Seatbelt Laws

[MadMike]

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.

Did the majority of people go without seatbelts before it became law? I'm asking, because I honestly don't know. I know my family didn't for the longest time, but then my stepdad got us to start using them, long before it became law. I couldn't imagine not wearing one now.

It's funny, I remember back in the early 80s, there was a piece about helmet laws, and the motorcycle riders were asking why helmets should be required, when seatbelts are not. These days, it's the other way around, at least here in PA. Seatlbelts are required, but helmets recently become optional as long as you're 20 or older.

I still think the government has no business protecting people from themselves. I wear my seatbelt because I think it's stupid not to, and if I rode a motorcycle I'd wear a helmet for the same reason. I wouldn't do it because it's the law.

[AdminAssistant]

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.

I know this is beside the point, but after the death of Dale Earnhardt, NASCAR mandated the use of a 5-point safety harness and a helmet restraint thingy (basically holds the driver's head in place), along with other kinds of safety equipment. Every driver has to use exactly the same stuff. This is why when a driver has a crash, you'll see a lot of people descend on the car, because it's really hard for the driver to get out of all of that equipment by himself.

I have no problem with seatbelt laws. However, I do have a problem with cops staking out roads specifically to catch and ticket drivers not wearing belts. (My fam was talking about this today because a nearby town is doing it). 1) They just do it as an excuse to write a whole bunch of tickets and make a whole lot of money. 2) Seriously, you're telling me that these cops, who are supposed to be so overworked and overburdened, have nothing better to do than make sure everybody's wearing their seatbelts?

[BroomJockey]

Did the majority of people go without seatbelts before it became law? I'm asking, because I honestly don't know.

I don't know either, and can't easily locate statistics for it. However, when the law was first introduced, there were still vehicles being made that didn't have seat belts (I remember those were "grandfathered in" to the mandatory law), and I also remember people on the news purposefully cutting out their car's seatbelts in protest. I'd say that if you're cutting out your seatbelt rather than wear it, you're an idiot, and if they were making cars that didn't have any, then wearing them wasn't a high priority for at least a segment of the population.

[Flyndaran]

...
I have no problem with seatbelt laws. However, I do have a problem with cops staking out roads specifically to catch and ticket drivers not wearing belts. (My fam was talking about this today because a nearby town is doing it). 1) They just do it as an excuse to write a whole bunch of tickets and make a whole lot of money. 2) Seriously, you're telling me that these cops, who are supposed to be so overworked and overburdened, have nothing better to do than make sure everybody's wearing their seatbelts?

I don't have much of a problem with cops purposefully ticketing lawbreakers. I just don't like it being a law, especially if it wasn't enforced like that.

[crazylegs]

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.

I'll ask the next question then. If it became law for every vehicle to have (and you to activate) an airbag, would you deactivate it?

1) They just do it as an excuse to write a whole bunch of tickets and make a whole lot of money. 2) Seriously, you're telling me that these cops, who are supposed to be so overworked and overburdened, have nothing better to do than make sure everybody's wearing their seatbelts?

I don't know about the US, but in the UK the Police make a LOSS on each ticket they write for seatbelt infractions.

Again, I don't know about the US, but in the UK the primary function of the Police is to save life and prevent harm. Enforcing traffic legislation comes into that.

Part of my job involves delivering death messages, and telling someone that their loved one has died, knowing it was preventable because they didn't wear their seatbelt, is a bit of a shitty feeling.

[DesignFox]

I'll ask the next question then. If it became law for every vehicle to have (and you to activate) an airbag, would you deactivate it?

<snip>

I think the only reason we have the option of deactivating them now is that if you are under a certain height, the airbag can hurt you more than help you. Also, I think if you have a rear facing infant seat, the infant can be harmed by the airbag.

I'm at work. and lazy. These are only things I've "heard" not researched.

I don't know if this has been remedied in newer models?

[crazylegs]

Also, I think if you have a rear facing infant seat, the infant can be harmed by the airbag.

The risk is so high that in the UK it is an Endorsable Offence (i.e. you get 3 points on your licence) if you put a baby in said car seat into a passenger seat where the bag hasn't been deactivated.

[Flyndaran]

The risk is so high that in the UK it is an Endorsable Offence (i.e. you get 3 points on your licence) if you put a baby in said car seat into a passenger seat where the bag hasn't been deactivated.

This whole danger issue came about because of how car manufacturers tested their saftey. They used donated cadavers for absolute accuracy. The problem was that no one donated children. This really skewed thier data into ironically making the cars death traps for kids.

[BroomJockey]

This whole danger issue came about because of how car manufacturers tested their saftey. They used donated cadavers for absolute accuracy. The problem was that no one donated children. This really skewed thier data into ironically making the cars death traps for kids.

Seriously? Got a link? Because I find this hard to believe. Using cadavers before they came up with crash-test-dummies, sure. But after? The mess would be horrific, and that's really the least of the issues.

[Flyndaran]

Seriously? Got a link? Because I find this hard to believe. Using cadavers before they came up with crash-test-dummies, sure. But after? The mess would be horrific, and that's really the least of the issues.

It's still the most accurate way and far less expensive than multi-million dollar robotics.
Again, you force me to use my sub-par researching skill.

Ick. It's easy to find articles about using cadavers even now. But all I can find about the difficulty in using children's cadavers is other laymen stating the same secondhand story I heard.

I know that just, because it makes sense does not mean that it's true...