Seatbelt Laws

[BlaqueKatt]

I would need some serious statistics to really believe that flying bodies present a real risk significant enough to require lawmaking in and of themselves.

um wasn't this already covered on being ejected from the vehicle

very well-since you seem to have some need to be proven wrong

international journal of legal medicine

The results indicate that belted front seat passengers sustain a higher injury risk with an unrestrained passenger in the back seat. These results are valid for collision speeds below 45 km/h.

Journal of the American Medical Association

CONTEXT: A car occupant could be killed if struck by another occupant who was catapulted forward, backward, or sideways in a crash.
CONCLUSION: Persons who wish to reduce their risk of death in a crash should wear their own restraint and should ask others in the same car to use their restraints.

World report on road traffic injury prevention

"the effectiveness of front seatbelts in a frontal collision is reduced by the rear loading caused by unrestrained passengers in the back seats.
and another

CONCLUSION: Unrestrained rear-seat passengers place themselves as well as their driver at great risk of serious injury when involved in a head-on crash.

Still another

While people riding in the back seat of a car without a seat belt are less likely to sustain life-threatening injuries during a crash than unrestrained drivers and front-seat passengers, they are at greater risk for brain damage, a new study finds.

Of 152 cases involving both front and rear riders, 79% of rear-seat passengers and 63% of front-seat drivers or passengers were not wearing seat belts at the time of the crash. But, surprisingly, the study found that unrestrained rear passengers were the most likely to sustain brain injuries--65% did, compared with 61% of unrestrained front-seat riders, 43% of rear restrained riders and 43% of front restrained riders.

355 pick-up truck occupants were killed in Iowa during the five years (2001-2005); these
occupants had the lowest seat-belt restraint use compared with other passenger vehicles occupants.
o 70% of pick-up truck occupant fatalities were unrestrained vs. 42% of passenger car occupants who were unrestrained.

Unrestrained occupants were 24 times more likely to be killed than restrained occupants; 7 times more likely to suffer severe and 4 times more likely to suffer non-severe injuries than restrained ones.


wow that was and exhausting 5 mintues of googling-took 3 for me to disprove the "ejected from vehicle being a myth"

[BroomJockey]

but where do we draw the line? Should we also ban anything that's dangerous, like rock climbing or skydiving? Or should we ban anything unhealthy like tobacco, alcohol (I believe we tried that once with disastrous results), or junk food? Where does it end?

This argument doesn't really work for me. After all, we're not banning driving. We're ensuring it's a safer activity. People who rock climb or skydive don't bitch when better safety equipment comes out. Alcohol isn't inherently dangerous unless abused, and we have laws against that, such as bars not being allowed to serve intoxicated individuals. Further, drunk people are not allowed to drive. It's not illegal to be drunk, it's not illegal to drive. But it's illegal to do both, because it's unsafe.

Not wearing seatbelts is not an inherent part of driving. It in no way fundamentally changes the activity. Driving is basically a necessity in the western world. The average person can spend dozens of hours in a vehicle every month. Forgetting every other argument put forward in this thread, it's simple economics: someone injured in a car accident to the point where they are unable to work means that they aren't working at their job, which means either their place of employment is short a worker, or having a second person until they can come back. So fine, let's drop seatbelt laws, but make it so that if you're in an accident, injured and unable to work, and you weren't wearing your seatbelt, then you can be instantly fired, and you lose all benefits. After all, if you're not willing to do what you can to safeguard yourself in a basic, repetitive activity, why should they suffer?

[BlaqueKatt]

So fine, let's drop seatbelt laws, but make it so that if you're in an accident, injured and unable to work, and you weren't wearing your seatbelt, then you can be instantly fired, and you lose all benefits. After all, if you're not willing to do what you can to safeguard yourself in a basic, repetitive activity, why should they suffer?

and no insurance company should have to pay for your injuries-one of my links shows: In 2005, the average ER patient charge for unrestrained pick-up truck occupants was $2,291 vs. $1,554 for restrained pick-up truck occupants. the unrestrained passenger car occupants had almost a $9,000 extra hospital charge ($33,464) than the restrained ones ($24,698).

