4 people obviously because of seat belts. My car doesn't move unless everyone wears seat belts. I have no idea why anyone would even take a chance not wearing a seatbelt. I've used this example so many times to my friends who dont' wear seat belts

car is going 100km/h, your body is going 100km/h
car stops (accident) from 100 -> almost 0 in less then a few seconds

Now what happens to your body that is going 100km/h?? It will take the path of least resistance! ie. out your front window


MrJynx

 

Most I've packed into my car was 4 people, 2 full sized luggage, those 24" sized, 4 backpacks, and 3 carry on sized luggage. And everyone fits comfortably too.

 

I packed 4 people into a Fiero when I was in high school...after that the RX-8 seems roomy.

 

Most states have laws that allow the police to not have to wear a seatbelt.

 

Same number here, but 4 in the seats and 2 in the trunk :D

1.3L

PS just kidding, of course.

 

Sir Isaac Newton would be 100% behind that kind of warning. This is from a comment I posted earlier in this thread:

"...I hope that everyone is aware that it is far worse to have a seatbelt around BOTH people when one is sitting on the other's lap. If flung forward in a crash, the weight of the person behind (underneath) will crush the forward person (on top) as they are both pressed into the belt. It is much safer to belt only the bottom person and have them hold the person on top."

Now sitting side-by-side is a completely different situation than on-the-lap. I'm certain that a decelerating impact will not have the same guillotine-belt effect of one person's weight crushing the other as a belt strapped around an on-the-lap passenger.

I expect that lateral impacts have the worse effect on two people sitting side-by-side because that would force their bodies to slam into each other. Here I am not so sure that the two are any worse off by having the belt around them both versus around just one of them. Now both people belted sitting side-by-side in a purely decelerating impact, I figure that they would gain a decent amount of protection from the seat belt.

Crashes can sure get gruesome. And you can certainly expect the mess to be uglier if extra passengers have been squeezed in. But let's be sure to keep risks in perspective. MrJynx voices the hard line:
Say that you are going to be in a freeway crash. You are given the choice of these vehicles:

1) a Miata,
2) a motorcycle,
3) a Ford Explorer,
4) an RX-8 with no seat belts.

What would you choose? I actually lean toward the no-belt 8. It gives me plenty of controlability to minimize the effects of the crash pre-impact. I'm surrounded by plenty of air bags for when that impact does come. Yes, having no seat belt would suck, but I've got serious reservations about the other three choices:

I pass on the Miata because I don't want to do Def Leppard precussion. Seat belts can only do so much for you. I pass on the motorcycle because if I do die, I would prefer an open casket option. I pass on the Ford Exploder for similar reasons. Those types of vehicles are dying to roll over and play dead.

That's my perspective on it. There are lots of variables that would skew that choice in one direction or another. But the bottom line is that it is clear to me that there are greater risks out there than my rare choice to have a rear seat passenger in my 8 not wearing their belt.

 

I only voice "the hard line" because when I was very young, friends of my parents died in a survivable car accident because of no seatbelts. All of the occupants were ejected from the vehicle and the rest i'll leave to imagination..



MrJynx