On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:06:10 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 18:28:15 -0000, Jolly Roger
wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:40:28 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

Do you also believe you don't need to wear a seatbelt?

I never wear a seatbelt unless I'm driving fast in deep snow. The
chances of a bump big enough to need one are remote.

Color me shocked...

Put more effort into your reply.

You're clearly a **** driver

Sure he is - just because you say so...

I can't remember what I said, as you've snipped it again.

You can't remember or read what isn't snipped, but in fact quoted right
there in JR's and this very reply from me? :-D

It isn't there. I was referring to quite a long (6 line ish) paragraph a few posts earlier.

--
Interesting fact number 923:
Half the world's population has seen at least one Bond movie.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:06:11 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:49:28 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:

I can't remember what I said

...the least of your problems.

At least I know how to operate a newsreader, is there any wonder you can't
drive?

You don't seem to know how to read quoted material or easily skip back
through posts. Life is hard if you're a stupid, eh?

You've already mentioned this. Se my other reply.

--
Interesting fact number 923:
Half the world's population has seen at least one Bond movie.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:06:12 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:24:04 -0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:55:42 -0000, Jolly Roger
wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:49:28 -0000, Jolly Roger
wrote:

On 2016-01-22, Mr Macaw wrote:

I can't remember what I said

...the least of your problems.

At least I know how to operate a newsreader, is there any wonder you
can't drive?

Another lie. Lame.

Snipping is trolling.

Awww let's break out the violins for the troll who gets trolled.
Boo-hoo, poor you! Get over yourself, trollboi.

Only gays spell it "boi".

Oh, he's homophobic too! LMAO! It's just too perfect :-D

If he thinks gay is an insult, he clearly doesn't like them.

--
My sex life is so bad that when I called one of those phone sex lines,
a voice came on and said, "Not tonight. I have an earache."

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:06:08 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:40:28 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Most people (there are thickos like
you who can't) multitask well, as I just said, it's required to drive,
driving in itself requires several things to be done at once. Adding
one (the phone) to that makes **** all difference.

You're special,

No, I'm normal. People can multitask easily, that's a fact. If you
cannot, you're retarded and unlikely to have passed your driving test, you
couldn't control speed and direction and gears and watch for hazards and
use indicators and operate the wipers etc etc.

People can quickly switch attention easily. They do not multitask well.
It amazes me people still confuse the two. But you're a special
snowflake. Normality doesn't apply to you.

It's s grey area. Does a computer multitask or switch tasks very very fast? In fact both computers and brains can truly multitask as different parts of the brain (or different CPU cores and the GPU) can be working simultaneously on different things. For example, if you're walking along, you can have a conversation with the person walking next to you, and still manage to make your footsteps correctly, and avoid any lampposts.

so you can multitask perfectly. And even be unaffected
by adding another task to the mix, this one requiring removing a hand
from driving duties and occasional looking away from driving :-D

So does changing gear.

You have to look for the gearstick?

I was of course referring to your hand, which is the main reason they allow "handsfree" phones.

Do you also believe you don't need to wear a seatbelt?

I never wear a seatbelt unless I'm driving fast in deep snow. The chances
of a bump big enough to need one are remote.

And the world stands shocked, both at your arrogance, and ignorance of
what a seatbelt in a car is primarily for :-D

It's for nasty crashes, what else? And since those don't happen often (especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one.

A helmet while biking?

Cycling or motorbiking?

Does one magically prevent head injuries?

Yes, cycling is far too slow for a severe head injury to be likely. There's an EU country (Holland?) where they don't wear helmets, and their accident rate is LOWER. It's also been proven that cycle helmets actually offer bugger all protection.

A safety line while up high?

Depends how well I can hold onto things. Am I using lots of tools which
need a hand or two?

If you had any reason I'd suggest you make a rational judgement call.

Exactly. It depends how high I am, if it's raining and slippery, whether I'm using tools or just going up the ladder to the top and have both hands free.

But then you're the person who thinks you don't need to wear a seatbelt
unless it gets bumpy :-D

Because driving is a very safe activity.

Heh. Of course not.

Invalid assumption.

An assumption born out by the above :-) But thanks for playing.

Your assumption was premature, you came too soon.

