Seat belt legislation
[2][3][4] Seat belts are not required for bus occupants unless fitted, reversing drivers, and those driving some slow-moving vehicles.
[citation needed] Successive UK governments proposed, but failed to deliver, seat belt legislation throughout the 1970s.
[9] Seat belts have been mandatory equipment since the 1968 model year per Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208.
In some states, such as New Hampshire, Michigan, Arkansas, and Missouri, belts in the rear seats are not mandatory for people over the age of 16.
[11] Some states determine whether to enforce failure to wear a seat belt as a primary or secondary offense depending on whether the unrestrained person is in the front or back of the car.
The directive also clarifies that seat belts are to be used for children and makes it mandatory to deactivate airbags for the use of rear-facing child restraints.
Trucks 2004 (Rear Seats) [29] [30] * - actually only vehicles registered after 15 June 1976; in previous registered vehicles fitting is optional † - required by the law, but no penalty for violation at the time ‡ - required by the law, but low enforcement ♣ - definitely introduced by this date, possibly earlier Studies by road safety authorities conclude that seat belt legislation has reduced the number of casualties in road accidents.
Studies of accident outcomes suggest that fatality rates among car occupants are reduced by between 30 and 50 percent if seat belts are worn.
The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that death risks for a driver wearing a lap-shoulder seat belt are reduced by 48 percent.
[45] According to a more recent fact sheet produced by the NHTSA: By 2009, despite large increases in population and the number of vehicles, road deaths in Victoria had fallen below 300, less than a third of the 1970 level, the lowest since records were kept, and far below the per capita rate in jurisdictions such as the United States.
This reduction was generally attributed to aggressive road safety campaigns beginning with the seat belt laws.
Adams accepts the hypothesis that wearing seat belts improves a vehicle occupant's chances of surviving a crash.
[51] In order to explain the disparity between the agreed improvement in crash survival and the observed results, Adams and Wilde argue that protecting someone from the consequences of risky behaviour may tend to encourage greater risk taking.
[55] In addition to risk compensation, Adams has suggested other mechanisms that may lead to inaccurate or unsupportable predictions of positive benefits from seat belt legislation.
However, after introduction of seat belt laws in many European and American countries, safety agencies did not validate the compensation theory: A 2007 study based on data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that between 1985 and 2002 there were "significant reductions in fatality rates for occupants and motorcyclists after the implementation of belt use laws", and that "seatbelt use rate is significantly related to lower fatality rates for the total, pedestrian, and all non-occupant models even when controlling for the presence of other state traffic safety policies and a variety of demographic factors".
[56] A comprehensive 2003 US study also did "not find any evidence that higher seat belt usage has a significant effect on driving behavior."
For example, in a 1986 letter to the editor of the New York Times, a writer argued that seat belt legislation was "coercive" and that "a mandatory-seat-belt law violates the right to bodily privacy and self-control".
For example, an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in 2010 non-fatal injuries to motor vehicle occupants cost the United States $48 billion in medical expenses and lost work.
[60] An example is an unbelted driver who kills or injures another road user because he/she slides out of proper seating position and cannot regain control of the vehicle during slippery conditions.
A University of Wisconsin study demonstrated that car accident victims who had not worn seat belts cost the hospital (and the state, in the case of the uninsured) on average 25% more.
