- This topic has 48 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by bearnecessities.
-
John Nash and wife killed
-
CountZeroFull Member
Early reports suggest neither were wearing seatbelts.
A sad loss.Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition
Latest Singletrack VideosFresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...mikey74Free MemberNobel winning mathematician and subject of the film “A Beautiful Mind”.
wanmankylungFree MemberCynic-Al – that made me laugh. Possibly the best death related post I’ve read.
j4mieFree MemberFFS wear your seat belts people, it’s not difficult.
17 year old apprentice from my office was killed 2 weeks ago in a car accident too, not wearing a seat belt. Utterly idiotic thing to do, properly winds me up.
ircFull MemberThough the benefit from death belts overall is pretty marginal or negative. The effect is small enough that in the UK car occupants lives saved were outweighed by increases in cyclist and pedestrian deaths.
It is better to be wearing a seat belt if you crash but risk compensation means that more people crash after a belt law. Bad news for cyclists.
maxtorqueFull Memberirc
Though the benefit from belts overall is pretty marginal or negative.B*ll*cks.
Seat belts are the single biggest preventer of death and serious injury to car occupants.
As usual with “ooh-look-i-found-some-data-on-the-internet-and-i’m-going-to-take-it-at-face-value-completely-fail-to-understand-and-research-it-any-further-and-just-come-to-an-erroneous-conclusion” muppets, the entire conclusion of “seat belts don’t save lives” comes from a single misunderstood number, namely, total vehicle deaths flat lined for a few years in the 1970s (as you would expect during a time where total vehicle miles travelled increased by 10 times as “social” mobility hit it’s stride…..)
ioloFree MemberI rolled a 2 week old Cavalier Gsi 4×4 after hitting Bambi on the road between Bala and Dolgellau just outside a village called Rhydymain. Apparently it rolled completely 2.5 times coming to a stop on it’s roof with me hanging upside down held in place by the safety belt. Would I be alive if I wasn’t wearing it? Would I bollocks.
GrahamSFull MemberPoint of order: John Adams isn’t just “some data on the internet”.
He’s an Emeritus Professor at University College London and has (famously) written several books on risk, specifically relating to risk and road safety.
He knows his stuff.
Would I be alive if I wasn’t wearing it? Would I bollocks.
The point Adams makes is: “Would you have driven more carefully if you hadn’t been wearing a seatbelt?”
Risk compensation is a measurable effect.
(That’s all I say on this because I don’t want to start bickering on an RIP thread).
DracFull MemberI guess all the traumatic injuries and fatalities I’ve seen over the years would have still have happened if they’d worn a seatbelt. You know the main thing that would have stopped them smashing into the dashboard or the front passengers.
mikey74Free MemberRisk compensation is a measurable effect.
It’s also a way to excuse people from taking responsibility for their own actions.
Anyway, it is somewhat amusing that a thread dedicated to John Nah has resulted in a discussion about “risk”. Not to mention a little sad that people are getting distracted from the death of a great man in the usual STW way.
ioloFree Member“Would you have driven more carefully if you hadn’t been wearing a seatbelt?”
Would the deer have jumped onto the car if I wasn’t wearing a seatbelt?
Maybe he was testing out John Adams’ theory.
I was doing 40mph when it hit me and I just drove off the road.
Again, I shall say it once more. What a load of bollocks.DracFull MemberThat article is totally pointless.
