Talk:Seat belt/Archive 1

Essay excised

Oh I see, someone has snuck in an essay contra seatbelts. Sneaky Sneaky, this is not an essay site. I'll move it to Seat belt/Excised. Kim Bruning 18:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good; there was certainly some salvageable information in that mass of text, but it was rather hidden in the advocacy. We should certainly note that there are both pro-seatbelt and anti-seatbelt positions and summarise their views, but one viewpoint should not dominate both the other viewpoint and the factual information like that ... —Morven 18:19, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hello! I'd just been moving about/pruning/Wiki-fy-ing stuff which was already there, and had moved two headings under one of the earlier ones, and the whole lot seems to have been chopped en masse. I reckon some of it should go back. I'd put myself in the pro-seat belts camp, but I found the points raised interesting, and had been working on making them NPOV. I definitely wouldn't say it was a rant; a little one-sided maybe, but not a rant. Could this go on another page, rather than on seat belts? There's probably a related issue with some of the bicycle helmet article too. Any ideas about what would be a good common ground that could over all this? I'll stick a few bits back in; comments appreciated. PMcM 19:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey, stuck back in three super-condensed paragraphs based upon what got chopped. About 60% of the first paragraph is pro-seatbelts, the remainder being linked to theories against. The Australia being the first to legislate stuff should definitely stay; it's factual, NPOV, and related. The final paragraph I also find interesting, and I think it's both relevant and NPOV enough to be included. Could probably do with more pro-seat belt info, which would possibly allow restoration of more of the anti-seat belt stuff, but I don't know enough about it to write it; I've just been trimming what's already there. PMcM 20:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the way to go. In the end the article will end up discussing all the people involved in the debate, but somehow things like seat, belt, buckle, car, and car accident will manage to slip through the cracks. See especially some of the older versions of global warming for this (as yet unnamed) effect.

It's a better idea to explain that seatbelts exist, and that they are at the very least intended to keep people seated in a car in case of a car accident, than it is to discuss at length who called whom's mother what in which year.

Even though some controversy might be missed, the article retains both NPOV and content if approached in such a manner. Kim Bruning 20:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you're getting at. Personally I prefer it as it is at the moment (probably because I spent about 25 minutes condensing it all!) than before the 'essay' was chopped. Got bored editing the text and made the diagram instead. :D PMcM 21:23, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The danger is, fundamentally, that an article becomes about the debate rather than about the subject. I think the depth of the pro/anti seatbelt debate belongs somewhere else. For one thing, most of the argument is fairly generically applicable to safety measures in general, rather than being about seat belts in specific. With a few words changed, identical paragraphs could be put in articles about motorcycle helmets, airbags, anti-lock braking, etc etc etc. —Morven 22:30, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Possible improvements

A reference to analyses that support the statement "Put simply, then: if one is involved in a crash, he or she is almost always better off wearing a seat belt." would be useful. I could not find one that is readily available.

As well, explosive pre-tensioners must have some drawbacks (additional initial cost, cost of replacement, risk of explosive device in a car, etc.). It would be nice if this was explored/exposed in the text. ppblais 16:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Could this article please explain the absence of seatbelts form rail-vehicles, have there ever been moves/proposals to introduce them, e.g. on trams (in the drivers cab for instance).Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)

I don't believe there are any analyses that would support such a bald statement. Clearly above a given range of impact energies/velocities, fatal injuries due to the seatbelt (aortic dislocation etc) take over from fatal injuries that may have ocurred due to direct impacts with the car interior. Then of course there is the issue of possible increases in fatality rates such as among children following seatbelt wearing legislation. Here design is probably a factor. --Sf 15:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretensioners

I had a 1978 Volvo 244DL, and the 3-point seatbelts all included pretensioners. Can we confirm that they were indeed "introduced" in the Mercedes S-Class? If that is the case, how was the Volvo 240-series different? Thanks! Zenter 17:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Seatbelts

I think it should also be mentioned the problems a seatbelt can cause.

I had an uncle, who died in a car accident, the accident didn't do the killing the seatbelt did. It wasn't a three-point seatbelt, it was a Lap seatbelt (he was siting in the back seat). The accident shook all his body body except his waist, which was left still thanks to the lap belt; this caused his spine to break and crush his intestines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.123.178.136 (talk) 23:53, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Only-lap belts are much more prone to create injuries (specially abdominal injuries) than three point seatbelts.

EuroNACP detracts points if a car still uses a lap belt in the rear seat.

BUT: If there´s only a lap belt for you (for instance, a European Bus, or an old rear seat belt) , USE IT!. The worse risk is to be expelled from the vehicle. Randroide 09:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Isn't the common spelling "seatbelt"? (without the space) 82.41.66.173 20:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)DanZieBoy

Made of ?

perhaps a section which would describe the type of fiber(s) used to make seat belt.

What are the cons of wearing a seatbelt?

I noticed that this page does not mention any pros, cons or an opinion at all. I am curious to know what some cons of seat belts are. If you know any statistical websites that could give me a chart or some numbers I would appreciate it greatly. Thanks for the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.72.225 (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

seat belt use in trains etc.

Article could be expanded to cover vehicles other than cars. Use of 3-point seat belts or lap belts have been considered for aircraft, bus & trains. Interesting report here describes a study into 3-point belts in trains, and concludes that there is no overall safety benefit, as there are additional hazards caused by strengthening seats etc. and restraint is not necessarily the best way to deal with the types of accident that occur with trains. Ephebi (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thank you very much for your invaluable source Randroide (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lap-belt Picture

Is the lap-belt being worn wrongly in the picture? Shouldn't it be down over the pelvis/hips instead of around the stomach? I seem to remember hearing once that it can cause very serious stomach injuries if worn as in the picture here. 62.49.31.155 (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Which picture are you talking about? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The aeroplane lap belt picture in the article. 62.49.31.155 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)