Another Death - Overturned Tractor

[patrick_g]

Ordinarily ROPS do not support a tractor inverted on them because the typical result is they prevent the tractor from going inverted and it stays on its side. Operators without seatbelts typically fall off the tractor and then the tractor lays on them.

The idea of "not wearing a belt so you can be thrown clear of the accident" is just as bogus with tractors as it is in automobiles. The stats just DO NOT SUPPORT IT! For every driver/operator thrown free of a vehicle whose injuries were reduced there is the overwhelming majority whose injuries are far worse and much more often fatal.

I have seen exactly one tractor inverted on an operator and there was no ROPS. The guy missed one of his tie down chains and tried to back the tractor off of the trailer. The tractor reared up in front pivoting around the rear axle and landed square on top of him pinning him to the pavement with the steering wheel in an instant, way before good reflexes could do anything.

Accidents that would be rolling over on your side and the tractor never going inverted (with ROPS) become tractors rolling over on top of you with no ROPS. With ROPS and not using the seat belt you are free to fall off onto the ground where the tractor can lay down on top of you. IF you have ROPS and use the belt you are much less likely to have a tractor lay on top of you which can spoil your whole day or week or the rest of your life (however brief it might be.)

Speculating on the consistency of the mud on the bottom of a pond and the dynamics of a ROPS interacting with it is way beyond the power of my crystal ball. Any retarding force countering a roll over, even a reduced effect due to the ROPS hitting mud instead of firm soil would be better than an unimpeded roll over of the tractor on top of you, under water or on dry land.

Pat

 

[Soundguy]

The thrown free / jump free issue as it applies to no rops, IMHO.. is still valid.

If you have NO rops.. you DON'T use a seatbelt. Reading the first paragraph of Pat's messages seems to run contrary to that... however.. if you are in an upset.. and have no rops.. and wear a seatbelt you are most deffinately going to be found belted to the seat under that tractor when they find you.

If you have no seatbelt and no rops.. you have a slightly better chance of being found -not- under the tractor...

I'll take 'slim' vs 'none' -any- day of the week.

If ya got rops and seatbelt.. you are that much further ahead at the beginning.. etc..

Soundguy

 

[patrick_g]

If you have NO rops.. you DON'T use a seatbelt. Reading the first paragraph of Pat's messages seems to run contrary to that...
I'll take 'slim' vs 'none' -any- day of the week.

If ya got rops and seatbelt.. you are that much further ahead at the beginning.. etc..

Soundguy

Actually I in no way said what you think I did. My comment (apparently not clear) was regarding a tractor with ROPS but the operator NOT wearing the safety belt. You fall out and the tractor lays down on you.

To purposely and repetitively operate a tractor with no ROPS in situations where one would even have to give the most fleeting consideration to jumping off to save yourself is an incredibly ignorant thing to do.

Since I have a cab which is my sort of ROPS I am in my glass cage and should be wearing my seat belt too. If I don't wear the seatbelt and I did roll over a lot of the tempered glass would likely break and I would be in the same situation as a ROPS and no belt in use operator on a non-cab tractor except I might get glass cuts along with the other injuries.

Pat

 

[N80]

I think the seatbelt issue with no ROPS is this, with a seatbelt on and no ROPS you are most likely going to die. With no seatbelt and no ROPS your are slightly less likely to die. Jumping or being thrown clear is your only hope of avoiding serious injury, might as well give it a try.

Kind of like opening your umbrella as you fall from a high building. I'd be sure it wasn't going to save me, but given a long enough fall, I'd sure give it a try....and when that failed I might even flap my arms a little......

 

[patrick_g]

Right George, it is like playing Russian roulette with a 7 shot revolver instead of a 6 shot version, much much smarter.

It is like having a thousand entrants in a race and bragging about being NEXT To LAST.

Pat

 

[Soundguy]

Actually I in no way said what you think I did.

Actually it does.. here's how:

To purposely and repetitively operate a tractor with no ROPS in situations where one would even have to give the most fleeting consideration to jumping off to save yourself is an incredibly ignorant thing to do.

