[Closed] John Nash and wife killed

Tragic

Early reports suggest neither were wearing seatbelts.
A sad loss.

What are the chances?

Who was John Nash?

Nobel winning mathematician and subject of the film "A Beautiful Mind".

Cynic-Al - that made me laugh. Possibly the best death related post I've read.

FFS wear your seat belts people, it's not difficult.

17 year old apprentice from my office was killed 2 weeks ago in a car accident too, not wearing a seat belt. Utterly idiotic thing to do, properly winds me up.

Though the benefit from death belts overall is pretty marginal or negative. The effect is small enough that in the UK car occupants lives saved were outweighed by increases in cyclist and pedestrian deaths.

It is better to be wearing a seat belt if you crash but risk compensation means that more people crash after a belt law. Bad news for cyclists.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/11/05/seat-belts-another-look-at-the-data/

irc
Though the benefit from belts overall is pretty marginal or negative.

B*ll*cks.

Seat belts are the single biggest preventer of death and serious injury to car occupants.

As usual with "ooh-look-i-found-some-data-on-the-internet-and-i'm-going-to-take-it-at-face-value-completely-fail-to-understand-and-research-it-any-further-and-just-come-to-an-erroneous-conclusion" muppets, the entire conclusion of "seat belts don't save lives" comes from a single misunderstood number, namely, total vehicle deaths flat lined for a few years in the 1970s (as you would expect during a time where total vehicle miles travelled increased by 10 times as "social" mobility hit it's stride.....)

I rolled a 2 week old Cavalier Gsi 4x4 after hitting Bambi on the road between Bala and Dolgellau just outside a village called Rhydymain. Apparently it rolled completely 2.5 times coming to a stop on it's roof with me hanging upside down held in place by the safety belt. Would I be alive if I wasn't wearing it? Would I bollocks.

Point of order: [url= http://www.john-adams.co.uk/about/ ]John Adams[/url] isn't just "some data on the internet".

He's an Emeritus Professor at University College London and has (famously) written several books on risk, specifically relating to risk and road safety.

He knows his stuff.

Would I be alive if I wasn't wearing it? Would I bollocks.

The point Adams makes is: "Would you have driven more carefully if you [i]hadn't[/i] been wearing a seatbelt?"

Risk compensation is a measurable effect.

(That's all I say on this because I don't want to start bickering on an RIP thread).

I guess all the traumatic injuries and fatalities I've seen over the years would have still have happened if they'd worn a seatbelt. You know the main thing that would have stopped them smashing into the dashboard or the front passengers.

Risk compensation is a measurable effect.

It's also a way to excuse people from taking responsibility for their own actions.

Anyway, it is somewhat amusing that a thread dedicated to John Nah has resulted in a discussion about "risk". Not to mention a little sad that people are getting distracted from the death of a great man in the usual STW way.

"Would you have driven more carefully if you hadn't been wearing a seatbelt?"

Would the deer have jumped onto the car if I wasn't wearing a seatbelt?
Maybe he was testing out John Adams' theory.
I was doing 40mph when it hit me and I just drove off the road.
Again, I shall say it once more. What a load of bollocks.

That article is totally pointless.

There's been a drop in motorist deaths since seatbelts were introduced but cyclist deaths went up. The two really aren't related except for the increase in cars now putting more cyclists at risk.

The best example of seat belts save lives, is the Princess Diana crash - the
only survivor was the one who was wearing a seat belt...

Classy as ever Al 🙄

GrahamS
The point Adams makes is: "Would you have driven more carefully if you hadn't been wearing a seatbelt?

But unfortunately, there is a much higher overriding principle at work called "Regression to normality".

i.e.

day 1: you don't put a seat belt on, you think, hmm, this feels risky, you drive a bit slower / safer.

day2: Well, i didn't crash on day 1, but it still feels a bit risky, so you still drive a bit safer

day100: You've pretty much forgotten you ever wore a seatbelt

day1000: what's a seat belt?

in effect "No belt" is now "normal" and you will drive pretty much as you did when "belt" was normal. This is because crashing is extremely uncommon. "Normal" is not crashing, and as creatures of habbit we pretty much regress surprisingly quickly to "Normal"!

GrahamS
Point of order: John Adams isn't just "some data on the internet".

He's an Emeritus Professor at University College London and has (famously) written several books on risk, specifically relating to risk and road safety.

[b]He knows his stuff.[/b]

And yet he seems to be using a single non proportional total value to represent an overall level of risk? er, schoolboy error!

For example, as far as i am aware, yesterday exactly nobody was killed by a being hit on the head by a piano? Should we conclude that as such it is SAFE to be hit on the head by a piano?

