Belt Up 1984 - Part 4

July 1984 saw the publication of the first edition of "Thinks!", the Channel Island Mensa Magazine.

The editor Ken Webb, decided to mark the launch with a topical debate - on seat belts. He was annoyed that the JEP motoring correspondent seemed to be lobbying for seat belts rather than having an informed debate about the advantages and disadvantages, and giving equal time to protestors.

In the second edition, two people replied, Rod Bryans (who is standing for election this year) and second was Andrew Christensen. Bryans argued that the government had a democratic mandate to govern, and therefore the government's decision is final.

In the third edition, this debate came to a close with two letters. In one, Gregory Stevens-Cox challenges this thinking, and also provides a critique of the way in which statistics can be spun - those same statistics upon which both Bryans and Christensen placed so much weight. He also demolishes Christensen's argument that injuries from not wearing a seat belt causes extra costs to the taxpayer, and therefore it should be implemented.

The effects of seat belts is lessened by air-bags which are fitted in most modern cars. He doesn't say what "better techniques for preventing injuries" are, but perhaps he had this in mind.

The other letter by Ena Irwin addresses, in  a humorous way, the fact that seat belts are really designed with men in mind. This issue has not really been addressed (apart from the S-Clip, which I don't think ever went into production) , perhaps because all the motor enthusiasts tend to be men. If Jeremy Clarkson had breasts, Top Gear would probably look into it.

On a more serious note, a number of medical journals report that seat belt trauma to breasts after accidents can cause fat necrosis in breasts. Of course that is a better risk than a broken neck and glass in your face, but it shows how the design of seat belts could do with improvement for women.

SEAT-BELTS
Contributed by Gregory Stevens-Cox

The seat-belt issue is far from being as simple as Bryans and Christensen would seem to suggest. May I make the following brief comments, just a few of many points that should enter any evaluation of the matter.

1. The statistics of the Minister of State for Transport are quoted by both your correspondents, with the conclusion "at this rate 2500 people are alive in July 1984 who would have died (statistically) had they not been made to wear seat-belts in the previous months". Linda Chalker & Co. are here possibly falling into the logical fallacy known to philosophers as post quod ergo propter quod (after which therefore on account of
which).

A simple form of this fallacy is the housewife's statement "I did my washing yesterday so of course it rained half an hour later". To express this in another way, I am surprised (and dismayed) that the DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE campaign of the government did not prevent a single injury or death - despite the millions of pounds spent on advertising and the (rightly) harsh sentences meted out to convicted offenders.

2. The Adams report some years ago studied the effects of seat belt legislation in some countries. The conclusion was that in some countries there had been a decrease, in others an increase, in fatal and serious accidents. The report also suggested that there was some evidence to suggest that drivers wearing seat-belts drive slightly faster than previously.  (Seat-belts = confidence = faster speeds)

3. Drivers who do not wear seat-belts tend to sustain dreadful facial injuries (from the broken glass of the windscreen). Drivers who wear seat-belts tend to sustain chest and stomach injuries which are often not as serious as the facial injuries. Seat-belt wearers sometimes suffer the "whiplash" effect which breaks their neck.

4. A great deal of pressure for seat-belt legislation came from the motor-car industry. There are some much better techniques for preventing injuries but these would be expensive and would add perhaps £500 - £1500 to the retail price of cars. Moreover the initial tooling-up would be very expensive for car manufacturers. It is therefore not difficult to see the industry had an interest in the debate.

5. The fact that a government is elected democratically does not logically entail that its decisions are democratic.  This is a difficult topic; see John Stuart Mill's writings.

6. Christensen's thesis about the cost of accidents to the taxpayer can equally be applied to mountaineering, smoking and drinking. Are we going to be consistent?

I have been thinking about seat-belts for some years. On balance I think that the odds are somewhat more favourable for the wearer (see point 3 above) . I only wish that the advocates of the seat-belt would recognise that the issue is complex; that it involves important matters of political ethics; that the statistical evidence is not simple; and that the opponents of compulsory seat-belting are not simple minded loons. A Mensa journal is the
one place where we should hope to have a sensible discussion.

SEAT-BELTS AND SHAPE
Contributed by Ena Irwin

The seat-belt must have been designed by a man for 'it fits comfortably across a firm and evenly padded
male chest. Now some of you sharper eyed gentlemen may have noticed that women are not evenly padded. In fact, they are padded on each side of the chest.

Seat-belts don't fit women and no amount of wriggling and adjusting helps. One side or the other gets squashed.

