Talk:Seat belt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Six Point v. Five Point Belts[edit]

I believe the article is incorrect in the discussion of 6pt v. 5pt belts. It doesn't really have anything to do with the anti-submarine straps being redundant.

5pt. belts have a single anti-sub strap that is anchored to a point forward of the occupant. The intention is to keep the lap belt down, so the occupant won't submarine under the belts, but also to not crush the pubic area.

6pt. belts accomplish the same thing by having two belts that are anchored behind the occupant, rather than in front. Again, the goal is to prevent submarining while not crushing the pubic area.

People argue about which design is better, and many pilots use the 5pt. system while many car racers use the six point system. In some cases the choice of the belts can be based on whether there is an anchor or anchors available in the correct locations for that type of system. In other cases, factors such as the angle of the seat and the expected direction of the crash loads can come in to play.

But I've never before seen this argued on the basis of the six points being more redundant than the five points. -- (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pilots don't get to chose their restraint, it's dictated by the govt or airframer. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 00:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup of history, 6/9 2009[edit]

Cleaned up history section, and fixed references. There was dubious sourcing previously and the identical wikipedia wording (which - again - was inadequately sourced) was also present on a number of other websites. Alarming case of some unsourced, DIY author text with \Template:Original research\ going viral on the internet.... Current section should be lean AND properly sourced. DO NOT REVERT, unless proper sourcing!! --RandySpears (talk) 00:16, 7 Sep 2009 (UTC)

Under Doctor's Orders[edit]

I have included a particular personality who had a hand in advancing seat belt, and other automotive, safety features. He is Dr. C. Hunter Shelden, neurosurgeon and one of the founders of the Huntington Medical Research Institute of Pasadena, Ca. (a Huntington Hospital affiliate) I had the privilege of knowing Dr, Shelden before his passing in 2003. I had worked with my wife as a volunteer fund raiser for HMRI and have been honored with becoming the fourth recipient of the award created in his memory for outstanding volunteers.--Magi Media (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested addition[edit]

Could someone please explain why seatbelts in cars and seatbelts in airplanes are so different. One would have guessed that they'd have converged by now, but there must be a good reason they haven't. I just have no idea what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oconnor663 (talkcontribs) 08:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to search (computer) text and find no hint of what MATERIAL the belts are made of. I recall Clyde Soles (rockclimber/author ; _The Outdoor Knots Book_) saying that they were polyester, which has generally better UV resistance than nylon, which has better force absorption. Thinking of belts long exposed to sunlight in cars, this seems a worthwhile aspect to disclose/discuss.

again re: material of seat belts: It is the construction of the seat belt material that is special and causes the force of the impact to be spread out over time by stretching, thus reducing the stress inflicted on the human body from sudden deceleration. Likewise, this stretching only happens once and is not reversible. Thus, if you are in an accident of >10 MPH [unsure of exact MPH] it is necessary to replace the seatbelts in the car that were in use so that they will function properly in the next accident.

Some research should also be done to credit the inventor of the seat belt material (or rather the specific design of the interwoven synthetic fibers) which gives the material it's special strechiness.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeWantPhil (talkcontribs) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"...their passage did not reduce road fatalities" What?[edit]

Under Legislation we have "The effects of seat belt laws are disputed by those who observe that their passage did not reduce road fatalities."

I have no idea what that means. It's the first sentence in the section, but seems out of context, and possibly quite POV (If I am reading it at all correctly). The single source for the whole paragraph is a print document, so I can't look it up easily. Can anyone please explain or improve it? HiLo48 (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

