Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:21:57 -0400
Reply-To: Sam Walters <sam.cooks@VERIZON.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Sam Walters <sam.cooks@VERIZON.NET>
Subject: Re: Non-Family Hauler / rear lap belts are much more safe than no
belt - long but read
In-Reply-To: <001c01c45271$d1535ce0$19dc7744@computer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Ed Shotwell wrote:
"But I don't feel that the lap belts that are in [the rear seat of] my 87 & 86 vans are so unsafe that [my kids] can't ride in it. They might not be perfect, but they are
a lot better than none at all."
Chip Turpin wrote:
"I can tell you this much, a lap belt "only" is very unsafe in the back seat. What happens is when you have a front on collision the body folds all the way down to the knees or further and can very likely cause permanent spinal injuries. If you are in the front you would hit the dash and this would keep you from folding to the knees. I have seen studies done on 60 minutes or 20/20 or one off those shows that determined it was safer to not wear a lap belt in the back seat. I'm not telling anyone not to wear a rear lap belt, that's your decision. Just food for thought. Personally, I never wear a lap belt alone."
Then this morning we have John Rodgers story which is supposed to support the statement, "Lap belts are a safety illusion!!!!! Damn dangerous!! Only good for keeping the dead or broken body frm being flung from the vehicle making recovery easier. There is no alternative to a three point restraining system used properly."
John's story actually supports the opposite conclusion as the young woman lived but most likely would have died if she had been flung from the vehicle. All that kept her in was the lap belt. The problem in that situation was the rollover issue that plagues most SUV's and the improper use of the belt.
As will be explained below, the data show that rear lap belts are very effective, even though they aren't as effective as three point systems for all passenger groups. They are particularly effective in vans and SUV's.
Last night, I have spent the better part of the four hours tonight searching the internet trying to see if I can find data to support Chip's assertion that the rear lap belt is unsafe and that it is safer to not wear a lap belt. Except for one old discredited NHSTA non-statistical report, superseded by their own more comprehensive and statistical study, it doesn't seem to be there. All of the data is to the contrary for adults. In fact there is little difference between the fatality rates for adults wearing lap belts and those wearing shoulder lap combinations. Most of the difference in the overall effectiveness of the two types of belts actually comes from the results on 5-14 year olds - those too big for child seats, but not yet up to 'small adult' or larger size.
However, regardless of these differences, lap belts are far more safe overall than riding unbelted.
Of course, seat belts are not adequate for small children and that is why we have child seat laws for them. So let's hope that Ed is referring to children old enough and large enough not to be covered by the child safety device laws. Chip's comments seemed to be primarily addressed to adults.
I found no report in the 20/20 archives that states what Chip says was reported on 20/20. I did not review the archives of 60 minutes since I would have to subscribe and pay for content, but I have been to the sites of numerous state and federal government agencies, citizens safety advocacy groups, the American Academy of Pediatrics, etc., in search of data on this topic. I read summaries of the most recent research by professors who specialize in automobile safety. Not one group or current report asserted what Chip claims was reported on these TV shows.
It is true that lap belts provide somewhat less protection than shoulder/lap belt combinations. There is greater risk of certain types of injuries, i.e., certain abdominal injuries and certain neck injuries, when wearing a lap belt as compared to a lap / shoulder combination. This is mostly the case for younger passengers, not so much the case for adults. But, there is no dispute that there is a far greater overall risk of serious injury and /or death from wearing no belt at all. (There are also very serious risks of injury when only wearing a shoulder belt and not having the lap belt buckled as is possible in some older cars. This is more dangerous than a lap belt alone as the lap belt is deemed to be the foundation of the combination belt.)
This is a vanagon list and the discussion arose over lap belt use in vanagons. All seat belts, whether lap belts or shoulder/lap combination belts reduce fatalities far more in passenger vans and Suv's than in passenger cars. This is due primarily to the far greater risk of being ejected from a van or SUV in a crash relative to a passenger car if you are unbelted. (John, are you still reading?)
The following is from the summary of a NHSTA / DOT report on this.
"The principal conclusions are: back seat lap belts are 32 percent effective in
reducing fatalities and lap/shoulder belts are 44 percent effective in reducing fatalities when compared to unrestrained back seat occupants in passenger cars. In passenger vans and Sport Utility Vehicles, lap belts are 63 percent effective and lap/shoulder belts are 73 percent effective."
Note that lap belts alone are 63% effective in reducing fatalities in vans and SUV's, almost twice the rate in passenger cars, and only 10% less than the rate of fatality reduction for lap/shoulder belts in vans and SUV's. Lap belts alone are 19% more effective in reducing fatalities in vans than lap/shoulder belts in passenger vehicles.
See:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/808945.pdf
if you want to read the details and more about how they calculated the results. There is also information breaking down the results by age and sex, which shows that rear lap belts are almost as safe as rear three point systems for adults.
So, I would strongly suggest that you ignore Chip's advice, because it is both factually unfounded and against the law. It will be better to have a lap/shoulder upgrade installed and get the extra 10% of protection in your vanagon, particularly since those most likely to benefit are in the 5-14 year old range. I will put this on my van "to-do" list. But it would be absurd to ride in the back seat with no lap belt unbelted even if this is the only belt that is currently in your van. And I would suggest that it might be considered negligent to allow your passengers, especially those 5-18, to ride unbelted in the rear or front seat. Make sure the belt is snug across their pelvis, not up across the stomach / abdomen.
I should note that there is a report in the 20/20 archives about lap belts v. shoulder lap combinations in school buses. There is much debate about the safety benefits of belts on school buses, where there are only an average of 10 fatalities per year when there are few belts in buses. But school buses with their high seat backs and other unique characteristics constitute another subject.
Over 5,000 people per year are killed in the U.S. in vehicle crashes who likely would have survived if they had been wearing seat belts.
Far more than my $.02 on this subject.
Sam
--
Samuel L. Walters
Attorney at Law
GIS and Demographic Consultant
Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution
2636 N. Calvert St.
Baltimore, MD 21218
89 Syncro GL
85 Westy Weekender
84 Vanagon, original owner, soon to be retired, just too many problems
All incoming and outgoing email scanned by
automatically updated copy of Norton AntiVirus.
