[vhfpmr]

The piece of my nose bone that I dug out of the steering wheel in this says otherwise

You where alive to dig it out.

Indeed, but proof that a seatbelt saved my life doesn't constitute proof that seatbelts reduced the total deaths on the roads.

After seatbelts were introduced, deaths among pedestrians went up by 8-20%, cyclists 13-40%, and rear seat passengers (who had no belt compulsion), 27%. When rear seatbelts were made compulsory for children, deaths among children in rear seats went up by 10%.

It's been known for decades that road deaths correlate with traffic density, not safety devices: busy roads look more dangerous, so people drive more carefully on them

Unless they have seatbelts, as such they start screaming around like a stock car racer with a death wish?

All it took to negate the benefits of seatbelts was one extra death every 200,000,000 kilometres, that's hardly what I'd call screaming around like a stock car racer with a death wish. Germany enshrined risk compensation in law by increasing the maximum permitted speed for coaches fitted with seatbelts from 80km/h to 100km/h.

Another interesting one is that motorists who cycle are half as likely to crash their cars than ones who don't.
Why?

Because most road accidents occur within 5 miles of the home of one of the drivers. If you have a bike, you are less likely to use the car for short journeys!

Perhaps, but the Dutch are famous for cycling a lot, and they drive as many miles as we do.

So how much will you sell me your arm for then? Mine aren't for sale.

Standard compensation claim for one arm (solicitors' guidance)

Above the elbow, GBP102,890 -122,860, below the Elbow GBP90,250 - 102,890

More for younger people. Self-employed would probably choose 2 - 5 times that level of insurance.

I don't think there are many other than you who would forfeit a good arm for ?123,000, or even ?1,230,000, and particularly not just because a solicitor has told them that's what it's worth.

[alancalverd]

Perhaps, but the Dutch are famous for cycling a lot, and they drive as many miles as we do.

Partial statistics aren't terribly helpful.

I don't think there are many other than you who would forfeit a good arm for ?123,000, or even ?1,230,000, and particularly not just because a solicitor has told them that's what it's worth.

Nobody is talking about voluntary trade here, nor the "worth" of a limb. The solicitors' numbers represent average awards decided by the courts, and are therefore the starting point for most insurance policies in the UK. The absence of free rehabilitation services in banana republics like the USA leads to much higher settlements, and as I said, if you want to insure anything for more that the standard offer, you can negotiate with the insurer. As an example, if you hire a small mobile crane, the industry standard insurance cover written in large print on every page is GBP25,000 per lift, which will pay for a lot of bricks and even repairing the car that they fell on.  My brilliant company secretary  ignored the "ask for more if you need it" warning and contracted at standard rate for lifting a GBP500,000 MRI machine which, by the immutable laws of physics, they managed to drop from a considerable height. A veritable harvest for the lawyers and scrap merchants.

[vhfpmr]

I don't think there are many other than you who would forfeit a good arm for ?123,000, or even ?1,230,000, and particularly not just because a solicitor has told them that's what it's worth.

Nobody is talking about voluntary trade here, nor the "worth" of a limb.

That's precisely what we're talking about, the voluntary decision whether to get in a car, or go rock climbing, and the subjective evaluation of the personal benefit of that activity against the cost of being maimed. Neither a solicitor nor a mathematician can tell you how much you're going to enjoy climbing, or how much you're going to dislike losing an arm. The best they could do is inform you with the odds.

The solicitors' numbers represent average awards decided by the courts, and are therefore the starting point for most insurance policies in the UK. The absence of free rehabilitation services in banana republics like the USA leads to much higher settlements, and as I said, if you want to insure anything for more that the standard offer, you can negotiate with the insurer.

This is all irrelevant, it's about the cost of providing disability aids after you've already lost your arm, and aren't getting it back again.

