What made you go WTF today?

[Wraith]

This results in: a = 10416 m/s^2. Which is about 1061 g. Okay, that would be rather deadly. Thankfully, the windshield is not unbreakable.

It's still pretty bad even breakable. With it broken, you can have that 10416 m/s^2 applied to parts of your body while the rest of your body sails onward. You can probably shred all those bits of you that are meant to stay in one piece pretty easily that way.

[Loki]

Everyone knows that the government's only job should be to give poor people money and set up free health clinics in rural areas; otherwise, the government should butt out of their affairs.

[Ominous Gamer]

What happens when you stop prosecuting pot smokers?
Your city saves $2 million in a year.

The WTF is mainly how much a single city used to spend on arresting and processing something so harmless.

[oldmunchkin]

Can I take it your opinion is based on looking at relevant scientific evidence?

I know you don't like any answer that isn't backed up by 4 or 5 links of science. Any answer that isn't backed up is therefore is wrong! So, my answer that is only backed up by years of experience on said subject must be bullshit!

Inside a car, you don't brake with your head!

You wear seat belts in a car, because then you are "fixed" to this car. Which means that if the car brakes, you will decelerate at the same rate. With the crumple zone available (about 1 meter) this means that the deceleration just was reduced to a mere 30g (@~90Km/h) - while that will break bones, you also will survive that.
If you don't wear a seat belt, you will be catapulted out of your seat and usually through the windshield. Which obviously is a bit more problematic to your health.

It's the same principle with a helmet - I can calculate the g-forces you're subjected to with and without a helmet. You'll see that even a mere few centimeters will make a difference between "bashed-in brain" and "evil headache".

This is physics.

Fine, I'm too stupid to understand physics! Whatever!

Okay, some small calculations to bring my point across.
Let's take a car travelling at 90 Km/h, that's 25 m/s. Let's have that car have a crumple zone of 1 meter or an equivalent thereof. Which means that you go from 90 Km/h to 0 Km/h over the length of 1 meter.

For that, I'll need two formulas: v = a * t and s = a/2 * t^2
v = velocity (90 Km/h or 25 m/s), s = length (1 m), t = time (unknown), a = deceleration (unknown).

Rearranging them yields:
s = a/2 * (v/a)^2 <=> a = 0.5 * v^2/s

Using the values listed above, we arrive at a deceleration of a = 312.5 m/s^2 which is about 32 times the gravitational acceleration or 32 "gees". That is indeed survivable. Broken bones, surely, but survivable.

Let's assume now that you did not wear your seat belt, thus being catapulted out of it, resulting in a deceleration a the windshield. For shits'n'giggles, let's also assume that the windshield is unbreakable. You now have a deceleration length of mere centimeters, i.e. your skin. Let's be generous and make that 3 centimeters total.

This results in: a = 10416 m/s^2. Which is about 1061 g. Okay, that would be rather deadly. Thankfully, the windshield is not unbreakable.
------------------------------------------------------
Same stuff for riding a bike. Let's assume you managed to brake somewhat and were hurled over. Thus arriving with your head on the street at, say, 20 Km/h.
With your helmet, you have a deceleration equivalent length of, say, 6 centimeters.
This gives us: a = 252m/s^2 or 26 g

Without a helmet, we use the 3 centimeters again and arrive at a whoppin' 52 gees.

And I'm pretty sure that those 3 centimeters are very generous.

Once again, you guys win! Your fucking physics is always the only thing this should be based on! Once again, plain old practical experience, and common sense, loses!

Everyone knows that the government's only job should be to give poor people money and set up free health clinics in rural areas; otherwise, the government should butt out of their affairs.

Oh horseshit! If the government paid as much attention to the important things happening, like solving the budget crisis, getting out troops out of war-zones, solving unemployment, and making sure the poor had the same access to the same medical care the rich have, as they do to wasting time infringing on privacy issues and personal choices, this country would be financially fit, all our troops would be home, there would be no unemployment, and the poor would have the ability to see a doctor when they are sick!

