no-one is saying (afaik) don't wear a seatbelt. If I've got it right the argument is that the safer it becomes for the driver of the car the more dangerous it becomes for those around them. Of course other drivers have their own car technology to mitigate this so it's the ones who choose not to drive who are most at risk from driving.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.
Which frankly is a bit of a pisser.
I don't know how true to life the film was
It's interesting to read the Wikipedia page for the film - there are a lot of significant aspects of Nash's story that were just omitted or invented; e.g. Nash was apparently bisexual, he fathered a child by another woman who he abandoned, and his wife actually divorced him (they remarried years later). There's also criticism of how inaccurately his illness and treatment were dramatised.
The film makers say they weren't trying to tell his story literally, but when you start skipping or rewriting stuff like this it starts to feel more like a fictional drama inspired by John Nash, rather than an autobiography.
So he's saying seatbelt are contributing to deaths in accidents with other road users. Or am I misunderstanding that sentence?
You probably aren't no. Now you have read it.
But when you posted this.
If people believe that seat belts are of no benefit.... Etc
You were clearly not understanding the anti seatbelt reasoning. Presuming people were believing seatbelts were of no benefit to the user.
thestabiliser - Member
lets not forget that if you wear a seatbelt a lot and are never in a crash, eventually the seat belt will wear through your shoulder and your head will fall off. FACT.
Thanks for that 😀
