Jump to content
Towtug

New Road Safety Action Plan

Recommended Posts

 

On 19/07/2019 at 13:06, Towtug said:

"In 2017, 27% of car deaths involved people that were not wearing a seatbelt – meaning 1 in 4 car deaths could have been prevented by belting up"

It's "politician" logic . . .

On 19/07/2019 at 15:48, Grandpa Steve said:

1 in 4 is 25% so a politician saying 27% is almost the truth :)

Not necessarily as it does not state that the 27% who died were the ones not wearing seatbelts.

Someone wearing a seatbelt dies in a car crash, but someone else in another vehicle (maybe an HGV driver) is not wearing a seatbelt but survives??? The accident involved not wearing a seatbelt and somebody died, but the politician should not infer that all of the deaths are directly attributable to not wearing a seatbelt.

I always wear a seatbelt because it is the safest action but I believe the stats are being misinterpreted in the opening statement.

Just being "devil's advocate" :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Gordon said:

Not necessarily as it does not state that the 27% who died were the ones not wearing seatbelts.

The report actually said, "27% of those who died in cars on the roads in 2017 were not wearing a seatbelt."

 

see the full report here http://www.pacts.org.uk/2019/04/pacts-launches-new-report-seat-belts-the-forgotten-road-safety-priority/

 

 

Edited by kelper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could? would? should?.  The statistical pedanticism  is irrelevant   The law says - use a seat-belt - seat-belts save lives.  The minutai of actual percentages will not change a thing.  Using a seat-belt is mandatory. - End Of  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree!  We still need to persuade people to always wear a seat belt.  You and I know it's daft not to but there are still thousands of drivers who won't wear one.

 

In my car the warning goes off if the front seat passenger doesn't belt up but rear seat passengers are not monitored.

 

I'm glad that ANP cameras will be modded to catch offenders.  I just hope they will start to catch drivers who won't keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front.  Tailgating is a daft name because I'm talking about drivers who are not 'literally' on your tail but are ten or twenty feet behind.  At 70mph they should be at least twenty-one metres or two seconds behind you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/07/2019 at 13:06, Towtug said:

"27% of car deaths involved people that were not wearing a seatbelt – meaning 1 in 4 car deaths could have been prevented by belting up".

33 minutes ago, kelper said:

"27% of those who died in cars on the roads in 2017 were not wearing a seatbelt."

Thanks for the update. Correctly quoting the information originally would have prevented my misunderstanding ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kelper said:

In my car the warning goes off if the front seat passenger doesn't belt up but rear seat passengers are not monitored.

In mine all 7 seats are monitored to the extent that if a shopping bag with more than a couple of items in it is put on a seat the seat belt warning goes off

  • +1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kelper said:

You are not as stupid as I thought!  :D

First time that's ever been said to me  .. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks  Plod, every post a gem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In probably all the cars we’ve had over the last 10 years or so have had so kind of audible noise to tell you you haven’t buckled the seat belt, in the Volvo it starts gently and gradually gets louder to the point it hursts your ears.. now I know if your a bit smarter you buckle the belt and sit on top of it as it were. But your more likely person to get caught may not think that way so how on earth do they ignore that infernal ever increasing beeping?

in both our current Volvo & Toyota your average take away sets the darn thing off..

until you find the “curry hook” took me 5 years to find one in the Volvo👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/07/2019 at 13:47, kelper said:

Come on, It's highly likely in a modern car that you will survive if you wear seatbelts and the airbags work.  You are quite correct in that you can't deduce that all those deathe would have been prevented.  But I think most would.  You may be dead by the time you get to hospital but the paramedics and doctors have a better chance to stabilise you.

 

Same in aircraft - why do so many passengers unbuckle when clear-air turbulence can strike without warning?  I always keep my seatbelt fastened.

 

 

I wish you were right. You'd think that a Euro NCAP 5* rated car would be really safe wouldn't you?

Unfortunately there's so many more circumstances to take into account, two years ago my sister was killed in a Hyundai I20, a 5* rated vehicle, she was travelling at 43mph on a NSL country road, a Focus coming the other way had lost control and was going sideways down the road, it was dark, his car was black and his headlights were now pointing into the verge, they hit head on and she was killed instantly from a massive head trauma. All of the air bags went off, including the side air bags but they didn't help.

Luckily the two children in the back were ok. 

The state of the car was shocking, you would think that being at 43mph on a country road would feel like a safe speed, but don't forget you're not in control of the car coming the other way, who might be doing 70mph and be on the wrong side of the road, all of a sudden there's a LOT of energy to dissipate.

The crash tests are only done at 40mph and look at the state of the cars afterwards.

 

My personal view now is that NO small car is safe on todays roads, if she had been a bigger car so her head was further away from the impact then she'd still be here.

  • +1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, xtrailman said:

 

I've done this myself...

 

Well, stoppit. Consider yourself told off  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gordon said:

Thanks for the update. Correctly quoting the information originally would have prevented my misunderstanding ;)

That was actually my point. 

The headline used to introduce the report is misleading. 

I'm glad someone took the time to read the report, as most these days only read and react to those "one liners"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mr Plodd said:

As one who attended the scene of,  and dealt with, a large number of crashes (over 30 years) including rather a lot of fatal’s there is no way on the planet I would EVER not use a seat belt. I have an unconscious routine.

I get in the car,

I shut the door,

I plant my foot on the brake pedal,

I press the start button and,

as the engine is starting,

I buckle my seat belt.

It’s totally automatic

 

(I even do it when I jump in to reverse up and couple the caravan!! ) 

 

 I was on Traffic both before and after the compulsory wearing of seat belts was brought in. Since the compulsory use was brought in the level of both serious injury and deaths  plummeted! My only comment about them is “They work!”  

