Posted on 05/15/2006 2:20:53 AM PDT by mathprof
Seat belt use is reaching record levels, so just who are the holdouts who fail to buckle up? Often they are young men who live in rural areas and drive pickups, the government says.
About 48 million people do not regularly put on seat belts when they are on the road, a figure the government's highway safety agency hopes to lower with an annual public education campaign ahead of the summer driving season.
The "Click It or Ticket" campaign involves checkpoints, patrols and advertisements to help enforce seat belt laws. It runs from May 22 through June 4.
The latest report on seat belt use by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says men account for 65 percent of the more than 31,000 people killed each year in passenger vehicles.
The report being released Monday found:
_58 percent of those killed who were not wearing a seat belt crashed along rural roads.
_in crashes involving pickup trucks, about seven in 10 people who died were unbelted.
_more than six in 10 people age 8-44 who were killed inside a passenger vehicle were not buckled up.
The agency said that lap and shoulder safety belts reduce the risk of death for those in the front seat of passenger cars by 45 percent and the risk of moderate-to-critical injuries by 50 percent.
The fatality risk for front-seat motorists in sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and vans who wear seat belts is reduced by 60 percent; moderate-to-critical injuries by 65 percent.
The public education campaign is using $31 million in state and federal grants for national and state ads that seek to attract young drivers who watch sporting events such as NASCAR and baseball.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
"I look to the pros for advice. Driving without a seatbelt is as smart as playing football without a helmet."
I think that anyone that wants to drive without a seatbelt should have that right. However, I also think that your insurance company should have the right to refuse to pay for your injuries if you do not have a seatbelt on (or change an extra "non-seatbelt" fee for coverage). Same goes with motorcycle helmets -- any head injury that could have been avoided by wearing a helmet shouldn't be covered if you don't have a helmet on.
Freedom of choice and acceptance of responsiblity.
It reminds me of the old saying, never forget the golden rule who ever has the gold makes the rules.
I have always been a firm believer in sink or swim, take smoking, I don't smoke and I believe if you do smoke and develop a decides from smoking, if you cant pay for any treatment you shouldn't get any.
Of course in Britain you do, which is why are wards of full of those who are ill through there own actions.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
I can't agree with that as long as the majority of states MANDATE insurance coverage. It would work if insurance was optional, but as long as I have to pay for it........
If they put half the effort into apprehending illegal aliens as they do seat beat violators, immigration wouldn't be an issue. I want amnesty and catch and release for seat belt violators.
"1. To insure more profits to all engaged in the manufacture and sale of seat belts."
This one is the only one I have to pick a bone with. The manufacturers of seat belts (as well as other safety equipment) didn't need government regulation to ensure their profitability. This was accomplished, regardless of the laws. The OEM's would have installed the equipment on 100% of their vehicles, regardless of the legislation that mandated the use.
The litigators have figured out how to set legislative policy, and the litigators have sued enough to ensure the OEM's make their cars as expensive as possible, to avoid lawsuits.
An interesting side note is that a couple of seat belt manufacturers have gone bankrupt. They also owned other auto parts plants that fell victim to the asbestos lawsuit industry.
Seat belts= more revenue. The "great" state of ohio implemented these laws quite awhile ago. I have yet to wear a seatbelt.If I recall correctly, Ohio only passed these laws due to federal blackmail. It took similar blackmail to force Ohio to raise its drinking age (not long after an initiative to raise it failed by a 2-1 margin) and lower its BAC limit. The state still refuses to cave in to similar blackmail and require motorcycle helmets.
-Eric
How does one prove the only reasn for the injury was because of non-seatbelt wearing?
I wear my seatbelt, it's the way I was taught to drive back in the 70s, long before these nanny state laws came into effect. I just have a very hard time with the nanny state and that is what these mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws are.
When I was a little girl, I remember my grandfather had just bought a new car and was showing it to our family. The first thing he had done was take a knife and cut out the seat belts.
Ve haf vays uff maging you do vat's goot for you.
Well heck, ya can't arrest 48 million people. Amnesty now!
"How does one prove the only reasn for the injury was because of non-seatbelt wearing?"
Don't wear a helmet & a head injury -- the insurance company should have a right not to pay unless you asked for "non-helmet wearing coverage".
Don't wear a seatbeat and get thrown from the car or through a windshield -- the insurance company should have a right not to pay unless you asked for "non-seatbelt wearing coverage".
Why should the rest of the insurance paying public have to pay for someone else's choice not to wear a seatbelt or helmet? Goes back to that "driving is not a right" thing. If people want the freedom not to wear a seatbelt or wear a helmet the responsiblity should be accepted for their risky behavior. Period
Oh! Aren't you the smart person.
I think that I pay TAXES for these services. I DO NOT PAY TAXES SO THAT I CAN BE FINED FOR NOT WEARING A SEAT BELT!
I recommend a course in logic 101.
We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the insurance industry did have legislatures throughout the country in their pockets, along with the trial lawyer lobby.
If I am paying for insurance, I expect the carrier to cover what I am paying for. I guess I really should get off this thread.......I'm in the midst of a battle with my health insurance carrier right now for refusing to pay the bill for my surgery last year.........they paid for everything without question, EXCEPT for the doctor who did the surgery. So I am probably looking at this from a less than objective standpoint.
My gripe is not with you, or really even your position, just with the system as a whole. It's broke and needs to be fixed.
One of the best post I've seen. Finally a post with experience and conservative views.
Since only lap belts were required any front end wreck would of resulted in your body pivoting at the hip and your head being neatly cleaved in two by the pointy steel dash.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.