(no, of course we need to look at the ratio of deaths/injuries for people being hit on the head by pianos, and not take absolute numbers!)

Hmm...this is a difficult one. Which do I think is more credible, the research of Professor John Adams on his specialist subject that he has devoted a lifetime to, or the opinion of a random anonymous poster on an MTB forum?

Don't like gallows humour Pigface?

And yet he seems to be using a single non proportional total value to represent an overall level of risk? er, schoolboy error!

I'd be going on this, personally, doesn't matter who says it, if it's true.

Well captain.... A lot of people would have said the same about Andrew Wakefield..... Not that I'm comparing the two.... But it's always good to hear differing views.. 😉 especially on here...

Don't like gallows humour Pigface?

Humour oh Al you do flatter yourself

 

Awesome, I've started a stats/safety war....god damnit where's TJ!?

Hmm...this is a difficult one. Which do I think is more credible, the research of Professor John Adams on his specialist subject that he has devoted a lifetime to, or the opinion of a random anonymous poster on an MTB forum?

I haven't read anything by John Adams yet, I may well do so now....however

But unfortunately, there is a much higher overriding principle at work called "Regression to normality"

I do think Max has an interesting point here, that may well be totally and utterly wrong.

Stats are all well and good, but Nash and his wife would still be with us today had they been wearing their seatbelts........

Hmm...this is a difficult one. Which do I think is more credible, the research of Professor John Adams on his specialist subject that he has devoted a lifetime to, or the opinion of a random anonymous poster on an MTB forum?

Well, you try the intelligent approach of actually looking at both sides of the argument and then deciding.

Rather than taking one as fact, and disregarding anything else without reading it.

I'm sure there are plenty of other statistics and papers available that disagree with John Adams.

Have you read any of those ?

If you or maxtorque would like to point me in the direction of some, I'd be happy to. AIUI the principle is not seriously disputed, the only question is the size of the effect. And since seatbelts provide absolutely no protection whatsoever for people outside the vehicle, it hardly requires a huge leap of imagination to understand that cyclists and pedestrian casualties may have increased as a direct result of the law, whether or not the occupants are better off.

Put it the other way around: if all cars had a big spike sticking out of the steering wheel towards the driver, do you think drivers would be (a) more or (b) less careful?

The point Adams makes is: "Would you have driven more carefully if you hadn't been wearing a seatbelt?"

Risk compensation is a measurable effect.

Yeah as evidenced by those people who take much greater care when texting, drinking lattes, changing CDs and all 🙄

Maxtorque is right.

Put it the other way around: if all cars had a big spike sticking out of the steering wheel towards the driver, do you think drivers would be (a) more or (b) less careful?

Not relevant. Spike is very clear and present in field of view as a constant reminder. Crashes are rare and the risk is difficult to evaluate. You're assuming people are rational - this is a false assumption.

Sammy Davis junior lost an eye to a steering wheel with a glass dome in the center.
Completely irrelevant.

RIP John Nash.
I don't know how true to life the film was but it is a favourite of mine.

Yeah as evidenced by those people who take much greater care when texting, drinking lattes, changing CDs and all

Well, yes, that's a good example of risk compensation.
They feel safe in their cars and consequently pay less attention to driving.

If they were in that car with the spike steering wheel then they wouldn't be taking their eyes off the road to send a text.

It's a pretty well observed effect. If you improve the safety of a road by making it straighter, with better sight lines, and wider lanes then people will just drive faster on it to compensate.

So GrahamS, do you drive around with or without a seatbelt?

I wear a seatbelt of course. And would encourage others to do likewise. Be mad not to really.

After all, there are all these risk-compensating drivers out there whose behaviour is influenced by that norm.
An individual not wearing a seatbelt in that scenario would achieve nothing, except increasing their personal risk.

Formula One doesn't seem to have been affected by this compensation effect. Drivers don't seem to take bigger risks than in the '80s, despite the cars turning into highly over engineered crash boxes.

I was in a car that somersaulted. My best mate in the rear wasnt wearing one and was very very lucky not to have been thrown out. I was held firmly in place upside down.

I often curse the beep reminder on my car but am a firm believer in belts.

"Yes I was anti-semitic. But you have to remember that I also thought at the time that I was the Emperor of Antarctica".

About 10 years ago, when i worked at Prodrive, Land Rover were using the test track to demonstrate the, then, newest Discovery with the active antiroll system that keeps the vehicle level when cornering hard. They were taking 5 passengers for a lap around the track, pushing pretty hard in terms of speed. In the afternoon, the vehicle ran a bit wider than previously out of one corner, caught the side wall of the tyre on a raised section of tarmac, the tyre deflated, the wheel rim caught the edge and the vehicle flipped!

