Seat Belts In An Accident

esdeez · May 31, 2011

If we're gonna get graphic about this then please watch the below video, and hopefully it will drum some sense into people who still think that its better not to wear a seatbelt. Do not watch if you can't take a bit of "horror". Showing people things like this is the only way to make them understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaSqVlgKB6s

Crosswind · May 31, 2011

Guys..

Seat belts are a good method of preventing deaths in an accident,but seat belts itself can kill a person .

This is specially possible in sudden deceleration of a fast moving vehicle eg applying breaks or an impact.It causes severe contusions and lacerations of intra abdominal organs and leads to death by intra abdominal bleeding.

It can also give rise to sudden death by evulsion of Thoracic Aorta(most important blood vessel distributing blood) from heart.Can also sustain soft tissue injuries to the neck.

So the solution is not to wear seat belts? In a "sudden deceleration of a fast moving vehicle", do you prefer going through the windscreen instead?

Let's face it... no safety system is 100% foolproof. The amount of lives saved because of seatbelts far outweighs the amount of deaths due to seatbelts. That's it.

If you are still skeptic about wearing seatbelts, watch this classic:

Edited May 31, 2011 by Crosswind

Pericles · May 31, 2011

I'm curious.... what do you drive?

If there is any justice in this world, it should be a wheelchair, for trying to prevent people from wearing seatbelts.

TURBOMAN · May 31, 2011

and just why are we comparing fighter aircraft accidents to car accidents?

Cos in both situations the G forces acts on the X axis although the magnitude differs.So the injurie pattern due to seat belts are some what similar but more prominent in air crafts due to high G.

I think i answered your quiz.

TURBOMAN · May 31, 2011

So the solution is not to wear seat belts? In a "sudden deceleration of a fast moving vehicle", do you prefer going through the windscreen instead?

Let's face it... no safety system is 100% foolproof. The amount of lives saved because of seatbelts far outweighs the amount of deaths due to seatbelts. That's it.

If you are still skeptic about wearing seatbelts, watch this classic:

Dude got the wrong end of the stick

I didnt say not to wear seat belts.I say always wear belts.I just showed you one other aspect you should know

Dont ask dumb questions.

Pericles · May 31, 2011

Cos in both situations the G forces acts on the X axis although the magnitude differs.So the injurie pattern due to seat belts are some what similar but more prominent in air crafts due to high G.

I think i answered your quiz.

No, not really. Fighter aircraft don't use the 3 point harness system used in cars. The injury patterns would be quite different. Besides, if you had an issue that would cause that serious an injury if you crashed in a fighter jet, you would eject.

Mani · May 31, 2011

No, not really. Fighter aircraft don't use the 3 point harness system used in cars. The injury patterns would be quite different. Besides, if you had an issue that would cause that serious an injury if you crashed in a fighter jet, you would eject.

Not to mention all the secondary impacts. Most of the injuries are by your body bouncing around in the car. All these secondary impacts can have a devastating result on a human body. You will find people have been killed by air bags as well. For every death, be it with a seat belt or an air bag, you will find 1,000+ cases where these have saved lives. You are far, far likely to be saved by wearing the seat belt than the other way around.

The kind of metal the body of the car is made out of has next to noting by way of protecting the occupants in a crash. It's all down to the crumpling zones of the main chassis. Every time a car is in a crush, it is absorbing all the impact energy and dissipate it through the chassis of the vehicle. Not through the body panels. The crumpling is what's keeping the occupants from having to absorb all the energy.

Exhample...

nexus · June 1, 2011

useful and interesting information thanks for sharing mani.

TURBOMAN · June 1, 2011

No, not really. Fighter aircraft don't use the 3 point harness system used in cars. The injury patterns would be quite different. Besides, if you had an issue that would cause that serious an injury if you crashed in a fighter jet, you would eject.

Could you please tell us about the seat belt injurie pattern in a fighter jet crash?

Im talking about the injuries caused by seat belts,not the things you should do in a crash.Further these all are retrospective observations.

Watchman · June 1, 2011

Could you please tell us about the seat belt injurie pattern in a fighter jet crash?

Im talking about the injuries caused by seat belts,not the things you should do in a crash.Further these all are retrospective observations.

You really put ur foot n your mouth this time buddy. For starters, fighter pilots dont wear a 3 point harness. :rolleyes:

Btw the high G-forces pilots go through push the pilots into the seats, so no reason why the restrainers should cut into them. Maybe you haven't seen an aircraft fly, but they cant and dont just hit the brake and come to a halt (for obvious reasons).

Pericles · June 1, 2011

Could you please tell us about the seat belt injurie pattern in a fighter jet crash?

Im talking about the injuries caused by seat belts,not the things you should do in a crash.Further these all are retrospective observations.

I see the words "3 point harness" escaped you. Go check out the kind of seatbelts they put on in fighters. Or if you want it straight, pm miniace and ask him.

Sifaan · June 2, 2011

Maybe you haven't seen an aircraft fly, but they cant and dont just hit the brake and come to a halt (for obvious reasons).

rofl trying to visualize this

Watchman · June 2, 2011

rofl trying to visualize this

Come to think of it TURBOMAN might be more a TURBO'TODDLER'.. And all these cartoons where an aircraft just stops in its tracks and falls out of the sky and people walking off a cliff and staying airborne few seconds before falling may had skewed this fella's perception of how gravity works In which case he should stop watching the Cartoon Network and maybe switch to Discovery for some more accurate information.