There’s been a drop in motorist deaths since seatbelts were introduced but cyclist deaths went up. The two really aren’t related except for the increase in cars now putting more cyclists at risk.
chris_jhFull MemberThe best example of seat belts save lives, is the Princess Diana crash – the
only survivor was the one who was wearing a seat belt…maxtorqueFull MemberGrahamS
The point Adams makes is: “Would you have driven more carefully if you hadn’t been wearing a seatbelt?But unfortunately, there is a much higher overriding principle at work called “Regression to normality”.
i.e.
day 1: you don’t put a seat belt on, you think, hmm, this feels risky, you drive a bit slower / safer.
day2: Well, i didn’t crash on day 1, but it still feels a bit risky, so you still drive a bit safer
day100: You’ve pretty much forgotten you ever wore a seatbelt
day1000: what’s a seat belt?
in effect “No belt” is now “normal” and you will drive pretty much as you did when “belt” was normal. This is because crashing is extremely uncommon. “Normal” is not crashing, and as creatures of habbit we pretty much regress surprisingly quickly to “Normal”!
maxtorqueFull MemberGrahamS
Point of order: John Adams isn’t just “some data on the internet”.He’s an Emeritus Professor at University College London and has (famously) written several books on risk, specifically relating to risk and road safety.
He knows his stuff.
And yet he seems to be using a single non proportional total value to represent an overall level of risk? er, schoolboy error!
For example, as far as i am aware, yesterday exactly nobody was killed by a being hit on the head by a piano? Should we conclude that as such it is SAFE to be hit on the head by a piano?
(no, of course we need to look at the ratio of deaths/injuries for people being hit on the head by pianos, and not take absolute numbers!)
thecaptainFree MemberHmm…this is a difficult one. Which do I think is more credible, the research of Professor John Adams on his specialist subject that he has devoted a lifetime to, or the opinion of a random anonymous poster on an MTB forum?
cynic-alFree MemberDon’t like gallows humour Pigface?
And yet he seems to be using a single non proportional total value to represent an overall level of risk? er, schoolboy error!
I’d be going on this, personally, doesn’t matter who says it, if it’s true.
marcus7Free MemberWell captain…. A lot of people would have said the same about Andrew Wakefield….. Not that I’m comparing the two…. But it’s always good to hear differing views.. 😉 especially on here…
PigfaceFree MemberDon’t like gallows humour Pigface?
Humour oh Al you do flatter yourself
Tom_W1987Free MemberAwesome, I’ve started a stats/safety war….god damnit where’s TJ!?
Hmm…this is a difficult one. Which do I think is more credible, the research of Professor John Adams on his specialist subject that he has devoted a lifetime to, or the opinion of a random anonymous poster on an MTB forum?
I haven’t read anything by John Adams yet, I may well do so now….however
But unfortunately, there is a much higher overriding principle at work called “Regression to normality”
I do think Max has an interesting point here, that may well be totally and utterly wrong.
maxtorqueFull MemberStats are all well and good, but Nash and his wife would still be with us today had they been wearing their seatbelts……..
nealgloverFree MemberHmm…this is a difficult one. Which do I think is more credible, the research of Professor John Adams on his specialist subject that he has devoted a lifetime to, or the opinion of a random anonymous poster on an MTB forum?
Well, you try the intelligent approach of actually looking at both sides of the argument and then deciding.
Rather than taking one as fact, and disregarding anything else without reading it.
I’m sure there are plenty of other statistics and papers available that disagree with John Adams.
Have you read any of those ?
thecaptainFree MemberIf you or maxtorque would like to point me in the direction of some, I’d be happy to. AIUI the principle is not seriously disputed, the only question is the size of the effect. And since seatbelts provide absolutely no protection whatsoever for people outside the vehicle, it hardly requires a huge leap of imagination to understand that cyclists and pedestrian casualties may have increased as a direct result of the law, whether or not the occupants are better off.
Put it the other way around: if all cars had a big spike sticking out of the steering wheel towards the driver, do you think drivers would be (a) more or (b) less careful?
molgripsFree MemberThe point Adams makes is: “Would you have driven more carefully if you hadn’t been wearing a seatbelt?”
Risk compensation is a measurable effect.
Yeah as evidenced by those people who take much greater care when texting, drinking lattes, changing CDs and all 🙄
Maxtorque is right.
Put it the other way around: if all cars had a big spike sticking out of the steering wheel towards the driver, do you think drivers would be (a) more or (b) less careful?