Not all tractors have rops. Yor messages sets the scene to pre-dispose that all tractors do, and thus to always use a seatbelt.

My point is that if you don't have a rops.. you NEVER use a seatbelt.

here's the specific paragraph from your previous post that I'm making the issue about:

The idea of "not wearing a belt so you can be thrown clear of the accident" is just as bogus with tractors as it is in automobiles. The stats just DO NOT SUPPORT IT! For every driver/operator thrown free of a vehicle whose injuries were reduced there is the overwhelming majority whose injuries are far worse and much more often fatal.

If your tractor has no rops.. then -not- wearing a seatbelt in hopes of being thrown free, or the slim chance you may be able to roll off or jump is your ONLY option during an upset. Your statement above is saying that is bogues.. when in fact it is just not clearly stated to only apply to rops/fops tractors.. and not to tractor not equipped with any type of roll protection.. etc

Soundguy

 

[Soundguy]

And.. would you not take a slim chance of living vs none? I'd take that bet given the alternative -any- time..

We aren't saying a rops-less tractor is safe.. we are saying if you have no rops.. you don't fasten yourself to it as that erodes your already slim chance of jumping or being thrown clear.. which is clearly your only hope in an upset..

On the rops/fops equipped tractor you want to stay securely inside the crush-free zone and hope that no obstacles enter it to compete for space with you.. that's where the seatbelt enters.

Soundguy

Right George, it is like playing Russian roulette with a 7 shot revolver instead of a 6 shot version, much much smarter.

It is like having a thousand entrants in a race and bragging about being NEXT To LAST.

Pat

 

[Egon]

Is there some confusion here??

 

[Soundguy]

No confusion on my part. My point is that if you don't own a tractor with a rops you don't wear a seatbelt. Pat's message 'seems' to say that you always wear a seatbelt and if you don't you are foolish.. that's good advice.. IF you have a rops/fops structure. ( If you wear that seatbelt and have no rops/fops.. it's as good as a death sentence with no call from the gov'ner..... vs a chance the governor will call in at the last moment .

That was the point i was trying to get clarified.

Soundguy

 

[patrick_g]

Egon, NO confusion here, not even before it was explained to me a few extra times.Chances are in a rollover of a tractor with no ROPS and seat belt you will be injured or killed. In a roll over with no ROPS and no belt there is a slim chance you may be thrown clear and not severely injured or killed.

Sound guy

Depending on being thrown clear and not severely injured or killed is right up there with playing the lottery as your only retirement planning. It is such a slim chance as to not warrant depending on it. It is a very flimsy excuse for not installing a ROPS.

I do not disagree at all with the basic math that says something like you have two sets of odds, one is a jillion to one and the other is a jillion point one to one. Any student of arithmetic can see that the one number is larger than the other. I personally don't see that the difference is sufficient to base a safety decision on, as in a good reason to avoid adding a ROPS because of the BIG chance of being thrown clear.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on the value of hoping to be thrown clear in lieu of installing a ROPS. One easily missed point is that of the overly limited choices. There are more than two choices, not just no ROPS with vs no ROPS without seatbelt. There are others such as installing a ROPS or not using the tractor for anything remotely possible to cause a roll over (if you can determine that and have the discipline to avoid other activity.)

Again, I am not particularly math challenged and knew from the start that there is a difference between a very large number and a very large number plus a small number. If that is the point you were repetitively driving home, I got it, each time, even before you explained it. I just didn't think it appropriate to encourage anyone to play the odds when clearly the increased survivability, by such a small margin, is not a justification for going without a ROPS.

In case I didn't make it clear, I agree that there is a small improvement in survivability of non-ROPS rollovers if you DON'T wear a seat belt and would never encourage anyone without ROPS to wear one. That said, I also would never encourage anyone to operate a tractor without a ROPS AND seatbelt.

And one thing I would like to make perfectly clear: Choosing to operate a tractor in potentially hazardous conditions where a rollover is possible with a non-ROPS tractor thinking that you are safe because you aren't wearing a seatbelt and will be thrown clear of danger is about as effective as carrying a rabbits foot.

Pat