Exactly where I was going...SenorToenails wrote:
Yea...there are more than just 'alive and well' and 'dead' options for the outcome of a car crash, with or without seatbelts.Pug wrote:
I don't agree with the premise that lacking seat belts will result in LESS EMS or hospital stays because of death.
However, if one were to bring government healthcare into the debate as a justification for seatbelt laws...well, that would be foolish because then anything that can cause adverse health effects could be legislated with the same logic.
Yea, me too. And the fact that getting insurance should be my responsibility, and mine alone.JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm... yeah. Why do you think I was so opposed to the health care bill?
You wear them because it REDUCES the severity of the injuries. One of the items is "lower death rates".lowing wrote:
If seatbelts don't save lives, why are we forced to wear them? All stats show that wearing seatbelts results in lower death rates, and if you did not die where you would have, chances are you probably got hurt...........right?
Since I have to fucking google. This is one of the first searches:
http://www.chronicle.pitt.edu/media/pcc … irbag.html
Quotes:
The research team studied the outcomes of 86,000 patients who were drivers or passengers in frontal collisions occurring in Pennsylvania between 1990 and 2002, according to data from the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation.
Of the 86,000 patients studied, 12,678 had spinal injuries and 5,506 had cervical spine injuries. Of those 5,506, 203 used both airbags and seatbelts, 187 used an airbag only, 1,658 used a seatbelt only, and 3,458 were unprotected. The drivers who were unbelted with no airbag were 1.3 times more likely to have a cervical spine fracture and 1.8 times more likely to sustain a cervical spine fracture with a spinal cord injury than those drivers who were protected by both an airbag and seatbelt. As for the passengers who were unbelted with no airbag, they were 7.9 times more likely to have a fracture with spinal cord injury compared to those passengers with airbags and seatbelts.
http://www.anapolschwartz.com/practices … istics.asp
Quote:
For survivors, average medical costs are 50% higher for those not wearing a seatbelt. (Car-Accidents.com)
Common sense man. Use it
DO seat belts save lives? Yes or no?Pug wrote:
You wear them because it REDUCES the severity of the injuries. One of the items is "lower death rates".lowing wrote:
If seatbelts don't save lives, why are we forced to wear them? All stats show that wearing seatbelts results in lower death rates, and if you did not die where you would have, chances are you probably got hurt...........right?
Since I have to fucking google. This is one of the first searches:
http://www.chronicle.pitt.edu/media/pcc … irbag.html
Quotes:
The research team studied the outcomes of 86,000 patients who were drivers or passengers in frontal collisions occurring in Pennsylvania between 1990 and 2002, according to data from the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation.
Of the 86,000 patients studied, 12,678 had spinal injuries and 5,506 had cervical spine injuries. Of those 5,506, 203 used both airbags and seatbelts, 187 used an airbag only, 1,658 used a seatbelt only, and 3,458 were unprotected. The drivers who were unbelted with no airbag were 1.3 times more likely to have a cervical spine fracture and 1.8 times more likely to sustain a cervical spine fracture with a spinal cord injury than those drivers who were protected by both an airbag and seatbelt. As for the passengers who were unbelted with no airbag, they were 7.9 times more likely to have a fracture with spinal cord injury compared to those passengers with airbags and seatbelts.
http://www.anapolschwartz.com/practices … istics.asp
Quote:
For survivors, average medical costs are 50% higher for those not wearing a seatbelt. (Car-Accidents.com)
Common sense man. Use it
If yes, then they probably got hurt, and if they got hurt they need medical attention. if no then there is no reason to force people to wear them.
You are studying patients that survived, when the issue involves living or dieing. I would expect if you are not going to study those that died as well, you can have numbers that support your argument.
How about you find some stats that show how many people died because they didn't wear seatbelts that otherwise would have survived from 1990 to 2002. After you find those stats we can talk about the money saved by not having to take care of them.
