The safety nuts are at it again

[Dutch Uncle]

It's pretty simple:

The requirements are that there is someone sitting on a particular seat and they are wearing their seatbelt. You want to ensure that the seatbelt is being worn by the occupant to the maximum extent possible.

To do this you need three sensors:

One on the seat to detect weight in the seat, say 50 lbs. or something like that so it can detect if a child or adult is in the seat.
One to detect that the seatbelt is locked in place.
A third could be added to tell the seatbelt was moved from being retracted to being pulled out.

All you need after that is a simple program in something like ladder logic to make things work.

1. There is weight on the seat meeting the requirements for someone sitting in it.
2. The seatbelt was NOT locked in place when that weight occurred.
3. The seatbelt was pulled out after the weight on the seat occurred.
4. The seatbelt is locked in place after the weight occurred and the seatbelt was pulled out.

If you don't meet all four requirements, the alarm goes off. The vehicle does not have to be running to meet these requirements. If the vehicle is not running, the alarm will not sound.

So, if there is no weight on the seat and the seatbelt is locked in place, the alarm goes off.
If there is weight on the seat and the seatbelt was not pulled out after that weight was sensed and locked in place, the alarm goes off.
If the weight is removed, the sequence repeats. You have to unlock and then retract, pull back out, and refasten the seatbelt.
It's all a few lines of code. You could stick it on an 8- or 16-bit chip easily.

This means you cannot leave the belt clipped in place. You cannot use a belt clip as a substitute.

^^^
Conspiracy theorist nutjob. Fears government. Fears vaccinations. Pro-Trump.

 

[gfm7175]

Common sense says you should be already wearing your seatbelt.

I personally advise wearing one and do think that they are generally a good tool to utilize, but it should be a decision left up to the motorist. It should NOT be mandated.

Seatbelts save lives.

Generally speaking, yes, but that's not always the case.

I do not know if I agree with seatbelt alarms,

I'm okay with a short (say, a few quick seconds) alarm (in fact, just the light itself would be enough), but I'm NOT okay with an alarm that annoyingly lasts for minutes, feeling like it's never going to stop.

but I certainly do not agree with not wearing seatbelts.

Could you try rephrasing that in a manner that isn't a double negative (and in a manner that states what you DO agree with instead of what you DON'T agree with)?? For instance, "I agree with the notion that wearing a seatbelt is generally a good thing to do".

 

[Diogenes]

Vaccines would be more like the ban on drinking and driving.

How so?

 

[Diogenes]

I had a drunken driver crash into my parked car. He was not wearing a seatbelt, and so caused himself serious brain damage for life. He sued me, figuring that a jury will take sympathy on him. His lawyer illegally mentioned that insurance would pay all my costs, several times, to try to get the jury to find against me. I won.

​

 

[Into the Night]

yes, Trumpys, you are correct. Safety is bad. Get rid of those annoying seatbelts and safety glass. All the safety regs take away your Trumpian powers.

Extreme argument fallacy.

Ignoring the fact the people put cargo in seats and it doesn't need to be belted (except to shut the annoying alarm off), and ignoring the fact the some people go so far as to disconnect the alarm because of it's false positives, is not about safety, Sybil.

Nobody said anything about getting rid of 'safety' glass (other than you!).

Safety 1st means nothing gets done. No one gets up on that power pole to fix the line, no one runs the machinery to make cars, cabinets, or any other product, no one drives a car or rides a bus or aircraft, and no one even gets out of bed.

A much more sensible method is Safety 3rd. First comes the need to do a job or perform a function. 2nd comes the need for it to be a practical cost for safety. THEN safety makes sense.

Seat belts are a good protection from most types of accidents, but ONLY IF they fit. If they don't, they can be quite hazardous, even dangerous, to wear.

In a bus, they are completely unnecessary. A bus has enough mass that whatever it hits it will tend to go through, decelerating slowly enough for the occupants without the use of seat belts. Injuries are typically none to minor in a traffic accident involving a bus. A bus, however, may turn over, blocking the usual exit doors, so emergency exits are provided on exposed sides.

Working on a 7.2kv power line, for example, as electrical crews often do, has it's own procedures to minimize the risk to those crews. Pay attention to those procedures, and the work is pretty safe to perform, even if you don't have a lift bucket available and have to climb the pole to get to the work.

The phrase 'safety glass' shows ineptitude. Different types of glass are used for different purposes. In automobile glass, they use what is called Tempered glass. When it breaks it comes apart in little cubes that aren't particularly sharp. This type of glass is made by controlling the cooling process.

Another type, typically used in buildings, is Laminated glass. This has a fine wire mesh or plastic laminated between two layers of glass. When this breaks, the glass breaks normally, but remains stuck to the laminate, preventing dangerous shards. It also prevents a gaping hole that is typically left by Tempered glass.

Sure, it makes reasonable sense to be aware of safe practices and safer products. But it is unreasonable to make safety 1st, due to excessive costs and excessive paranoia.

