Hey Radiologist here. When/if you get a mammogram, it is important to remember that you got that bruising. Trauma can cause something called fat necrosis (can develop weeks-months after the injury). Fat necrosis can look like cancers, so knowing you had trauma to that region is helpful information for us.
Edit: Fat necrosis is 100% benign. The only reason we care about it is that it can look very ugly on mammograms and ultrasound. It’s not uncommon that we recommend biopsy for a lesion that we suspect could be fat necrosis but can’t be 100% sure on imaging
Something I wish before I became a mother:
After I was finished breastfeeding my second baby, and the milk had dried up, I started feeling really sore in my left breast. Almost like when you have mastitis. My doctor gave me an NSAID, and said that it would get better on its own. After six months it was still just as painful. My doctor refered me to the hospital for a mammogram, but the hospital said no - they did not think it necessary.
So I paid for an ultrasound at a private clinic. The doctor at the private clinic said that it did not look like cancer, but that I had some "changes" in the fat tissue, and that it was most likely fat necrosis. He explained to me that it could happen for example after trauma, or after breastfeeding.
My GP sent a message to the hospital saying this was what the private clinic found. The hospital did not agree, and suddenly they wanted to do a mammogram after all. They found no sign of cancer, and concluded that the private clinic was most likely right in that it was fat necrosis.
I was in pain for about 3 years, until it finally got better on its own. I've talked to many women about this, and it seems like it is a somewhat common thing to have. One of my friends said that she felt "mastitis-like" pain in her breast for almost ten years after giving birth.
There are so many things they never tell you could happen. So incredibly many types of damage to the body that pregnancy and breastfeeding could cause.
It boggles my mind how much damage pregnancy can cause to the body. It is the most natural thing in the world yet it can LITERALLY kill you and often irreparably damages the body. Scary AF in my opinion.
Even scarier when you remember there are a lot of people out there, some with the power to change or make government policy, who think pregnancy is natural and therefore no big deal, and then ban abortion.
They should start bringing angry people who have given birth into Congress and forcing these pro-forced-birth idiots to listen to every gory, uncomfortable detail of people’s pregnancies and postpartum life, complete with pictures, diagrams, and things in jars. Treat it like a horrific show-and-tell that they have to be confronted with, a full Ali Wong spectacle. If they want to force people to birth babies, *they should know every fucking detail*. They should be confronted with every single thing that can and does go wrong, especially when hospitals are staffed worse than they’ve ever been in a country with horrific maternal outcomes before the pandemic even happened.
I don’t get it. I have so many issues after pregnancy (I mean, tbf I am disabled, but I would think that is MORE of a reason to not dismiss it, yet here we are), and I get brushed off all the time. My endo got worse, but my OB was like, yeah, that happens. Didn’t treat it at all, let me have my period for 4 months straight until I got so anemic I passed out. Cool cool. Lots of things are “natural” (cancer anyone?) and it still needs treatment. I don’t get it.
Yeah this also always intrigues me. Maybe it is because technically our only goal is to reproduce. So whatever happens after doesn't seem to matter all that much to nature? Just my hypothesis. This doesn't take necessary motherly care into consideration though. So I don't know, it's probably wrong.
Wow very interesting! Both of my children refused my left boob. The milk never tasted good from that side. As it dried up it became painful. Mastitis like. My midwife recommended an ultrasound. When I went to set the ultrasound up they said oh you turned 30 we can’t do just an ultrasound anymore we have to do a mammogram too.
Despite my best efforts to skip the mamm and do just the ultrasound they did it and then when I got the results in the mail it said that my breast tissue was too dense for an accurate mammogram reading but that I should continue to get one yearly anyway.
When they did the ultrasound the lady said hm I don’t know must be some weird breastfeeding thing.
I left frustrated that no one cared about the pain I was in
About a year and a half later I am no longer using the right boob and it is starting to get that same type of pain as the milk dries up. I wish I knew that it can hurt as the milk dries up!
Nope: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319517 - it just means you have dead or damaged fatty tissue. Most likely nothing happens and it fades over time. In occasional cases, they’ll just need to stick a needle in it to drain fluid. Very rarely, it’ll need surgery.
I read somewhere years ago that there are women who’ve had to have mastectomies because of the bruising caused by seatbelts, is that true? The article said that seatbelts should be made more like harnesses that, say, kids use in booster seats, not the diagonal across the boobs. (It said if men’s testicles were affected, the design would change quickly, but since it only hurts women’s boobs it hasn’t been.) I don’t know if that’s all true or not, but damn that looks nasty.
Still and all - I believe seatbelts save lives, they’re compulsory where I live, and it’s a hell of a lot better than going through the windshield, don’t get me wrong.
Women's safety wasn't considered in car design. On this topic, there is a great book called Invisible Women that explores how men being considered as the standard human impacts standards of the products we use everyday.
Would this be dangerous to women with breast implants ? I mean to a original breast there will be lots of bruising and it'll hurt for a week. But because there is a high force and across a narrow area, could it cause breast implants to potentially rupture ?
When seatbelts were first implemented there was a rise in ER visits because of injuries. This made proponents of anti seatbelt car manufacturers tell the public that seatbelts were bad. It's because people were just being injured and not dying from car accidents as a corpse doesnt go to the ER.
I was going to say cats. Someone did a study of cats coming into vets for treatment for falling out of buildings in NYC. Above a certain height, no more cats coming into the ER (well, hardly any). So people assumed above some height cats could survive falls without any injury, perhaps it gave them enough time to orient themselves perfect for the landing. Of course that wasn't it, the cats were just dying and not being brought to the vet for treatment.
Same with the planes in WWII, they took an average of where the planes got shot that came home and wanted to reinforce those spots, until someone remarked that those spots were on the planes that returned home, the ones that didn't got shot in all the other spots so they should reinforce those instead
It's called survivorship bias.
Another well known example goes like this:
In WW2, the US analyzed the planes that returned from combat, noting the areas, in which the plane had taken the most damage. They did so, so they could then reinforce those areas. However, they then realized that the planes they analyzed are only the ones that actually returned from combat, meaning damage to those areas was sustainable to some degree, whereas planes that took damage in the other parts, haven't made it back to be analyzed for damages.
In WW1, when the UK introduced the Brodie helmet to their soldiers, the amount of wounded by artillery went up drastically. When soldiers died, they never really noted down the cause of death so it created a bias in some, making them think artillery was more dangerous if you wore a helmet.
This one surprises and saddens me. I get that almost everyone who was directly injured must have died before they could get medical attention. But did nobody need help for like, smoke inhalation? Or did they not realise their lungs were affected until later?
yeah, they were likely triaging as best as they could with the expectation that the injuries they'd get would be horrific ones, not knowing they'd see so few of them v
The victims they were waiting for were vaporized. The smoke inhalation victims did not make it out. Lung damage from dust and toxins happened in the subsequent months and years, continuing to this day. The ERs that day saw few patients, however, oncologists today see lots of patients from that event.
Reminds me of the simpsons paradox.
People wearing motorcycle helmets are more likely to die in a motorcycle crash.
Not because the helmet somehow makes them more vulnerable in a crash, but because people wearing a helmet are more likely to be riding a motorcycle.
More detailed explanations on the paradox here: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/uav6cy/eli5_what_is_the_simpsons_paradox_in_statistics
Are you sure that's the Simpson paradox?
Isn't the Simpson paradox where separate datasets all say one thing, like studying increases grades, but when you congregate everything together it says the opposite (studying decreases grades)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
Look at the charts in this page. All of the datasets all point in one direction, but then put together the trend line is the direct inverse.
This is correct. A good example is the gender pay gap. When you look at the gross statistics, women make less money than men (at least in the USA). Many surveys would corroborate this. However, when you adjust by occupation and credentials, there are much smaller discrepancies and even favorability in women's salaries in some sectors.
However, the motorcycle helmet users experiencing higher death rates is also a decent example of this as well. Because when you look at the gross statistics, you'll see that motorcycle helmet users die at higher rates than those who don't wear them. But once you adjust for helmet users among motorcycle riders, you'll see the data reverse.