Unfortunately for me, I am the one with the friend who is a quadriplegic from her neck snapping while riding her bike. She was gently rear-ended by a car, causing whiplash, or at least that would be all she had if she had not been wearing a helmet! And, before you talk about her not paying attention to the traffic around her, it was a completely unavoidable (on her part anyway) accident! And don't say she should have heard the car coming, because the helmet muffled the sound to the point she had no idea there was a car there! For some reason, logic tells me she can't be the only person to have an accident like this one!

Or the person who is in a vegetative state from a head injury incurred when he went over the handlebars of his bike! If he hadn't had a helmet on, he would have simply died, instead of being a vegetable the rest of his life! Who knows what kinds of medical bills have been racked up, paid for by the taxpayer after his insurance ran out. Hmmm, I think I'd prefer to be dead than a drooling, blithering eggplant the rest of my life. If nothing else, it would have spared his family the torture of seeing him in this state!

Or how about me? Every car I have gotten into and fastened my seat belt for the ride, is a car ride that might be my last! At my size, there is NO seat belt/shoulder strap that doesn't cut right across my neck! If I am in an accident, there goes my head! And don't tell me to adjust the fucking things...I have them adjusted for the shortest person possible, and they still cut across my neck! I can either use a fucking booster seat for a child, or be smart and not wear something that is sure to decapitate me!

Just because you don't agree with me, or are just too stubborn to see anything from any point of view except yours (or the government's) does not mean I am wrong!

[GGT]

Coming late into this WTF fight. Modern cars have adjustable seats and seat belt heights, plus the ability to turn OFF passenger air bags. If you're short or light enough to be considered a child, then yeah....you should use a booster seat or something similar when riding in the front seats.

Regarding helmets: they're often called Brain Buckets in the ER. But if you knew the context, you wouldn't be so quick to claim they're useless in ALL situations. Plenty of bicycle and motorcycle accidents occur at low speed, much like contact sports. The aim there is to prevent concussions, or head injuries one or two steps above concussion that lead to subdural hematomas, bleeding into the brain.

NO helmet can protect a brain traveling at 60 mph when it hits the pavement, or gets hit by another moving vehicle.

[oldmunchkin]

Coming late into this WTF fight. Modern cars have adjustable seats and seat belt heights, plus the ability to turn OFF passenger air bags. If you're short or light enough to be considered a child, then yeah....you should use a booster seat or something similar when riding in the front seats.

Yes, modern cars have adjustable seats and seat belt heights! But:

Or how about me? Every car I have gotten into and fastened my seat belt for the ride, is a car ride that might be my last! At my size, there is NO seat belt/shoulder strap that doesn't cut right across my neck! If I am in an accident, there goes my head! And don't tell me to adjust the fucking things...I have them adjusted for the shortest person possible, and they still cut across my neck! I can either use a fucking booster seat for a child, or be smart and not wear something that is sure to decapitate me!

You can tell me it's bullshit, and I'll invite you to come visit. We will go "car shopping" and then you can show me the car that I can safely ride in with a seat belt on! As far as I can tell, there isn't such a beast!

Yes, the newer model cars allow you to shut off the airbags. But, the ones in the year ranges that I can afford, usually do NOT have that option. It was added at some point in time, but not all cars with airbags have that feature.

Maybe it's just vanity! Maybe it's just stubbornNess! Maybe it's just that I don't think I should have be treated like a child by using a fucking car seat or booster seat! FFS, buying shoes in my size already relegates me to Hannah Montana sneakers and 1-inch heels with bells or bows or some damned princess pic on them! My pants and shirts are all bought in the children's section of the store! I refuse to allow any more child products to be used in my daily life!

Regarding helmets: they're often called Brain Buckets in the ER. But if you knew the context, you wouldn't be so quick to claim they're useless in ALL situations. Plenty of bicycle and motorcycle accidents occur at low speed, much like contact sports. The aim there is to prevent concussions, or head injuries one or two steps above concussion that lead to subdural hematomas, bleeding into the brain.

NO helmet can protect a brain traveling at 60 mph when it hits the pavement, or gets hit by another moving vehicle.

I never did say that they didn't have any good points, or that no one should ever wear one. Sure, the aim is to nanny state us into wearing them! The definition "brain bucket" from the ER is probably a lot different than the one from bikers!

