Why are seats mandatory? Which one of the 4 reasons you think below?:
1. Each state loves us. lol
2. A good way for the state to make money giving out tickets.
3. To keep the insurance down.
4. Other.
Why are seats mandatory? Which one of the 4 reasons you think below?:
1. Each state loves us. lol
2. A good way for the state to make money giving out tickets.
3. To keep the insurance down.
4. Other.
Seats, or seat belts? Driving without a seat wouldn't be much fun.![]()
Ok, my bad. I meant seat belts. Thanks Aaron.Quoting aaron
Seat belt laws and helmet laws are often motivated by cost-savings. Uninsured patients treated in public hospitals can cost the taxpayer a lot of money, and seat belts and helmets generally do diminish the severity of injuries from motor vehicle accidents.
In lab tests, it is easily shown that seat belts SHOULD save lives and/or reduce serious injuries. 49 or our 50 states have seat belt laws (NH being the only holdout), as a result. However, not one single country that has imposed mandatory seat belts in automobiles and enacted has demonstrated a marked decrease in traffic deaths, especially in the US.
Recently, however, one of the most outspoken critics of seat belt laws was actually killed in a car accident. He was NOT wearing a seat belt. The other two passengers, both of whom had their seat belts on, had only minor injuries.
Moving from empirical to anecdotal, I cannot recall a [u]minor[/] injury crash involving a party without a seatbelt ... I can recall MANY instances of fatal (or nearly so) collisions involving un-seatbelted individuals.
I have seen un-belted drivers decapitated by the speed of the impact, thrown 150' THROUGH the air (landing on a roof), compacted from 5'10 to 2'6", crushed, mangled, maimed, and otherwise destroyed. Fewer such dire injury occurs to the belted passengers in low and medium speed collisions.
The reason the stats may not show a marked decrease is that even belted you will receive injury. No state that I know of delineates in too great a detail the extent of injury to parties in a crash. In my state we have four categories: Fatal Injury, Severe Injury, Other Visible Injury, and Complaint of Pain. A Severe injury can include a bleeding laceration or a broken finger and this would be statted the SAME as the guy who had his pelvis crushed when he got thrown from the vehicle. I would guess that if a study were done concerning the extent of injury, the belted passengers and drivers would be much, much lower than than the un-belted ones.
The only negative I have seen for belts is with drowning ... and this is very rare ... though I'd say it happens twice a year in my area, thought he person so killed USUALLY was unconscious on impact and would likely have died in any event (belted or un-belted) due to drowning.
- Carl
I specifically remember being told this in law school by one of my professors and, not saying I was right, but I thought at the time, "Isn't the only difference whether you take them to the hospital or the morgue?" In other words, maybe it is less costly to treat those accident victims who ride without helmets or do not use seat belts because they are most likely dead. But then I suppose there would be other burdens placed on society as a result of their deaths.Quoting aaron
I have never actually seen a calculation of the relative costs, out-of-pocket or otherwise. I have seen people who have suffered severe head trauma and brain injury in motor vehicle accidents, though, and it's not something I would like to see happen to anybody, even if they really like feeling the wind blowing through their hair.
Hmm ... must depend on your state. I know that we don't make money on them. It costs more for my agency to enforce one seatbelt ticket then we would receive back for three.Quoting Guilty Or Not Guilty
- Carl
First, let me explain that I am a fanatic about seatbelts. My car does not MOVE until everyone in it is belted. I had a friend of my daughter's tell me that he doesn't wear seatbelts -- his whole family doesn't. I turned off the motor, slouched down in my seat and said, "Wake me when you have it buckled." It took about two minutes.
That said, here are the fatality statistics for the State of Washington and the US. We passed a mandatory seatbelt law in 2000.
Year - WA - US
1998: 662
1999: 637
2000: 631 - 41,945 (WA Mandatory Seatbelt Law went into effect 7/1/2000)
2001: 649 - 42,196
2002: 658 - 43,005
2003: 600 - 42,884
2004: 563 - 42,646
During that time, here is the "observed" seatbelt usage in WA State:
2000: 82% - 71%
2001: 83% - 73%
2002: 93% - 75%
2003: 95% - 79%
2004: 95% - 80%
As you can see, nationally, the death toll stays in a fairly narrow range, while WA death toll (after a slow start) dropped dramatically when seatbelt usage hit 95%. Perhaps the nation will also realize such a reduction if we can hit 95+ % across the country.
Another interesting statistic is the number of deaths per 100 million vehicle miles. In WA it has dropped from 1.21 in 2000 to 1.01 in 2004 -- a 17% decrease, taking into account population fluctuations and miles driven.