Talk:Seat belt

Automobiles C‑class Mid‑importance

	Cars portal 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.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about seat belts or seat belt laws. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about seat belts or seat belt laws at the Reference desk.

Archives of past discussion

Archive 1

Six Point v. Five Point Belts

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. --97.113.81.35 (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of history, 6/9 2009

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

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)[reply]

Requested addition

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 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...their passage did not reduce road fatalities" What?

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)[reply]

Inventor of the seat belt

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)[reply]

Seat belts were apparently developed by George Cayley. --Fergie4000 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. No idea what the Dorothy Richardson line was supposed to mean.Rettens2 (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Risk compensation" and "Increased traffic" are not "Legislation"

208.127.128.252 (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seatbeltless drivers are in Audis

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 64.238.173.249 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Vandalism

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#Belt-in-Seat_.28BIS.29 the words "i love you" clearly dont belong here, maybe someone who knows what they are doing can fix it. 109.192.115.151 (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]