I just happen to think that seat belts and helmets should be the choice of person who is actually doing the activity. I don't think we need to have a law about everything. People who are smart enough to pass the operator's test should be smart enough to make their own choices regarding these things. Like I said earlier, maybe everyone on the road should be forced to wear a helmet! After all, some car accidents occur in towns where the speed limit is slower. A broadside crash will most likely mean heads are going to hit side windows. Helmets would save all those concussions!

[GGT]

Or maybe, just MAYBE, you should be smart enough to realize that "most" adults are not 4 feet plus a few inches tall. That NO automobile is designed around a driver under 5 feet tall. Even the newest and latest designs for Petite women drivers draw the line at 5 feet. Your small stature means YOU should take logical precautions, like carrying your own booster seat (and calling it your tushie cushion or something like that).

You're getting ridiculous on the helmet thing. Not all states have helmet laws for motorcycle riders, and let them take their own risk. Cars don't need passengers to wear helmets, because they have seat belts and air bags. Even side-impact air bags in most cases. Broadside crashes in autos are already taken into account. The car and its safety features ARE the helmet.

[oldmunchkin]

Or maybe, just MAYBE, you should be smart enough to realize that "most" adults are not 4 feet plus a few inches tall. That NO automobile is designed around a driver under 5 feet tall. Even the newest and latest designs for Petite women drivers draw the line at 5 feet. Your small stature means YOU should take logical precautions, like carrying your own booster seat (and calling it your tushie cushion or something like that).

Maybe I should do that...hell for all anyone here knows, I do do that! I just like to argue that it should be a choice and not a law. The vast majority of adults (Please note I do not include children or adults who are unable, for whatever reason, in the decision making. I happen to think the car seat/booster seat law for children is a good thing!) are capable of making rational, reasonable, logical choices that suit them best without the government deciding what is best for them!

You're getting ridiculous on the helmet thing. Not all states have helmet laws for motorcycle riders, and let them take their own risk. Cars don't need passengers to wear helmets, because they have seat belts and air bags. Even side-impact air bags in most cases. Broadside crashes in autos are already taken into account. The car and its safety features ARE the helmet.

Yes, Wyoming is one of the better states as far as helmet laws are concerned. IIRC, any rider under 18 is required to wear a NTSB certified helmet. That's fine! Past that, riders are allowed to make their own choices! Unfortunately, it has arisen again on the state level to require helmet use and make seat belt use mandatory instead of it being a secondary offense* like it is now. I'm sure that in a few more years, Washington will pull it's shit again (like with forcing us, and other states, to raise the minimum age for alcohol consumption) and threaten to withhold federal highway monies if we don't comply with their hard-line law requirements!

Since I'm not a physicist or a scientist, I have to rely on common sense and logic to make my decisions regarding helmet and seat belt use. What I do know is this: I am losing quite a bit of my hearing (too many LOUD concerts I guess ) and feel very uncomfortable when what little hearing I have is being blocked by something over my ears! I don't like winter hats or ear muffs or headphones for this reason. When I put a helmet on, what hearing I have is deadened. If you can't hear the other traffic when you are on a bike, it puts you at a serious disadvantage! I wouldn't even dream of riding with ear plugs in, headphones on or ear muffs on, and those allow a whole lot more noise in than a helmet.

I know some (probably most) of you think I'm being stubborn about this subject, and maybe I am! But I think people are smart enough to take care of themselves and put their own safety into consideration without governmental influence!

*For those who don't know, a mandatory offense means you can be pulled over and ticketed for just that offense, like speeding. A secondary offense is a violation that you can be ticketed for but only after being pulled over for a primary offense.

[GGT]

Yes, you are being stubborn and cantankerous. If it's not about a law but a choice, then why the hell would you choose to not wear a seatbelt AND choose to not use a booster cushion? You'd rather hammer on the auto industry for not designing cars for little people, or hammer on law enforcement for enforcing safety laws? WTF is up with that?

I won't even engage your "hearing loss" excuses for not wearing a helmet. That's complete and utter bullshit. There are "skull cap" type helmets that don't cover the ears at all. You're just posting stupid shit now.

[oldmunchkin]

Yes, you are being stubborn and cantankerous. If it's not about a law but a choice, then why the hell would you choose to not wear a seatbelt AND choose to not use a booster cushion? You'd rather hammer on the auto industry for not designing cars for little people, or hammer on law enforcement for enforcing safety laws? WTF is up with that?

