She lost control of her SUV while driving west and the vehicle hit a median and rolled over, authorities said. She wasn’t wearing a safety belt and was thrown from her vehicle, landing in a traffic lane where she was struck by a westbound semitrailer truck.
(From the Minneapolis Star Tribune.)
You’re not safer in your SUV if you don’t wear your seat belt! No offense to this poor woman, but you have to be a complete idiot to not wear your seat belt. You can roll your car and walk away with your seat belt on and you virtually always die if you get ejected from the vehicle. Presuming that you don’t want to die I highly suggest that you wear your seat belt 100% of the time.
lolife 
I know what you mean. It always amazes me just how stupid people can be, and not wearing a seat belt is just plain moronic. I love it when you hear the person that says that they don’t wear a seat belt because they know of one case when a person was thrown clear of an accident that they would have died in if they had stayed in the vehicle. Yeah, that makes sense, huh? So let’s pick the ONE case that agrees with our view and run with that. Never mind the thousands of lives that are saved because the person was wearing a seat belt. Now wouldn’t you think a rational person would look at whole picture?
In an article in usatoday they stated:
“About one in 200 people wearing a seat belt would have survived if they were thrown free, which makes the odds 200-to-one.”
So why on earth would someone want to bet their life with those odds against them? It would be like me handing you a revolver with 200 chambers, and I say that we’re going to play Russian roulette. Now you have a choice… either fill up all but one of the 200 chambers with a bullet and play the game, or put just one bullet in, leaving 199 empty chambers. Which choice would ANY rational person make? Yet people will not buckle up and take the 200-to-one odds. Perhaps it’s just natural selection at work.
LikeLike