Seatbelt Laws Cause More Pedestrian And Cyclist Deaths, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times
Topic started on 9-3-2010 @ 11:55 PM by mnemeth1
From my personal blog Fascist Soup


While listening to a lecture on economics by Robert P. Murphy, he made note that economists actually found that seatbelt laws INCREASED fatalities among the general population.

I found this claim to be fairly incredible so I had to investigate for myself.

Of course, the information was buried amid a torrent of statist agitation, but I managed to find studies that backed up Murphy’s claim.

What happens is seatbelt laws cause drivers to drive more aggressively. Because drivers feel safer with quick acceleration and breaking while wearing seatbelts, accident rates actually increase.

All of the statist agitprop that calls for mandatory seatbelt laws only looks at deaths saved by calculating the accident rate compared to the fatality rate of vehicle occupants. This gives the misconception that seatbelts actually save lives, when indeed the exact opposite is true.

While it is true that you are much more likely to survive a car accident while wearing a seatbelt, the additional risk drivers take increases accident rates which wipes out any gains made by saving lives through mandatory seatbelt laws. In addition to this, it drastically increases fatalities of cyclists and pedestrians – all due to the increased risk taking of drivers.

When looking at society as a whole, seatbelts actually increase the number of fatalities involving motor vehicles.

This article in the British Medical Journal highlights the key findings:

Cyclists were the only group of road users in Britain whose death rate increased sharply during the 1990s,1 yet cycling was in decline throughout the decade.2 How could this happen, when attention on casualties was the most intense in the history of the bicycle? Perhaps a vision of the near future will be instructive . . .

It is worth pausing here to consider the meaning of “road safety.” The roads can get more dangerous, yet total deaths still fall. Compulsion to wear a seatbelt cut deaths among drivers and front seat passengers by 25% in 1983. But in the subsequent years, the long established trend of declining deaths in car accidents reversed, and by 1989 death rates among car drivers were higher than they had been in 1983. Evidently the driving population “risk compensated” away the substantial benefits of seatbelts by taking extra risks, putting others in more danger. This period saw a jump in deaths of cyclists (fig ​(fig1).1). Although temporary, the jump can be explained fully only by cyclists having adapted to a more dangerous road environment through extra caution, retreat, or giving up. Is it coincidence that the long decline in cycling began in 1983?

Between 1974 and 1982 cycling mileage in Britain increased 70%, but there was no increase in fatalities until the seatbelt law was introduced in 1983 (fig ​(fig1).1). The more cyclists there are, the more presence they have, the less individual danger there is. This truth is confirmed by experience in the Netherlands and Denmark, where cycling is far safer despite a tradition of segregation. All road users should gain. Pedestrians benefit because (skilful) cyclists are little threat to them and because a large increase in cycling should reduce traffic speeds and thus risks to all. Then there are the health benefits.


Economist John Semmens writes:

The plausibility of the aggressive driver hypothesis cries out for more research. For example, Hawaii, the state with the most rigorously enforced seat belt law and the highest compliance rate in the nation, has experienced an increase in traffic fatalities and fatality rates since its law went into effect in December 1985…

A recent statistical study of states with and without seat belt laws was undertaken by Professor Christopher Garbacz of the University of Missouri-Rolla. This study seems to support the altered driver behavior hypothesis. Dr. Garbacz found that states with seat belt laws saw decreases in traffic fatalities for those covered by the laws (typically drivers and front-seat passengers), but increases in fatalities for rear-seat passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Further, the patterns of changes in total traffic fatalities among the states showed no consistent relationship with the existence of a seat belt law in the state.


Robert Murphy’s lecture where he mentions the seatbelt statistics:



reply posted on 10-3-2010 @ 04:31 PM by Extralien
reply to post by CX



Do you remember the leg protectors TPTB proposed for motorbikes...and then the air bags..

May as well have a seat belt too and four wheels.



On a bike, you have the choice of throwing yourself clear.. In a car you could end up trapped and burn to death, or drown.

In a car you have the choice of how loud your stereo goes so you can't hear the motorbikes roaring past you. On a bike you can't hear much of anything except wind rush and the engine, oh and car stereos.

On a bike you can twist and turn to get an almost 360 degree view of everything around you.
In a car you are restricted by your seat belt, must rely on three mirrors and always remember your blind spots.

Seat belts should be an optional choice. Every biker puts their life in the hands of others when they ride.. Bikers tend to hope the car drivers around them have seen the biker, yet the biker must always assume the car driver hasn't.


reply posted on 10-3-2010 @ 04:36 PM by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by mnemeth1



So in other words, the demographics changed, but overall deaths went down.