In my case as I am very large as well as unevenly padded, it is only with great determination that I can get the damned thing done up at all. Then I am pinned tight to the seat unable to take a deep breath; this renders me speechless. (And that doesn't happen often!)

While this strange silence is a bonus for my husband, it leaves me with the thought that it must be possible to design a seat belt with lumps in mind.

I don't use mine, I prefer to breath and let fate take its course.

Belt Up 1984 - Part 3

July 1984 saw the publication of the first edition of "Thinks!", the Channel Island Mensa Magazine.

The editor Ken Webb, decided to mark the launch with a topical debate - on seat belts. He was annoyed that the JEP motoring correspondent seemed to be lobbying for seat belts rather than having an informed debate about the advantages and disadvantages, and giving equal time to protestors.

In the second edition, two people replied. The second was Andrew Christensen whose letter is reprinted below.

In Jersey, the most recent change to legislation was the wearing of seat-belts in the back of cars. States members agreed to the new law in March 2008, and this brought the island in line with the rest of Europe.

Philip Blake, from the Road Safety Panel, commenting on the law said: "In Jersey, on average, every three years at least one person has been killed in the rear of a vehicle who wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Many others who didn't wear a seat belt have been seriously injured. Making everyone wear a seat belt will reduce the risk of serious injury for those involved in crashes."

While the States agreed to the change in law in March 2008, it didn't actually get to the Statute books until April 2009, when it was passed by a Ministerial Order by Constable Michael Jackson. I have been unable to ascertain why there was a such a long delay. It seems that the previous Minister for Transport, Deputy Guy de Faye, who lost his seat in the November 2008 Elections, may have been dragging his heels on bringing the changes forward.

A few facts on seat belts and their history, which begins in the United States of America:

The first seat belts were not installed in cars by auto manufacturers. Early automobiles did not go particularly fast, and there were relatively few cars on the road. As the number of motor vehicles increased, so did the amount of danger. In the 1930s, a number of physicians, seeing the results of traffic accidents, lobbied car makers to create some sort of restraining device to keep people from being thrown from a car in an accident. Several doctors actually designed their own lap belts and installed them in their autos. It was not until the 1950s that seat belts began to appear with some regularity. In 1954 the Sports Car Club of America began to require drivers to wear lap belts as they raced. Soon afterward such groups as the National Safety Council (NSC), American College of Surgeons, and International Association of Chiefs of Police issued their own recommendations for the manufacture and installation of seat belts. The Swedish auto manufacturer Volvo began marketing lap belt in 1956; that same year both Ford and Chrysler decided to offer lap belts as well. Seat belts were not required by law, though, in the United States until 1968.

And now the Mensa article:

SEAT-BELTS .- WHO DECIDES?
Contributed by Andrew Christensen

Dear Ken,

The intention of this letter is to take you to task over your ' defence. of the individual's right to choose to wear a seat belt. Yes, I am all for the rights of the individual and for freedom of choice. Notwithstanding that, certain facts speak for themselves, and in the case of the wearing of seat belts these facts speak loudly. Straight forward - the possibility of suffering, serious injuries or even death while wearing seat belts during driving is greatly reduced. It has taken legislation with the threat of penalties to considerably increase the percentage of car users who use seat belts. The real threat of death or serious injury, even reinforced by dramatic advertising was simply not enough.

In a recent House of Commons reply, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Minister of State for Transport, stated that at present 95% of front seat occupants are wearing seat belts, compared with under 40% prior to legislation being introduced. In the first twelve months of compulsory wearing, there has been a reduction of over 7,000 fatal and serious front seat casualties compared with the previous twelve months.

At the same time, road traffic increased by slightly over 4%.

One final sobering thought is that the present estimated cost to the taxpayer of ONE fatal traffic (motorway) accident is £257,000. Though I would think the cost of a fatal accident on Victoria Avenue is slightly less, the cost in human terms is just the same.

If measures can be taken which do positively reduce the human and financial expense of a road accident, then those measures should be welcomed and not frustrated.

Anyway, I shall wish you many more miles of, hopefully, accident free driving.

With best wishes,

Andrew Christensen.

Links
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/7294687.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/7978801.stm
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/seat-belt-usage

Belt Up 1984 - Part 2

July 1984 saw the publication of the first edition of "Thinks!", the Channel Island Mensa Magazine.

