chance of survival whilst disregarding outlying factors in favour of overwhelming effectiveness?

I don't understand your comparison to cyclists. If they choose to risk head safety then that is their wish, that shouldn't be a factor in considering your options regarding safety. If your reasoning for forgoing the use of a seatbelt is because so and so doesn't wear a helmet then I must question your capability as a driver. Also your argument for the use of seatbelt on planes is completely irrelevant as they are two separate and completely different designs and they have different purposes. Please don't resort to irrationality for sake of it.

TL;DR why would you lower your chance of survival for no apparent gains other than a chance of surviving a single situation whilst severely impairing your chance of survival in every other situation?

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.

[stylos114]

Thats one hell of a stupid post.... Also BUX? tell him to learn english.