Re: Why should I "HAVE" to wear a seatbelt?

From: Jon N. Benignus (blkwidow1@primary.net)
Date: Mon Jun 07 2004 - 19:21:44 EDT


on 6/7/04 8:12 AM, M Smith at gtv684@hotmail.com wrote:

> "Runge told ABCNEWS that, "the thing that we can do right now, tonight,
> right now, to shave $26 billion off this total is to make sure that everyone
> buckles his or her seatbelt. It's very simple.""
It's not that simple. Impossible to prove that figure would be made a zero
if people wore belts. There could, and probably will be injuries, not
counting injuries FROM THE BELTS..
Yes, I said the belts. Mind you, I always wear them, but they CAN and DO
cause injuries. Those belts are pretty narrow. The local Sheriff's Dep't.
has a "seat belt convincer", which is a bucket seat mounted on wheels on an
incline with stops at the bottom. Sit down, strap in, and when they release
the seat, you even brace for the sudden stop, but it still surprises you.
It's supposed to replicate a 30mph impact. Dang, do those belts hurt.
A friend drives dirt late model stck cars. FIVE point harnesses. The belts
are twice as wide as what you find in your car or truck. he says they do
their job, but you will have bruises to show for it.
Same thing for m/c helmets. Yes, they do save lives and can and do help
prevent head injuries, but there is NO WAY to prove the helmet WILL prevent
the injury. To prove it, one would have to duplicate the crash with the
helmet on and then be evaluated. One must KNOW the injuries from BOTH
circumstances to say definitely one way or the other. To say belts/helmets
will save X dollars/injuries is pure conjecture.
Funny, the gov't prosecutes there so called "psychics", yet hire people to
predict something that hasn't happened.
Go figure.

Jon
STL MO



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 01 2004 - 00:15:16 EDT