 |
| DaddysTouch |
on Fri 12 Feb 10, 9:31 PM to DaddysTouch's blog.
A University of Michigan study finds that women are more likely than men to die in fatal road accidents*, and that the effects of BMI are different between the sexes. Men who wear seatbelts are more likely to survive if they are extremely obese (BMI of 35+), but men who do not wear seatbelts are much more likely to die if they are obese. For belted females, a normal weight (BMI between 18.5 and 25) offers the best chance of survival. Unbelted females exhibit no apparent correlation between deaths and BMI. On average, unbelted drivers are more than twice as likely to die when involved in a fatal road accident than belted drivers.
*An accident where at least one person dies, before anyone points out that makes no sense.
Edited Fri 12 Feb 10, 9:33 PM by DaddysTouch
| 12 Feb 10, 11:01 PM fluffy_welsh_angel UK(DN), 5 yrs |
No shit sherlock Mew | ||
| 13 Feb 10, 7:49 AM WaterDragon UK(LN), 6 yrs |
Does all this apply to drivers, or passengers? Hugs, Irene
Yet Dom as I am _
Still I crave the wind from your sub wings | ||
| 13 Feb 10, 9:26 AM DaddysTouch UK(RG), 3 yrs |
Because guesswork has always been the best way to draw conclusions... When seatbelts were first posited, lots of smart people said they were dangerous; they might contort the body during a crash causing internal injuries worth than those from being thrown forward, they might choke the wearer, or prevent escape or rescue from the vehicle. Putting a nylon strap around yourself whilst inside a moving vehicle doesn't intuitively seem like necessarily the safest thing to do; how many parents insist their children "never put anything around your neck." Others said that even if they saved some lives when crashes happened, they'd increase the number of deaths by causing people to be careless, resulting in more crashes (there is some evidence that this did happen, but the effects were massively outweighed by the reduction in deaths from increased survivability). It's only because of repeated scientific studies that we know that seatbelts are, on balance, a good idea. And guesswork certainly couldn't give us any idea of the magnitude of the effect. If the increase in survivability was small, seatbelts might not be worth the cost and hassle.
The study only looked at drivers. What men in all the world have shown such daring? | ||
| 13 Feb 10, 4:03 PM cosmick UK, 5 yrs |
The main argument against seatbelts year ago was in the Isles Report which was basically hidden until a few years after they had been introduced. Which basically stated injuries to people in cars would be less severe and less fatalities but there would be an increase in injuries and fatalities to other road users like cyclists and pedistrians since people tended to feel safer wearing a seatbelt and would take more risks. The stats proved this to be true. I drive a 44ton truck, since the early 2000's we have had to wear seatbelts if they are fitted. I find this in urban areas kinda dangerous because with a large truck, tend to be moving your whole body around to see whats happening around you with the amount of blind spots in the truck. With the seat belt really restricts your movement and you see less. Same with a lot of road safety issues they don't seem to bother with the incidental stuff. We got hit with 56mph speed limiters in trucks by the EU to make things safer, even though the police and advanced driving groups state driving constantly at such low speeds really risk of loosing concentration. The amount of crashes caused by high speeds reduced a bit but there was a massive increase in accidents involving loss of concentration and people falling asleep leading to a lot more fatalities.
Edited 13 Feb 10, 4:05 PM by cosmick |
