# Seatbelts kill!



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

According to this article in the Chicago Sun Times, statistical analysis indicates wearing seat belts kills more people than not wearing them.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/21975580-418/593-killed-on-states-roads-so-far-this-year.html

In the article, it says "of this year's 531 fatal crashes [in Illinois], 147 involved drivers and passengers who were not wearing seat belts." Inversely, this means 384 people who were wearing seat belts where killed! That's 72% of the people killed were wearing seat belts!

So, according to these numbers, you are 3 times more likely to be killed wearing a seat belt than not wearing one!

The article goes on to state that 35-40% of the fatalities involved impaired driving (drunk, drugs, texting, sex)! This could be interpreted that you are safer driving drunk or on drugs than driving sober,

So, having dabbled in statistical analysis this morning after drinking Scotch last night, I come to the conclusion that I am safer driving drunk not wearing a seat belt.

Ralph

Want to hear my theory of how drinking makes a person smarter?


----------



## Nitram (Apr 2, 2011)

I think I would! Lol. Martin


----------



## NDVA HAYMAN (Nov 24, 2009)

Ok. Made me laugh a lot this am. Thanks Ralph


----------



## Grateful11 (Apr 5, 2009)

I'll keep wearing mine. One local NCSHP said in his entire career he had never removed a dead person fora vehicle with a seat belt on. Not saying it doesn't happen but the article doesn't mention how accidents were so horrific that it would not have mattered whether they were wearing a seat belt or not. Had my cousin been wearing his seat belt 30 years ago he wouldn't have brain damage from being thrown out of a Jeep, the driver was wearing his and walked away. The Jeep flipped 3 times.


----------



## ontario hay man (Jul 18, 2013)

The reason less people die with no seatbelts is cuz alot less people drive with no seatbelts. Thats self explained. Funny how people think lol


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

ontario hay man said:


> The reason less people die with no seatbelts is cuz alot less people drive with no seatbelts. Thats self explained. Funny how people think lol


Ohhh! Same numbers--different statistical analysis. Never thought that could be the reason.

Ralph


----------



## AndyL (Mar 9, 2013)

After being in Fire and Rescue for more than 30 years, I've seen more dead as a result from not wearing a seatbelt. Mostly people that were ejected from the vehicle. had they been wearing a seatbelt they would of been safe. I've seen people with seatbelts die, when in all appearance should of been ok. I've seen where they were not wearing a seatbelt and ejected and survived, where as if not ejected they would of died. All in all it seems that ones wearing seatbelts have a better survival rate than not. I've seen crashes that when you get there you know it's gotta be a fatality and their alive. It just wasn't their time to go. They just had a high power from above protecting them. Seems children have a much better survival rate with restrants.

It looks like seatbelts save more than not wearing. But, when it's your time to go, it's your time. Only the Good Lord above knows. When he says your number is up, your number's up, and nothing or no one here can change that.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

Ralph was that Glen Livet? 30 yr.....funny thing about statistics...hated that class


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

somedevildawg said:


> ...hated that class


Was not one of my favorites either.

Regards, Mike


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Can't remember what that is called, statistical inference or something, the media gets it screwed up all the time in reporting medical studies etc. Hard to prove causation.


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

Jut remember--87% of all statistics are made up.

Ralph


----------



## AndyL (Mar 9, 2013)

My above post was not based on any statistics. Just based on what I've seen, handled, involved in removing the victims from crumpled up steel.

slowzuki, you're right about the media. They get it wrong when they are there to see what's going on. I've seen them getting information from bystanders that haven't a clue what's going on. Just think they know.


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

AndyL:

I hope I didn't offended you. If I did, I apologize.

My intent was to poke fun at the Sun Times, statistics and how numbers can be used to prove almost anything.

Again, if I offended you, or anybody else, I apologize.

Ralph


----------



## discbinedr (Mar 4, 2013)

I took your post as tryin to show how you can see anything in statistics you want to see. Thanks for the humor


----------



## AndyL (Mar 9, 2013)

rjmoses said:


> AndyL:
> 
> I hope I didn't offended you. If I did, I apologize.
> 
> ...


No indeed not, by no means. I took it as poking at media, and statistic sheets. And I know what you're saying.

Not a science, for sure when it comes to the media. I was agreeing with you on the media. They can't get it right when their on scene.

I was just saying, I wasn't going by statistics, just what I saw. No offence taken whats so ever. No apology needed.


----------

