This difference of opinion is a good example of why I dislike seatbelt
laws so much. How a person wants to choose their own risk, how they wish
to live or die is a personal decision. I don't move the car unless the
seatbelt is on because I believe that in an accident, my flesh will
probably come in hard contact with some surface in the car, like the
steering column so I want to remain in the same inertial frame as the
seat so I take my chances that the car wont crumple on me - that is
where I take my chances. Randall prefers to be ejected and thrown clear
or duck or whatever and that is another set of risk/chances. It's all
cool; a roll of the dice, either way can be right or wrong depending on
the physics.
The point for me is that this is a personal decision since it is your
own personal life and that is why I really dislike that personal
decision being taken away due to the seat belt laws; at least it is this
way in California, I don't know if these laws are common to the other
states.
Okay, that's my two cents for a Sunday.
-Steve
'74 TR6 (Thumper)
>But I stand by my assertion that adding them to a stock TR3 with no
other
>modifications gives a false sense of security and little or no
improvement
>in survivability of a major crash.
>Randall
|