I choose not to wear a seat belt because I don't like them, I think they are dangerous, they are uncomfortable, they are way too restrictive, and they lead to a false feeling of invincibility, especially among the young drivers! I haven't been hammering on the auto industry at all! I simply said there isn't a car designed that the seat belt can be lowered to my height! It's kind of the opposite of the dude that is 7.5 feet tall. There is no car designed that is comfortable for him either.

I occasionally choose to use a small pillow when I drive, depending on the car. In the Grand Am I had, it worked out nicely, raising me enough for the seat belt while still allowing for the curve of the seat to fit my lower back! Driving The ex-Friend's Grand Prix was entirely different. If I put a pillow under me, I didn't fit the seat properly for some reason, making driving a rather painful event! In Mommymunchkin's car, a pillow ensures I can't reach the brake pedal or the accelerator! Hmmm, think I might need to reach those for safety! The couple of times I have driven the pick-up that the gentleman who helps me owns, the seat was perfect in every way except 1. It fit my back great, the pedals were easy to reach, and all the controls were within my reach! The only "bad" thing was the seat belt! If I put a pillow under my ass, the seat doesn't fit me or my back, I can't reach the pedals easily, and the controls weren't easy to reach at all, but the seat belt fit fine, I guess!

So, it appears my choices in the above named vehicles (all different makes and models) are few. I can "fit" the seat belt and be likely to cause an accident because of the controls being out of reach or very unhandy, or I can "fit" the seat/car, drive safely, and leave the damned seat belt where it belongs, hanging down beside the seat!

I won't even engage your "hearing loss" excuses for not wearing a helmet. That's complete and utter bullshit. There are "skull cap" type helmets that don't cover the ears at all. You're just posting stupid shit now.

Once again, my opinion of the general public in general appears to be more optimistic than others here. I believe that we are all capable of making our own choices regarding these safety issues, and government/law enforcement should butt the hell out! Why do we think we need someone to tell us how to behave? Why do we think we need someone to regulate safety? Why can't we just have our own opinions and choices? Why do we need to regulate everything to the point of becoming a nanny state? Why is the government so set on taking away the freedom of choice in these safety matters? Why are we not allowed to be adults who take care of themselves and who are perfectly capable of making these everyday choices on their own?

[GGT]

However, your post doesn't sound like it's coming from an adult who's capable of taking care of yourself, let alone your passengers. Mostly it sounds like my whiney teenaged kids bitching at any authority figure telling them what to do.

You don't use seat belts or helmets because you don't "like" them, you think they're "uncomfortable and dangerous", so you choose not to use them. Against any expert advice or safety data. You've made up your mind, and no damned government/law enforcement agency should butt in on your la la land.

Oh, but when it comes to the safety of children in the car, that's a totally different thing....and adults can be told what to do?

What if you're acting like a child, and need to be treated as such?

[coinich]

http://www.amazon.com/Safe-Auto-Seat.../dp/B000046Q50

Not meant to be condescending, but it is a kid's product, and from the sounds of it, you are roughly similar in size. My parents had one for me years ago to keep the seat belt from smacking me in the neck.

[GGT]

That's not condescending, coinich. My sister has something similar because she feels choked by shoulder belts, and she's over 5 feet tall. Munch knows damn well what products are out there for her use. She just doesn't want to use them.


Come to think of it, my sister is a pretty funny story when it comes to shoulder belts in the 80's. She felt "choked" because back then they couldn't be adjusted up or down. It was one-size-fits-all. She used a wooden clothes pin at first first, then a super heavy duty file folder clamp, to shorten where the strap came out from the car frame, so it didn't come out at her neck but at her shoulder. Then she added a sheepskin over the shoulder strap. Pretty clever, really.

And how many people can claim a memory of their sibling driving down the highway with a clothespin clamped to their chest belt?

[Khendraja'aro]

Once again, you guys win! Your fucking physics is always the only thing this should be based on! Once again, plain old practical experience, and common sense, loses!

My dear moron, all physics is based on practical experience. Save for the most remote boundary areas of physics (i.e. String theory and such), EVERYTHING is based on practical experiments.

