Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site homxa.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!houxm!homxa!gritz From: gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal Subject: Re: Seatbelts for passengers Message-ID: <1103@homxa.UUCP> Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 15:15:16 EDT Article-I.D.: homxa.1103 Posted: Tue Aug 13 15:15:16 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 21:03:37 EDT References: <535@brl-tgr.ARPA> <870@mtuxo.UUCP>, <639@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 25 Xref: linus net.auto:6611 net.legal:1694 >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