It's only other
people who do not perform perfectly, have accidents, and have to have
society deal with the consequences. Stupid other people! Why can't they
be more like you?

Meanwhile back in reality... :-)

You're clearly a **** driver and are making yourself feel better by
claiming many others are the same. The fact remains the vast majority of
people never have anything more than a minor bump in their entire life of
driving.

When the state is paying to put you back together or just keep you on
life support, my vote is not to waste the money, and go after your
estate for the damage you'll have done in your accident.

Oh dear, he we go. The classic mistake of confusing "should we have a national health service" with "force people to behave safely". If it's the cost you don't like, then simply privatise the NHS, or charge people for operations which were their own fault.

--
I remember your brother Jimmy, crying one summer's day,
"Why do you cry, young Jimmy?" I heard your granddad say.
"'Cause I can't do what the big boys do, that's why I cry," said Jim,
"Move over then," said your granddad, and he sat down and cried with him.

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:06:08 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:
Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:40:28 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:
Mr Macaw wrote:

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Most people (there are thickos like
you who can't) multitask well, as I just said, it's required to drive,
driving in itself requires several things to be done at once. Adding
one (the phone) to that makes **** all difference.

You're special,

No, I'm normal. People can multitask easily, that's a fact. If you
cannot, you're retarded and unlikely to have passed your driving test, you
couldn't control speed and direction and gears and watch for hazards and
use indicators and operate the wipers etc etc.

People can quickly switch attention easily. They do not multitask well.
It amazes me people still confuse the two. But you're a special
snowflake. Normality doesn't apply to you.

It's s grey area. Does a computer multitask or switch tasks very very fast?
In fact both computers and brains can truly multitask as different parts of
the brain (or different CPU cores and the GPU) can be working simultaneously
on different things. For example, if you're walking along, you can have a
conversation with the person walking next to you, and still manage to make
your footsteps correctly, and avoid any lampposts.

Which helps prove the original point, since many people stupidly using
their cellphones while walking *do* walk into lamposts, into the
street, etc. because they're distracted and so not paying enough
attention to where they're going.



so you can multitask perfectly. And even be unaffected
by adding another task to the mix, this one requiring removing a hand
from driving duties and occasional looking away from driving :-D

So does changing gear.

You have to look for the gearstick?

I was of course referring to your hand, which is the main reason they allow
"handsfree" phones.

Do you also believe you don't need to wear a seatbelt?

I never wear a seatbelt unless I'm driving fast in deep snow. The chances
of a bump big enough to need one are remote.

And the world stands shocked, both at your arrogance, and ignorance of
what a seatbelt in a car is primarily for :-D

It's for nasty crashes, what else? And since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one.

Ahh, a moron without a clue ... at least natural selection will weed
such fools out of the gene pool.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:16:49 -0000, Mr Macaw wrote, re seatbelts:

... nasty crashes ... since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one ...

.... until just as a nasty crash takes place :-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:36:04 -0000, tlvp wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:16:49 -0000, Mr Macaw wrote, re seatbelts:

... nasty crashes ... since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one ...

... until just as a nasty crash takes place :-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Can't, not at 30mph.

--
If European immigrants voluntarily went to America and it turned out like that,
how come Britain sent a load of convicts to Australia and it turned out better?

tlvp wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:16:49 -0000, Mr Macaw wrote, re seatbelts:

... nasty crashes ... since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one ...

... until just as a nasty crash takes place :-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Hopefully natural selection will do it's thing sooner rather than later
:-)
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:24:41 +0000, chris wrote:

They found a 7% difference which given the amount of data
they had was strong enough to be explained by the presence
or not a texting ban.

Being a logical thinker, & assuming that this *was* a scientifically
done study (i.e., not biased for a pre-determined result), then I
must tend to believe that which they found is true (especially if
it is later repeated in further studies by other disinterested parties).

It's interesting that they couldn't find *accidents* though, because
I am sure they would have *loved* to report greater numbers or rates
of accidents.

They can't (and I already had known that from the raw data itself).

Digging deeper than the raw data, all they could find that was related
was worse hospitalizations.

Odd.
Very odd.

Must make sense somehow though - if the study was truly scientifically
performed. That's certainly a third order issue ...
1. Accidents are first order
2. Hospitalizations are second order
3. Severity of hospitalizations is third order.

