Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!ucbvax!kre From: kre@ucbvax.ARPA (Robert Elz) Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal Subject: Re: Seatbelts for passengers Message-ID: <9909@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 01:03:05 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.9909 Posted: Thu Aug 15 01:03:05 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 16:19:41 EDT References: <535@brl-tgr.ARPA> <870@mtuxo.UUCP> <639@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 44 Xref: watmath net.auto:7673 net.legal:2079 Summary: Front Seat / Back Seat -- possible explanation This is just speculation, but its possible that the US is following the same (or a similar) course that Australia has been over the past 15 - 20 years (the exact start date was so far back that I can't remember it). Initially, manufacturers were required to fit front seat belts to new cars, or they weren't allowed to be registered. Then after a campaign of getting people to wear seatbelts in the front seat voluntarily, it was made compulsary to wear a seatbelt if fitted in the front seat. ($20 fine or something - remember this was 15 years or so ago) Sometime about here manufacturers were require to fit seatbelts to the rear seats. Next, seatbelts were required to be fitted in the front seats before any car could be registered to a new owner. Sometime after that, back seat passengers were required to wear a seatbelt if it was fitted. Then I think all cars were required to have front seat belts fitted before being re-registered (yearly event). I think just recently, cars must have seat belts fitted to all seats to be registered (this is quite recent). I quite likely have the sequence a bit wrong here, and both timing and exact sequence was quite likely different in different states (certainly timing was) - but I think that you get the idea. Its often considerably easier to sell a change to the public if its done in small pieces. This is true, even if the intervening states don't make sense of themselves. Don't ask me why. In Australia, helmets for motorcyclists are also required. I haven't noticed any of these kinds of laws particularly threatening my personal freedoms, in fact, in most of the areas that count, I would say that Australians have more freedoms that US types (in practice). Robert Elz ucbvax!kre