wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (08/08/85)
Most state mandatory-seatbelt laws I have heard of require that both the driver and the *front-seat* passenger(s) be belted in. We have seen lots of net postings detailing the arguments as to why the drivers should be belted, mostly related to controlling the car in various circumstances. But I have not read any good explanation for requiring it of the passenger(s) -- if it relates to an unbelted passenger flying about the car during an accident, and this making it harder for an even-belted-in driver to control the car, it should apply to ALL passengers, not just those in the front seat (I would think that the rear-seat bodies, coming at the back of the driver's head, would contribute more to loss of control than the side-collisions from an unbelted front-seat passenger, actually). So, is there any real justification for the inclusion of specifically front-seat passengers in these laws? Has the legality of requiring the belting of an adult passenger (lets ignore child-seat laws here) been tested in court anywhere? Will
gv@mtuxo.UUCP (g.valentini) (08/10/85)
REFERENCES: <535@brl-tgr.ARPA> The reason for front seat passengers to be buckled up is so that tir brains won't be splatterd all over the windshield in case of head-on collision. COME ON!!. Did you know that a head-on collision at 30 mph is equivalent to jumping off a three story building head-first. If you don't already wear your seatbelt regularly, you should start thinking about it.
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (08/12/85)
In article <870@mtuxo.UUCP> gv@mtuxo.UUCP (g.valentini) writes: > >The reason for front seat passengers to be buckled up is so that tir >brains won't be splatterd all over the windshield in case of head-on >collision. COME ON!!. Did you know that a head-on collision at >30 mph is equivalent to jumping off a three story building head-first. > >If you don't already wear your seatbelt regularly, you should start >thinking about it. Come now! This has been discussed repeatedly already. The net consensus has been that laws meant *simply* or *merely* to protect people from the consequences of their *own* actions are unjustifiable. The seatbelt laws have been justified by the protection they offer to OTHERS, specifically in regard to the driver's ability to retain control in an accident. This was clearly stated in my original posting and has been reiterated by many other posters. Please, if you have come into this discussion late with no knowledge of its history or background, please just read it for a while first! The point and question, which has not yet been answered by anyone, is how the laws requiring that *front-seat only passengers* wear belts can be justified, in such a manner that the laws should not also be applied to ALL passengers in the vehicle, with regard to the protection of OTHERS [or the general public]. I am beginning to believe that there is *no* justification for such laws; the rationale for their always including passengers instead of simply specifying the driver alone is not clear and has not been explained by anyone, as far as I see.
gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) (08/13/85)
>From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) > >......., is how the laws requiring that *front-seat only passengers* >wear belts can be justified, in such a manner that the laws should not >also be applied to ALL passengers in the vehicle, with regard to the >protection of OTHERS [or the general public]. I am beginning to believe >that there is *no* justification for such laws; the rationale for their >always including passengers instead of simply specifying the driver >alone is not clear and has not been explained by anyone, as far as I see. The reasons for the laws have been mentioned before in terms of benefiting all of society by having fewer people injured, unable to work, running up insurance premiums, etc.. The reason they don't carry this to back seat passengers (with the exception of children) is: 1) there are a great many fewer backseat passengers to injure (most cars have one or two passengers in them) and, more importantly, 2) they are much less likely to be seriously injured in an accident (this can be argued). I have seen some lethal exceptions and because of that I require ALL passengers in my car to wear seatbelts. This is partly out of concern for them but mostly because I couldn't live with my self if they were hurt in an accident in my car where seatbelts might have lessened their injuries. Russ Sharples homxa!gritz
alan@sun.uucp (Alan Marr, Sun Graphics) (08/14/85)
Re: seat belt laws: > the rationale for their > always including passengers instead of simply specifying the driver > alone is not clear and has not been explained by anyone, as far as I see. Passengers in the interior of the car who caroom into the driver will interfere her/his ability to maintain control after a primary impact and hopefully avoid a secondary impact, possibly with oncoming traffic. Speaking of secondary impacts, air bags are a kludge. They do not protect you from secondary impacts (because they deflate), they do not protect you from sideways impacts, the accumulated dust and debris flies into the face of the driver just when his vision must not be obscured, the bags themselves interfere with the control of the car, and they encourage people to not use a more effective mechanism (their seatbelts).