When the rapid response team got to the vehicle we all feared the worst, it was a right mess, roof caved in, no glass left anywhere, all the corners torn off etc. Amazingly, thanks to seat belts and curtain airbags, there were no significant injuries. In fact, the worst injury, a cut hand, occurred when the occupant was attempting to exit the vehicle as it was lying on it's side after the crash!

I have no doubt in my mind that had the occupants not been belted, several would have been thrown from the vehicle as it rolled and almost certainly been killed or seriously injured. Add in the excellent curtainside airbags (preventing the occupants from getting torn up by the road sliding along underneath), and the accident went from " almost certainly lethal" to "minor abrasions".

it was an entirely un-intentional, but extremely impressive demonstration of the safety technology fitted to modern cars! 😀

I have no doubt in my mind that had the occupants not been belted, several would have been thrown from the vehicle as it rolled and almost certainly been killed or seriously injured.

I don't think anyone is disputing that if you're in a crash, it's better to have seatbelts. The question is if there is a measurable impact at a population level. It's not really any different to the dreaded helmet debates.

I don't have an opinion as it happens, and would be interested in any other academic literature on the subject.

Maxtorqie, would have taken the passengers out for the same test with them not weating belts and the airbags deactivated? No doubt safety features make cars far safer for the occupants but they also allow (and even encourage) more dangerous driving.

I'm very sure that you look hard enough you will find an academic paper written after years of testing and observation stating that white is actually a shade of black and as such it must be black.
Back in the real world, believe what you want. If people believe that seat belts are of no benefit, then let them drive around without. Let's hope their belief saves them as the are smashed up against whatever immovable object they encounter should they be in a bad accident.

I'm very sure that you look hard enough you will find an academic paper written after years of testing and observation stating that white is actually a shade of black and as such it must be black.
Back in the real world, believe what you want. If people believe that seat belts are of no benefit, then let them drive around without. Let's hope their belief saves them as the are smashed up against whatever immovable object they encounter should they be in a bad accident.

[b]"I don't think anyone is disputing that if you're in a crash, it's better to have seatbelts."[/b]

lets not forget that if you wear a seatbelt a lot and are never in a crash, eventually the seat belt will wear through your shoulder and your head will fall off. FACT.

Back in the real world, believe what you want. If people believe that seat belts are of no benefit, then let them drive around without. Let's hope their belief saves them as the are smashed up against whatever immovable object they encounter should they be in a bad accident.

You have completely misunderstood the anti seatbelt argument.

Have a read of the link to professor John Adams that was posted earlier.

You might not agree with it, but at least read it before disagreeing, then you will at least be disputing something he actually said, rather than something [i]nobody[/i] said.

From the link you mention

The step change in the trend suggests that each year since 1983 the seat belt law continues to deserve credit for the deaths of vulnerable road users, who but for the law would still be with us.

So he's saying seatbelt are contributing to deaths in accidents with other road users. Or am I misunderstanding that sentence?

So he's saying seatbelt are contributing to deaths in accidents with other road users. Or am I misunderstanding that sentence?

His premise, as I understand it, is that seatbelts and other safety devices can have the unintended consequence of altering behaviour through risk compensation - which has a direct impact on other road users, especially those who are not benefiting from that improved safety.

In other words, the more invulnerable a car driver feels, the more of a risk they are to others.

If people believe that seat belts are of no benefit, then let them drive around without. Let's hope their belief saves them as the are smashed up against whatever immovable object they encounter should they be in a bad accident.

Which frankly is a bit of a pisser.

I don't know how true to life the film was

It's interesting to read the Wikipedia page for the film - there are a lot of significant aspects of Nash's story that were just omitted or invented; e.g. Nash was apparently bisexual, he fathered a child by another woman who he abandoned, and his wife actually divorced him (they remarried years later). There's also criticism of how inaccurately his illness and treatment were dramatised.

The film makers say they weren't trying to tell his story literally, but when you start skipping or rewriting stuff like this it starts to feel more like a fictional drama inspired by John Nash, rather than an autobiography.

So he's saying seatbelt are contributing to deaths in accidents with other road users. Or am I misunderstanding that sentence?

You probably aren't no. Now you have read it.

But when you posted this.

If people believe that seat belts are of no benefit.... Etc

You were clearly not understanding the anti seatbelt reasoning. Presuming people were believing seatbelts were of no benefit to the user.

thestabiliser - Member
lets not forget that if you wear a seatbelt a lot and are never in a crash, eventually the seat belt will wear through your shoulder and your head will fall off. FACT.

Thanks for that 😀