Richard

[Digit]

Just watched the road safety ad as to how Richard died 'cos he wasn't wearing a seat belt.
According to the ad his internal organ were punctured by broken ribs and he bled to death.
How would his seat belt have made a difference?
According to the ad as the vehicle stopped his internal organ continued forward, so they would have had he been wearing a belt, in fact in the scenario shown surely the slow deceleration afforded by the air bag would have minimised the stress on his internal organs?

Roy.

 

[Philly]

Roy
That comment about his internal organs carrying on forward struck a note with me, too. :? As you say, if he was wearing a seatbelt the same thing would of happened, no?
Obviously, we can all see the advantages of wearing a seatbelt. But it helps if they get their facts right...... :roll:
Philly

 

[wizer]

I think it's about the point of impact. If you have your seat belt on, it should tension quicker, leaving you in your chair and not gaining extra momentum being propelled out of your seat and then hitting something.

 

[Digit]

I can't see it wizer. You slam your car into some solid and you are wearing a full harness your deceleration will be defined by the rate at which the front crumples. An air bag must logically decrease that deceleration rate.
You get these programmes where they test reaction times/stopping distances and tell you that you have just his the vehicle in front.
Not unless his vehicle can halt in 6 inches you haven't.
As Philly says, I wish they would get their 'facts' correct.

Roy.

 

[Vormulac]

It's been a long time since I've had to think about the physics that might be involved in something like this, but let's go with the intuitive instead:
Hold an egg in your hand, swing your arm as fast as you can forwards and bring it to a sudden stop, open your hand, egg is intact.
Now throw the egg the same distance at the same speed so it stops up against the palm of your other hand, chances are the egg is going to break.
I'm quite prepared to be told by someone who knows that maths that I'm talking rubbish, but it seems to make sense to me on an instinctive level that being unrestrained is going to result in far more serious injuries than if firmly held by a seatbelt/harness.

I haven't seen this advert by the way, is this part of this year's traditional Christmas road safety campaign?

 

[Smudger]

In motorsport there were a series of injuries, so fatal, caused by massive deceleration (forces of over 100g). One answer to that has been the introduction of the HANS (Head and Neck Support) which prevents the head whipping forward. This reduces injuries because of reduced whiplash and although the deceleration effects remain, they are much reduced.

I didn't see the programme, but the OP said that the guy's ribs broke - well in that case his unrestrained body must have hit something. Even in F1 accidents like Kubica's last year the deceleration didn't break his ribs.

 

[dunbarhamlin]

Just as anyone who smokes has to be a little bit dumb (myself included) so too must be the motorist who refuses to belt up.
I imagine that telling such an individual that a safety belt will save a life more often than it'll take one is less effective than just telling them they'll die without one.
Indeed, given how long we've understood the benefits/disbenefits of safety belts/smoking, it may well be that current campaigns are actually designed to target children and spouses - far more effective goads to get the twerp to conform, even if the message doesn't make it through their thicker than average skull.
Steve

 

[Digit]

But the point is Vormulac is that he is restrained, by the air bag.
It's all down to the rate of deceleration, which must be less with a bag acting as a gentle brake.
Slamming a human body into something solid, even with some padding, will not stop the internal organs thrashing around.
Brain damage from whiplash is well known, what is less well known is that internal organs can be damaged when they impact the spine as they rebound.

Roy.

 

[Smudger]

But the point is Vormulac is that he is restrained, by the air bag.
It's all down to the rate of deceleration, which must be less with a bag acting as a gentle brake.
Slamming a human body into something solid, even with some padding, will not stop the internal organs thrashing around.
Brain damage from whiplash is well known, what is less well known is that internal organs can be damaged when they impact the spine as they rebound.

Roy.

He isn't restrained by the airbag, he is STOPPED by the airbag.
Think about it.

 

[Shadowfax]

Wizer has toched on the answer, IMO.
In my previous existance as a firefighter I came into contact with the real thing in the RTA scene.
Basically, if the body and its internal organs are allowed to continue forward until they hit something the injuries are likely to be more serious than if the body had been restrained by a seat belt.
It is the momentum of the internal organs gained after the impact that does the damage. However, if the internal organs cannot gain the extra momentum the damage will be seriously reduced.
The egg analogy is a good one. So is this - try to slap your face without taking your hand off your face. The one with the extra momentum hurts, the other doesn't.
Cheers,

SF

 

[Grinding One]

The real answer is to build tanks for everyone esp. kids to drive ...people are driving way to fast for what they are in...basicly a aluminum can.Driving a aluminum can 50 mph into another one and hopeing an airbag or life restraint are going to save you is nuts. Heck make a trip to the car graveyard and see how the last guy made out....

 

[Digit]

I meant he is restrained from hitting anything by the air bag Smudger, but I take your point.

An airbag is part of a vehicle's safety restraint system,

The inflated airbag reduces the deceleration experienced by the passenger during the crash

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag


I seem not to be explaining my point successfully. The driver is restrained by his seat belt, he hits a bridge abutment.
There are no external injuries visible on his body. Internally his organs are mashed by deceleration forces.
He's dead!
Same scenario but with an air bag.
The air bag will reduce those deceleration injuries, whether sufficiently for survival would depend on the speed of the impact etc.
In the ad the argument is that Richard dies 'cos he's not using a belt, but the vehicle has an air bag.
This says that a belt will save your life, and an air bag won't!
This is wrong!

Roy.

 

[Smudger]

No it isn't.

See - I can make totally unsupported assertions as well. except that I am correct.

 

[Digit]

Yes it is!
Any vehicular impact is survivable if the deceleration is reduced below a certain level.
As the old joke goes, it isn't the fall that kills you it's the stopping!

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3639000.html

There you are, supported!

Roy.

 

[Jake]

The two are designed to work together. The only stats I could find were japanese, but the death rate was 9x greater with air bag and no seat belt.

Maybe the reason is that if you don't wear a belt, you are going to hit the bag closer to the steering wheel, and lose some of the cushioning, and some of the initial deceleration offered by the crumple zones (to which the seatbelt would tie you).

 

[Digit]

No argument there Jake.

Roy.

 

[Jake]

Thinking about it, you are going to hit the bag while it is still expanding which is going to kind of compound your problem.

 

[wizer]

Not wearing your seatbelt is a terrible habit which I see too often and am guilty of myself. I don't wear it in my car, but in the missus' car the annoying warning alarm which is impossible to turn off is enough to programme me into wearing it. I now belt up as soon as I get in that car. I honestly think they can show as many gorey adverts as their budget will allow, but people will still do it. It will take a generation of annoying seatbelt alarms for people to belt up IMHO

 

[wizer]

Thinking about it, you are going to hit the bag while it is still expanding which is going to kind of compound your problem.

Pal of mine was hit from the side by a car trying to squeeze past him at speed. He stopped the car, took of his belt, went to open the door and the air bag went off, broke his jaw :shock: It was an Audi A4. Airbags are a strange mix of life saving/life threatening.

 

[Digit]

Seat belts and air bags can both be dangerous wizer, but on average they are both life savers, I think there is little doubt about that.
I fitted a seat belt to an Austin 1100 years ago, it wasn't even designed to take them in those days.
I did it two days after ramming a stationary van whilst dodging a multiple pile in front of me.
I have arthritis in the neck as a result, I didn't hit the wheel but suffered whiplash as the Austin didn't have head restraints either.
Though hitting those could probably cause injury as well.

Roy.