Posted on 08/03/2007 9:11:41 AM PDT by Daffynition
Plunging 60 feet off a bridge in a car sounds like a sure death sentence, but survival experts say people can and do walk away from such a calamity, for a simple reason: They were wearing their seat belts.
"The people who got out without a scratch absolutely had their seat belts on," says Brian Brawdy, survival expert and a former New York City police officer. "If you're knocked unconscious because you weren't wearing your seat belt, you won't be swimming to the surface."
Kimberly Brown, who survived the bridge collapse, told "Good Morning America's" Robin Roberts that had she not been wearing her seat belt, she was certain she would have gone through her car's windshield.
With four confirmed fatalities, Minneapolis authorities say they expect the death toll to rise as vehicles' that fell more than 60 feet into the Mississippi River are recovered.
Chances of surviving for those still submerged in the river now almost 24 hours later are remote, experts say. The combination of the impact and the speed at which cars sink give passengers mere minutes to avoid suffocation.
"[Drivers] would have three to five minutes, depending on how much of the water is rushing in and then given the size of the car," says Brawdy.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Yes.
But not because people need to be protected from their own stupidity, because the cost of care is passed on to the taxpayers when someone with no insurance has to be taken to the emergancy room or they have to bring in an Air Evac chopper.
Less badly injured people, less taxpayer burden.
The same reason insurance companies give discounts to “good drivers”.
Great. So I can count on your support when I propose legislation requiring everybody to eat at least 5 fruits and vegetables each day?
No, but you have that big “speed limit” hypocrisy you’ll have to deal with when you do propose it.
Then he got out and walked around for a while and when the cops got there, he got back in his car and buckled himself in.
Mrs VS
Wow. That had to hurt. It could have been a more painful lesson, I guess.
Wow, chief, you’re going to have to explain that one.
I don’t like them very much.
I REALLY don’t like being MOLESTED (violation of 4th Amend) for daring to NOT wear 1, much less being fined for it. What a scofflaw renegade I am! It’s not right. These do-gooder laws over something that has nothing to do with anyone else’s rights have made me resent belts even more. You bet.
I am an engineer. The chances of even being in an accident are very small. Small enough that to me the cost outweighs the benefit. I can turn around much better to see what’s behind me before I change lanes, etc., never mind just plain freedom.
I have decided that it’s more risky in bad weather, so I usually wear it when it’s raining/snowing, etc. But on good days, no.
My mother has claustrophobia - caused by doctors belting her in for surgery, in fact - and she doesn’t like them at all.
“But not because people need to be protected from their own stupidity, because the cost of care is passed on to the taxpayers when someone with no insurance has to be taken to the emergancy room or they have to bring in an Air Evac chopper.”
Same ol’ domino-effect argument that ALWAYS comes up with this.
We are NOT violating anyone’s RIGHTS by (gasp) not wearing a belt.
What about the people who are injured who WERE wearing belts? So, I guess your reasoning is out with that. It DOES happen, anecdotes or not - belts are not the end-all be-all savior. We still have to pay even for the people wearing belts!
That whole domino-effect nonsense can apply to ANYthing. Everything affects everything else, so you can start making laws just based on that. It’s circular and ridiculous.
Mostly, like light cameras, it’s a money-making scheme.
The speed limit, at least (though tenuous), deals with people’s RECKLESS BEHAVIOR possibly ENDANGERING other people’s lives.
Seat belts or not do NOT endanger another person’s life.
No matter all the domino-effect circular nonsense the supporters come up with.
I don't like or agree with seatbelt laws either. (I also don't like laws that prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to people who don't wear seatbelts.) But that doesn't mean I'm going to endanger myself and others just to spite them.
If you're an engineer, you should enjoy this exercise: Most any modern car can sustain steady-state lateral acceleration of at least .8g (maybe .7g for trucks and SUVs) and instantaneous acceleration even higher than that. Let's say a tire bounces in your lane and you swerve out of the way at just .5g lateral acceleration. How much force will you have to exert on the steering wheel just to keep from sliding out of your seat? Once you've done that, you will realize that you can't possibly keep control of your car at the same time as you're instinctively trying to keep yourself in your seat by tugging on the wheel. I don't mind people endangering themselves, but you put yourself in a situation where you're almost certainly going to lose control if you have to make any abrupt maneuver, and that endangers other drivers.
One more point:
I can turn around much better to see what’s behind me before I change lanes, etc.
Your mirrors are adjusted improperly. You should be able to see both adjacent lanes completely. And if you're actually turning around/sideways (i.e. no longer facing front) that sounds frighteningly dangerous. Feel free to look it up or Freepmail me if you don't know how to do this.
However, there is an additional point regarding seat belts. If you are wearing a seatbelt, you are more likely to be able to maintain control of the car in an accident, because you don't get thrown around after an impact or a swerve. This DOES affect the safety of other people. So I can justify seatbelt laws.
“steel center-punch”
For breaking a window? If not it sure sounds like a good idea. The thing I think about most with a submerged car is how to break a window because opening a door would probably be next to impossible.
Prayers for all the people involved in the 35 bridge. God bless them all.
Yep. I saw a demo and was amazed how easy a center-punch would break a side window. The nice thing about it was that you didn't even have to whack it real hard. In the demo it just took a medium tap with a little pressure. I figure that would come in handy if you were injured or in a strange position and couldn't get a full swing. It is supposed to be even easier underwater with the pressure of the water helping to break the glass (the same pressure that makes it very hard to open doors until your car fills up).
I figure it would also come in handy if I had to use it to break somebody else's window after coming upon an accident.
I guess the trick is to store it in a convenient place where it would most likely stay put in an accident so you could find it quick, yet not be enclosed in a space that you might not be able to open due to damage to the car (like a glove box). I clipped a pretty sturdy sheath for it next to my car seat and hope that it will be there waiting if I ever need it (knock on wood).
That’s an incredible story. I’m glad to hear it did some good, I’m sure more good than we will ever know.
That's if you're lucky. The bodies of unbelted drivers are frequently found some feet away from the crash scene. Or not found at all until the car is rolled off from on top of them.
Great thinking. If a car is underwater and pressure from the outside, per your post, I would suspect the entire window would break up into tiny pieces of glass. What would happen in your case of coming onto an accident on a road? Would the center punch break the entire window or just part of it? If it doesn’t what do you do? I’m also thinking of how not to spray a passenger with pieces of glass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.