Comments on: Seat belts again

By: Carsten Jasner

Carsten Jasner — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:38:33 +0000

Very interesting! But when the number of car occupant deaths increases while the number of all road user deaths decreases – how can the number of pedestrians and cyclists also increase? By the way: Do you know what the overall decline in traffic deaths over the years causes? ****************************************************************** Carsten I have a go at answering your first question in a new blog. For my thoughts on your second question please see Chapter 7 of Risk and Freedom. JA

By: Alex Goodlet

Alex Goodlet — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:36:57 +0000

Regarding the impact of seat belts on car occupant deaths it is quite clear that the 1982 law had little impact. What if a law had been passed in 1965 that all new cars should have seat belts fitted. Initially there would be only a few cars with seat belts and any impact would be swamped by the increased volume of vehicles. As the proportion of cars fitted with seat belts grew then any impact would become more significant. This would impact increase until all cars had seat belts.
Car occupant deaths would then follow the increased volume of traffic. When all cars had seat belts it would then be a case of getting occupants to use them.

By: velorution » Blog Archive » Doctors ignorami

velorution » Blog Archive » Doctors ignorami — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:39:31 +0000

[...] how compulsory helmet use will probably have no effect on the number of head injuries, just as the introduction of seat belts has had no impact on the reduction of road [...]

By: Guy Chapman

Guy Chapman — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:57:23 +0000

In the BBC piece to which you refer, Philip Cowley asks why the seat belt law was accepted more readily than laws on, say, mobile phone use. If he honestly can’t see why this is then I can understand why he appears unable to accept the flaws in the statistics on seat belts. Wearing a seat belt does not prevent you from doing anything much and is there to protect you from bad drivers (i.e. /other/ drivers), whereas laws on drink-driving, speeding, phone use and so on are there to prevent bad drivers from being worse, and since you’re not a bad driver it surely can’t apply to you. I thought he was supposed to be a sociologist or something? This is pretty obvious stuff.

By: Peter Gorman

Peter Gorman — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:52:43 +0000

You are to be congratulated, sir, for your tireless exposure of the selfserving nonsense that passes for statistics in public debate.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 08:49:50 +0000

What is the relation between the number of car occupant deaths and the number of cars on the road or car journeys taken though, how does this impact the suggested trend? i.e. Was the increase from 82 to 90 due to increased car occupants, but the proportion of these that died actually decreased? A pertinent question. Traffic increased every year throughout this period except for 1974, the energy crisis year. But the increase was faster in the period after the seat belt law which probably accounts, at least in part, for the change of trend. The relationship between rate of change in traffic level and fatality rates is discussed in Risk and Freedom Chapter 7. JA

By: Dr. Robert Davis

Dr. Robert Davis — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:53:50 +0000

“and not the statistics for those affected by the seatbelt law, i.e. people in the front seats of cars.”

Er… but the whole point is that pedestrians and cyclists WERE AFFECTED by the seat belt law, as you have shown. indeed, our culture has been profoundly adversely affected by a move which shifted risk from the more dangerous-to-others on to those less dangerous-to-others, and by using it as an exemplar of the way safety on the road should be addressed.

Er… as I went on to note in the next sentence. JA