[Petrochemicals]

After seatbelts were introduced, deaths among pedestrians went up by 8-20%, cyclists 13-40%, and rear seat passengers (who had no belt compulsion), 27%. When rear seatbelts were made compulsory for children, deaths among children in rear seats went up by 10%.

Is this not ambiguous? Afer seatbelts where introduced when? until now? Car ownership has gone up a gazillion times in a century. A statement could read

"before seatbelts the country had a far higher death rate on the roads, even though car ownership was a fraction of what it is today"

Even though true, it is about as contextual as your statement

Indeed, but proof that a seatbelt saved my life doesn't constitute proof that seatbelts reduced the total deaths on the roads.

I would say that it does.

that's hardly what I'd call screaming around like a stock car racer with a death wish.

They either drive more responsibly  or  they drive more recklessly, (or perhaps there are other reasons.

[vhfpmr]

After seatbelts were introduced, deaths among pedestrians went up by 8-20%, cyclists 13-40%, and rear seat passengers (who had no belt compulsion), 27%. When rear seatbelts were made compulsory for children, deaths among children in rear seats went up by 10%.

Is this not ambiguous? Afer seatbelts where introduced when? until now? Car ownership has gone up a gazillion times in a century. A statement could read

"before seatbelts the country had a far higher death rate on the roads, even though car ownership was a fraction of what it is today"

Even though true, it is about as contextual as your statement

Comparison is with the period immediately before belts to that immediately after, and as I've already said, the accident rate goes down not up when traffic density increases.

Indeed, but proof that a seatbelt saved my life doesn't constitute proof that seatbelts reduced the total deaths on the roads.

I would say that it does.

Well it patently doesn't, does it. How do you know that I would still have had that accident if I'd not been wearing a seatbelt? To prove the case you have to demonstrate that there are fewer deaths with seatbelts, not just cherry-pick one example of a crash.

You need to count:
1. Those who survive because they are wearing a belt
2. Those who die because they're not wearing a belt
3. Those who survive because they're not wearing a belt
4. Those who die because they are wearing a belt

that's hardly what I'd call screaming around like a stock car racer with a death wish.

They either drive more responsibly or they drive more recklessly, (or perhaps there are other reasons.

Reckless: Heedless of or indifferent to the consequences of one's actions; lacking in prudence or caution; willing or liable to take risks; rash, foolhardy; irresponsible. (OED)

If someone is likely completely unaware their behaviour has changed, and witnesses are equally unaware, I think you'd be hard pressed to describe it as reckless as defined in the OED (you are free to make up your own definitions of words, however, if you like being misunderstood). As I said above one extra death per 200,000,000km is too small for any single individual to perceive in the behaviour of themselves or others, it takes statistical analysis.

It does offer ample opportunity for society to be systematically obtuse, however.

[vhfpmr]

a rickety old schoolbus  which has a bottle of nitro-glycerine on the  next seat and dodgy suspension.

You've been watching Wages of Fear

Anyway, here's some data. from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain

Seat belt death.png (118.79 kB . 1024x650 - viewed 1514 times)

Adams can do a bit better than that, the cohorts in this graph contain 80% of all the world's motor traffic:


Fig 7.1 World.png (79.15 kB . 682x702 - viewed 485 times)

Note how deaths in the no-law group fall faster than the deaths in the group with compulsory belts, and how the fall in deaths doesn't coincide with the introduction of legislation.

This plot shows Denmark's experience of seatbelt legislation compared against the countries with no law:


Fig 7.2 Denmark.png (56.75 kB . 691x654 - viewed 476 times)

From Adams:

"Doubt was first cast on the international evidence for seat belt laws in a paper of mine in 1981 (Adams 1981); Figures 7.1 to 7.4 above were first published in this paper. Britain?s Department of Transport commissioned an internal critique of my paper. This critique, entitled Seat belt savings: implications of European statistics (Isles 1981), concluded that there was no foundation for the Department?s oft-repeated claim that a seat belt law would save 1,000 lives and 10,000 injuries a year. It found what I had discovered, and what Evans found ten years later in his review of the evidence worldwide?that there were no directly measurable reductions in fatalities that could be attributed to seat belt laws. It said

'Available data for eight western European countries which introduced a seat belt law between 1973 and 1976 suggests that it has not led to a detectable change in road deaths [my emphasis]?The results are not compatible with the Department?s ?1,000 plus 10,000? estimates?'