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (08/15/85)
In article <535@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: >Most state mandatory-seatbelt laws I have heard of require that both the >driver and the *front-seat* passenger(s) be belted in. We have seen lots >of net postings detailing the arguments as to why the drivers should be >belted, mostly related to controlling the car in various circumstances. >But I have not read any good explanation for requiring it of the >passenger(s) -- if it relates to an unbelted passenger flying about the >car during an accident, and this making it harder for an even-belted-in >driver to control the car, it should apply to ALL passengers, not just >those in the front seat (I would think that the rear-seat bodies, coming >at the back of the driver's head, would contribute more to loss of >control than the side-collisions from an unbelted front-seat passenger, >actually). I agree that it is ludicrous; unfortunately the trend in legislation lately seems to be to extend ridiculous laws rather than repeal them. If you ask a legislator, "Why can't I make a U-turn at this intersection; I can make one at this identical intersection?"; his response is likely to be a law outlawing all U-turns within city limits rather than repealing the ban on the one in question. -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
kre@ucbvax.ARPA (Robert Elz) (08/15/85)
This is just speculation, but its possible that the US is following the same (or a similar) course that Australia has been over the past 15 - 20 years (the exact start date was so far back that I can't remember it). Initially, manufacturers were required to fit front seat belts to new cars, or they weren't allowed to be registered. Then after a campaign of getting people to wear seatbelts in the front seat voluntarily, it was made compulsary to wear a seatbelt if fitted in the front seat. ($20 fine or something - remember this was 15 years or so ago) Sometime about here manufacturers were require to fit seatbelts to the rear seats. Next, seatbelts were required to be fitted in the front seats before any car could be registered to a new owner. Sometime after that, back seat passengers were required to wear a seatbelt if it was fitted. Then I think all cars were required to have front seat belts fitted before being re-registered (yearly event). I think just recently, cars must have seat belts fitted to all seats to be registered (this is quite recent). I quite likely have the sequence a bit wrong here, and both timing and exact sequence was quite likely different in different states (certainly timing was) - but I think that you get the idea. Its often considerably easier to sell a change to the public if its done in small pieces. This is true, even if the intervening states don't make sense of themselves. Don't ask me why. In Australia, helmets for motorcyclists are also required. I haven't noticed any of these kinds of laws particularly threatening my personal freedoms, in fact, in most of the areas that count, I would say that Australians have more freedoms that US types (in practice). Robert Elz ucbvax!kre
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/15/85)
I think the reason for including front seat passengers only is because rear
seat belts are typically lap belts and very little protection in an accident.
Personally I favor the insurance company solution to the problem.
--
Peter da Silva (the mad Australian)
UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (08/16/85)
Yes, it's an interesting point -- inclusion of front-seat passenger in the
seat-belt law shows that the underlying rationale must be just "save you
from injuries in accident" and not "prevent accident (and harm to others)
by improving driver's control".
Illinois just recently adopted a seat-belt law, and I can't say I'm very
happy about it. I end up with people honking at me to get moving, because
I stop to buckle up only after all the twisting and turning involved in
un-parking.
All the same, I'd like to propose another rationale in favor of the law, one
which isn't respectable enough to make it as an official reason, but which
is ultimately the real reason why I'm fer the law more than agin it. All in
all, I would rather wear a belt and be safe. But (before the law) I would
often feel silly -- like a nerdo wimp, you might say -- or else, when a
passenger, feel like I'm insulting the driver. "I'd better get this belt
on quick, 'cause I know you're gonna crash us." Okay, so with the law
in place all these second thoughts and strange projections can just
evaporate. "Hell man, like, y'know I'm tough enough to ride without
the belt -- but now there's this law, so I guess I'll go along with
it. Ain't that I think you're a bad driver, amigo."
--
-- Mitch Marks @ UChicago
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmarpeter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/18/85)
> This is just speculation, but its possible that the US is > following the same (or a similar) course that Australia has > been over the past 15 - 20 years (the exact start date > was so far back that I can't remember it). ... > I haven't noticed any of these kinds of laws particularly > threatening my personal freedoms, in fact, in most of > the areas that count, I would say that Australians have > more freedoms that US types (in practice). > > Robert Elz ucbvax!kre If I believed that I'd still be back there. How do you define areas that count? -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian werewolf) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
T3B@psuvm.BITNET (08/19/85)
I agree with comments made about the "sociology of seatbelt use" --
that there is a rule of courtesy that seems to operate
in passenger seatbelt use. One seems to insult the driver if one uses
a seatbelt. One frosty morning in 1971, as a passenger in a VW beetle
on PA route 80 headed for New York, I declined to insist on putting on
my seat belt. Rounding a curve and crossing an overpass, we went into
a skid, flipped over, railroaded upside down along a guard rail, and
came to rest, right side up and semi-conscious, teetering on the guard
rail. The car was totalled, but we managed to creep carefully out of it
with nothing worse than some cuts, bruises, and hair full of broken glass.
When the state police arrived, they asked, seriously, where the bodies
were. Since 1971 I use seat belts; I tell my passengers I prefer to have
them buckle up; I made a deal with my daughter that when she drives she
will use seat belts and tell passengers that her father's rule is nobody
rides in our car with her unless buckled. A seat belt law may help to
tip the balance that will change the social rules against seat belt use.