But what do *you* make of that non-intuitive 3rd-order conclusion?

I might tend to think along with line of Rod Speed's assessment that
the accidents don't exist in any greater numbers, but, those that
did exist (and which would have happened with or without the devices
in use), are, perhaps worse in severity?

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 18:02:50 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

It's a common statistical error (often done on purpose I think)
to get a politically desirable result.

Very often done, on purpose!

That's why the scientific method requires proof and logic and
the ability to reproduce (remember cold fusion anyone)?

Those studies that purport to show cellphone use as distracting
as, say, drunk driving hold sway.

They're useful data (if they're done well), but, their arguments
can't possibly be supported by the facts.

We all know, by now, that there are no accidents caused by cellphone
use over and above the accidents that are caused by all the other
factors involved in driving.

So, if cellphone use truly was as dangerous as those drunk-driving
analogies are, then there would be an increase in the accident rate
so huge that it would be impossible to hide by other factors (alien
manipulation included).

The fact that the accidents aren't occurring shows how those who
do those studies are looking in vitro, and non in situ.

In vitro studies are great; but they don't necessarily show what
happens in situ.

This study *did* look at in situ results, and what it found was
odd. Very odd.

First order = no greater number of accidents
Second order = no greater number of hospitalizations (injuries)
Third order = greater length of hospitalization (more severe injuries)

I agree. It's not intuitive.
Most people jump to conclusions (i.e., most people are idiots).

But it's hard to jump to a conclusion on this one.
Even if you are intelligent.

On 2016-01-23, Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:24:41 +0000, chris wrote:

They found a 7% difference which given the amount of data
they had was strong enough to be explained by the presence
or not a texting ban.

Being a logical thinker

You have proven you don't have a firm grasp on sound logic.

It's interesting that they couldn't find *accidents*

Repeating that lie doesn't make the accidents which you continue to
ignore magically disappear for the rest of us, foolish man.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Jan 23, 2016, Mr Macaw wrote
(in article ):

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:06:08 -0000, Jamie Kahn
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:40:28 -0000, Jamie Kahn Genet
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Most people (there are thickos like
you who can't) multitask well, as I just said, it's required to
drive,
driving in itself requires several things to be done at once. Adding
one (the phone) to that makes **** all difference.

You're special,

No, I'm normal. People can multitask easily, that's a fact. If you
cannot, you're retarded and unlikely to have passed your driving test,
you
couldn't control speed and direction and gears and watch for hazards and
use indicators and operate the wipers etc etc.

People can quickly switch attention easily. They do not multitask well.
It amazes me people still confuse the two. But you're a special
snowflake. Normality doesn't apply to you.

It's s grey area. Does a computer multitask or switch tasks very very fast?
In fact both computers and brains can truly multitask as different parts of
the brain (or different CPU cores and the GPU) can be working simultaneously
on different things. For example, if you're walking along, you can have a
conversation with the person walking next to you, and still manage to make
your footsteps correctly, and avoid any lampposts.

so you can multitask perfectly. And even be unaffected
by adding another task to the mix, this one requiring removing a hand
from driving duties and occasional looking away from driving :-D

So does changing gear.

You have to look for the gearstick?

I was of course referring to your hand, which is the main reason they allow
"handsfree" phones.

Do you also believe you don't need to wear a seatbelt?

I never wear a seatbelt unless I'm driving fast in deep snow. The chances
of a bump big enough to need one are remote.

And the world stands shocked, both at your arrogance, and ignorance of
what a seatbelt in a car is primarily for :-D

It's for nasty crashes, what else? And since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one.

Except when you are rear-ended, or T-boned by texting fool.


A helmet while biking?

Cycling or motorbiking?

Does one magically prevent head injuries?

Yes, cycling is far too slow for a severe head injury to be likely.

....and yet cyclists still suffer severe, often fatal, head injuries when head
meets curb, or vehicle windshield.

There's an EU country (Holland?) where they don't wear helmets, and their
accident
rate is LOWER.

So?

It's also been proven that cycle helmets actually offer bugger
all protection.

Cite.

A safety line while up high?

Depends how well I can hold onto things. Am I using lots of tools which
need a hand or two?