 

 

Andy

Our police instructor from Hendon taught us slightly differently and that was before seat belts became compulsory which was sometime after 1978 for us.  After doing all the outside and inside checks, you buckled up and first and then did the rest of the procedure before starting the car.  Only then did you start the car. Today I still do the same procedure.

The Austin Westminsters we used never had a start button.  Getting into your own vehicle afterwards which never had a seat belt caused you to wave your arms about looking for the seat belt.    :D

B-car-parade 70 or 72.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It stands to reason that people who don't wear seat belts will have more accidents.

They are the type who take chances.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mr Plodd said:

I get in the car,

I shut the door,

I plant my foot on the brake pedal,

I press the start button and,

as the engine is starting,

I buckle my seat belt.

 

You buckle up later than I do ;)  I get in the car, shut the door and turn the ignition on.  This begins the car self-check procedures - first all the warning lights come on (as a "bulb" check), and then most go out one by one as the various checks are completed (ABS, engine systems etc).  I don't press the starter until I have seen these checks done, but while I am watching I put the seat belt on. So it is on before I even start the engine.

 

I was once an engineer on a ship.  It took several men an hour or so do those pre-checks!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, EddyP said:

I wish you were right. You'd think that a Euro NCAP 5* rated car would be really safe wouldn't you?

What year was your sister's car?  I'm sorry for your loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, EddyP said:

 

My personal view now is that NO small car is safe on todays roads, if she had been a bigger car so her head was further away from the impact then she'd still be here.

 

A horrible experience, so sorry.

 

A bigger car doesn't just mean your head is further away from an impact, it also means that the extra weight of the vehicle reduces the "G" forces experienced in such a head on crash. This is something that, while hidden in the small print, does significantly reduce the value of NCAP ratings. In a head on crash, a 5* rating in a small car is not the same as a 5* rating in a big heavy car.

  • +1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

And, if you collide head on with a vehicle significantly heavier than yours, you vehicle will end up going backwards.

Edited by kelper
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bolingbroke said:

 

You buckle up later than I do ;)  I get in the car, shut the door and turn the ignition on.  This begins the car self-check procedures - first all the warning lights come on (as a "bulb" check), and then most go out one by one as the various checks are completed (ABS, engine systems etc).  I don't press the starter until I have seen these checks done, but while I am watching I put the seat belt on. So it is on before I even start the engine.

 

 I have driven some rubbish cars so, although I always wear a seat belt, I don't fasten the buckle until after the engine has started just in case it doesn't.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No car can ever be 100% perfect at protecting its occupants because there are so many variable factors in every collision. What they CAN do is provided excellent survivability in the majority of crashes. 

 

In Eddyp’s sad scenario I would be curious to know (as a former forensic accident investigator and reconstructor) how anyone could know the exact speed of his daughters car, because there is no way of determining it that precisely. Plus of course what was the speed of the other vehicle?  The impact speed is the combined total of both. If you are doing 15mph and the other car 90mph that’s a 105mph impact speed! (You then get into the situation of momentum exchange calculations, it’s a very complex business collision investigation and reconstruction!) 

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kelper said:

And, if you collide head on with a vehicle significantly heavier than yours, you vehicle will end up going backwards.

 

Not ALWAYS! 

 

It it depends on the mass of both vehicles and the respective speeds. A large car travelling at say 10mph that is struck head in by a small car doing say 40mph will be the one going backwards because the small car has vastly more momentum. 

 

Like I said, momentum exchange comes into play, interesting maths, trust me I have done my fair share over the years.

 

My own view, formed over many years of dealing with crashes, is there is no real substitute for physical size. Highly subjective I know, but I have seen a LOT of crashed vehicles. 

 

Andy

  • +1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the NCAP ratings for driver survivability are based on the crash test dummy's accelerations, so the ratings are equivalent for small and large cars.  Can anyone refute this?

 

In the current NCAP 2019 tests, the Mazda 3, classed as 'a small family car' had the best rating for adult occupant protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, kelper said:

 

 

Quote

In the current NCAP 2019 tests, the Mazda 3, classed as 'a small family car' had the best rating for adult occupant protection.

 

Dont tell the marketing people at Volvo that will you! 

 

Andy

Edited by Mr Plodd
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the same as Andy (from a different point of view). Years ago, I conducted a survey watching cars around town and on a motorway bridge (M3 as I remember). Far more people wore a seatbelt on the motorway than the people in town. I hypothesised that they felt more at risk on the motorway, although the statistics don't bear this out. Single carriageway A roads are the most dangerous. I need to repeat the survey with high-speed video (to make it easier to check at motorway speeds) as I have an impression that fewer people are now wearing belts. Interestingly, people are now heavier (and in some cases MUCH heavier) than they were in the early 1960s when seatbelts were introduced and the ability of a belt is related also to the size of the wearer.  I am horrified when I see people sitting on a closed belt just to subdue the alarm or putting their arm under it so that it will tighten around the neck. I would also like to see a purge on taxi drivers. They are only legally permitted not to wear a belt when they have a fare on board - but most drive around beltless all the time.

 

If I was Minister for Transport I would mandate that all belts had to be Saturn (fluorescent) yellow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As Mr Plod will confirm, the kinetic energy of a vehicle is proportional to mass x velocity squared.  A car travelling at 70mph has almost twice as much KE as one at 50mph, so keep your speed down!

 

A big, heavy sedan like a Maybach or Rolls-Royce weight about 2,800kg; A little car, like a SMART, weighs about 800kg.

 

So a Smart at 40mph will have 57 times more kinetic energy than the big one at 10 mph.

 

(2,800 x 10 x 10 divided by 800 x 40 x 40)

 

If all taxis had a wee barrier between the driver and the passengers, the seat belt exemption could be removed.  Who else is exempt?

Edited by kelper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...