Originally Posted by Scary Des
I don’t think you can make a reasonable comparison between seatbelts and life jackets.
When it became mandatory to wear a seatbelt, deaths on the road went down from around 20k PA to under 5k and injuries by a similar %.
In 2002 (last reliable statistics) only 22 people drowned in boating related incidents and the stats don’t show how many of them were wearing lifejacket but if you are one of those people who believe the urban myth about leg straps then at least half were. So introducing compulsory lifejacket would have little benefit.
I wear a life jacket when conditions dictate, I always wear a buoyancy aid when dingy racing, I never wear a lifejacket when doing foredeck on a racing yacht and I will occasionally wear a jacket on the RIB.
The ability to assess risk comes with experience and maybe to gain experience people should wear lifejackets but to make it compulsory is ridicules.
Where on earth did you get your figures? No evidence at all to support them.Just found this on Wikipedia......
The law mandating the compulsory wearing of seat belts for front seat occupiers came into force on January 31, 1983 in the UK.
In the two years following the law there were increases of 14% in pedestrian deaths, 40% in cyclist deaths and 27% in rear passenger deaths, somewhat in excess of Isles' predictions. There was a reduction in driver fatalities and an increase in fatalities of rear passengers (not covered by the law). A subsequent study of 19,000 cyclist and 72,000 pedestrian casualties seen at the time suggests that seat belt wearing drivers were 11-13% more likely to injure pedestrians and 7-8% more likely to injure cyclists . In January 1986 an editorial in The Lancet noted the shortfall in predicted life-saving and "the unexplained and worring increase in deaths of other road users". Shortly after this, legal compulsion was extended indefinitely.
Analysis of fatality figures before and after the law shows:
* a clear increase in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-passenger fatalities in collisions involving passenger cars
* no such increase in casualties in collisions involving buses and goods vehicles, which were exempt from the law
* a reduction in the number of drivers found to be drunk at the scene of collisions
* a reduction in overall fatalities between the hours of 10pm and 4am (peak hours for drink-driving offences)
* no reduction in overall fatality rates outside these hours.
In analysing these results, Adams concludes that there is no evidence of the seat belt law having reduced overall fatality numbers, and that there is evidence of fatalities having migrated from drivers to vulnerable road users. Although the Government argued at the time that the law had saved lives, it has subsequently attributed almost all the benefit for the small reduction in overall driver fatalities to the introduction of evidential breath testing.
Seat belt use is a binary: the belt is either worn or not. Belt laws, which tend to lead to substantial changes in wearing rates over very short periods, would, if the predictions of up to 50% reductions in fatalities are correct, be expected to demonstrate large scale step changes in fatality figures. No such changes have been observed. Whether seat belts reduce fatalities, it is inescapably true that any reductions fall well below the predicted levels, a fact widely interpreted as supporting risk compensation theory.
Also look at the official figures - just under 6,000 deaths BEFORE the law was introduced in 1983 - after there was a SLIGHT drop but other deaths rose as they reckon people took less care behind the wheel cos they were strapped in!!!