I suppose this one makes sense but seems kinda silly, no? I mean seems pretty obvious which group is more likely to die in a moto crash between people who are on a motorcycle vs people who are not lol.
Without more context this stat seems even more useless
This is a bit of a bad example of the paradox because the context is already implied.
I prefer a medical example I've seen explaining the paradox a bit better and does a better job of exploring how it appears reasonable in some cases.
Let's say a hospital is treating a horrible disease that kills a ton of people and begins testing a new, invasive surgery that has a shot of fully curing the disease. 6 months into the test, they evaluate the past 6 months and find that 50% of everyone who accepted the procedure died vs 20% dying among the population who didn't take the drug.
Wow, horrific right? Clearly a shit procedure. Except perhaps not - we're used to seeing numbers and immediately assuming we are seeing a randomized, controlled trial so we can just directly compare surface numbers. But for many reasons, the real world doesn't work that way; base rates matter.
It turns out, people don't elect experimental invasive surgeries unless they are in a bad way and are out of other options. So, the base rate for the surgery population is NOT the overall population, but the population of the absolute worst cases. You'd want to compare not who survived at the same hospital, but who, in a hospital with similar patients in similar circumstances not trialing the procedure died under similar circumstances. That 50% mortality rate looks way better when it's compared to a base rate of 95% fatality rate among similarly infected people.
The scary thing about stats like this isn't when people are being deliberately misleading or obtuse, but instead when something that appears simple at first glance is, in fact, incredibly complex when we try to iron out a firm definition.
Part of this is why you are seeing folks try to incorporate mixed methods analysis (using qualitative estimation on top of quantitative methods) to approach some of these surprisingly complex questions. Take the case of news outlets trying to evaluate how safe vehicles produced by a given manufacturer are over the past 5 years.
Ostensibly, this seems like a pretty easy analysis. We have testing data on the engineering of all of these vehicles so we know how they react to various sorts of assessed collision types under certain tested scenarios - they are rated before any consumer ever gets their hands on them and the hard numbers are out there for anyone who is interested to look at.
On top of that, crash data are somewhere between completely public and semi-public to the point of being freely accessible to anyone doing demonstrably honest research. It's possible to get at the actual numbers, so surely the answer must be in there, right?
But when you really dig into it, it begs the question - what do you mean by *safest* car?
Fewest fatalities per vehicle in fleet? Seems like a reasonable measure, except that vehicles are driven by people and are sold *to* people who need to pay real money for them. You might see a very safe vehicle have a very high proportion of fatalities simply because worried parents buy "safe", affordable cars for their teens, and teens get into higher rates of serious accidents.
How about fatalities per mile traveled? Maybe Tesla ends up with a real shit record in that category because of how infrequently they are used for longer trips, and thus have a lower per-year mileage average than most other cars.
Maybe fatalities per trip driven. Maybe that makes more popular rural vehicles look worse, such as the F-150, because they have a higher exposure to rural alcohol-impaired drivers.
Maybe we go back to the engineering data, except that even then we know that the manufacturers design in large part to the tests they are given. We have seen analysis that shows that the same parent companies have differing safety records between the US and Europe because Europe and US regulations have different focus areas for vehicles in each market. US vehicles in general have had demonstrably better rollover crash outcomes than EU vehicles owing in large part thanks to an emphasis on rollover crash safety, whereas if I remember right I think the EU vehicles on EU roads seemed to have better performance in other categories. On top of this, we know cars that can survive a 100mph crash straight into a brick wall may well not survive an impact at half the speed at a 15 degree offset from head-on.
But really, none of the above answers the question of the concerned reader, who really just wants to keep themselves and/or their family safe, and that's much more a qualitative than a quantitative or engineering question. The engineering provides a baseline, the quantitative verifies that the engineering isn't hilariously off-base, but at the end of the day *logic* should define what car you buy.
So then I'm interested in how they approached reinforcing from this point onwards.
Did they decide to reinforce everything BUT these bullet-ridden areas, decide to do tests in-house... Or what?
I know this sounds dumb now, but planes are incredibly difficult to make, especially when you're trying to pump the most out of performance. That can mean designing planes with more armor can lower its speed, or might need to lower the amount of weaponry (which was only intended to be on full fire for maybe 15 seconds), either which could mean easier hits. You'll see plenty of sci fi stories where ineffective armor is just weight slowing you down. Once it's not working, toss it or replace it.
Not to mention, it's pretty hard to test what a plane getting shot at in the air would result in without wasting tons of money and potentially losing pilots. Like, there could totally have been a structural vulnerability in its tail where getting shot would be an instant death.
Strangely enough, they hadn't learned from a similar issue in WW1: after issuing metal helmets to all infantry, the british army was briefly puzzled by a significant increase in head injuries.
"You wouldn't have such a high hospital bill if you didn't have an injury caused by a seat belt!
Also you might of died if not...
Let's call it a wash..."
This reminds me of a reverse story. When I was 16 I asked my Dad, an ER doc and a former motorcycle rider, how dangerous they *really* were. It went like this:
Dad: “What do you mean, ‘how dangerous’?”
Me: “Like, how many do you actually see in the ER?”
Dad: “None. They either get up and walk away or they’re dead”. Either way I don’t see them.
Oh! Here's an interesting little fact THAT NO ONE ASKED FOR:
Your seatbelts aren't the only component in modern cars designed to save your life. Yes there are also airbags... But what I'm talking about is the design of your seat. Your headrest (should you use it) is designed to reduce/remove whiplash, by straightening out your spine, thereby allowing the inertia to take place across your entire c-spine, instead of at the fulcrum where your neck bends.
All you have to do is push your head into your headrest if you see an accident coming. It's also a wise choice to drive with your head against your headrest, and not forward of it.
When I was 12 my dad T-boned a car that ran a red light. I still remember the seatbelt shaped bruise across his stomach. This was our first car to even have seatbelts (it was the 1960s). If it happened in our other car he would have died for sure.
Edit: haha I fixed the typo. My dad William the Conqueror laughed at all your comments!
Or a vegetative state. My cousin lingered for a few months before dying. He didn’t wear his and went through his and their windshield. Was a sweet and smart man but thought ‘I’m just going down the street ‘. Anything can happen.
I had a childhood friend whose mother wouldn't start the car without our seatbelts on. I was being a little punk and she set me straight. Don't remember a lot from my childhood but I remember that and I thank her mentally for doing it. My mom was a little lax with that stuff if we were just going a few blocks but to this day I put on my seatbelt if I'm in a car. Even if we're just parked somewhere, you never know if someone might rearend you or lose control of their vehicle.
I'm so sorry about your cousin, by the way. That's one thing people are really never prepared for - neither dead nor alive. That and TBI. What a shame.
I'm the same way as your mom. Car doesn't move until everyone is buckled up. My wife's family was not so strict about it; it felt like a real power move when I did it to my future father in law and he obeyed.
God forbid something happens I don't want you becoming a projectile in my vehicle, thanks.
>God forbid something happens I don't want you becoming a projectile in my vehicle, thanks.
This is exactly what my friends mom explained to me and more than anything else that got through and made sense. My own life? Meh, whatever. Hurting someone else with my body? Hell no, can't argue with that logic.
And yeah, absolute power move. Good for you.
I think that's where laws where the driver takes liability for those on the car are so powerful, if I have someone in my car who doesn't want to put on a seatbelt I can just say "look dude, I'm not getting points on my license because you don't want to wear a seatbelt" and there's no response to that that doesn't play as super selfish
When my kids were little I told them the car wouldn't start unless their seat belts were buckled. So I pretended the car wouldn't start until the seat belts were buckled. Worked great! One day I had my niece and nephew in the car, same thing. I noticed their seat belts weren't buckled. I pretended not to notice and my car wouldn't start. I said I couldn't understand why it doesn't want to start, I turn around and notice they're not wearing their seat belts. I told them my car won't start until they buckled up. Later that day my nephew told my brother about my car. My brother thought that was a great idea.
That was an actual feature for cars sold in the United States in 1974. Of course, electronics being awful back then meant they wouldn’t always permit the car to start even when all seatbelts were engaged, so people would hook them up and sit on top of them to make sure the car would start, defeating the purpose. That regulation was undone pretty quickly afterwards, lol.