- It can be verified quite easily by simply looking at the fatality statistics, at least here in the U.K. When use of front belts became mandatory in January 1983, it was claimed that it would drastically reduce fatalitites. Almost three decades on, it is claimed today that mandatory belt use HAS drastically reduced fatalitites. The fact is that no such reduction which could be attributed to belts ever occurred. I do not have the exact figures to hand at the moment, but there was simply no statistically significant drop in fatalities in 1983 compared to 1982. The very small drop in fatalities which did occur between those two years on further analysis can be seen to have taken place only in the late night/small hours period, which is hardly surprising given that the introduction of the belt law coincided with a crackdown on drunken driving. The government claims over the last 30 years that mandating the use of belts has saved lives is simply totally false. (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the state of Victoria, Australia, the first place in the world to make seat belt wearing compulsory. It's simply taken as gospel here that seat belts did save lives. I must check the official history to see what evidence lies behind the claim. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Righto. Our article Seat belt legislation says they work. For example, it tells us "Studies of accident outcomes suggest that fatality rates among car occupants are reduced by between 30 and 50 per cent if seat belts are worn." HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The passage of seat belt laws does not in itself save lives, the wearing of the belts saves lives. I wouldn't expect that much change in the early years due to compliance issues (i.e., people simply refusing to wear them). Law enforcement helps but does not catch everyone. I know people even today that don't where them. Statistics are not necessarily the best indicator of effecacy. In the aviation world, where compliance is mandatory and enforced 100%, lives have been saved. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 12:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Part of the problem today is that so many people have blindly accepted the "seat belts save lives" mantra that has been fed to them by various governments over the years that they seem quite incapable of accepting that it could not be true. The study in Victoria which came to the conclusion that belts were beneficial overall was later demonstrated to be flawed and unreliable. Yet so many later reports about the supposed efficacy of belts were bsaed upon that study without any real independent investigation.
Here in the U.K., the government did commission independent research after the introduction of the 1983 law making use of front belts mandatory, which was initially legislated for a trial period of 3 years. The government's own claims about belt usage are that it rose to over 90% in 1983, from a previous level which has been quoted variously at "less than 20%" to "less than 40%." Those figures cover a broad range and have to be questioned, but either way, according to the government's own figures that represents a huge increase in usage. If belts were so effective at saving lives, it would be reasonable to expect to see a significant drop in fatalities. Yet it didn't happen. The research commissioned by the government came to the same conclusion: That making the use of belts compulsory and the huge increase in their usage had no significant effect on reducing fatalties. But that was clearly not what the government wanted to hear, the report was suppressed, and the trial law made permanent in 1986 anyway. The Isles Report, as it was called, was then never mentioned again to the public by the government, and today it's quite hard to find even online references to it. And yes, for the record I am one of those who never uses a seat belt and refuses to be bullied into doing so. Certainly belts may have saved some lives, but equally there are numerous cases in which they have maimed and killed. Comparisons with aircraft are really irrelevant, by the way, since we're talking about different circumstances and aircraft belts are intended to protect against rather different effects. (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Inventor of the seat belt[edit]

The History section suggested that the seat belt was invented by "Dorthy Richardson's Husben" until I cleaned it up. Ignoring the fact that husband is misspelled, incorrectly capitalized, and one would never create a Wikipedia article named "So-and-so's Husband/Wife/Child/Nephew", I cannot find any mention of a "Dorthy Richardson" in relation to the invention of the seat belt anywhere. I assume the author meant "Dorothy Richardson", but there's no evidence that her husband (if she had one) had anything to do with the invention of the seat belt. If no one can back up this dubious claim in a couple of months, then it ought to be deleted.--Subversive Sound (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Seat belts were apparently developed by George Cayley. --Fergie4000 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. No idea what the Dorothy Richardson line was supposed to mean.Rettens2 (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Was Vattenfall involved in its creation? On the wikipage on Vattenfall there seams to be some other info regarding the invention of the 3 point seatbelt atleast that seams somewhat contrary to what is written now? [1] should that be added to this and how?OccasionallyConscious (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"Risk compensation" and "Increased traffic" are not "Legislation"[edit] (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Seatbeltless drivers are in Audis[edit]

There's an interesting line in the section on seatbelt reminder chimes that says 8/10 drivers in vehicles with "seatbelt reminders" that don't wear their belts are driving Audi vehicles.

I don't know how to interpret this (because the cited journal article is in German). This seems highly dubious at worst and fairly off topic at best. Someone fluent in German should take a look at the cite and establish the quality of the study's methodology; I'm seriously skeptical that 8/10 modern non-Seatbelt wearers drive Audi. It doesn't sound right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dubious indeed. The assertion was "supported" by a ref to a Swedish car enthusiast-and-news site, but the specific link provided is no good; clicking it pulls up the front page of the news/enthusiast site. Extensive searching turns up no trace of any such an article on the site, nor does Google searching turn up any sign of the alleged study. Looks bogus; I've removed the assertion (and a couple of other dubious and unsupported ones that look like someone's ignorant hallucination). If this mysterious study ever actually shows up, perhaps it can be incorporated as a ref to support a valid statement. —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


At the words "i love you" clearly dont belong here, maybe someone who knows what they are doing can fix it. (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. A bot had caught the vandalism, but the article wasn't displaying properly. I think I fixed it now. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

who was 1st? volvo or saab?[edit]

there appears to be contradictory information in the article stating that volvo was the 1st company to fit seatbelts to a pv 544 but then elsewhere it is stated that saab was 1st with the gt 750. is there something i´m missing or is one of them wrong? --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing information on injuries caused by seat belts during crash[edit]

This article is largely lacking in information about the injuries commonly caused by seat belts during crash situations. The section on children and seat belts mentions the injuries commonly caused by children wearing adult belts in crashes, but other than that, there's no mention of the topic. and are two sources that could be used as a jumping-off point. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 17:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


The article is also missing a section on seatbelt effectiveness. There must have been research done over the years showing how effective, or otherwise they are. LatchWits (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Insurance industry advocacy[edit]

I think that at least some elements of the insurance industry in the past have advocated seat belts, then shoulder belts, and then airbags to reduce injuries and death, and consequent loss payouts. Does anybody have reliable information regarding this? Reify-tech (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^