Insidious, absolutely insidious


reply posted on 10-3-2010 @ 04:47 PM by SyphonX
reply to post by TheWalkingFox



He never said it was a scheme or a devious plan. Where are you getting this from?

It's very interesting information, and it's quite revealing. I can relate to this, because I've known many people that drive whom have no idea what safety is, and have no perception whatsoever.

I've also noticed that people who would regularly ride bicycles as a child and into their teens, were more aware on the road. All my friends that either pedaled bikes, still do today and/or ride motorcycles today, are very safe drivers, or at least far more aware of themselves and others on the road.

Then you have people that just jump onto the road for the first time, who have never had to learn to be aware on a bicycle and such, strap themselves in and just hit the gas, listen to their overly loud stereo surround and talk on their phones. They never kill or maim themselves though, it's always others.


reply posted on 10-3-2010 @ 05:10 PM by Extralien
It is quite daft when you look at it all from a bit of a distance..

The car and oil companies want you to buy and use a car, the governments do too... cars are a massive financial return.

In order for them to get more for their money, they seem to use more laws to stop more accidents and deaths. But it is apparent that these laws are focussed upon cars and drivers, not bikers, pedestrians or other road users.

Here's some interesting bits of info;
As the factors involved in collisions have become better understood, some organizations have begun to avoid the term "accident," as the word suggests an unpreventable, unpredictable event and disregards the opportunity for the driver(s) involved to avoid the crash. Although auto collisions are rare in terms of the number of vehicles on the road and the distance they travel, addressing the contributing factors can reduce their likelihood. For example, proper signage can decrease driver error and thereby reduce crash frequency by a third or more.[4] That is why these organizations prefer the term "collision" rather than "accident".

However, treating collisions as anything other than "accidents" has been criticized for holding back safety improvements, because a culture of blame may discourage the involved parties from fully disclosing the facts, and thus frustrate attempts to address the real root causes.[5]

"the feeling of being confident in more and more challenging situations is experienced as evidence of driving ability, and that 'proven' ability reinforces the feelings of confidence. Confidence feeds itself and grows unchecked until something happens – a near-miss or an accident".

It can safely be said that many places which look dangerous do not have accidents, or very few. Conversely, a location that does not look dangerous may have a high crash frequency. The reason for this is simple. If drivers perceive a location as hazardous, they take more care and there are no accidents. Accidents happen when hazardous road or traffic conditions are not obvious at a glance, or where the conditions are too complicated for the limited human machine to perceive and react in the time and distance available.

This phenomena has been observed in risk compensation research, where the predicted reductions in accident rates have not occurred after legislative or technical changes. One study observed that the introduction of improved brakes resulted in more aggressive driving,[15] and another argued that compulsory seat belt laws have not been accompanied by a clearly-attributed fall in overall fatalities.

Research has shown that, across all collision types, it is less likely that seat belts were worn in collisions involving death or serious injury, rather than light injury; wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of death by about two thirds.[32] Seat belt use is controversial, with notable critics such as Professor John Adams suggesting that their use may lead to a net increase in road casualties due to a phenomenon known as risk compensation.

Motorcyclists have little protection other than their clothing; this difference is reflected in the casualty statistics, where they are more than twice as likely to suffer severely after a collision. In 2005 there were 198,735 road crashes with 271,017 reported casualties on roads in Great Britain. This included 3,201 deaths (1.1%) and 28,954 serious injuries (10.7%) overall. Of these casualties 178,302 (66%) were car users and 24,824 (9%) were motorcyclists, of whom 569 were killed (2.3%) and 5,939 seriously injured (24%).

en.wikipedia.org...

What with increasing road tax, yet poorly maintained road surfaces, one has to ask where the tax money is going, and for what purpose is it being paid?
The car companies seem to do very little in order to bring about change as it is business as usual for them.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Failed US Foreign Policy? Is Ron Paul the Answer? History Says NO!
  Posted 19 days ago with 26 member flags
How gullible do you have to be to think Iran is a threat?
  Posted 19 days ago with 26 member flags
You heard of SOPA and PIPA.Now ACTA! Must read.
  Posted 18 days ago with 25 member flags
On why America is in denial and Ron Paul will not be elected
  Posted 16 days ago with 21 member flags
Study says racists and conservatives are dumb
  Posted 6 days ago with 16 member flags
Is ‘anti-Canadianism’ the new ‘anti-Americanism?’
  Posted 15 days ago with 8 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Santorum wants more fracking!!!
  US Political Madness, Posted 12 hours ago, 53 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 8 hours ago, 51 replies