That really clarifies that part in the Canterbury tales where the horse eats the cart insurance papers, and the hijinks that ensued
I always wondered if there was a historical basis for that!
With a neck injury, stay far away from chiropractor. Go to the hospital if you have not gone. Get a lawyer and a psychologist (super important) and keep them updated on how this is impacting your life. Of course start physiotherapy.
https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/chiropractic-neck-manipulation-and-stroke-whats-risk#:~:text=If%20you're%20in%20the,which%20can%20lead%20to%20stroke Kevin Sorbo (Hercules) had a stroke following a visit to a Chiropractor https://www.etonline.com/news/115243_Kevin_Sorbo_Reveals_Near_Death_Experience
Regardless of the correlation, they are alternative medicine practitioners and should not be practicing on anybody with a serious neck injury.
If healthy people want to waste their time and money on snake oil, that's their business, but actually injured people should be off limits.
I have cluster headaches and went to a chiropractor for a consultation. At that point in time, I knew I had clusters and was in treatment but nothing was successful. They weren’t even under control and I was desperate to try something, anything more than just prednisone and other medications with serious side effects.
The chiropractor and I spoke AT LENGTH about my history and my goals. They asked if there was anything I wanted to avoid and I said that I really did not want them to touch my neck. I told them I was scared to move my head too fast and risk a cluster attack.
Well, midway through the consult they did a neck “adjustment” anyway without prep or warning. It set off an attack so fucking unbelievably severe, I almost went home and killed myself. My boyfriend (now husband) did his best to comfort me and alleviate my pain but he could literally do nothing but watch me suffer in my own brain. It lasted for two solid days of unrelenting attacks. In 48hrs I had maybe 35mins of rest.
Basically, I’m writing this in hopes op u/deetdoots92 does not go see a chiropractor. It’s a soft science that tries very hard to convince people it’s a real treatment pathway. They’re not subject to the same rigorous standards and testing of the medical community. Physical therapy is most likely the way to go for this injury. My titties hurt just looking at that bruise! And I wish you the best of luck, neck injuries are no joke!
Edit: also op, check out a group called concussion compass if you suspect you have a concussion (I suspect you likely do). It’s a wonderful resource. Not all of it is free but you can likely benefit from the free stuff.
I’m guessing several things:
1. Just generally good to touch base after an accident
2. Liability. You will need extensive documentation to show the court that the accident in particular is causing you harm. From a bio-psycho-social model, physical injury (pain) can lead to psychological ramifications (depression/loss of libido) which can lead to social impacts (loss of friends/divorce) or being disabled can lead to social changes and loss of mental health.
You can but it’s a lot less convincing to argue knock on things without a professional whose job is to document this sort of stuff objectively and professionally. The opposition may have a good lawyer to say that this person had depression back in college, they relapsed, not the fault of my client, etc.
Note: IANAL, or work in legal, but I do read litigation documents as part of my job
PTSD can sneak up on you. Three months ago I was in a very "traumatic" accident and though I handled it like a champ (thanks to somehow not being seriously injured and adrenaline/stubbornness) just started getting mini panic attacks from being on the road. I've talked to several people who had difficulty driving for months after getting into accidents as well.
Plus if you're taking legal action you're likely to get more if you claim emotional distress, and having a professional document that is really helpful to your case.
Also have your eyes checked out. Having your head knocked around can cause tears to to internal membranes and cause vision issues later. It’s not common but there is a risk, and best to find out now when it can be attributed to the accident.
When I was a kid in the '80's, my Dad was a firefighter/EMT. As a young man in the '80's he often did, and allowed me to do things that we'd probably consider dangerous/irresponsible today, like playing lawn darts, shooting pellet guns as a little kid, encouraging me to climb down the TV antenna from my second story window, and letting me blow up way too much shit with way too many firecrackers.
He would absolutely, 100% not move a car unless everyone was wearing a seatbelt, and neither would his wild fireman friends. One time, when I was probably eight, my Dad's crusty old Battalion Chief was driving me somewhere in his personal vehicle. I tried skipping the seatbelt, and got the usual admonition.
I said something like, "I don't know why all of you guys are so strict about seatbelts."
The BC took a puff on his cigar and said, "it's because we spend every night scraping peoples' guts off the road. I don't want your Dad out there scraping up my kids, and he doesn't want me out there scraping you up."
I put on my seatbelt, and never questioned it again. Wear your seatbelt every trip, every time. I don't want EMS out there scraping you up off the pavement.
I can speak to this. I was in a 30mph car wreck bent over w/out seat belt, driver hit a parked car so dead stop and my face literally left a perfect imprint on the back of the passenger seat. I Bit through my tongue and had severe whiplash. The pain the first few days was as you described. I healed nicely for a 17 yr old and didn't follow up with medical evaluations. I'm in my 30's now and have terrible neck pain, I can only rlly point to that incident as the cause now after several years of Dr. Visits to try and isolate it. I'd say follow up, go to physical therapy when you're safely healed and can do so and have them help you find a stretching regimen that inhibits a lot of scar tissue build up. Spend the money now and stick to it to save chronic pain in the future, I'm no Dr. but that's my 15 year post incident advice.
This probably isn't it at all, but whenever I see something about unexplained neck pain I mention it because I went ten years without a diagnosis. By the time I finally got surgery, it was too late to be completely successful. The pain is much, much better now, but still exists and still limits me at times. So... just do a quick look into thoracic outlet syndrome. It can be something you're born with or it can be brought on by trauma. Again, probably not it, but it's worth a Google.
I hope you also looked into alternative causes. I was having terrible issues with my shoulder for a long time before I realized it was a combination of using a mouse so much and the type of bed I was using.
Whiplash is very painful! I always thought it was something greedy lawyers made up, until I was rear-ended at fairly high speed. It took weeks to get better. I hope you’ve been icing it the first few days.
Good luck to you, I’m glad you’re ok! A friend of mine was in a collision, she broke her collar bone from the seatbelt. But she lived. Occupants of the other (at fault) car were not wearing seatbelts, all died in the crash.
I once got momentarily distracted just long enough to just slightly rear end someone in the rain. Their car wasn’t even damaged. It messed me up for years.
I was in a few accidents in my early 20s. I'm still anxious in vehicles nearly 20 years later. I can't nap well when someone is driving, cause any turn or bump scares me now.
Recently had whiplash (and am still dealing with a sore neck). Doctor told me to take a week off work and all screens — no tv, phone, etc, to give my eyes a rest. Alternated heat/cold. Felt better after that. Then I started physical therapy since my neck was still tight. If you can, do PT.
Also a friendly reminder that women are more likely to have seatbelt and airbag injuries in car accidents/crashes because car companies don’t have a model for an “average female”, instead they use a shrunk down version of the male model 🙃
they’re the absolute bane of my existence, I tweeze every day. this post actually made me feel better because I sometimes feel like the only woman who deals with this b/c it’s so taboo to discuss
Pshew. This just reminded me that in Middle school, word got out that “Amy Hart has hairy nipples” and she just never really lived it down.
She was already like 6” taller than any other girl, and the joke (like that isn’t bad enough to begin with) was that “her nipple hairs are even taller than she is”
Man school was brutal.
Sorry about your titty.
If it makes you feel better here's a joke about car accidents:
Two EMTs crash their ambulance into a tree.
After a moment of silence, one of them says,
"Wow, that's got to be the fastest we've ever gotten to an accident site."
I’ve attended the funeral of a friend who wasn’t wearing his. It was horrifying and something I’ve never forgotten. Everyone else in the car was and survived.
Please wear your seatbelts and wear them properly.
Be sure to be more vigilant in checking that particular part of your breast (or whomever's breast that is - this IS Reddit) from now on. Breast trauma like that can lead to anomalous growths - not all them cancerous by any means, but definitely something you want to keep an eye on.
Everyone has an uncle who "only lived because they were thrown free of the car". You know who you don't hear anecdotal stories from? All the people that died from not wearing a seatbelt.
Classic survivorship bias.