If you had any reason I'd suggest you make a rational judgement call.

Exactly. It depends how high I am, if it's raining and slippery, whether I'm
using tools or just going up the ladder to the top and have both hands free.

But then you're the person who thinks you don't need to wear a seatbelt
unless it gets bumpy :-D

Because driving is a very safe activity.

If there is nobody else on the road.


--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Jan 23, 2016, Mr Macaw wrote
(in article ):

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:36:04 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:16:49 -0000, Mr Macaw wrote, re seatbelts:

... nasty crashes ... since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one ...

... until just as a nasty crash takes place :-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Can't, not at 30mph.

There are others on the road who might not be limited by your 30MPH ideal.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Ken Blake writes:

One of my favorite stories is about the woman who, while on a skiing
trip, broke her leg. On the return flight the airline required her to
buy two seats, one to sit on, the other to stretch her leg in a cast
out on.

The only problem was that her two seats were 16A and 24 D.

That must have been one hell of a long cast.

Martin

In article m,
Savageduck wrote:

And the world stands shocked, both at your arrogance, and ignorance of
what a seatbelt in a car is primarily for :-D

It's for nasty crashes, what else? And since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one.

Except when you are rear-ended, or T-boned by texting fool.

seat belts don't matter in a rear-end collision because a person will
be pulled back into the seat.

with a t-bone side collision, it could go either way. a seat belt would
hold a person in place which could make things worse, or it could
prevent an ejection, preventing a worse outcome.

a driver who is paying attention would be able to avoid either scenario.

In article , Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:36:04 -0000, tlvp wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:16:49 -0000, Mr Macaw wrote, re seatbelts:

... nasty crashes ... since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one ...

... until just as a nasty crash takes place :-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Can't, not at 30mph.

You obviously have no understanding of physics nor the purpose of a
seatbelt ... likely because you're a stereotypical stubborn dumbass and
American.

BUT, that's your choice and if you don't want to wear a seatbelt that's
up to you (depending on local laws). The only person who will get hurt
is you.

There should be a "means test" in emergency medicine. Anyone who
decides to do something silly (not wear a seatbelt, climb a mountain,
etc.) either doesn't get treated for for injuries due to that silliness
*OR* has to pay the full expense of such treatment and rescue.

If the stupidity involves injuring someone else (e.g. hitting someone
because you're fiddling with a cellphone or driving drunk), then the
driver should not only have to pay for all services for themselves and
the other person, but also *permanently* lose their driving licence.

On 2016-01-24, Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu wrote:
Ken Blake writes:

One of my favorite stories is about the woman who, while on a skiing
trip, broke her leg. On the return flight the airline required her to
buy two seats, one to sit on, the other to stretch her leg in a cast
out on.

The only problem was that her two seats were 16A and 24 D.

That must have been one hell of a long cast.

*rim shot*

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Jan 23, 2016, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In news.com,
Savageduck wrote:

And the world stands shocked, both at your arrogance, and ignorance of
what a seatbelt in a car is primarily for :-D

It's for nasty crashes, what else? And since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one.

Except when you are rear-ended, or T-boned by texting fool.

seat belts don't matter in a rear-end collision because a person will
be pulled back into the seat.

There is inevitably a whiplash effect, which depending on the severity of a
rear impact can result in front seat passenger and driver impacting the dash
and/or steering column with potential head injuries. The airbags will not
usually deploy in a rear-ender.

with a t-bone side collision, it could go either way. a seat belt would
hold a person in place which could make things worse, or it could
prevent an ejection, preventing a worse outcome.

So, which is it? Better or worse?
From what I have seen, one is better equipped to survive an accident if a
seat belt is used.

BTW: This is where side curtain air bags can help reduce injuries.

a driver who is paying attention would be able to avoid either scenario.

Avoid being hit from behind by an inattentive asshole, or being T-boned by a
red light runner just by paying attention??
That just doesnt happen too often.



--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 1/23/2016 7:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:

... nasty crashes ... since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one ...

... until just as a nasty crash takes place :-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Can't, not at 30mph.

There are others on the road who might not be limited by your 30MPH ideal.


Moot point. The human body is not capable of surviving speeds that high
even if a machine was invented that could do it. A good day traveling
on a horse is 20 to 30 miles in a day. Plenty fast enough.

