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