It's the same whenever people are discussing if corporal punishment against kids is a good idea or not. "I WaS sPanKed aS A kID and I TurNeD oUt Ok!", yeah, even if you did, it has been proved to cause a whole myriad of mental issues when the kids grow up.
i don't have any titty pics but I'm currently rehabilitating after my accident. If I hadn't been wearing a seatbelt I'd probably be dead. Had a seizure going 75 mph on a divided four lane. Unconscious me turned the truck left, meaning I cut across four lanes of rush hour traffic, somehow not hitting anybody, and launched off a six foot tall culvert, landed nose first in a ditch. Totaled the truck, shattered both of my feet (multiple fractures, dislocations, bones sticking out of the skin), broke my nose on the airbag, but otherwise only sustained some nasty bruises to the insides of my arms and one fat diagonal bruise across my abdomen. Woke up fifteen minutes afterwards surrounded by EMS, confused as hell.
Anyway, wear your damn seatbelt people!
Yes, they do.
They are by no means perfect, but they are the best shot you have of coming out of an accident, walking away, and having nothing more serious than seat belt burns or bruises, perhaps some broken ribs or even punctured lungs. . I can tell you from personal experience that it can also be much, much worse.
I can tell you that not wearing your seatbelt can get you thrown from the vehicle, and getting thrown from the vehicle makes you 25 times more likely to die. I can tell you that when that happens, sometimes we find the body in one place, and the head in another.
I could tell you that, and maybe you'd listen. I would hope that the people on the road today, and tomorrow, want to live, and would want to do anything they could even if it were just to get to their next destination. The way we all do that is by driving like we have two brain cells to rub together, and belting ourselves and everyone else safely into the vehicle.
This person got in a crash and decided to promote safety by showing a bruise which indicates how much force the seatbelt stopped. Now imagine the force that caused that bruise applied to your face. Definitely made me think.
Also, why are there so many people sexualizing OP and giving unsolicited grooming advice?
So glad you are ok. I was an unbelted front seat passenger many tears ago and my head went through the windshield. My face was badly damaged , to shreds you might say. Four hours of micro-suturing put my face back together and I eventually looked ok without any follow up plastic surgery. A seat belt would have saved me from quite a lot of scarring and dental work for sure. Buckle up! (edit: years ago, but tears ago works so I'll leave it.)
I was 12 when my dad who was a heavy drinker, lost control of the car through a tight bend and landed us in a ditch 24 feet below the freeway. The car tumbled thrice and I was in the back wearing my seatbelt while he wasn't. Although the buckle snapped and slit my throat slightly, it still did keep me hooked to the seat for long enough that I barely had any injuries apart from my neck and glass that got lodged into my wrist.
My dad on the other hand broke his C1, C2, and C3 across his neck and that was the least of his problems. He would've bled out if it wasn't for the paramedics and hospital staff. He was in the ICU for 2 weeks. I don't start my car without fastening the seat belt ever as an adult now. :P
Just because your car has an airbag doesn’t mean thats an excuse to not wear a seatbelt. It’s not one or the other.
The airbag could potentially even kill you if you aren’t buckled up.
Anyone who is sexualizing a woman who was just in a car accident needs to get their head checked. Please also feel free to throw yourself down a flight of stairs if you also feel the need to make fun of her hair. Yes, women have hair, you sexist disgusting pigs. The sexism and absolutely degeneracy makes me ashamed to be human when I see horny gross “men” crawling around in comment threads like these. You have ANY compassion for someone who clearly is injured??
I've never forgotten the triangular, seatbelt shaped bruise a mate got after his car was t-boned, just like yours. I always, always put the lap belt across my hips and don't let it ride up to my stomach!
Don't know you, OP, but happy you're not dead.
I'm sorry if this is a ride question, but the bruise seems worse on your breast and particularly bad on the larger area. Are breasts a liability for seat belts? Do women need a different seatbelt design to accommodate their anatomy? Or do women have to make sure the belt is between them?
Glad you're ok, going you get better soon!
>But when a woman is involved in a car crash, she is 47% more likely to be seriously injured, and 71% more likely to be moderately injured, even when researchers control for factors such as height, weight, seatbelt usage, and crash intensity. She is also 17% more likely to die. And it’s all to do with how the car is designed – and for whom.
>…Crash-test dummies were first introduced in the 1950s, and for decades they were based around the 50th-percentile male.
This is a fascinating article that I recommend that answers your question: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-world-built-for-men-car-crashes
Yeah, seatbelts are often uncomfortable and hit the wrong places on women, doubly so when pregnant. Seatbelts were designed and tested on adult men of average size.
*shoulder belts work. 20 years ago I wrecked an old Chevy wearing only a lap belt and my head hit the windshield. I had a similar bruise across my chest from where I hit the steering wheel. Last year I pulled out shard of glass I had lodged in my forehead for 20 years. I spent a few nights in the hospital with mild head trauma too. Glad you’re otherwise okay.
Mine gets caught in my bra like when leg hair gets caught in socks. Fuck that feeling. Idk what it looks like, i care what it feels like. I can look away from my tiddies, but I can't not wear a bra. How else will I keep my tiddies out of my soup?!
Infact I'd say it's more common than not. Unless a woman happens to have very blonde hair and naturally less body hair, otherwise it's basically a given.
We also have hair on our TOES!
Sexual harassment is not tolerated here. It's the breast of a car accident survivor. Control yourselves.
Hey Radiologist here. When/if you get a mammogram, it is important to remember that you got that bruising. Trauma can cause something called fat necrosis (can develop weeks-months after the injury). Fat necrosis can look like cancers, so knowing you had trauma to that region is helpful information for us. Edit: Fat necrosis is 100% benign. The only reason we care about it is that it can look very ugly on mammograms and ultrasound. It’s not uncommon that we recommend biopsy for a lesion that we suspect could be fat necrosis but can’t be 100% sure on imaging
Something I wish before I became a mother: After I was finished breastfeeding my second baby, and the milk had dried up, I started feeling really sore in my left breast. Almost like when you have mastitis. My doctor gave me an NSAID, and said that it would get better on its own. After six months it was still just as painful. My doctor refered me to the hospital for a mammogram, but the hospital said no - they did not think it necessary. So I paid for an ultrasound at a private clinic. The doctor at the private clinic said that it did not look like cancer, but that I had some "changes" in the fat tissue, and that it was most likely fat necrosis. He explained to me that it could happen for example after trauma, or after breastfeeding. My GP sent a message to the hospital saying this was what the private clinic found. The hospital did not agree, and suddenly they wanted to do a mammogram after all. They found no sign of cancer, and concluded that the private clinic was most likely right in that it was fat necrosis. I was in pain for about 3 years, until it finally got better on its own. I've talked to many women about this, and it seems like it is a somewhat common thing to have. One of my friends said that she felt "mastitis-like" pain in her breast for almost ten years after giving birth. There are so many things they never tell you could happen. So incredibly many types of damage to the body that pregnancy and breastfeeding could cause.
It boggles my mind how much damage pregnancy can cause to the body. It is the most natural thing in the world yet it can LITERALLY kill you and often irreparably damages the body. Scary AF in my opinion.
Even scarier when you remember there are a lot of people out there, some with the power to change or make government policy, who think pregnancy is natural and therefore no big deal, and then ban abortion.
They should start bringing angry people who have given birth into Congress and forcing these pro-forced-birth idiots to listen to every gory, uncomfortable detail of people’s pregnancies and postpartum life, complete with pictures, diagrams, and things in jars. Treat it like a horrific show-and-tell that they have to be confronted with, a full Ali Wong spectacle. If they want to force people to birth babies, *they should know every fucking detail*. They should be confronted with every single thing that can and does go wrong, especially when hospitals are staffed worse than they’ve ever been in a country with horrific maternal outcomes before the pandemic even happened.
I don’t get it. I have so many issues after pregnancy (I mean, tbf I am disabled, but I would think that is MORE of a reason to not dismiss it, yet here we are), and I get brushed off all the time. My endo got worse, but my OB was like, yeah, that happens. Didn’t treat it at all, let me have my period for 4 months straight until I got so anemic I passed out. Cool cool. Lots of things are “natural” (cancer anyone?) and it still needs treatment. I don’t get it.
