> It was legal to buy a car that had a seatbelt before the seatbelt became mandatory.
Yes, making seatbelts mandatory was also a weird decision.
Yes, making seatbelts mandatory was also a weird decision.
As an example of public policy it had significant impact on death, injury, medical costs, etc.
Road Traffic Accidents before and after Seatbelt Legislation-Study in a District General Hospital (1990)
Injuries among samples of car accident cases attending the Accident & Emergency (A & E) department of a District General Hospital (DGH) in the year before and after the introduction of seat belt legislation were classified applying the Abbreviated Injury Scale using information recorded in the patient case notes.
Those who died or did not attend an A & E department were not included in the sampling frame.
The number of those who escaped injury increased by 40% and those with mild and moderate injuries decreased by 35% after seatbelt legislation. There was a significant reduction in soft tissue injuries to the head. Only whiplash injuries to the neck showed a significant increase.
( ^ One of many before/after studies that highlight difference made by seatbelt legislation )
However people who don't want to wear seatbelts generally only endanger themselves. So why force them against their will?
In reality, the worse an accident is (deaths, injuries) the longer and more difficult the clean up process is .. increasing the time that normal traffic flow is impacted and increasing the danger to all those attending who are exposed to potential (and common place) cascading disasters.
The deaths and injuries impact the local health response services - raising costs, demand for resources, and impacting triage decisions (fewer injured non seatbelt wearing idiots to look after, more free resources to devote to other patients).
The downsides to have seat belts usage not mandatory outside of reducing deaths/injuries. A few that comes to mind:
1. Parents don't wear them -> kids don't wear them 2. Friends don't wear them -> peer pressure not to wear them 3. Accident happens -> body flies out the window (risk of hitting someone, makes a mess to clean up) 4. Accident happens, person survive but is injured and is now a cost to society
Upsides (I worked with someone who refused to wear it and told me something like that):
1. Anecdote about someone that was wearing one and got into an accident and the seat belt somehow prevented them to escape the burning car and they died 2. It's less comfortable 3. Makes me feel alive (freedom)
He would only falsely wearing it when there was suspected police presence.
4. Occasional anecdote about someone who knows someone who was in an accident while wearing seat belts, and the seat belts proceeded to slice their head off or cut the body in half or something else like that.
I assume an event like this happened more than zero times in the history of the world, but AFAIK it's too low-probability to worry about (with possible exception of kids under a certain age/height, that shouldn't be strapped in with regular belts in a standard adult configuration).
If you are so concerned about this chain: price out the whole thing and add an appropriate tax.
However people who don't want to wear seatbelts generally only endanger themselves. So why force them against their will?
Additionally if it was optional people would forget to do it more often even if they don't consciously choose to risk their lives for no reason.
BTW they are not only endangering themselves - they also endanger their kids.
If it's a considerate decision, I support people's right to ending their own life. Though I grant that jumping off a bridge is inconsiderate.
> BTW they are not only endangering themselves - they also endanger their kids.
So the seatbelt mandate should only apply when kids are in the car, or only to kids?
I support euthanasia after proper waiting period and psych evaluation.
But if I see someone trying to end their life on a street I'm trying to stop them. It's far more likely it's impulsive and not a rational, thought-out decision.
Same with not using seatbelts. There's basically zero reasons not to, so the probability of it being someone exercising their freedoms after a careful consideration is basically zero.
> So the seatbelt mandate should only apply when kids are in the car, or only to kids?
It should apply always, because the benefit is literally life and death, and the cost is basically nothing. Why complicate law, then?
If the seatbelt saves your life from an accident in which you were at fault, it is easier to prosecute and extract compensation from the living than from the dead.
This pales in comparison to the projectile that your care already is.
In any case, just work out the expected level of danger, convert to monetary units, and tax people who don't wear seatbelts.
> If the seatbelt saves your life from an accident in which you were at fault, it is easier to prosecute and extract compensation from the living than from the dead.
Tax non-seatbelt-wearers ahead of time. Or make sure everyone has insurance, get the money from the insurance, and beancounters at the insurace will make sure premiums go up for non-seatbelt-wearers. (And use the full force of the law against people without insurance. Or have some clever mechanism design, like selling default insurance with petrol, but give people with proven insurance a discount on that, etc.)
If they sell the vehicle, the decision was already made for the new owner (nobody would buy separate aftermarket seatbelts for a used car). So no, they also endanger other people. Mandating them outright is the right decision.
> (nobody would buy separate aftermarket seatbelts for a used car)
I would assume most people who want seatbelts in the first place would buy a car that comes with seatbelts, even when buying a used car.
In a hypothetical situation with no mandated seatbelts it could take decades for the market of new cars be close to 100% with seatbelts at best. And of course much longer for the used cars market. So yes, many buyers in the meantime would essentially be forced to buy such a car, simply because at their price point and locality there isn't one available with a seatbelt.