[Flyndaran]

...
Unrestrained occupants were 24 times more likely to be killed than restrained occupants; 7 times more likely to suffer severe and 4 times more likely to suffer non-severe injuries than restrained ones.


wow that was and exhausting 5 mintues of googling-took 3 for me to disprove the "ejected from vehicle being a myth"

I wasn't really talking about that. But as people are free to choose who the ride in a car with, I still consider it personal choice.
I was mainly pooh-poohing the flying projectile driver hurting passersby that was previously mentioned.
I never said that seatbelts weren't safer. I just said that they only protect the driver and too a much lesser extent anyone riding with them.
I will continue to consider it a personal freedom issue, just as it is for fatties like me to eat junkfood.

[BroomJockey]

I will continue to consider it a personal freedom issue, just as it is for fatties like me to eat junkfood.

As I pointed out, in no way is having to wear a seat belt changing the essential experience of driving. Is there some extra speed to be gained? Do traffic lights alter their patterns for you if you're beltless? Is there extra adrenaline? Seatbelts != fast food. After all, eating fast food IS the experience. There's nothing more about it than the consumption. Driving is not about not wearing a seat belt, it's about the car, which is not changed by the inclusion of safety equipment. If not wearing a seat belt is somehow an essential part of driving, such that the quality of the experience is diminished, because the activity is now safer, why not just let someone strap some dynamite under their hood with a randomly set timer? That's exciting. You never know when it'll blow and probably kill you, just like getting in to an automobile accident.

[Flyndaran]

As I pointed out, in no way is having to wear a seat belt changing the essential experience of driving. ....

To you maybe. I don't care. It is a behavior that I may not want to do. That should be enough. The fact that it might endanger someone else in a very small number of cases, isn't enough to justify making it required in my opinion.
Obvously I fall more on the personal liberties side than you. That's fair, we all differ in opinion in that spectrum from liberities to security.

[BroomJockey]

It is a behavior that I may not want to do. That should be enough.

I wanna drive drunk, that should be enough. After all, it won't affect anyone else more than if I drove tired.

That's fair, we all differ in opinion in that spectrum from liberities to security.

Yep.

[BlaqueKatt]

My right to needlessly endanger my life should trump your right to get hit by a flying fat guy.

your right to swing your fist ends at my nose-every hear the term "logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

sorry but as a member of the majority-I really don't want to be paying for your stupidity. You get into an accident unrestrained you're more likely to suffer brain damage or paralysis, which would mean you couldn't work(minority)-which places the financial burden for supporting you on the taxpayers(majority), since it would be a condition you willingly caused, my right to not be forced to support you trumps your right to recklessly endanger yourself or other people.

The right for a non-smoker(majority) to not be exposed to second-hand smoke trumps my right(minority) to smoke in a public place-the government has already determined that.

My desire to not wear clothing ends when it affects others-I can't walk down the street naked, it doesn't hurt anyone, but it's still illegal as the comfort of the majority>my personal comfort.

[MadMike]

This argument doesn't really work for me. After all, we're not banning driving. We're ensuring it's a safer activity. People who rock climb or skydive don't bitch when better safety equipment comes out. Alcohol isn't inherently dangerous unless abused, and we have laws against that, such as bars not being allowed to serve intoxicated individuals. Further, drunk people are not allowed to drive. It's not illegal to be drunk, it's not illegal to drive. But it's illegal to do both, because it's unsafe.

But do we mandate that rock climbers use the safer equipment, or any equipment for that matter?

And drinking and driving has nothing to do what I was talking about. That hurts other people, not just the person who gets hammered and gets behind the wheel. I'm pretty sure I already addressed that point. It's illegal to do that, but there's no law against someone buying a whole case of beer (provided they're of age), taking it home, and drinking the entire thing by himself in one night.