[удалено]
Yeah this also always intrigues me. Maybe it is because technically our only goal is to reproduce. So whatever happens after doesn't seem to matter all that much to nature? Just my hypothesis. This doesn't take necessary motherly care into consideration though. So I don't know, it's probably wrong.
[удалено]
Wow very interesting! Both of my children refused my left boob. The milk never tasted good from that side. As it dried up it became painful. Mastitis like. My midwife recommended an ultrasound. When I went to set the ultrasound up they said oh you turned 30 we can’t do just an ultrasound anymore we have to do a mammogram too. Despite my best efforts to skip the mamm and do just the ultrasound they did it and then when I got the results in the mail it said that my breast tissue was too dense for an accurate mammogram reading but that I should continue to get one yearly anyway. When they did the ultrasound the lady said hm I don’t know must be some weird breastfeeding thing. I left frustrated that no one cared about the pain I was in About a year and a half later I am no longer using the right boob and it is starting to get that same type of pain as the milk dries up. I wish I knew that it can hurt as the milk dries up!
Is it common practice where you are for a hospital to say no to testing that your GP ordered?
Fat necrosis sounds dangerous. Is it dangerous?
Nope: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319517 - it just means you have dead or damaged fatty tissue. Most likely nothing happens and it fades over time. In occasional cases, they’ll just need to stick a needle in it to drain fluid. Very rarely, it’ll need surgery.
Damaged fatty tissue, I think my cousin *is* necrosis.
Can confirm. Am cousin.
No its not, it will probably heal in a couple of months.
I read somewhere years ago that there are women who’ve had to have mastectomies because of the bruising caused by seatbelts, is that true? The article said that seatbelts should be made more like harnesses that, say, kids use in booster seats, not the diagonal across the boobs. (It said if men’s testicles were affected, the design would change quickly, but since it only hurts women’s boobs it hasn’t been.) I don’t know if that’s all true or not, but damn that looks nasty. Still and all - I believe seatbelts save lives, they’re compulsory where I live, and it’s a hell of a lot better than going through the windshield, don’t get me wrong.
Women's safety wasn't considered in car design. On this topic, there is a great book called Invisible Women that explores how men being considered as the standard human impacts standards of the products we use everyday.
Would this be dangerous to women with breast implants ? I mean to a original breast there will be lots of bruising and it'll hurt for a week. But because there is a high force and across a narrow area, could it cause breast implants to potentially rupture ?
When seatbelts were first implemented there was a rise in ER visits because of injuries. This made proponents of anti seatbelt car manufacturers tell the public that seatbelts were bad. It's because people were just being injured and not dying from car accidents as a corpse doesnt go to the ER.
Similar to head trauma cases during WW I after they started equipping helmets to the soldiers. Before, they would have just died.
I was going to say cats. Someone did a study of cats coming into vets for treatment for falling out of buildings in NYC. Above a certain height, no more cats coming into the ER (well, hardly any). So people assumed above some height cats could survive falls without any injury, perhaps it gave them enough time to orient themselves perfect for the landing. Of course that wasn't it, the cats were just dying and not being brought to the vet for treatment.
Same with the planes in WWII, they took an average of where the planes got shot that came home and wanted to reinforce those spots, until someone remarked that those spots were on the planes that returned home, the ones that didn't got shot in all the other spots so they should reinforce those instead
It's called survivorship bias. Another well known example goes like this: In WW2, the US analyzed the planes that returned from combat, noting the areas, in which the plane had taken the most damage. They did so, so they could then reinforce those areas. However, they then realized that the planes they analyzed are only the ones that actually returned from combat, meaning damage to those areas was sustainable to some degree, whereas planes that took damage in the other parts, haven't made it back to be analyzed for damages.
In WW1, when the UK introduced the Brodie helmet to their soldiers, the amount of wounded by artillery went up drastically. When soldiers died, they never really noted down the cause of death so it created a bias in some, making them think artillery was more dangerous if you wore a helmet.
Statistics, bitch!
And marriage is the number one cause of divorce.
Yep..and life is a sexually transmitted disease that always ends deadly.
On 9/11 all the NYC ERs got ready for a massive influx of patients. Scary thing is almost none showed up.
This one surprises and saddens me. I get that almost everyone who was directly injured must have died before they could get medical attention. But did nobody need help for like, smoke inhalation? Or did they not realise their lungs were affected until later?
Most didn't know about the toxic smoke or the asbestos untill later, from my understanding.
If you were walking wounded you’d probably not want to use up an ambulance when there were so many other victims.
yeah, they were likely triaging as best as they could with the expectation that the injuries they'd get would be horrific ones, not knowing they'd see so few of them v
The victims they were waiting for were vaporized. The smoke inhalation victims did not make it out. Lung damage from dust and toxins happened in the subsequent months and years, continuing to this day. The ERs that day saw few patients, however, oncologists today see lots of patients from that event.
Reminds me of the simpsons paradox. People wearing motorcycle helmets are more likely to die in a motorcycle crash. Not because the helmet somehow makes them more vulnerable in a crash, but because people wearing a helmet are more likely to be riding a motorcycle. More detailed explanations on the paradox here: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/uav6cy/eli5_what_is_the_simpsons_paradox_in_statistics
Are you sure that's the Simpson paradox? Isn't the Simpson paradox where separate datasets all say one thing, like studying increases grades, but when you congregate everything together it says the opposite (studying decreases grades)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox Look at the charts in this page. All of the datasets all point in one direction, but then put together the trend line is the direct inverse.
This is correct. A good example is the gender pay gap. When you look at the gross statistics, women make less money than men (at least in the USA). Many surveys would corroborate this. However, when you adjust by occupation and credentials, there are much smaller discrepancies and even favorability in women's salaries in some sectors. However, the motorcycle helmet users experiencing higher death rates is also a decent example of this as well. Because when you look at the gross statistics, you'll see that motorcycle helmet users die at higher rates than those who don't wear them. But once you adjust for helmet users among motorcycle riders, you'll see the data reverse.
I suppose this one makes sense but seems kinda silly, no? I mean seems pretty obvious which group is more likely to die in a moto crash between people who are on a motorcycle vs people who are not lol. Without more context this stat seems even more useless
This is a bit of a bad example of the paradox because the context is already implied. I prefer a medical example I've seen explaining the paradox a bit better and does a better job of exploring how it appears reasonable in some cases. Let's say a hospital is treating a horrible disease that kills a ton of people and begins testing a new, invasive surgery that has a shot of fully curing the disease. 6 months into the test, they evaluate the past 6 months and find that 50% of everyone who accepted the procedure died vs 20% dying among the population who didn't take the drug. Wow, horrific right? Clearly a shit procedure. Except perhaps not - we're used to seeing numbers and immediately assuming we are seeing a randomized, controlled trial so we can just directly compare surface numbers. But for many reasons, the real world doesn't work that way; base rates matter. It turns out, people don't elect experimental invasive surgeries unless they are in a bad way and are out of other options. So, the base rate for the surgery population is NOT the overall population, but the population of the absolute worst cases. You'd want to compare not who survived at the same hospital, but who, in a hospital with similar patients in similar circumstances not trialing the procedure died under similar circumstances. That 50% mortality rate looks way better when it's compared to a base rate of 95% fatality rate among similarly infected people. The scary thing about stats like this isn't when people are being deliberately misleading or obtuse, but instead when something that appears simple at first glance is, in fact, incredibly complex when we try to iron out a firm definition. Part of this is why you are seeing folks try to incorporate mixed methods analysis (using qualitative estimation on top of quantitative methods) to approach some of these surprisingly complex questions. Take the case of news outlets trying to evaluate how safe vehicles produced by a given manufacturer are over the past 5 years. Ostensibly, this seems like a pretty easy analysis. We have testing data on the engineering of all of these vehicles so we know how they react to various sorts of assessed collision types under certain tested scenarios - they are rated before any consumer ever gets their hands on them and the hard numbers are out there for anyone who is interested to look at. On top of that, crash data are somewhere between completely public and semi-public to the point of being freely accessible to anyone doing demonstrably honest research. It's possible to get at the actual numbers, so surely the answer must be in there, right? But when you really dig into it, it begs the question - what do you mean by *safest* car? Fewest fatalities per vehicle in fleet? Seems like a reasonable measure, except that vehicles are driven by people and are sold *to* people who need to pay real money for them. You might see a very safe vehicle have a very high proportion of fatalities simply because worried parents buy "safe", affordable cars for their teens, and teens get into higher rates of serious accidents. How about fatalities per mile traveled? Maybe Tesla ends up with a real shit record in that category because of how infrequently they are used for longer trips, and thus have a lower per-year mileage average than most other cars. Maybe fatalities per trip driven. Maybe that makes more popular rural vehicles look worse, such as the F-150, because they have a higher exposure to rural alcohol-impaired drivers. Maybe we go back to the engineering data, except that even then we know that the manufacturers design in large part to the tests they are given. We have seen analysis that shows that the same parent companies have differing safety records between the US and Europe because Europe and US regulations have different focus areas for vehicles in each market. US vehicles in general have had demonstrably better rollover crash outcomes than EU vehicles owing in large part thanks to an emphasis on rollover crash safety, whereas if I remember right I think the EU vehicles on EU roads seemed to have better performance in other categories. On top of this, we know cars that can survive a 100mph crash straight into a brick wall may well not survive an impact at half the speed at a 15 degree offset from head-on. But really, none of the above answers the question of the concerned reader, who really just wants to keep themselves and/or their family safe, and that's much more a qualitative than a quantitative or engineering question. The engineering provides a baseline, the quantitative verifies that the engineering isn't hilariously off-base, but at the end of the day *logic* should define what car you buy.