-- Tom Benson
{akgua,allegra,ihnp4,cbosgd}!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!t3b (UUCP)
T3B@PSUVM (BITNET) 76044,3701 (COMPUSERVE)
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/20/85)
Mitch Marks writes: >All the same, I'd like to propose another rationale in favor of the law, one >which isn't respectable enough to make it as an official reason, but which >is ultimately the real reason why I'm fer the law more than agin it. All in >all, I would rather wear a belt and be safe. But (before the law) I would >often feel silly -- like a nerdo wimp, you might say -- or else, when a >passenger, feel like I'm insulting the driver. "I'd better get this belt >on quick, 'cause I know you're gonna crash us." Okay, so with the law >in place all these second thoughts and strange projections can just >evaporate. Actually, this is a nontrivial reason in favor of such laws. A law can help change a collective behavior pattern in which all the individual agents act rationally, yet the total result is far from optimal. For example: everyone slows down to stare at an accident on the freeway, and the result is a traffic jam in which every driver spends ten extra minutes driving just to see an accident that each driver individually would only want to spend ten extra *seconds* to see. Such patterns are common in interactions among people (they are often called Prisoner's Dilemma or Free Rider situations), and in general, individual rationality does not lead to a collectively optimal situation. The free market is a special case: the market "works" (in the sense it may be said to work) because each agent enters the marketplace *voluntarily*. But this is not the general case with social interactions. In the case of a passenger (or driver, for that matter) who feels it is "wimpy" or discourteous to use a seat belt in the absence of a law, a law may change the situation as Mitch describes above, so that for him using a belt is now the rational choice. The result is that at virtually no cost (since he is not being perceived as rude or a wimp, and it takes ?1.5 sec to buckle up), he gets in return an large increase in safety (50% reduction in chances of death or injury). Multiply this by all drivers and passengers so affected, and the net benefit to society would be large. Furthermore, the same result could obtain if a person is largely motivated by *habit* (which I suspect is often the case WRT seat-belt usage) rather than social norms that forbid wimpiness or discourtesy: a law could provide the situation that would change a person's habitual behavior at little cost but great benefit to the individual. But I'm speculating now. An excellent book on this topic is Thomas Schelling's *Micromotives and Macrobehavior*. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
weltyrp@rpics.UUCP (Richard Welty) (08/25/85)
>All the same, I'd like to propose another rationale in favor of the law, one >which isn't respectable enough to make it as an official reason, but which >is ultimately the real reason why I'm fer the law more than agin it. All in >all, I would rather wear a belt and be safe. But (before the law) I would >often feel silly -- like a nerdo wimp, you might say -- or else, when a >passenger, feel like I'm insulting the driver. "I'd better get this belt >on quick, 'cause I know you're gonna crash us." Okay, so with the law >in place all these second thoughts and strange projections can just >evaporate. Gee ... I always put on a belt, regardless of what the driver and/or other passengers do, and never thought about it. I have noticed, however, that a friend who never used to wear belts has started putting his on when he notices that I have just put mine on ... When I am sitting in a front seat of a car, I do insist that the person behind me put on a belt. I started doing this after thinking about a film I was shown of a back seat passenger (a test dummy, actually) slamming into the seat in front of it. The back seat passenger affects MY survivability. -- Rich Welty (I am both a part-time grad student at RPI and a full-time employee of a local CAE firm, and opinions expressed herein have nothing to do with anything at all) CSNet: weltyrp@rpi ArpaNet: weltyrp.rpi@csnet-relay UUCP: seismo!rpics!weltyrp
smh@rduxb.UUCP (henning) (08/26/85)
> >... But (before the law) I would > >often feel silly -- like a nerdo wimp, you might say -- or else, when a > >passenger, feel like I'm insulting the driver. "A wimp is someone afraid to be called a nerd." "A real man doesn't care what jocks think or say."
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (08/27/85)
In article <160@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > ... A law >can help change a collective behavior pattern in which all the >individual agents act rationally, yet the total result is far from >optimal. ... Such patterns are common in interactions among people (they are >often called Prisoner's Dilemma or Free Rider situations), and in >general, individual rationality does not lead to a collectively >optimal situation. The free market is a special case: the market >"works" (in the sense it may be said to work) because each agent >enters the marketplace *voluntarily*. But this is not the general >case with social interactions. >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Richard is teetering dangerously close to a valuable insight. Namely, that there are some systems in which the rational behavior of all the participants "sums" to the good of all (as in the market) but that many systems work the opposite way. In particular, political systems work the opposite way: it is impossible for everybody to get rich by stealing from everybody else. --JoSH
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/28/85)
> In article <160@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > > ... A law > >can help change a collective behavior pattern in which all the > >individual agents act rationally, yet the total result is far from > >optimal. ... Such patterns are common in interactions among people (they are > >often called Prisoner's Dilemma or Free Rider situations), and in > >general, individual rationality does not lead to a collectively > >optimal situation. The free market is a special case: the market > >"works" (in the sense it may be said to work) because each agent > >enters the marketplace *voluntarily*. But this is not the general > >case with social interactions. > >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes > > Richard is teetering dangerously close to a valuable insight. > Namely, that there are some systems in which the rational behavior > of all the participants "sums" to the good of all (as in the market) > but that many systems work the opposite way. In particular, political > systems work the opposite way: it is impossible for everybody to > get rich by stealing from everybody else. > > --JoSH JoSH, what do you want to have in the absence of a political system? When I deduced that a dictatorship, you were offended. I am still guessing. My second guess: a theocracy, with the priests educated in the Chicago shool of economy. Perhaps I am offending you, but I want you to be more specific. Piotr Berman