Not relevant. Spike is very clear and present in field of view as a constant reminder. Crashes are rare and the risk is difficult to evaluate. You’re assuming people are rational – this is a false assumption.
chipFree MemberSammy Davis junior lost an eye to a steering wheel with a glass dome in the center.
Completely irrelevant.RIP John Nash.
I don’t know how true to life the film was but it is a favourite of mine.GrahamSFull MemberYeah as evidenced by those people who take much greater care when texting, drinking lattes, changing CDs and all
Well, yes, that’s a good example of risk compensation.
They feel safe in their cars and consequently pay less attention to driving.If they were in that car with the spike steering wheel then they wouldn’t be taking their eyes off the road to send a text.
It’s a pretty well observed effect. If you improve the safety of a road by making it straighter, with better sight lines, and wider lanes then people will just drive faster on it to compensate.
GrahamSFull MemberI wear a seatbelt of course. And would encourage others to do likewise. Be mad not to really.
After all, there are all these risk-compensating drivers out there whose behaviour is influenced by that norm.
An individual not wearing a seatbelt in that scenario would achieve nothing, except increasing their personal risk.Tom_W1987Free MemberFormula One doesn’t seem to have been affected by this compensation effect. Drivers don’t seem to take bigger risks than in the ’80s, despite the cars turning into highly over engineered crash boxes.
horaFree MemberI was in a car that somersaulted. My best mate in the rear wasnt wearing one and was very very lucky not to have been thrown out. I was held firmly in place upside down.
I often curse the beep reminder on my car but am a firm believer in belts.
MrWoppitFree Member“Yes I was anti-semitic. But you have to remember that I also thought at the time that I was the Emperor of Antarctica”.
maxtorqueFull MemberAbout 10 years ago, when i worked at Prodrive, Land Rover were using the test track to demonstrate the, then, newest Discovery with the active antiroll system that keeps the vehicle level when cornering hard. They were taking 5 passengers for a lap around the track, pushing pretty hard in terms of speed. In the afternoon, the vehicle ran a bit wider than previously out of one corner, caught the side wall of the tyre on a raised section of tarmac, the tyre deflated, the wheel rim caught the edge and the vehicle flipped!
When the rapid response team got to the vehicle we all feared the worst, it was a right mess, roof caved in, no glass left anywhere, all the corners torn off etc. Amazingly, thanks to seat belts and curtain airbags, there were no significant injuries. In fact, the worst injury, a cut hand, occurred when the occupant was attempting to exit the vehicle as it was lying on it’s side after the crash!
I have no doubt in my mind that had the occupants not been belted, several would have been thrown from the vehicle as it rolled and almost certainly been killed or seriously injured. Add in the excellent curtainside airbags (preventing the occupants from getting torn up by the road sliding along underneath), and the accident went from ” almost certainly lethal” to “minor abrasions”.
it was an entirely un-intentional, but extremely impressive demonstration of the safety technology fitted to modern cars! 😀
ransosFree MemberI have no doubt in my mind that had the occupants not been belted, several would have been thrown from the vehicle as it rolled and almost certainly been killed or seriously injured.
I don’t think anyone is disputing that if you’re in a crash, it’s better to have seatbelts. The question is if there is a measurable impact at a population level. It’s not really any different to the dreaded helmet debates.
I don’t have an opinion as it happens, and would be interested in any other academic literature on the subject.
nickjbFree MemberMaxtorqie, would have taken the passengers out for the same test with them not weating belts and the airbags deactivated? No doubt safety features make cars far safer for the occupants but they also allow (and even encourage) more dangerous driving.
ioloFree MemberI’m very sure that you look hard enough you will find an academic paper written after years of testing and observation stating that white is actually a shade of black and as such it must be black.
Back in the real world, believe what you want. If people believe that seat belts are of no benefit, then let them drive around without. Let’s hope their belief saves them as the are smashed up against whatever immovable object they encounter should they be in a bad accident.
The topic ‘John Nash and wife killed’ is closed to new replies.