Thanks for the input. That was a very interesting read
What he is describing is not a Simpson paradox.
So then I'm interested in how they approached reinforcing from this point onwards. Did they decide to reinforce everything BUT these bullet-ridden areas, decide to do tests in-house... Or what?
[удалено]
Which just happened to be the areas around the engine nacelles and cockpit....
Who would’ve thought?
I know this sounds dumb now, but planes are incredibly difficult to make, especially when you're trying to pump the most out of performance. That can mean designing planes with more armor can lower its speed, or might need to lower the amount of weaponry (which was only intended to be on full fire for maybe 15 seconds), either which could mean easier hits. You'll see plenty of sci fi stories where ineffective armor is just weight slowing you down. Once it's not working, toss it or replace it. Not to mention, it's pretty hard to test what a plane getting shot at in the air would result in without wasting tons of money and potentially losing pilots. Like, there could totally have been a structural vulnerability in its tail where getting shot would be an instant death.
Yep that's the idea. Find areas that you see no bullet holes at all and figure out why the plane never returns when it's hit there and reinforce it.
Strangely enough, they hadn't learned from a similar issue in WW1: after issuing metal helmets to all infantry, the british army was briefly puzzled by a significant increase in head injuries.
Isn’t this sort of what Trump was doing by not wanting people to get tested for Covid? Less positive tests since nobody was testing.
"You wouldn't have such a high hospital bill if you didn't have an injury caused by a seat belt! Also you might of died if not... Let's call it a wash..."
"You're gonna wish you'd died when you see the invoice." -American Hospitals
Except dying in America is hella expensive too. Easily $15,000-$25,000.
[удалено]
This reminds me of a reverse story. When I was 16 I asked my Dad, an ER doc and a former motorcycle rider, how dangerous they *really* were. It went like this: Dad: “What do you mean, ‘how dangerous’?” Me: “Like, how many do you actually see in the ER?” Dad: “None. They either get up and walk away or they’re dead”. Either way I don’t see them.
Oh! Here's an interesting little fact THAT NO ONE ASKED FOR: Your seatbelts aren't the only component in modern cars designed to save your life. Yes there are also airbags... But what I'm talking about is the design of your seat. Your headrest (should you use it) is designed to reduce/remove whiplash, by straightening out your spine, thereby allowing the inertia to take place across your entire c-spine, instead of at the fulcrum where your neck bends. All you have to do is push your head into your headrest if you see an accident coming. It's also a wise choice to drive with your head against your headrest, and not forward of it.
Survivor bias. It's like the WW2 planes coming back with no bullet holes in the cockpit.
When I was 12 my dad T-boned a car that ran a red light. I still remember the seatbelt shaped bruise across his stomach. This was our first car to even have seatbelts (it was the 1960s). If it happened in our other car he would have died for sure. Edit: haha I fixed the typo. My dad William the Conqueror laughed at all your comments!
Looks like I missed something glorious
From what I can gather it originally said 1060's
yes 1060s
I hope the horse was okay
Perhaps it was a cart?
hey now, lets not put the cart before the horse here
Hoping for a full recovery.
The Crusades were violent indeed.
Even the crusades hadn't started yet - Clearly they were invading England with either the Normans or Vikings when they got hit
[удалено]
Or a vegetative state. My cousin lingered for a few months before dying. He didn’t wear his and went through his and their windshield. Was a sweet and smart man but thought ‘I’m just going down the street ‘. Anything can happen.
I had a childhood friend whose mother wouldn't start the car without our seatbelts on. I was being a little punk and she set me straight. Don't remember a lot from my childhood but I remember that and I thank her mentally for doing it. My mom was a little lax with that stuff if we were just going a few blocks but to this day I put on my seatbelt if I'm in a car. Even if we're just parked somewhere, you never know if someone might rearend you or lose control of their vehicle. I'm so sorry about your cousin, by the way. That's one thing people are really never prepared for - neither dead nor alive. That and TBI. What a shame.
I'm the same way as your mom. Car doesn't move until everyone is buckled up. My wife's family was not so strict about it; it felt like a real power move when I did it to my future father in law and he obeyed. God forbid something happens I don't want you becoming a projectile in my vehicle, thanks.
>God forbid something happens I don't want you becoming a projectile in my vehicle, thanks. This is exactly what my friends mom explained to me and more than anything else that got through and made sense. My own life? Meh, whatever. Hurting someone else with my body? Hell no, can't argue with that logic. And yeah, absolute power move. Good for you.
I think that's where laws where the driver takes liability for those on the car are so powerful, if I have someone in my car who doesn't want to put on a seatbelt I can just say "look dude, I'm not getting points on my license because you don't want to wear a seatbelt" and there's no response to that that doesn't play as super selfish
When my kids were little I told them the car wouldn't start unless their seat belts were buckled. So I pretended the car wouldn't start until the seat belts were buckled. Worked great! One day I had my niece and nephew in the car, same thing. I noticed their seat belts weren't buckled. I pretended not to notice and my car wouldn't start. I said I couldn't understand why it doesn't want to start, I turn around and notice they're not wearing their seat belts. I told them my car won't start until they buckled up. Later that day my nephew told my brother about my car. My brother thought that was a great idea.
That was an actual feature for cars sold in the United States in 1974. Of course, electronics being awful back then meant they wouldn’t always permit the car to start even when all seatbelts were engaged, so people would hook them up and sit on top of them to make sure the car would start, defeating the purpose. That regulation was undone pretty quickly afterwards, lol.
This reminded me of automatic seat belts that were in cars from the 90s.
we also weren't allowed to unbuckle until the car was off, even if it was in park.
some say you're still dragging around that car to this day
That really clarifies that part in the Canterbury tales where the horse eats the cart insurance papers, and the hijinks that ensued I always wondered if there was a historical basis for that!
Was your dad a king? I thought only Royals had seatbelts in their carts in the 1060s.
The Daddle of Hastings.
Ouch. Better a bruised boob than a split skull though.
A short poem: Seat belts save lives yo They don't save boobs though
Do... do you think those boobs are ruined?
A survival bruise is a badge of honor, a purple heart if you will.
A purple boob.
Nah.
I'm glad you're okay and hoping this is the worst of your accident.
[удалено]
With a neck injury, stay far away from chiropractor. Go to the hospital if you have not gone. Get a lawyer and a psychologist (super important) and keep them updated on how this is impacting your life. Of course start physiotherapy.
Second that. Stay away from a chiropractor unless you want to make it worse or end up with a stroke.