On 1/23/2016 7:38 PM, nospam wrote:


seat belts don't matter in a rear-end collision because a person will
be pulled back into the seat.

with a t-bone side collision, it could go either way. a seat belt would
hold a person in place which could make things worse, or it could
prevent an ejection, preventing a worse outcome.

a driver who is paying attention would be able to avoid either scenario.


You are stopped at a light or in line at a toll booth. Drunk or sleepy
driver plows into your rear end. Please explain how an attentive driver
can avoid that.

On Jan 23, 2016, Your Name wrote
(in article ):

In , Mr wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:36:04 -0000, wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:16:49 -0000, Mr Macaw wrote, re seatbelts:

... nasty crashes ... since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one ...

... until just as a nasty crash takes place :-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Can't, not at 30mph.

You obviously have no understanding of physics nor the purpose of a
seatbelt ... likely because you're a stereotypical stubborn dumbass

Ill go along with that.

and American.

Naah! Now you are showing a particular antipodal bias which doesnt really
apply here as there is no real evidence of his nationality.

BUT, that's your choice and if you don't want to wear a seatbelt that's
up to you (depending on local laws). The only person who will get hurt
is you.

Yup! ...or fined.

There should be a "means test" in emergency medicine. Anyone who
decides to do something silly (not wear a seatbelt, climb a mountain,
etc.) either doesn't get treated for for injuries due to that silliness
*OR* has to pay the full expense of such treatment and rescue.

If the stupidity involves injuring someone else (e.g. hitting someone
because you're fiddling with a cellphone or driving drunk), then the
driver should not only have to pay for all services for themselves and
the other person, but also *permanently* lose their driving licence.

That seems fair.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Jan 23, 2016, Ed Pawlowski wrote
(in ):

On 1/23/2016 7:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:

... nasty crashes ... since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one ...

... until just as a nasty crash takes place :-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Can't, not at 30mph.

There are others on the road who might not be limited by your 30MPH ideal.

Moot point. The human body is not capable of surviving speeds that high
even if a machine was invented that could do it. A good day traveling
on a horse is 20 to 30 miles in a day. Plenty fast enough.

Wait until they start adding safety requirments for commuting by pogo stick.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 2016-01-24, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/23/2016 7:38 PM, nospam wrote:

seat belts don't matter in a rear-end collision because a person will
be pulled back into the seat.

with a t-bone side collision, it could go either way. a seat belt would
hold a person in place which could make things worse, or it could
prevent an ejection, preventing a worse outcome.

a driver who is paying attention would be able to avoid either scenario.

You are stopped at a light or in line at a toll booth. Drunk or sleepy
driver plows into your rear end. Please explain how an attentive driver
can avoid that.

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Jan 23, 2016, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article ):

On 2016-01-24, Ed wrote:
On 1/23/2016 7:38 PM, nospam wrote:

seat belts don't matter in a rear-end collision because a person will
be pulled back into the seat.

with a t-bone side collision, it could go either way. a seat belt would
hold a person in place which could make things worse, or it could
prevent an ejection, preventing a worse outcome.

a driver who is paying attention would be able to avoid either scenario.

You are stopped at a light or in line at a toll booth. Drunk or sleepy
driver plows into your rear end. Please explain how an attentive driver
can avoid that.

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

Yup!

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article m,
Savageduck wrote:

And the world stands shocked, both at your arrogance, and ignorance of
what a seatbelt in a car is primarily for :-D

It's for nasty crashes, what else? And since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one.

Except when you are rear-ended, or T-boned by texting fool.

seat belts don't matter in a rear-end collision because a person will
be pulled back into the seat.

There is inevitably a whiplash effect, which depending on the severity of a
rear impact can result in front seat passenger and driver impacting the dash
and/or steering column with potential head injuries. The airbags will not
usually deploy in a rear-ender.

the main impact will cause the occupants to move back into the seat.
that's why there have been headrests for *years*. you no doubt remember
cars without them. there will be a secondary forward motion that's not
as severe as if it was frontal collision.

with a t-bone side collision, it could go either way. a seat belt would
hold a person in place which could make things worse, or it could
prevent an ejection, preventing a worse outcome.

