Legislation and risk compensation
The issue of seat belt legislation has been a source of some controversy. Hospital based studies of car accident victims, experiments using both crash test dummies and actual human cadavers have indicated that wearing seat belts should provide a reduced risk of death and injury in many types of car crash. This has led many countries to adopt mandatory seat belt wearing laws. It is generally accepted that, in comparing like-for-like accidents, a vehicle occupant wearing a properly fitted seat belt has a significantly lower chance of death or serious injury. Within the USA, 49 states now require adults to wear seat-belts; New Hampshire has no such law.
The effects of such laws are disputed, stemming from the observed fact that no country is able to demonstrate a reduction in road fatalities due to passage of a seat belt law, though deaths have in some cases been migrated from drivers to other road users. This has influenced the development of risk compensation theory, which says that drivers adjust their behaviour in response to the increased sense of personal safety wearing a seat belt provides. In one trial habitual wearers and non-wearers were asked to drive round a course a number of times under the pretence of testing different seat belt materials for comfort. It was found that non-wearers drove consistently faster when belted than when unbelted (similar responses have been shown in respect of ABS braking and, more recently, airbags). It is also possible that the types of injury modelled in the trials were only a subset of potential serious injuries — for example, oblique impacts may produce twisting forces on the head leading to diffuse axonal injury, a particularly serious type of brain injury.
Put simply, then: if one is involved in a crash, one is almost always better off wearing a seat belt. However, the probability of being in a crash in the first place may be affected by the fact that the person feels safer, so the overall safety benefit may be offset to some unspecified degree.
2006-12-10 07:59:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Linda 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
some of you are going to hate me.Yes I think seat belts
should be mandatory especially for the driver and front
seat passenger.In an accident your head could hit the winsheild and could kill you.
It is amazing that about 40 pecent do not use seat belts.
2006-12-10 08:01:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by doulasc 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Seatbelts actually have killed people. My uncle got in a car accident, and would have been better off if he hadn't been wearing his seat belt.
2006-12-10 08:11:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by Supernova 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Seat belt laws are only about revenue, they make money if you don't wear one. If I choose to get into a car and not strap myself in then it is my problem, nobody elses. It is total BS that they want you to wear one for your safety...it is about MONEY!
2006-12-10 08:06:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
tricky issue. lookup onto google. that will might help!
2015-03-13 19:12:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
they should be required
2006-12-10 08:04:21
·
answer #6
·
answered by Dani Z 2
·
0⤊
1⤋