70herald said:
Not wearing a seatbelt because of rollovers seems to be worrying about a rare accident type and putting yourself at risk for the majority of likely accidents.
We've had this argument before, I'm not really trying to reopen it. But I have personally been involved in a moderate number of accidents over the years, including my TR3A getting totalled in a 4-car collision, and wearing a seat belt would not have been an advantage in a single one of them. And in one of them, wearing a seat belt would very likely have subjected me to serious injury; while I escaped with only a minor bruise without one.
I was riding in my Mom's station wagon when she got T-boned by a Buick likely doing over 70 mph. The impact pushed the entire side of the wagon in, and crumpled the seat where I was sitting. A lap belt would have cut me in half. Without it, I was just thrown across the car, up against my Mom in the driver's seat. My shoulder was bruised where the crumpled door hit it. BTW, the wagon was also thrown clear across the intersection and up into the yard of the house opposite. We later found grass inside one of the tires!
My Dad was also involved in an accident that likely would have cost him his life IF he had been wearing a seat belt. Lost control of the car in the fog and ran into a pole barn. The 12" log that formed the eave of the roof came through the center of the windshield and took out the steering wheel and B-post on the driver's side. Dad escaped with some minor cuts, where he dove into the broken glass in the passenger's side floor. With only milliseconds to duck when he saw the log coming, I doubt he could have found the buckle and released the belt quickly enough.
Seats belts are certainly an advantage in some accidents, but not even the majority of likely accidents IMO. But then, I'm not in the habit of driving into stationary objects, so YMMV