Do you really think that those formulas I posted up there came about in the void? If so, you're a daft old bat which really doesn't have a fucking clue.

[Ominous Gamer]

Youtube has increased the limit on uploads to 10 hours
This is how its being used...

For example, this clip is longer than all 3 extended cut movies, combined...

[BalticSailor]

I know you don't like any answer that isn't backed up by 4 or 5 links of science. Any answer that isn't backed up is therefore is wrong! So, my answer that is only backed up by years of experience on said subject must be bullshit!

Fine, I'm too stupid to understand physics! Whatever!

Once again, you guys win! Your fucking physics is always the only thing this should be based on! Once again, plain old practical experience, and common sense, loses!

As illustrated by the article that started off this discussion, common sense is a lot less common than the name suggests...

And yes, this should be based on physics - for the simple reason that, as far as everyday life is concerned, laws of physics are universal, reasonably well-defined and unchangeable. They don't care for your personal experience. Acceleration won't be different for you just because you don't understand it. Gravity will not treat you differently than any other person just because you think you know better what's right and what's wrong. Laws of physics don't have any emotions, feelings or prejudices, and they can't be reasoned with or persuaded to change the way they work.
Laws of physics in these situations are absolutely free of subjectivity. And basing safety regulations on anything less objective would be foolish at best.

[Aimless]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...ne-crammer.ars

What the... Can someone please post this in the appropriate thread?

[Loki]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/women-may-v...154900939.html

That can't possibly go wrong...

[GGT]

Citizen Cain is back?!

[Lewkowski]

Yes, you are being stubborn and cantankerous. If it's not about a law but a choice, then why the hell would you choose to not wear a seatbelt AND choose to not use a booster cushion? You'd rather hammer on the auto industry for not designing cars for little people, or hammer on law enforcement for enforcing safety laws? WTF is up with that?

I won't even engage your "hearing loss" excuses for not wearing a helmet. That's complete and utter bullshit. There are "skull cap" type helmets that don't cover the ears at all. You're just posting stupid shit now.

Her logic is fail but I'll support her and everyone's right to make their own damn choices. Either we are pathetic cretins who must have big government watch over every bit of our lives or we believe Democracy is a good thing.

[coinich]

Her logic is fail but I'll support her and everyone's right to make their own damn choices. Either we are pathetic cretins who must have big government watch over every bit of our lives or we believe Democracy is a good thing.

Normally I'd agree, but seatbelt laws and such are a stupid thing to fight it over. In addition, when there's severe injuries, doesn't emergency care often tend to the victims without regards to insurance, only later hoping they will pay up? I was under the impression that taxpayers eventually have to foot not only that shortfall but the cost of emergency services (police, firefighers, ect) due to the incident. The problem with the Libertarian approach here is that the situation is never in a vacuum where the ideology can work. Unless of course you're Cain, who doesn't give a damn about them anyways, negating the human factor to all of this.

[Lewkowski]

Normally I'd agree, but seatbelt laws and such are a stupid thing to fight it over. In addition, when there's severe injuries, doesn't emergency care often tend to the victims without regards to insurance, only later hoping they will pay up? I was under the impression that taxpayers eventually have to foot not only that shortfall but the cost of emergency services (police, firefighers, ect) due to the incident. The problem with the Libertarian approach here is that the situation is never in a vacuum where the ideology can work. Unless of course you're Cain, who doesn't give a damn about them anyways, negating the human factor to all of this.

A few thoughts on this.

The cost of emergency service personal isn't cut and dry. If a seat belt save's the person's life and they didn't have insurance could they be costing society thousands of dollars to save them? If they weren't wearing a seat belt they would just be dead.

Or lets look at the cost so society of a 40 year old. If he dies he's paid SS/medicare for 20 years and he will never collect. In terms of pure financial analysis, hasn't society saved money by having him croak at that age? Now that's a cold way to look at it but if you're going to talk about financial burden on the rest of society then lets talk about it without other considerations.

The fact is that financing burden is not a reason to have seat belt laws (or at least not the primary one). The primary reason is to save lives. Banning fatty foots would probably save more lives, should we start that?

[coinich]

A few thoughts on this.

The cost of emergency service personal isn't cut and dry. If a seat belt save's the person's life and they didn't have insurance could they be costing society thousands of dollars to save them? If they weren't wearing a seat belt they would just be dead.

