Board logo

Road safety advert. Seatbelts.
owelly - 24/2/10 at 12:15 PM

I saw an advert last night about a blokey who had acrash whilst driving without his seat belt. The ad explains that it wasn't his bonce clouting the screen that killed him or whatever else, but then explains it was his squishy insidey bits that got splattered against his ribcage that killed him.
Am I missing something here? If the decelleration of his ribcage in relation to the rest of his body is the problem, then surely the seat belt wouldn't help?? In fact, using the seatbelt would stop his ribcage even quicker!

UncleFista - 24/2/10 at 12:18 PM

I was thinking the same thing mate

I came to the conclusion that if he'd been wearing a seatbelt, his organs wouldn't have traveled as far and got up as much momentum. If he'd been wearing a belt, he'd have been "held" in place and the deceleration would've been a bit gentler.

Probably all blx though, just like the ad

[Edited on 24/2/10 by UncleFista]

matt_claydon - 24/2/10 at 12:22 PM

See my post in this thread when this came up before:

http://locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=129726

owelly - 24/2/10 at 12:25 PM

Oooops. Sorry. I must have nodded off at the back of the classroom.....

se7en - 24/2/10 at 01:45 PM

I agree with you, IMHO the consequences of not wearing a seatbelt in this scenario would be no different than wearing it. I thought that the advert does not pack the punch that other 'Drink & Drive' adverts.

I don't know it this advert has come up before.

The TV ad that was one of the factors that changed my attitude toward drink was shown extensively on NI TV was entitled 'Never Ever Drink & Drive, Could You Live With The Shame'.

This ad has won numerous awards for its graphic content. I know that my spine shivered the first few times I saw it.

scootz - 24/2/10 at 01:51 PM

quote:
Originally posted by UncleFista
I came to the conclusion that if he'd been wearing a seatbelt, his organs wouldn't have traveled as far and got up as much momentum. If he'd been wearing a belt, he'd have been "held" in place and the deceleration would've been a bit gentler.


+ 1

chasmon - 24/2/10 at 06:44 PM

quote:

I came to the conclusion that if he'd been wearing a seatbelt, his organs wouldn't have traveled as far and got up as much momentum.


Your organs don't build momentum in the time that elapses they lose less than the car.

Seat belts have pre-tensioners to minimise the amount of slack. They then have give to allow lower deceleration rates.

With a seat belt the car hits object and starts to decelerate (rapidly) whilst crumple zone/chassis absorbs impact. Meanwhile seatbelts ensure you decelerate at a rate below that of the car.

If you don't wear a belt the car starts to decelerate but you do not, you continue. You hit the wheel (which gives less than seat belt) and due to the time elapsed while you were travelling forward you and the wheel now have different speeds so you hit the wheel and decelerate quicker than the car until you are the same speed... Ouch...

I have no idea of the relative timing of these things but I suspect if you watch a time lapse of a crash test dummy you'll get an idea.

[Edited on 24/2/10 by chasmon]

[Edited on 24/2/10 by chasmon]

[Edited on 24/2/10 by chasmon]