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