Well, in the case of motorcycles, they are unsafe primarily for the driver, and not really for anyone else, so as long as the driver is aware of the danger they pose to themselves, there is no issue.
You can indeed, and I have done so, ever since the things became mandatory many years ago.
I wouldn't ever drive ten meters without my belt on, but I'm all for the freedom of anyone to be an idiot, as long as the idiocy isn't directed at anyone else.
The idiocy of not wearing a seatbelt is directed at everyone else. An unbelted driver is more likely to completely lose control of the vehicle after an initial collision and end up causing addition damage to others. Plus now that we effectively have socialized medicine we all end up paying for the idiots.
Although decapitation by windshield is unlikely (due to their design), you don't have to be going very fast to seriously damage yourself on the windshield if you're not wearing a seat belt.
I crashed a truck once, going maybe 30-40 km/h, wearing a seat belt. I ended up with some minor bruising from the seat belt, and no other damage, but everything else in the car went flying, including the glasses off my head. If I wasn't belted up, my head would've hit the windshield or steering wheel quite hard, and I likely would've needed to go to the hospital.
If safety was the most important thing, everyone would be driving the same car, no one would be driving motorcycles, and no one would get on the freeway with an SUV.
Other factors like available seating, looks, price, and creature comforts often take precedence over safety in the minds of many consumers.
Aren't a number of SUVs less safe than cars? Particularly, I seem to recall that cheap, top-heavy SUVs built on a car base (instead of a truck base) are way more likely to tip or roll over in an accident.
It is my understanding from anecdotal evidence that perception reins over reality in this case. SUVs do have a mass advantage so they were expected to win in a collision with a compact car. They also project ruggedness, which is equated with safety.
If safety was the most important thing, nobody would be driving a car at all. There are lots of ways to get from point A to point B, just about all of which are safer than driving.
We drive cars because they hit a sweet spot of speed, personal autonomy, and comparative expense, with a cost to personal safety that we've collectively decided we're willing to live with.
I think I disagree a bit. Maybe safety is not the most important thing but it is pretty high up on the list of anyone with a certain awareness (victim of car accident, lost someone dear in a car accident, has a family, etc.) One reason SUVs have sucked the air out of automotive variety is their perceived safety, even over minivans (I am talking perception here, not reality).
Another reason is that cars have gotten increasingly safer and safe designs don't scream safety so it has gotten easy to ignore how important safety is and how bad things used to be in older cars. A minor crash in a 50s and earlier car would likely result in death or severe injury due to the lack of seat belts, lack of crumple zones, metal bayonets knobs on the dashboard, metal dashboards, etc.
I was riding in the middle on the front bench seat of an old 70's car with no seatbelt on the highway a while ago (only other option was walking 50 km back home).
I have no idea how people used to think that it was at all safe, I was very aware that if the car crashed I was going to be ejected out the window, even in a low speed crash.
Remember that offering is not quite the same as available. From your link, it seems that Ford offered this as a package starting in 1956 for some models and it did not sell well [1]; some accuse it of making a half-hearted effort. However, I have to say that kudos to Ford and Robert McNamara for trying to sell safety and offering safer options well before others.
1968 was apparently the first year that seat belts were mandated in cars.
A minor crash in a 50s and earlier car would likely result in death or severe injury due to the lack of seat belts, lack of crumple zones, metal bayonets knobs on the dashboard, metal dashboards, etc.
Pre-50s is definitely going to be quite fragile, but it really depends what you mean by "minor". In a major crash, a modern car is going to be far safer, but in a minor one both the passenger and an older car are likely to survive with nearly no damage, whereas a modern car, although with the same outcome for the passenger, may be damaged extensively. Late 70s/early 80s bumpers were probably the best designed for this.
I am not sure about that. Seat belts were not mandated in the 50s so a crash resulted in significant passenger movement. Metal dashboards with bayonet knobs tended to cause significant damage based on my reading. I noticed that you put the link to the Lifeguard package in another reply but that was just a package available to some cars and was not bought in a prevalent manner by the public.
In my opinion, If people REALLY cared about safety, we'd all have roll cages, harnesses, helmets and driver's suits. Convenience generally trumps real safety. Safety only becomes popular when there's no user intervention required and people don't notice the costs.
Could you clarify why you think safety is not the most important characteristic of driving on the road?
reply