The editor Ken Webb, decided to mark the launch with a topical debate - on seat belts. He was annoyed that the JEP motoring correspondent seemed to be lobbying for seat belts rather than having an informed debate about the advantages and disadvantages, and giving equal time to protestors.

In the second edition, two people replied. The first was Peter Bryans whose letter is reprinted below. It is interesting how some of the arguments that Peter Bryans brings to bear have a modern twist.

Consider former Deputy Gerard Baudains, who is standing again for Deputy in St Clements is vociferous in his opposition to a 30 mile per hour speed limit. Not one for mincing words, he tells us that "once again the Nimbys & Tree huggers have managed to inflict their ill-conceived ideas on others."

Gerard Baudains has his own unique argument for reduced speed limits causing accidents:

How does a reduced speed limit cause more accidents? It's not rocket science. At 40mph a driver is watching the road ahead (or the majority are) - looking to see if a pedestrian is about to exit his / her property onto the road - or a car about to pull out. Maybe some children are on the pavement and playing around as children do. So the driver is prepared.. Now take 30mph. The driver is frustrated. The journey needlessly takes longer as he knows he could safely go faster. In fact, so little is happening so slowly that he resigns himself to 'autopilot' mode, just staring at the back of the vehicle in front and no longer studying the road ahead. Why should he look ahead? It'll be ages before he gets there. All a recipe for accidents.

Really, one has to wonder if a driver is so frustrated that he drives on autopilot whether he should be out and about on the roads at all - perhaps a retake of a driving test would be a good idea! Driving without due care and attention is an offense - has Mr Baudains read the Highway Code recently? How a difference of a mere 10 mph could mean "ages before he gets there" in an Island that is 9 miles by 5 miles is beyond me. If he really wants frustration, perhaps he should try rush hour traffic in St Helier around 9.00 am, when traffic crawls along at between standstill and 5 mph. A clear run, at 30 mph, is not going to take that long, nor be that frustrating! The drivers who speed and would like more than 30 mph will probably zoom along at 45 mph in a 40 mph zone; one passed me on the way in from St Brelade doing around 50 mph on a clear road. What's needed is for measures to prevent speeding, and deterrents for those who are so careless of the speed that they endanger other road users and pedestrians.

Like a conjuror, Gerard Baudains pulls figures out of his hat to support his case:

The 30 signs had only been up a few days when there were three serious accidents, including a fatality.

In fact, this is the same kind of anecdotal evidence that Peter Bryans is talking about. The global statistics for 30 mph show a decrease in accidents, but there will, as he points out, always be the rogue statistics, the outliers, which are snapped up eagerly by the News of the World (when it was being published), and Gerard Baudains today!

In today's JEP, I see that a man has been charged with dangerous driving after a crash along St Clement's Coast Road. Does Gerard Baudains serious think that raising speed limits will prevent this kind of event?

SEAT-BELTS - WHO DECIDES?
Contributed by Peter Bryans

I must congratulate the new editor for conceiving a splendid plan to elicit a response from our generally silent readers. By choosing to write a deliberately provocative article, which brilliantly plumbed the pinnacles of banal naivety, he has demonstrated that at least one member of Mensa (me) will respond to an article which is intentionally lacking in objectivity, common sense and academic irrelevances such as facts and proof.

He asks a simple question - WHO DECIDES? On issues which affect all members of a community, single individuals could only be allowed to make their own individual decisions if we lived in a society of anarchists. Because we live in a democracy the answer had got to be that the government elected by the community decides, after listening to and evaluating all points of view. This decision is then given the force of law to protect the innocent and persuade the ignorant.

A simple fact (which Ken very cleverly omitted so as to generate controversy where there need otherwise be none) is that since the wearing of seat-belts became compulsory in the U.K. the number of road deaths and serious injuries has decreased dramatically (a 31.23% overall decrease and a 28.72% decrease in areas governed by a 30 m.p.h. speed limit) (Jul - Dec 1983). Put another way, at this rate 2,500 people are alive in July 1984 who would have died (statistically) had they not been made to wear seat belts in the previous months.

However, I am sure that investigative reporters angling for a career with the News of the World will eventually demonstrate that someone, somewhere has died because they wore a seat belt - just as instances can be shown of a pilot who was strangled by his own parachute, a Farmer whose skull was fractured by his tractor's safety cab and a hospital patient who had died from the side-effects of a "miracle" drug. All of these instances don't mean that we should ban parachutes, safety cabs, life saving drugs or seat belts - just that God sometimes has a sense of humour.

Mensa brains must be shown to be capable of supporting democratic measures (even paternal dictatorships) which demonstrably save large numbers of lives in the community. Membership of Mensa does not allow us to drink and drive, survive car crashes seat-belt less with impunity or walk on water.

Remember the cemeteries are full of people who knew better than to wear seat-belts - although their widows and orphans have now learnt by sad experience, that collective wisdom was better than their loved ones individual decisions. Ask them WHO DECIDES? they never got the chance.

Editor's Note:
Upon Peter's views I will not comment. On his attack on my personal integrity I most certainly will. He made an erroneous and unwarranted presumption as to my motives for writing the article. I do not use a subject affecting the lives of my fellow humans for the triviality of eliciting a response from Members. Some years ago my life was saved because I was NOT wearing a seat-belt. I would like everyone - including Peter - to have the same choice. That was my sole motive.

Belt Up 1984 - Part 1

July 1984 saw the publication of the first edition of "Thinks!", the Channel Island Mensa Magazine.

The editor Ken Webb, decided to mark the launch with a topical debate - on seat belts. He was annoyed that the JEP motoring correspondent seemed to be lobbying for seat belts rather than having an informed debate about the advantages and disadvantages, and giving equal time to protestors.

It seems strange to imagine now, because we are so used to seat belts as part of our way of life. But back in 1984, the debate was happening in Jersey, and legislation was not on the statute books. TV campaigns had been run in the UK since 1971 and seen in Jersey on television, where popular presenter from "Top of the Pops" and "Jim'll Fix it", Jimmy Saville exhorted motorists to belt up with the slogan "Clunk Click Every Trip". Nostalgia buffs can watch one - which makes clever use of an egg and a tin box - here:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fremvsJnSTM

What is fascinating is that the same kind of argument - which is basically a libertarian one that citizens should be free to make their own informed judgments - resurfaced, albeit in a slightly different guise, when cycle helmets were an issue. For the record, I didn't agree with Ken, despite the fact that not wearing a seat belt saved my sister's life on one occasion.

The piece by Ken was intended to provoke a response, and it did. Later, I'll post the replies that came in the next issue.

THE SMOKE SCREEN by the Editor.

So someone in the Jersey Evening Post decided it would be a good thing if every motorist in Jersey be forced to wear a seat belt. There followed a highly pressurised campaign all designed to convince people that wearing a seat belt is always a good thing. Of course, under certain circumstances it is good, it can save your life or prevent serious injury. But why has no mention been made of the other side of the coin? That, under different conditions, seat belts can kill you or seriously injure you. The duty of a responsible journal is to inform the public not to attempt to brainwash it. A good journalist reports the news, he does not try and make it.

Now, led by the nose, the Jersey States is to introduce a law forcing each motorist to wear a seat belt - even if it kills him/her! I object to legislation promoted by a newspaper irresponsibly taking advantage of its monopoly position. That there exist in Jersey people who, from their ivory towers of ignorance, have the arrogance to play at being God with your life and with mine - this I find most worrying. Only you know the circumstances of your driving - the type of car; its condition; your reflexes; re-action time; alcohol intake; speed of driving, etc. These decide the conditions of the crash. Seat belts play no part in the cause or prevention of crashes - they operate for good or ill only at impact.

Let us dispose of the smoke screen. The argument is not if seat belts are good or bad, they can be both. The only point to consider is:- "WHO DECIDES?" You who know, or those who do not know? I drive a large, heavy estate car. I sat and considered the problem. If involved in a crash I face a ball of fire; a steering wheel going through me; my going through the windscreen. With a large engine and a heavy chassis in front of me and a petrol tank tucked away in the back, I reasoned that the probability of a ball of fire was not great; the probability of being impaled on the steering wheel was also not great; the probability that I hit the windscreen was greater. Knowing the facts I formulated a judgement - seat belts are fitted and I wear them. But that is my judgement and, I believe, it is an intelligent one.

The second car I drive is a light, rear engined run around. There is nothing in front of me but an empty space and a petrol tank six inches from the front bumper. The probability of a ball of fire is much greater; the probability of being impaled on the steering wheel is also much greater; the probability of contact with the windscreen remains the same. On balance I believe that I am better off not wearing a seat belt in this car and I do not. My judgement - my life - my decision.

Remember, seat belts can be both good and bad. Which ? - no one knows !

The issue is a very simple one:-

WHO DECIDES ?

You after an intelligent appraisal,

or

THE IGNORANT APEING THE ALMIGHTY ?

The Editor requests your views. (He can duck ! )