[Flyndaran]

I wanna drive drunk, that should be enough. After all, it won't affect anyone else more than if I drove tired.
....

Honestly, I want those having fatal "accidents" from being too tired to suffer the same legal consequences as those that drove drunk. They are both perfectly avoidable conditions.
There was a guy that drove too tired and ended up killing three police officers. He didn't get punished at all. I find that offensive.

[BroomJockey]

But do we mandate that rock climbers use the safer equipment, or any equipment for that matter?

Does the majority of the population engage in rock climbing, to the point where you cannot survive in some communities without rock climbing? Do you need a licence for rock climbing? I betcha if they started requiring licences you'd see requirements for that safer equipment.

[Nyoibo]

How about watching a sky diver hit the ground?
Watching a motorcycle driver die from a collision that wouldn't have harmed a car rider/driver.

Those being accidents that are minimized by taking all possible precautions, that arguement doesn't hold water, if someone jumped out of a plane without a parachute, there's a chance they'd survive, but people would call it suicide.

But do we mandate that rock climbers use the safer equipment, or any equipment for that matter?

In any government sponsored or public event, yes it is mandated, driving is both government sponsored and public.

[MadMike]

Does the majority of the population engage in rock climbing, to the point where you cannot survive in some communities without rock climbing? Do you need a licence for rock climbing? I betcha if they started requiring licences you'd see requirements for that safer equipment.

I really don't see how that's relevent. And you haven't addressed the other point I made, where there is no law against someone drinking a whole case of beer at home, even though doing so could adversely affect his health and tie up medical resources and/or cause medical insurance and treatment costs to rise for everyone else.

In any government sponsored or public event, yes it is mandated, driving is both government sponsored and public.

So you're saying things like rock climbing are regulated by the government? I honestly didn't know the answer to that, which was why I posted it as a question that wasn't entirely rhetorical.

[Nyoibo]

Well I know there are regulations in Australia, there's also qualifications which are usually necesary when going climbing.

[BroomJockey]

I really don't see how that's relevent. And you haven't addressed the other point I made, where there is no law against someone drinking a whole case of beer at home, even though doing so could adversely affect his health and tie up medical resources and/or cause medical insurance and treatment costs to rise for everyone else.

It's about as relevant as your example. Heavy binge drinking isn't engaged in by the majority of the population. It's assumed that people who are buying large amounts of alcohol aren't stupid enough to kill themselves with it. And for most people, that's true. People who engage in rock climbing are generally also responsible. Their own abilities are sufficient protection. Thus, no further intervention is required. If as many people rock climbed as drove, and needed to interact with as many other people during the activity, then higher safety standards would be enforced. After all, you can be the best damned driver ever to grace the planet, but if some drunk fuck comes blazing through the intersection at 2,000 mph, you're getting creamed either way.

So in one situation, we depend on the individual to have some functioning brain cells, and to safeguard their own lives, since it's only their action . In the other, it's irrelevant how careful you are, because something outside your control can, and probably will, cause you to be involved in a traffic collision.

Since driving is a societal necessity, affected by outside factors, society has said "Look, we know it's a shit system, but we're gonna make it as safe as we can." After all, I don't think that seat belts are mandatory in Formula 1 or NASCAR. Why? Because not a majority of people are engaged in that.

Seat belts also provide a modicum of expectations over a driver's behaviour for other drivers. After all, if someone's belted in, they're not going to be crawling in to the back seat to get their backpack or something. It helps focus people by limiting possible actions to those specifically accomplishable while sitting belted in. If you're getting rid of seat belt laws, you might as well ditch speed limits and what side of the road you're supposed to be on as legal requirements as well. Those are only there for safety and preventing damages and accidents. Speed limits because roads' surfaces aren't engineered for vehicles going much faster (spin outs, roll overs, etc) and turns are also rated for specific speeds. Side of road, I believe everyone can figure out why that's in place.