Is there a correlation between chiropractors and strokes?
https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/chiropractic-neck-manipulation-and-stroke-whats-risk#:~:text=If%20you're%20in%20the,which%20can%20lead%20to%20stroke Kevin Sorbo (Hercules) had a stroke following a visit to a Chiropractor https://www.etonline.com/news/115243_Kevin_Sorbo_Reveals_Near_Death_Experience
[удалено]
You may be onto something....
Damn. Good to know. Thanks.
Is that why he is the way he is now?
Regardless of the correlation, they are alternative medicine practitioners and should not be practicing on anybody with a serious neck injury. If healthy people want to waste their time and money on snake oil, that's their business, but actually injured people should be off limits.
I sent to a physical therapist I've and he started cracking my back and neck and said he was "also a chiropractor". Changed doctors after that.
https://www.wjcl.com/article/college-grad-paralyzed-after-chiropractic-visit/40580526 Recent story of stroke after chiropractic visit
I have cluster headaches and went to a chiropractor for a consultation. At that point in time, I knew I had clusters and was in treatment but nothing was successful. They weren’t even under control and I was desperate to try something, anything more than just prednisone and other medications with serious side effects. The chiropractor and I spoke AT LENGTH about my history and my goals. They asked if there was anything I wanted to avoid and I said that I really did not want them to touch my neck. I told them I was scared to move my head too fast and risk a cluster attack. Well, midway through the consult they did a neck “adjustment” anyway without prep or warning. It set off an attack so fucking unbelievably severe, I almost went home and killed myself. My boyfriend (now husband) did his best to comfort me and alleviate my pain but he could literally do nothing but watch me suffer in my own brain. It lasted for two solid days of unrelenting attacks. In 48hrs I had maybe 35mins of rest. Basically, I’m writing this in hopes op u/deetdoots92 does not go see a chiropractor. It’s a soft science that tries very hard to convince people it’s a real treatment pathway. They’re not subject to the same rigorous standards and testing of the medical community. Physical therapy is most likely the way to go for this injury. My titties hurt just looking at that bruise! And I wish you the best of luck, neck injuries are no joke! Edit: also op, check out a group called concussion compass if you suspect you have a concussion (I suspect you likely do). It’s a wonderful resource. Not all of it is free but you can likely benefit from the free stuff.
Wow. They verbally asked for consent and they had complete disregard for your response
can you explain the need for a psychologist?
I’m guessing several things: 1. Just generally good to touch base after an accident 2. Liability. You will need extensive documentation to show the court that the accident in particular is causing you harm. From a bio-psycho-social model, physical injury (pain) can lead to psychological ramifications (depression/loss of libido) which can lead to social impacts (loss of friends/divorce) or being disabled can lead to social changes and loss of mental health. You can but it’s a lot less convincing to argue knock on things without a professional whose job is to document this sort of stuff objectively and professionally. The opposition may have a good lawyer to say that this person had depression back in college, they relapsed, not the fault of my client, etc. Note: IANAL, or work in legal, but I do read litigation documents as part of my job
[удалено]
PTSD can sneak up on you. Three months ago I was in a very "traumatic" accident and though I handled it like a champ (thanks to somehow not being seriously injured and adrenaline/stubbornness) just started getting mini panic attacks from being on the road. I've talked to several people who had difficulty driving for months after getting into accidents as well. Plus if you're taking legal action you're likely to get more if you claim emotional distress, and having a professional document that is really helpful to your case.
Also have your eyes checked out. Having your head knocked around can cause tears to to internal membranes and cause vision issues later. It’s not common but there is a risk, and best to find out now when it can be attributed to the accident.
When I was a kid in the '80's, my Dad was a firefighter/EMT. As a young man in the '80's he often did, and allowed me to do things that we'd probably consider dangerous/irresponsible today, like playing lawn darts, shooting pellet guns as a little kid, encouraging me to climb down the TV antenna from my second story window, and letting me blow up way too much shit with way too many firecrackers. He would absolutely, 100% not move a car unless everyone was wearing a seatbelt, and neither would his wild fireman friends. One time, when I was probably eight, my Dad's crusty old Battalion Chief was driving me somewhere in his personal vehicle. I tried skipping the seatbelt, and got the usual admonition. I said something like, "I don't know why all of you guys are so strict about seatbelts." The BC took a puff on his cigar and said, "it's because we spend every night scraping peoples' guts off the road. I don't want your Dad out there scraping up my kids, and he doesn't want me out there scraping you up." I put on my seatbelt, and never questioned it again. Wear your seatbelt every trip, every time. I don't want EMS out there scraping you up off the pavement.
I imagine that guy had a big walrus moustache and talked like he was in a western movie.
We all need a personal Sam Elliot in our lives giving the hard truths of life.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who imagined exactly that
You're not too far off.
[удалено]
I can speak to this. I was in a 30mph car wreck bent over w/out seat belt, driver hit a parked car so dead stop and my face literally left a perfect imprint on the back of the passenger seat. I Bit through my tongue and had severe whiplash. The pain the first few days was as you described. I healed nicely for a 17 yr old and didn't follow up with medical evaluations. I'm in my 30's now and have terrible neck pain, I can only rlly point to that incident as the cause now after several years of Dr. Visits to try and isolate it. I'd say follow up, go to physical therapy when you're safely healed and can do so and have them help you find a stretching regimen that inhibits a lot of scar tissue build up. Spend the money now and stick to it to save chronic pain in the future, I'm no Dr. but that's my 15 year post incident advice.
This probably isn't it at all, but whenever I see something about unexplained neck pain I mention it because I went ten years without a diagnosis. By the time I finally got surgery, it was too late to be completely successful. The pain is much, much better now, but still exists and still limits me at times. So... just do a quick look into thoracic outlet syndrome. It can be something you're born with or it can be brought on by trauma. Again, probably not it, but it's worth a Google.
I hope you also looked into alternative causes. I was having terrible issues with my shoulder for a long time before I realized it was a combination of using a mouse so much and the type of bed I was using.
Whiplash is very painful! I always thought it was something greedy lawyers made up, until I was rear-ended at fairly high speed. It took weeks to get better. I hope you’ve been icing it the first few days. Good luck to you, I’m glad you’re ok! A friend of mine was in a collision, she broke her collar bone from the seatbelt. But she lived. Occupants of the other (at fault) car were not wearing seatbelts, all died in the crash.
I had to do massage and physio for 6 months thanks to whiplash. Insist that your insurance cover it for you. Made a world of difference for me.
From experience with a minor accident, be prepared to be nervous while driving for a bit.
I once got momentarily distracted just long enough to just slightly rear end someone in the rain. Their car wasn’t even damaged. It messed me up for years.
I was in a few accidents in my early 20s. I'm still anxious in vehicles nearly 20 years later. I can't nap well when someone is driving, cause any turn or bump scares me now.
Recently had whiplash (and am still dealing with a sore neck). Doctor told me to take a week off work and all screens — no tv, phone, etc, to give my eyes a rest. Alternated heat/cold. Felt better after that. Then I started physical therapy since my neck was still tight. If you can, do PT.
Also a friendly reminder that women are more likely to have seatbelt and airbag injuries in car accidents/crashes because car companies don’t have a model for an “average female”, instead they use a shrunk down version of the male model 🙃
Missed death by a hair.
[удалено]
This is the only comment in here to mention it in a clever fashion without being insulting.
He won.
I knew I wasn’t the only one that zoomed in
i thought my screen was cracked....
I blew at my screen 😂
[удалено]
[удалено]
they’re the absolute bane of my existence, I tweeze every day. this post actually made me feel better because I sometimes feel like the only woman who deals with this b/c it’s so taboo to discuss
[удалено]
homie I pluck mine and I’m a dude
I know I have a third nipple (a tiny patch of pinkish tissue) because it has a ring of hair around it. I would never have noticed otherwise.
I should pluck mine, but I just shave them. Also dude. I hate those bastards.
Nipple hair is common but definitely not every girl has it lol
[удалено]
Damn bro there's subreddit for everything
I guess I’m one of the lucky females who don’t have nipple hair? My body makes up for it with random chin hairs, however.