So, which is it? Better or worse?

it depends on the particulars of the collision, which is impossible to
predict.

From what I have seen, one is better equipped to survive an accident if a
seat belt is used.

in general seat belts help, but they are not a guarantee that things
will be better. there are situations in which it can be worse.

since it's impossible to know in advance what type of collision will
occur (if one does at all), you just have play the odds. most of the
time it helps but sometimes it doesn't.

BTW: This is where side curtain air bags can help reduce injuries.

sometimes.

for those who have the recalled takata airbags, not so much:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...g-you-need-to-
know-about-the-takata-air-bag-recall/index.htm
At the heart of the problem is the airbag¹s inflator, a metal
cartridge loaded with propellant wafers, which in some cases has
ignited with explosive force. If the inflator housing ruptures in a
crash, metal shards from the airbag can be sprayed throughout the
passenger cabin‹a potentially disastrous outcome from a supposedly
life-saving device.

there are no guarantees.

a driver who is paying attention would be able to avoid either scenario.

Avoid being hit from behind by an inattentive asshole, or being T-boned by a
red light runner just by paying attention??

both.

That just doesn¹t happen too often.

that's because most drivers are not very good.

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

seat belts don't matter in a rear-end collision because a person will
be pulled back into the seat.

with a t-bone side collision, it could go either way. a seat belt would
hold a person in place which could make things worse, or it could
prevent an ejection, preventing a worse outcome.

a driver who is paying attention would be able to avoid either scenario.


You are stopped at a light or in line at a toll booth. Drunk or sleepy
driver plows into your rear end. Please explain how an attentive driver
can avoid that.

always be aware of what's going on around you at all times and always
leave space for an evasive maneuver just in case it might be needed,
whether stopped or moving.

if someone is approaching that does not appear to be stopping, move out
of the way.

sometimes that might be impossible, but much of the time, a collision
can be avoided.

In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:


Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

On 2016-01-24, nospam wrote:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

Pay attention. Who is to blame has absolutely nothing to do with the
fact that seatbelts make people safer.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2016-01-24, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-24, nospam wrote:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

Pay attention. Who is to blame has absolutely nothing to do with the
fact that seatbelts make people safer.

And it also has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that sometimes
even someone who is paying attention can be blindsided.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Jan 23, 2016, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

seat belts don't matter in a rear-end collision because a person will
be pulled back into the seat.

with a t-bone side collision, it could go either way. a seat belt would
hold a person in place which could make things worse, or it could
prevent an ejection, preventing a worse outcome.

a driver who is paying attention would be able to avoid either scenario.

You are stopped at a light or in line at a toll booth. Drunk or sleepy
driver plows into your rear end. Please explain how an attentive driver
can avoid that.

always be aware of what's going on around you at all times and always
leave space for an evasive maneuver just in case it might be needed,
whether stopped or moving.

if someone is approaching that does not appear to be stopping, move out
of the way.

sometimes that might be impossible, but much of the time, a collision
can be avoided.

All very nice in theory. However, if that is your only means to avoid a
potential impact and injury that is totally out of your control, good luck to
you.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Jan 23, 2016, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In , Jolly Roger
wrote:


Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

....and sometimes unavoidable due to circumstances.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:36:04 -0000, tlvp wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:16:49 -0000, Mr Macaw wrote, re seatbelts:

... nasty crashes ... since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one ...

... until just as a nasty crash takes place :-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Can't, not at 30mph.

At 30mph, one cn get killed. Depends what the driver runs in to.

Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 23, 2016, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In , Jolly Roger
wrote:


Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

...and sometimes unavoidable due to circumstances.

There is a strict policy about car chase. They can't do high speed
chase to keep the dangerous situation from happening. Reckless chase
is not allowed by law.

On 2016-01-24, Tony Hwang wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 23, 2016, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

...and sometimes unavoidable due to circumstances.

There is a strict policy about car chase. They can't do high speed
chase to keep the dangerous situation from happening. Reckless chase
is not allowed by law.

Doesn't change the fact that a seatbelt can prevent you from being
ejected, potentially saving your life.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Jan 23, 2016, Tony Hwang wrote
(in article ):

Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 23, 2016, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In , Jolly Roger
wrote:


Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

...and sometimes unavoidable due to circumstances.
There is a strict policy about car chase.

