[vhfpmr]

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.

So what is your explanation for seatbelts in cars increasing deaths among cyclists & pedestrians?
Something a bit less absurd than the suggestion that they are selectively jumping out in front of only cars with belted drivers would do.

Adams' work is genuinely lifechanging for those open minded enough to take on board what he says.

No sensible person disputes that people are more careful carrying a tray of raw eggs than a bale of wool, more careful to stay away from unfenced precipices than fenced, more careful crossing busy roads than quiet, more wary of dangerous animals than placid etc etc, and yet their senses leave them when confronted by the suggestion that they might be a bit more careful if they're driving with no seat belt or riding with no crash helmet. I climbed the rigging on SS Great Britain once. Would I have done it without a safety harness? Probably not, in which case my risk of falling from the mast would have been zero, a smaller risk than I incurred by climbing it.

Try asking a few people what they would do if you were to confiscate their seatbelts (assuming the law were revoked). In my experience quite a few will triumphantly tell you that they would quit driving altogether, seemingly unaware that they've just shot themselves in the foot with an example of the most extreme change of driving behaviour possible.

[Petrochemicals]

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

. I CANNOT PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. THE ARGUMENT HAS DEFEATED YOUR POINT. THAT IS THE ODD SENSATION YOU ARE AWARE OF IN THE CHASM IN YOUR HEAD. Stop attempting to stifle the conversation.

If scientific analysis is undertaken there is nothing in the prior arguments that would mean rear seatbelts would not save lives. Rear passenger seatbelts will not endow on a driver any sort of feeling of invunerability as far as i can see, especially as the driver will be already hypothetically emboldened with his own seatbelt.

There is very very clear corelation also on the previous graph of deaths.

Screenshot_20240203_185520.jpg (179.72 kB . 1521x1033 - viewed 453 times)

Rear seatbelts also do not neceserrily save the life of the wearer, as can be seen from above it would be very unlikely that rear belts would have no affect. 

[alancalverd]

Adams' work is genuinely lifechanging for those open minded enough to take on board what he says.

Is he a politician, a priest, or an economist? Your quote says absolutely nothing about what will or did happen, but merely mentions the possibility that something might. Openmindedness is not the same as uncritical reading.

[alancalverd]

No sensible person disputes that people are more careful ......crossing busy roads than quiet,

which doesn't explain why most UK  road deaths occur on rural roads, and fewest on motorways and A roads.