Last edited by lowing (2010-07-16 14:01:31)
From each according to his disability, to each according to his greed ambition.lowing wrote:
Whatever you wish, I am not poor.Turquoise wrote:
You know, come to think of it, if we got rid of crash test ratings, more people driving cheaper vehicles would probably die in wrecks. We should allow those really unsafe cars that you can buy in places like India and China. The people willing to buy those cars on the cheap will face a higher incidence of death in wrecks, and since the kind of people willing to buy those cars are probably poor and more prone to ending up on welfare, this might actually save us money in the long run.lowing wrote:
Accidents won't go up or down, deaths will go up, if people are not forced to wear seatbelts. more people will die. Dead people don't cost me anything on taxes.
Yes they do.lowing wrote:
Accidents won't go up or down, deaths will go up, if people are not forced to wear seatbelts. more people will die. Dead people don't cost me anything on taxes.Pug wrote:
Ahh, ok then.lowing wrote:
Umm I do not come in here looking for someone to agree with.
You wanted to drag national health care into it, so I did.
1) "Show how it will cost me if you don't wear a seat belt"
2) "National Healthcare"
3) "Not wearing seatbelts = death"
Okay, so I'm going to say:
In general, not wearing a seatbelt will cause the passengers to be injured more severly.
In general, the number of car fatalities is extremely low.
In general, wearing a seatbelt reduces the amount of time spent in the hospital compared to those who are not wearing one.
Therefore, the cost the government will incur will be larger due to increased healthcare expenses due to not wearing a seat belt.
Aka, your argument is incorrect, or will be incorrect when national healthcare comes around...because you pay taxes. Because of overstating the truth regarding not wearing a seat belt.
I thought my point was obvious and didn't need to be explained, which is why I thought you were being argumentative.
Let me just go back and point out my original statement: it seems like all you want to do is argue.lowing wrote:
DO seat belts save lives? Yes or no?Pug wrote:
You wear them because it REDUCES the severity of the injuries. One of the items is "lower death rates".lowing wrote:
If seatbelts don't save lives, why are we forced to wear them? All stats show that wearing seatbelts results in lower death rates, and if you did not die where you would have, chances are you probably got hurt...........right?
Since I have to fucking google. This is one of the first searches:
http://www.chronicle.pitt.edu/media/pcc … irbag.html
Quotes:
The research team studied the outcomes of 86,000 patients who were drivers or passengers in frontal collisions occurring in Pennsylvania between 1990 and 2002, according to data from the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation.
Of the 86,000 patients studied, 12,678 had spinal injuries and 5,506 had cervical spine injuries. Of those 5,506, 203 used both airbags and seatbelts, 187 used an airbag only, 1,658 used a seatbelt only, and 3,458 were unprotected. The drivers who were unbelted with no airbag were 1.3 times more likely to have a cervical spine fracture and 1.8 times more likely to sustain a cervical spine fracture with a spinal cord injury than those drivers who were protected by both an airbag and seatbelt. As for the passengers who were unbelted with no airbag, they were 7.9 times more likely to have a fracture with spinal cord injury compared to those passengers with airbags and seatbelts.
http://www.anapolschwartz.com/practices … istics.asp
Quote:
For survivors, average medical costs are 50% higher for those not wearing a seatbelt. (Car-Accidents.com)
Common sense man. Use it
If yes, then they probably got hurt, and if they got hurt they need medical attention. if no then there is no reason to force people to wear them.
You are studying patients that survived, when the issue involves living or dieing. I would expect if you are not going to study those that died as well, you can have numbers that support your argument.
How about you find some stats that show how many people died because they didn't wear seatbelts that otherwise would have survived from 1990 to 2002. After you find those stats we can talk about the money saved by not having to take care of them.
YOU research it. I have not found one link that proves the costs are less if seat belts are not used.
For instance, there's approximately 2 million injury accidents, of which 40,000 are fatal, of which 55% were not wearing a seat belt. Aka, you are betting that 22,000 fatalities will equal out the numbers for 2 million injuries...