The author of this report was aware of the risk compensation hypothesis, and hence aware that evidence concerning the effectiveness of seat belts in crashes did not constitute satisfactory evidence about the likely effect of a law compelling people to belt up. He insisted that ?international comparisons provide the only information about the effect of compulsory seat belt wearing, both on car occupants and on other road users?. Furthermore, this report also noted that in all eight countries, as in Australia, the number of pedestrians injured following the passage of a seat belt law increased. Individually, none of the increases was statistically significant, but collectively this result was highly significant."

[alancalverd]

in all eight countries, as in Australia, the number of pedestrians injured following the passage of a seat belt law increased.

which suggests that wnen car occupants wear seatbelts, more pedestrians wander into the road.

Unexpected, and therefore worth investigating.

[Petrochemicals]

Comparison is with the period immediately before belts to that immediately after, and as I've already said, the accident rate goes down not up when traffic density increases

1)which is the immediate period.
2)impossible, density 0  = no accidents because of no flow . Density = 100 no accidents because of no flow This is road traffic science.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_driving

So given a seat belt do most drivers irresonsibly start hareing around? Or are drivers responsible?

[alancalverd]

The graphs are a fine example of really bad statistics.

Suppose in Country A  we had a fatality rate of 1000 per million population in 1973, and it decreased to 800 per million in 1977. Normalise to 1973 = 100 and you have the "no law" curve for graph 7.1 above.

Now suppose Country  B had a fatality rate of 100 per million in 1973, falling to 85 per million in 1977. There's the curve for "law".

By normalising, we have made the country with around 10 times the fatality rate look "safer"!  Next thing you know, we'll be declaring Rwanda a safer place than France because the UK only granted asylum to 8 Rwandans fleeing persecution last year, and 15,000 to folk who arrived from Europe.

[Petrochemicals]

Oil_Prices_Since_1861.svg.png (111.44 kB . 1920x548 - viewed 540 times)It is not really supprising that there were dips in deaths, there where dips in motoring, engine size around this time, something the statistics fail to illustrate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

[vhfpmr]

in all eight countries, as in Australia, the number of pedestrians injured following the passage of a seat belt law increased.

which suggests that wnen car occupants wear seatbelts, more pedestrians wander into the road.

The reason more die is because motorists aren't driving as carefully, the same reason that more children died in back seats after they were made to wear seatbelts. Or are you going to suggest that children wearing seat belts are more likely to wander in front of the car?

Comparison is with the period immediately before belts to that immediately after, and as I've already said, the accident rate goes down not up when traffic density increases

1)which is the immediate period.

In the case of children in back seats, the year before children's seatbelts (1988) to the year after (1990). Pedestrians & cyclists, dates will vary by country. The seatbelt law didn't apply to HGVs when it was first introduced, so pedestrians and cyclists killed by HGVs went down, and not up like those killed by cars.

2)impossible, density 0  = no accidents because of no flow . Density = 100 no accidents because of no flow This is road traffic science.

You can make a nonsense of any data if you extrapolate it beyond the bounds of common sense.


Smeed Annotated.JPG (87.46 kB . 1124x789 - viewed 482 times)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_driving

So given a seat belt do most drivers irresonsibly start hareing around? Or are drivers responsible?

So we've now established they aren't driving recklessly by either the OED definition of the word, or the US Legal definition. So why are we arguing about what you call it at all? It's kafkaesque, like watching someone get stabbed and then starting an argument about whether the weapon's called a knife or a dagger. Drivers have more accidents when they belt up. Too few more for any one individual to be able to detect in their lifetime, but enough to negate the effect of seatbelts.

