Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:49:06 GMT From: "F Wills" <Fred.Willsnopsamam.starband.net> Subject: Re: EMT's - question for you
<davehinznopsamcop.net> wrote in message news:3c199be6$0$30978$272ea4a1nopsam.execpc.com... > > > My own theory is that even when wearing a seat belt, you > > want your doors locked so that they don't pop open in an accident > > and you get injured that way. > > Yup. You're safer if the car cabin stays intact. If the door is flopping > around, or if you're bouncing around within the car, then the systems in > place to protect you won't help, because you're either hanging out the > window, or in the wrong place for the airbags, crumple zones, etc to help. OK. I'm not an EMT, in fact I've never even been involved in any serious accidents (knocking on wood) but let me play the devil's advocate here. Why would you assume that the door is any less likely to open during a crash if it is locked? I don't get this. For the door to pop open, the mechanical latch mechanism would have to malfunction. Why would that be less likely to occur if it has the lock engaged? > > I can't cite any studies, just personal experience, and I haven't taken > a survey of who has, and has not, locked their doors when we come to extricate > them, - but - a locked door certainly has a better chance of staying shut, > and that's a good thing. The door being locked, won't slow us down *at > all*. Perhaps it won't slow down the EMTs when they get to the crash site, but what about impeding any non-EMT's without the benbefit of Jaws of Life or other Unnamed Spiffy Car Opening Tools (USCOT?) from assisting?
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