Ripper · June 2, 2011

ah...just when you thought one idiot was enough...another haraka jumps onto the middle of the road

hillarious!!!

Like Watchman said...fighter pilots get pushed into the seat on acceleration and when banking. they have pretty decent neck support, side support and a g suit to help with dealing gforces. They don't have sudden decelarations like a car would have upon hitting a hrad object unless of course the aircraft crashes down. If the pilot failed to eject and the plane crash he has with little chance of survival. Unless of course he crashed during a take off run or something without having lots of speed going against him

ANd why the hell are we talking about fighter jets!

Seat belts on cars save lives period.

I'd say, let the few idiots who think otherwise drive without them and do us all favor and not pollute the human gene pool no more.

Mani · June 2, 2011

I'd say, let the few idiots who think otherwise drive without them and do us all favor and not pollute the human gene pool no more.

I believe you're talking about this gentleman here.

Pericles · June 2, 2011

I believe you're talking about this gentleman here.

More specifically, this

http://www.darwinawards.com/

nexus · June 2, 2011

Come to think of it TURBOMAN might be more a TURBO'TODDLER'.. And all these cartoons where an aircraft just stops in its tracks and falls out of the sky and people walking off a cliff and staying airborne few seconds before falling may had skewed this fella's perception of how gravity works In which case he should stop watching the Cartoon Network and maybe switch to Discovery for some more accurate information.

:action-smiley-033:

nexus · June 2, 2011

sorry repost

Edited June 2, 2011 by nexus

TURBOMAN · June 2, 2011

You really put ur foot n your mouth this time buddy. For starters, fighter pilots dont wear a 3 point harness.

Btw the high G-forces pilots go through push the pilots into the seats, so no reason why the restrainers should cut into them. Maybe you haven't seen an aircraft fly, but they cant and dont just hit the brake and come to a halt (for obvious reasons).

Your such a brave guy who have the courage to teach a F-18 pilot to how to do the Deck Landing and catapult launch

Edited June 2, 2011 by TURBOMAN

TURBOMAN · June 2, 2011

ah...just when you thought one idiot was enough...another haraka jumps onto the middle of the road

hillarious!!!

Like Watchman said...fighter pilots get pushed into the seat on acceleration and when banking. they have pretty decent neck support, side support and a g suit to help with dealing gforces. They don't have sudden decelarations like a car would have upon hitting a hrad object unless of course the aircraft crashes down. If the pilot failed to eject and the plane crash he has with little chance of survival. Unless of course he crashed during a take off run or something without having lots of speed going against him

ANd why the hell are we talking about fighter jets!

Seat belts on cars save lives period.

I'd say, let the few idiots who think otherwise drive without them and do us all favor and not pollute the human gene pool no more.

Dont try to show your an Idiot.Please dont answer if you really dont know the subject.

Read something about Deck landing and catapult launch.

Let me add something to your brain....G suits doesnt help in X axis acceleration.It only helps in + and - G forces on Y axis.

Can you grab it?

Pericles · June 2, 2011

Your such a brave guy who have the courage to teach a sea hawk pilot to how to do the Deck Landing and catapult launch

SeaHawks these days are helicopters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SH-60_Seahawk

And if you're referring to the 1950s Brit plane, I'm pretty sure they didn't use 3 point harnesses either. And catapult launch pushed pilots back into the seat, not forward against the seat belts.

Now be a good boy and read up on the difference between a car seat belt and aircraft harness

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

Watchman · June 2, 2011

When typing my last reply i was wondering if you'd bring in a aircraft carrier story into this, but didnt think even you'd goto something that irrelevant when talking about a 3point harness. I guess I was wrong.

So in response to your post,: yes, aircraft carrier landings go through big Gs, but still irrelevant. Why you ask AGAIN? cos we're talking of a 3 point harness.

TURBOMAN · June 2, 2011

SeaHawks these days are helicopters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SH-60_Seahawk

And if you're referring to the 1950s Brit plane, I'm pretty sure they didn't use 3 point harnesses either. And catapult launch pushed pilots back into the seat, not forward against the seat belts.

Now be a good boy and read up on the difference between a car seat belt and aircraft harness

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

Srry dude.See Harrier

Supra_Natural · June 2, 2011

Srry dude.See Harrier

My My we ARE putting our feet into our mouth regularly today aren't we TURBOMAN? So you were talking about a Sea Harrier eh? I Suppose it escaped your esteemed intellect that the Sea Harrier is a VTOL/STOVL plane? As in, it lands VERTICALLY?

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

Would you maybe like to try again?

TURBOMAN · June 2, 2011

SeaHawks these days are helicopters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SH-60_Seahawk

And if you're referring to the 1950s Brit plane, I'm pretty sure they didn't use 3 point harnesses either. And catapult launch pushed pilots back into the seat, not forward against the seat belts.

Now be a good boy and read up on the difference between a car seat belt and aircraft harness

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

Very hard to convince.Deck landing causes sudden deceleration.

:angry: