3 ms·
These are both pretty terrible arguments, due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_%28physics%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_%28physics%29 Cars have
by Jach 11y ago
These are both pretty terrible arguments, due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_%28physics%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_%28physics%29 Cars have crumple zones for a reason. This is not to say seat belts aren't good, as they along with air bags contribute to impulse, but there's a huge difference between shooting an egg (or person) at a brick wall at 50 mph while naked, vs. encasing it in sufficient amounts of bubble wrap first. I'll gladly sprint into a tree, or ram a bike into a wall, at such speeds provide I or the tree/wall are sufficiently padded. (https://youtu.be/DEP8juRSBRo https://youtu.be/DEP8juRSBRo)
- axaxs 11y agoNeither are terrible arguments. They are not exactly equivalent, obviously. A car does have crumple zones, meant to slow deceleration of the vehicle itself. It is assumed that passengers and objects are somehow attached to the car, such as by a belt device of some sort I imagine. The crumpling effect doesn't help you when you propel into the person in front of you, or as in many cases, through the windshield itself and into something that's not so crumply. You absolutely would not drive into a wall sans seatbelt at 30mph, even with a newer car. You'd be a fool to do so, as you will get injured and MAY not survive said injuries.