Alarms for seat belts do NOT improve safety at all, and CAN make things less safe by distracting the driver.

 

[Into the Night]

The problem with your theory is that those who ignore safety rules don't just hurt or kill themselves.

It's not a theory, moron.

It is simply being aware that putting safety 1st means nothing gets done.

Getting something done comes first. Otherwise there is nothing to concern with safety anyway.

Safety must be practical. If it costs more to do the job than it's worth, there is no point in doing the job.

Safety must be personal. YOU and only YOU are responsible for YOUR OWN safety. No one can do a better job or has a better interest in your personal safety then YOU DO!

Safety products is a whole industry of it's own, providing better and safer products to help enhance YOUR decision to protect yourself.

Following an established procedure enhances safety on any job. For example, being aware of spacing and placement of traffic control devices for any type of road (including freeways!), so as to be most effective in warning clueless drivers of the work being performed ahead.

ALL construction crews doing road work (and especially the traffic control folks) should never turn their back on oncoming traffic. If they do, they are taking a great risk. This kind of carelessness injures and even kills people. Simply put, they FAILED TO TAKE SAFETY INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. They had the tools, the PPE, maybe a Scorpion, and the warning signs, but they get hurt anyway just by taking that traffic moving past them for granted.

CFR 91.3 says it quite well the proper attitude:

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

In other words, the pilot of an aircraft is the captain of that vessel, and the responsibility of the safe operation of that vessel is UP TO HIM. Safety is the pilots personal responsibility...NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

 

[Into the Night]

Common sense says you should be already wearing your seatbelt. Seatbelts save lives.

I do not know if I agree with seatbelt alarms, but I certainly do not agree with not wearing seatbelts.

Cargo doesn't need seat belts, and cargo is not a life to save.
Seat belts are a good safety device if, and only if, they fit. Otherwise they are DANGEROUS!

Seat belt alarms do not improve safety one bit. They CAN cause an unsafe situation by distracting the driver.

Safety is YOUR OWN responsibility...no one else's.
That said, the driver of a vehicle is the captain of that vehicle. If he insists you put your belt on, you should follow his lawful order. The safe operation of that car is the driver's responsibility.

 

[Into the Night]

^^^
Conspiracy theorist nutjob. Fears government. Fears vaccinations. Pro-Trump.

The Democrat party is a conspiracy, Sybil. It is no theory.

 

[WinterBorn]

It's not a theory, moron.

It is simply being aware that putting safety 1st means nothing gets done.

Getting something done comes first. Otherwise there is nothing to concern with safety anyway.

Safety must be practical. If it costs more to do the job than it's worth, there is no point in doing the job.

Safety must be personal. YOU and only YOU are responsible for YOUR OWN safety. No one can do a better job or has a better interest in your personal safety then YOU DO!

Safety products is a whole industry of it's own, providing better and safer products to help enhance YOUR decision to protect yourself.

Following an established procedure enhances safety on any job. For example, being aware of spacing and placement of traffic control devices for any type of road (including freeways!), so as to be most effective in warning clueless drivers of the work being performed ahead.

ALL construction crews doing road work (and especially the traffic control folks) should never turn their back on oncoming traffic. If they do, they are taking a great risk. This kind of carelessness injures and even kills people. Simply put, they FAILED TO TAKE SAFETY INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. They had the tools, the PPE, maybe a Scorpion, and the warning signs, but they get hurt anyway just by taking that traffic moving past them for granted.

CFR 91.3 says it quite well the proper attitude:


In other words, the pilot of an aircraft is the captain of that vessel, and the responsibility of the safe operation of that vessel is UP TO HIM. Safety is the pilots personal responsibility...NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

I disagree that safety must be practical. Yes, the job needs to get done. But safety comes first.

The problem with not having safety first or putting the burden on each individual worker is that their callous attitude towards safety puts other workers at grave risk.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

seatbelt laws were never about safety, but about revenue enhancement

 

[Into the Night]

I disagree that safety must be practical. Yes, the job needs to get done. But safety comes first.

Then the job never gets done. Don't ever pick up a knife, fork or even a spoon. You might injure yourself.

The problem with not having safety first

It's not a problem.

or putting the burden on each individual worker

Each worker is responsible for their own safety. Each worker has the best interest in deciding their own welfare.

is that their callous attitude towards safety puts other workers at grave risk.

I am not taking a callous attitude towards safety.

 

[Into the Night]

seatbelt laws were never about safety, but about revenue enhancement

Quite true. Seat belts are a very useful safety device, IF they fit. They can be quite dangerous otherwise.

Handing out a ticket over seat belts does not improve safety at all.

Another one is bike helmets. People have been riding bicycles for decades before some asshole in government decided the helmets are suddenly absolutely necessary.

If you want to wear a bicycle helmet, fine. That's your decision, but it shouldn't be a stupid law.