What policy?Which jurisdiction?
Which PD?

They can't do high speed chase to keep the dangerous situation from
happening.

That doesnt make sense. There are many reasons for a pursuit, but none of
them are made with future events in mind, and none are made frivolously.

Reckless chase is not allowed by law.

Which law? Which jurisdiction? Who said anything about a "reckless chase"?

There are usually some strict guidelines and procedures in place for
conducting pursuits, and there are guidelines for when a pursuit is to be
broken off, track from the air, or address changes from freeway to surface
streets. Not all chases or pursuits are reckless.

....and amazingly many of the chases I have seen which ended badly, the driver
of the fleeing vehicle isnt wearing a seat belt, but wishes he did.



--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/23/2016 7:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:

... nasty crashes ... since those don't happen often
(especially in town driving), there's no point in wearing one ...

... until just as a nasty crash takes place :-) . HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Can't, not at 30mph.

There are others on the road who might not be limited by your 30MPH ideal.

Moot point. The human body is not capable of surviving speeds that high
even if a machine was invented that could do it.

You can lead a fool to common sense, but you cannot make him think
correctly.



A good day traveling on a horse is 20 to 30 miles in a day. Plenty fast
enough.

A horse?!? Wow! You're rich. Some of us have to walk ... barefooted,
twenty miles through deep snow and howling sleet, both directions. ;-)

In article m,
Savageduck wrote:

On Jan 23, 2016, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In , Jolly Roger
wrote:


Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

...and sometimes unavoidable due to circumstances.

Nah. Everyone knows police should simply stay in the police station
drinking coffee and eating doughnuts (or even "donuts") and just leave
the criminals to do whatever they want. ;-)

We get the same idiocy here in New Zealand. Every time some idiot zooms
off from police and kills themselves hitting a tree or whatever, all
the loonies come out of the woodwork writing in to the newspaper about
the "poor dead guy" and blaming the police for chasing him. For God's
sake, the moron choose to run from police and drive at excessive speed
- the fact that he killed himself (hopefully only himself!) is good
news and good riddance. :-\

In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

Pay attention. Who is to blame has absolutely nothing to do with the
fact that seatbelts make people safer.

it has everything to do with it. cops put people at risk with their
chases.

most of the time, the chase is for something minor that doesn't justify
putting tens of thousands of people across multiple cities and towns at
risk. had the cops not given chase, those people would be safer.

In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

Or you are going through a green light and some jackass in the
right-hand turn lane in a multi-lane cross street, who cannot be easily
seen due to other cars obscuring that lane, and is running from cops,
plows into your car doing 80 mph. Some things simply cannot be
realistically avoided, and seat belts along with air bags DO matter.

blame the cops for that. car chases put innocent people at risk.

Pay attention. Who is to blame has absolutely nothing to do with the
fact that seatbelts make people safer.

And it also has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that sometimes
even someone who is paying attention can be blindsided.

there are no guarantees. nothing is perfect.

the point is that if drivers were paying attention, they could avoid
collisions.

what's a common excuse after a crash? "i didn't see you" or "he came
out of nowhere". had they been paying attention, they would have seen
the other vehicle *before* the crash.

In article m,
Savageduck wrote:

seat belts don't matter in a rear-end collision because a person will
be pulled back into the seat.

with a t-bone side collision, it could go either way. a seat belt would
hold a person in place which could make things worse, or it could
prevent an ejection, preventing a worse outcome.

a driver who is paying attention would be able to avoid either scenario.

You are stopped at a light or in line at a toll booth. Drunk or sleepy
driver plows into your rear end. Please explain how an attentive driver
can avoid that.

always be aware of what's going on around you at all times and always
leave space for an evasive maneuver just in case it might be needed,
whether stopped or moving.

if someone is approaching that does not appear to be stopping, move out
of the way.

sometimes that might be impossible, but much of the time, a collision
can be avoided.

All very nice in theory. However, if that is your only means to avoid a
potential impact and injury that is totally out of your control, good luck to
you.

it's more than theory.

i once had to make a very sudden screeching right-hand turn when
proceeding through a green light to avoid someone who had zero
intention of stopping at his red light. he whizzed right past me to my
left.