The graphs are a fine example of really bad statistics.

Suppose in Country A  we had a fatality rate of 1000 per million population in 1973, and it decreased to 800 per million in 1977. Normalise to 1973 = 100 and you have the "no law" curve for graph 7.1 above.

Now suppose Country  B had a fatality rate of 100 per million in 1973, falling to 85 per million in 1977. There's the curve for "law".

By normalising, we have made the country with around 10 times the fatality rate look "safer"!  Next thing you know, we'll be declaring Rwanda a safer place than France because the UK only granted asylum to 8 Rwandans fleeing persecution last year, and 15,000 to folk who arrived from Europe.

I don't see what you're getting at, if you don't normalise the effect of belts to the number of deaths that could potentially be saved you get nonsense. It could end up being like arguing that a vaccine that prevents 10% of a million deaths is better than one that prevents 90% of 1000.

Law countries reduced their deaths ~15% over the same period that no-law countries reduced their deaths ~20%.

[vhfpmr]

Oil_Prices_Since_1861.svg.png (111.44 kB . 1920x548 - viewed 540 times)It is not really supprising that there were dips in deaths, there where dips in motoring, engine size around this time, something the statistics fail to illustrate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

Yes of course, the oil crisis only picked on the countries that introduced compulsory seat belts and left all the others alone didn't it. Silly me.

[Petrochemicals]

Yes of course, the oil crisis only picked on the countries that introduced compulsory seat belts and left all the others alone didn't it. Silly me.

Well surely the scarcity of petrol has an effect. It was an example as to the factors that are not represented on the graph. For example cars increace so do road deaths actually go down or is there more opportunity? The increace in road deaths correlates with the ammount of 2nd cars, used probably at this point in history by married women who where house wives during the day.

[Petrochemicals]

In the case of children in back seats, the year before children's seatbelts (1988) to the year after (1990).

But uk road deaths show a very steady deline from 1990 onwards? Not withstanding that children have a tendancty to catapult out of adult seatbelts, i think this is why childrens booster seat where introduced.

You can make a nonsense of any data if you extrapolate it beyond the bounds of common sense.

Relationship-of-speed-volume-density-LOS-and-total-crash-rates.png (210.28 kB . 850x525 - viewed 550 times)

So we've now established they aren't driving recklessly by either the OED definition of the word, or the US Legal definition. So why are we arguing about what you call it at all?

Because given a seatbelt drivers according to you start being more reckless. Or do reckless drivers not cause road deaths?

[vhfpmr]

Yes of course, the oil crisis only picked on the countries that introduced compulsory seat belts and left all the others alone didn't it. Silly me.

Well surely the scarcity of petrol has an effect. It was an example as to the factors that are not represented on the graph. For example cars increace so do road deaths actually go down or is there more opportunity? The increace in road deaths correlates with the ammount of 2nd cars, used probably at this point in history by married women who where house wives during the day.

Petrol use was the same for both the law & no law cohorts, the difference between them is the seatbelt law. I can't make any sense of the rest of your post. Death rates have shown an accurate correlation with traffic density in almost every country it's been measured over decades, but not to other confounding variables.

[vhfpmr]

But uk road deaths show a very steady deline from 1990 onwards?

Yes, because traffic density is increasing.

Not withstanding that children have a tendancy to catapult out of adult seatbelts, i think this is why childrens booster seat where introduced.

So children bounce around inside the car more when they're belted than when they aren't? I don't think so.

Relationship-of-speed-volume-density-LOS-and-total-crash-rates.png (210.28 kB . 850x525 - viewed 550 times)

This means nothing without any explanation of what it relates to, and what its relevance is supposed to be.

Because given a seatbelt drivers according to you start being more reckless. Or do reckless drivers not cause road deaths?