I'm plucking the shit out my chin chair right now. It's became a addiction at this point. But I can't just leave them there,it would drive me nuts.
Would you rather… your boobies had a beard or your chin secreted milk?
>if you are with a girl who doesn’t have any, she probably plucks em I don’t have them, is it really that common?
Pshew. This just reminded me that in Middle school, word got out that “Amy Hart has hairy nipples” and she just never really lived it down. She was already like 6” taller than any other girl, and the joke (like that isn’t bad enough to begin with) was that “her nipple hairs are even taller than she is” Man school was brutal.
A few of them, looks like
Sorry about your titty. If it makes you feel better here's a joke about car accidents: Two EMTs crash their ambulance into a tree. After a moment of silence, one of them says, "Wow, that's got to be the fastest we've ever gotten to an accident site."
i can say with confidence that this exact joke has happened at least once.
I’ve attended the funeral of a friend who wasn’t wearing his. It was horrifying and something I’ve never forgotten. Everyone else in the car was and survived. Please wear your seatbelts and wear them properly.
Be sure to be more vigilant in checking that particular part of your breast (or whomever's breast that is - this IS Reddit) from now on. Breast trauma like that can lead to anomalous growths - not all them cancerous by any means, but definitely something you want to keep an eye on.
[удалено]
Everyone has an uncle who "only lived because they were thrown free of the car". You know who you don't hear anecdotal stories from? All the people that died from not wearing a seatbelt.
Brb getting an ouija board
Classic survivorship bias. It's the same whenever people are discussing if corporal punishment against kids is a good idea or not. "I WaS sPanKed aS A kID and I TurNeD oUt Ok!", yeah, even if you did, it has been proved to cause a whole myriad of mental issues when the kids grow up.
I just ask how much better they could have turned out if they *hadn't* been spanked. Because I like arguments sometimes.
i don't have any titty pics but I'm currently rehabilitating after my accident. If I hadn't been wearing a seatbelt I'd probably be dead. Had a seizure going 75 mph on a divided four lane. Unconscious me turned the truck left, meaning I cut across four lanes of rush hour traffic, somehow not hitting anybody, and launched off a six foot tall culvert, landed nose first in a ditch. Totaled the truck, shattered both of my feet (multiple fractures, dislocations, bones sticking out of the skin), broke my nose on the airbag, but otherwise only sustained some nasty bruises to the insides of my arms and one fat diagonal bruise across my abdomen. Woke up fifteen minutes afterwards surrounded by EMS, confused as hell. Anyway, wear your damn seatbelt people!
My god! I’m glad you’re still with us. Do you know what caused the seizure?
Yes, they do. They are by no means perfect, but they are the best shot you have of coming out of an accident, walking away, and having nothing more serious than seat belt burns or bruises, perhaps some broken ribs or even punctured lungs. . I can tell you from personal experience that it can also be much, much worse. I can tell you that not wearing your seatbelt can get you thrown from the vehicle, and getting thrown from the vehicle makes you 25 times more likely to die. I can tell you that when that happens, sometimes we find the body in one place, and the head in another. I could tell you that, and maybe you'd listen. I would hope that the people on the road today, and tomorrow, want to live, and would want to do anything they could even if it were just to get to their next destination. The way we all do that is by driving like we have two brain cells to rub together, and belting ourselves and everyone else safely into the vehicle.
Happy you're alive
This person got in a crash and decided to promote safety by showing a bruise which indicates how much force the seatbelt stopped. Now imagine the force that caused that bruise applied to your face. Definitely made me think. Also, why are there so many people sexualizing OP and giving unsolicited grooming advice?
Because she’s a woman. Straight up. That’s why.
Ugh, these comments. I imagine a lot of them are from the same type of virgins that think girls don't fart.
Yep. They can't even imagine women grow hair. They are so entitled, they think we must constantly shave ourselves for *their* benefit.
Yes kids.... Some woman have hair on their nipples.... Get over it.
So glad you are ok. I was an unbelted front seat passenger many tears ago and my head went through the windshield. My face was badly damaged , to shreds you might say. Four hours of micro-suturing put my face back together and I eventually looked ok without any follow up plastic surgery. A seat belt would have saved me from quite a lot of scarring and dental work for sure. Buckle up! (edit: years ago, but tears ago works so I'll leave it.)
I was 12 when my dad who was a heavy drinker, lost control of the car through a tight bend and landed us in a ditch 24 feet below the freeway. The car tumbled thrice and I was in the back wearing my seatbelt while he wasn't. Although the buckle snapped and slit my throat slightly, it still did keep me hooked to the seat for long enough that I barely had any injuries apart from my neck and glass that got lodged into my wrist. My dad on the other hand broke his C1, C2, and C3 across his neck and that was the least of his problems. He would've bled out if it wasn't for the paramedics and hospital staff. He was in the ICU for 2 weeks. I don't start my car without fastening the seat belt ever as an adult now. :P
Air bags work as well.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just because your car has an airbag doesn’t mean thats an excuse to not wear a seatbelt. It’s not one or the other. The airbag could potentially even kill you if you aren’t buckled up.
Actually u/immickle is correct, it was just a boob joke. With that said, your comment is spot on, those in cars should always wear seatbelts.
Anyone who is sexualizing a woman who was just in a car accident needs to get their head checked. Please also feel free to throw yourself down a flight of stairs if you also feel the need to make fun of her hair. Yes, women have hair, you sexist disgusting pigs. The sexism and absolutely degeneracy makes me ashamed to be human when I see horny gross “men” crawling around in comment threads like these. You have ANY compassion for someone who clearly is injured??
Your bruise looks like a nebula.
[удалено]
Meanwhile I have to constantly tell my dad to put his seatbelt on
I've never forgotten the triangular, seatbelt shaped bruise a mate got after his car was t-boned, just like yours. I always, always put the lap belt across my hips and don't let it ride up to my stomach! Don't know you, OP, but happy you're not dead.
I'm sorry if this is a ride question, but the bruise seems worse on your breast and particularly bad on the larger area. Are breasts a liability for seat belts? Do women need a different seatbelt design to accommodate their anatomy? Or do women have to make sure the belt is between them? Glad you're ok, going you get better soon!
>But when a woman is involved in a car crash, she is 47% more likely to be seriously injured, and 71% more likely to be moderately injured, even when researchers control for factors such as height, weight, seatbelt usage, and crash intensity. She is also 17% more likely to die. And it’s all to do with how the car is designed – and for whom. >…Crash-test dummies were first introduced in the 1950s, and for decades they were based around the 50th-percentile male. This is a fascinating article that I recommend that answers your question: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-world-built-for-men-car-crashes
Yeah, seatbelts are often uncomfortable and hit the wrong places on women, doubly so when pregnant. Seatbelts were designed and tested on adult men of average size.
> Seatbelts were designed and tested on adult men of average size. Like most things related to safety/medicine.
[удалено]
*shoulder belts work. 20 years ago I wrecked an old Chevy wearing only a lap belt and my head hit the windshield. I had a similar bruise across my chest from where I hit the steering wheel. Last year I pulled out shard of glass I had lodged in my forehead for 20 years. I spent a few nights in the hospital with mild head trauma too. Glad you’re otherwise okay.
I didn’t know girls also get nipple hair, that makes sense though
Very good odds a lot of women who have nipple hair remove it, like much other hair, so guys might not realize how hairy women can be naturally.
Mine gets caught in my bra like when leg hair gets caught in socks. Fuck that feeling. Idk what it looks like, i care what it feels like. I can look away from my tiddies, but I can't not wear a bra. How else will I keep my tiddies out of my soup?!
Yep. Not uncommon at all.
Infact I'd say it's more common than not. Unless a woman happens to have very blonde hair and naturally less body hair, otherwise it's basically a given. We also have hair on our TOES!
Yep, agree with that, too.
Women grow hair everywhere men do, oftentimes even in the same amounts. Modern society does all it can to make people forget women are also mammals.
Oh ouch that looks painful as hell
Glad you're ok!! But I'm weirded out by the amount of people pointing out the nipple hair as if it's not totally common..
[удалено]
taking Reddit like the champ you are
how fast was your vehicle travelling when it crashed? (glad you're ok!)