Gary:-
I share your concern.
I've been trying to hold my peace on this one, but I just can't stand
idly by while such misinformation continues to be spread. I hold no
sympathy for Bob and his decision not to wear seat belts, it is literally
his funeral. But I am very concerned that someone else will innocently
take his rationalizations for fact and decide not to wear seat belts
based upon the idiocy that being "thrown clear" of an accident is either
likely or desirable.
Most everyone that perpetuates this myth does so to support their DISLIKE
of wearing seatbelts, perhaps through laziness, misplaced macho, or
because the belts are "annoying." They start with the premise that they
do not WANT to wear seatbelts and then grasp for reasons not to. There
have been many, many statistical studies done over the last 30 years to
specifically address this issue and they ALL support the use of seat
belts to reduce death and injury.
Several people on this list have given good examples of loved ones dying
because they did not wear seat belts. I, for one, can give you an
example of a friend's teenage son who lost both legs because he was
thrown out of a rolling vehicle. The belted driver had only minor
injuries.
It's obvious we won't convince Bob that he is wrong, so I'm not going to
try. I just hope I can convince others reading his posts to ignore him
and BUCKLE UP!
BTW, someone mentioned the Princess Di death car. Guess who was the only
person wearing a seat belt in that car? Guess who was the only survivor?
David Littlefield
Houston, TX
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:40:35 -0400 G Graham
<ggraham@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu> writes:
>
>
>Bob De Weese wrote:
>
>> On the contrary. There have been many, many instances of accidents
>> where eveyone involved was killed except those who were "thrown
>clear"
>>
>
>Bob,
>
>This "pseudo-fact" is simply statistically unsupportable. Can you cite
>*any*
>resource to back this up, or is it just one of those "well, all I know
>is ..."
>kind of statements? Please be careful of advice that jeopardizes
>lives.
>
>Sincerely concerned,
>Gary A. Graham
>
>
|