Or lets look at the cost so society of a 40 year old. If he dies he's paid SS/medicare for 20 years and he will never collect. In terms of pure financial analysis, hasn't society saved money by having him croak at that age? Now that's a cold way to look at it but if you're going to talk about financial burden on the rest of society then lets talk about it without other considerations.

The fact is that financing burden is not a reason to have seat belt laws (or at least not the primary one). The primary reason is to save lives. Banning fatty foots would probably save more lives, should we start that?

I operated on the naive assumption that human life is precious. Emergency services should never be denied to someone in immediate need, and the cost of care shouldn't be an issue. Of course, if you don't live under that assumption, then my argument is a moot point in your mind.

[Khendraja'aro]

I operated on the naive assumption that human life is precious. Emergency services should never be denied to someone in immediate need, and the cost of care shouldn't be an issue. Of course, if you don't live under that assumption, then my argument is a moot point in your mind.

Wait, you're only comprehending now that Lewkowski doesn't give a rat's ass about what his precious personal savior Jesus Christ commanded him to do? Be compassionate and all that shit? He's a Christian In Name Only. Picks and chooses the parts from The Bible which he likes (usually the ones involving being allowed to kill, maim or rape someone) and ignoring all the parts which contradict and actually supersede his choices.

[Lewkowski]

I operated on the naive assumption that human life is precious. Emergency services should never be denied to someone in immediate need, and the cost of care shouldn't be an issue. Of course, if you don't live under that assumption, then my argument is a moot point in your mind.

I never said emergency personal shouldn't render care. *Your* argument for seat belts is that the taxpayer ends up footing the bill when in reality this may mean the tax payer pays *more* if they didn't wear a seat belt. Statistics on this would be a bit complicated to figure however the burden of proof is on you since you are the one trying to limit other people's freedom.

[Catgrrl]

I suppose you whine at theme parks when they make you wear a lap-belt and restraints too. Freedom!!!!

[GGT]

Her logic is fail but I'll support her and everyone's right to make their own damn choices. Either we are pathetic cretins who must have big government watch over every bit of our lives or we believe Democracy is a good thing.

She wasn't using "logic" at all. It's her choice to not wear a seatbelt or helmet, regardless of any law, even though safety data shows they save lives. She tried to claim her common sense and experience are better and smarter than physics, but doesn't apply that common sense to use available "tools" for really short drivers. Then she's okay with laws telling adults to put kids in seatbelts or helmets, or using "tools" like infant- toddler-child car seats, because they save lives.

[Lewkowski]

I suppose you whine at theme parks when they make you wear a lap-belt and restraints too. Freedom!!!!

Theme parks are private enterprise. They can have any rule they want. Also I like seat belts, I would wear mine even if it wasn't mandated by law.

[Lewkowski]

She wasn't using "logic" at all. It's her choice to not wear a seatbelt or helmet, regardless of any law, even though safety data shows they save lives. She tried to claim her common sense and experience are better and smarter than physics, but doesn't apply that common sense to use available "tools" for really short drivers. Then she's okay with laws telling adults to put kids in seatbelts or helmets, or using "tools" like infant- toddler-child car seats, because they save lives.

To repeat myself, "Her logic is fail."

[GGT]

Her logic is fail but I'll support her and everyone's right to make their own damn choices. Either we are pathetic cretins who must have big government watch over every bit of our lives or we believe Democracy is a good thing.

A few thoughts on this.

The cost of emergency service personal isn't cut and dry. If a seat belt save's the person's life and they didn't have insurance could they be costing society thousands of dollars to save them? If they weren't wearing a seat belt they would just be dead.

Or lets look at the cost so society of a 40 year old. If he dies he's paid SS/medicare for 20 years and he will never collect. In terms of pure financial analysis, hasn't society saved money by having him croak at that age? Now that's a cold way to look at it but if you're going to talk about financial burden on the rest of society then lets talk about it without other considerations.

The fact is that financing burden is not a reason to have seat belt laws (or at least not the primary one). The primary reason is to save lives. Banning fatty foots would probably save more lives, should we start that?

To repeat myself, "Her logic is fail."

Then you should have stopped while you were ahead.