Again:
The difference in behaviour required to negate the benefit of seatbelts is one death in 200,000,000 km, that's too small for any individual to detect without statistical analysis. Whether you choose to call it reckless is irrelevant, but by the OED definition of reckless, it's not.

This just falls on deaf ears, doesn't it.

You are just playing games with words, describing it as reckless knowing that people won't perceive it as such, and hoping that they'll conclude from that that you have successfully refuted the argument, and that if they can't see behaviour change with their own eyes it doesn't exist.

[vhfpmr]

Seatbelts
Smeeds Law
Risk
More on Smeed (Chapter 2)

[Petrochemicals]

Yes, because traffic density is increasing.

But then levels off?. The decline before seat belts to after

In the case of children in back seats, the year before children's seatbelts (1988) to the year after (1990).

I'm afraid you argue against your own earlier point.

So children bounce around inside the car more when they're belted than when they aren't? I don't think so

No that would be the decline in road deaths after child booster seats were introduced.

This means nothing without any explanation of what it relates to, and what its relevance is supposed to be.

Flow increases, speed decreases, density increaces, crashes increaces. Density increaces accidents.

Again:
The difference in behaviour required to negate the benefit of seatbelts is one death in 200,000,000 km, that's too small for any individual to detect without statistical analysis.

So if it is undetectable we can not make statements about seatbelts creating reckless deathwish drivers.

Whether you choose to call it reckless is irrelevant, but by the OED definition of reckless, it's not.

This just falls on deaf ears, doesn't it.

You are just playing games with words.

Reckless drivers do not cause deaths then, nor deaths by dangerous driving cause deaths either, amazing! And playing with words, mmm them difficult words. Causing problems in arguments.

describing it as reckless knowing that people won't perceive it as such,

Well this is clear codswallop, using words in the hope people don't think the words mean what they mean?

[alancalverd]

which suggests that wnen car occupants wear seatbelts, more pedestrians wander into the road.
The reason more die is because motorists aren't driving as carefully, the same reason that more children died in back seats after they were made to wear seatbelts. Or are you going to suggest that children wearing seat belts are more likely to wander in front of the car?

Part of seatbelt legislation often requires children to be in the back seat, so some of those who would have died in the front seat now die in the back seat. And as far as I know, pedestrians are not defined as persons wearing seatbelts.

[vhfpmr]

children have a tendancty to catapult out of adult seatbelts, i think this is why childrens booster seat where introduced

the decline in road deaths after child booster seats were introduced

I know why booster seats were introduced, you haven't produced any evidence that children's seat belts reduced road deaths.

Flow increases, speed decreases, density increaces, crashes increaces. Density increaces accidents.

Irrelevant. Smeed's Law has nothing to do with short term variations in flow rate, it relates to long term variation in the number of vehicles per head of population.

So if it is undetectable we can not make statements about seatbelts creating reckless deathwish drivers.

It isn't undetectable, and drivers aren't being reckless.

DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, IT'S DISHONEST.

Reckless drivers do not cause deaths then, nor deaths by dangerous driving cause deaths either, amazing! And playing with words, mmm them difficult words. Causing problems in arguments.

DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, IT'S DISHONEST.

Well this is clear codswallop, using words in the hope people don't think the words mean what they mean?

Everyone knows what reckless means, including you, that's why you keep putting the word in my mouth, even after I have expressly told you multiple times that that is NOT what I (or Adams) is saying. You persist in using the word knowing full well that anyone hearing you misquoting me, then witnessing a driver wearing a seatbelt will see that they aren't being reckless, and then wrongly conclude from that there must be no effect at all.

Here's Adams:


Adams Seat Belt Quote.png (313.29 kB . 714x1264 - viewed 431 times)

So that's enough now.

If you can't demonstrate even the most basic level of honesty I don't propose to have any further communication with you, on either this thread or any other.