what is with the seat belt law?
543836
no you are not better off "always" to wear one.\n\nOn the radio today it was saying on average in the US, @ 30,000 people die each year for not wearing thier seat belt.  and about 10,000 die each year because they had it on.\n\nIt is in my opinon a harm of my rights, but I can't afford the fine either,a nd they are getting tough on the fines lately
338626
The injuries are related to the type and angles of impact(head on, t-bone, rollovers, rearender), speeds involved, rate of deceleration, proximity and numbers of objects (fixed and loose) in the vehicles, style/design of vehicles.\n\nSeatbelts save lives by\n1) keeping you in the car protected by steel rather than being ejected and protected by skin\n2) keeping you firmly back in the seat in front of the steering wheel so you might still maintain some control over the vehicle during the intial impact or follow up impacts\n3) distributing the sudden deceleration/change in direction of your body over a greater portion of your torso and over a greater period of time (all be it just 100th of a second).\n4) keeping you seated in the designed 'crash protection zone' of the vehicle.\n\nAirbags save live by protecting the stupid who don't think to put on their seatbelts for that 'short drive that nothing is going to happen on anyways'. They are meant to be a supplemental or secondary restraint system to the seatbelt and are meant to further distribute the force of the sudden deceleration or change in direction of your body in an impact. They deploy at roughly 300km/sec and remain fully inflated for only seconds during the impact. They use the same principle as the giant airbags you see stunt persons landing in after jumping off of 10 story buildings, transfering and dispersing the energy of impact into the release of air through controlled vents/openings in the bags.\n\nThe reason for smaller individuals (not just children but even smaller adults) not being seated in front of airbags is due to the force and speed at which they deploy not being properly countered by the weight and proper positioning of the individual in front of it. Smaller people tend to be seated closer to the bags not allowing for adaquate room for deployment before coming in contact with the mass (person) they are meant to decelarate. Instead of decelarating the object/person to a softer stop it actually accelerates the object/person backwards causing more damage/injuries. It is akin to being hit by a giant beach ball travelling at 300 km/sec. OUCH!!!\n\nIf you want to know what types of injuries to expect from an crash/impact without any seatbelts or airbags, here is a cool test you can do yourself. First find a building (school or your house) with a flat wall (no doors or windows at ground level), stand about 30-40 feet from the wall, now run as fast as you can toward the wall and keep running hard until you hit the wall, you have just experienced what an impact at approx. 12-15 miles per hour feels like. It doesn't make much difference if you suddenly throw your arms out at the last minute to slow yourself as you hit the wall. (PS. If you are crazy/stupid enough to attempt this please have a friend with a cell phone with you or predial 911 and give them your location either way you're going to the hospital for a while.) Now try to imagine what it will be like to impact that same wall at normal driving speeds of 40-70 miles per hour. As a side note in a head on crash with another vehicle, you are impacting at the combined speeds of both vehicles (ie. 80-140 MPH) not to mention any speeding that is going on.
998947
The government seems to think that they have to protect everyone from themselves. Personally, I disagree with that philosophy. But nevertheless it is a fact. There are times when I do not wear my seat belt, especially when I am looking for birds. And if the government does not like it then they can try to catch me. \n\nBut think about this.  If the government were really concerned about people's safety, they would ban semis from the nation's hiways.  They account for a much larger proportion of deaths and injuries than their numbers.  They also account for 90% of the destruction of the hiways but pay for only 10% of the cost of the hiways. \n\nNice to have a powerful lobby.  We have the best government money can buy.
883096
becasue the legislative branch of the govt made it a law because the people of the nation said they don't want people driving and drinking at the same time.  The excutive(police) fine you for breaking it.   this is how america works.  the "game" may suck, but its the only one we have to play.
59755
Seat belts in school buses seems like a no-brainer to me, but some folks think otherwise. My belief is that it all comes down to saving a few bucks for the manufacturer and the school district. That does appear to be changing in the past few years though. Below is an excerpt from a wikipedia search. Please find below that excerpt in the "source(s)" section everything you'll ever need to know and then some on the plain old school bus. Rather interesting to say the least. One stat in particular struck me was the fact that 2/3 (two thirds) of children deaths have been from the school bus itself. And watch out for those church buses, their even more dangerous in most cases.\n\nVery few school buses have seat belts, a standard safety feature in cars and light duty passenger vehicles. In 1977, as provided in Standard 222, the federal government required passive restraint and structural integrity standards for school buses in lieu of requiring lap seat belts. In the 1980s, some districts in the US tried installing lap belts and then later removed them, claiming operational and passenger behavior problems. This is especially a concern on short buses. Whether lap belts should be required remains very controversial, although they are now required in at least 4 states (New York, New Jersey, California and Florida). However, only one state, New Jersey, requires seat belt usage.\n\nStarting in late 2005, all school buses built new and operating in California are required to have "three-point" safety belts, similar to ones used in the average automobile. The "three-point" belts give greater protection to riders compared to the lap belts. However, the new belts diminish bus capacities, and will require more new buses to be purchased to offset the capacity loss.
655586
There have been studies done mostly in Canada that show that more injuries occur when seat belts are worn on a school bus, due to the spacing of seats. School buses set much higher then automobiles and most wrecks occur under the passengers when struck from the side, when struck from the front or rear the seats are manufactured to absorb the energy, the only instance that seat belts are safer is in a roll over and those are rare in a bus accident. So to sum up seat belts are required in those 5 or less and in the case of toddlers they have to be fastened in car seats. But for older kids there because the are taller would actually be put in danger if strapped into seat belts.
878082
Such cases are occasionally alleged but rarely true. The statistics are, in any case, against you and democratic legislators nearly everywhere have found intolerable the social cost of making belts optional.\n\nWhatever the merits of your arguument it doesn't reach, in law, to the level of civil or (more accurately) human rights. The very few handicapped persons whom it would affect are catered for. The current argument is over public transport, and school buses.
115401
Seatbelt laws were probably motivated by the insurance company's desire to keep drivers safe and therefore cut their costs.  However, that doesn't mean we can ignore them - regardless of the motivations behind the law, the net effect is increased safety.
493303
Darn good question, I have lately become concerned that this whole country is just getting to a point where there is no more self responsibility.  The govt told me to wear a seatbelt, therefore if I still got hurt cuz I was drunk driving, clearly it is the govt's fault.\n\nI am sorry I am not going to be much help, because I don't know where that line should be drawn...\nI think I read someone's answer the other day that said when our freedom infringes on another's - that's when they should definitely step in.  But then some people also need extra help to keep from killing themselves.\n\nI look forward to someone having the right answer.
334289
I assume you mean a fly in the car with you.\n\nThe reason is inertia.  You, the car, the fly, and all of the air in the car share the same inertia, which means relative to each other, you are motionless.  Open a window, and inertia and air pressure differentials will circulate air through the car, and hopefully suck the little bugger out so you can drive in peace.
506736
So they can be distinguished from non-emergency vehicles. It's the law.
8603
If it was against the law, then every parent with chidren would be in violation of the law.  With the inflatable airbags in the front passenger seat, you aren't allowed to have children in the front seat.  And since a majority of the driving that moms do is shuttling kids around, this would put them all at risk of receiving a citation.  \n\nI was also told once that it is illegeal to drive with the interior lights on.  I'm not sure if this is accurate or not but it is a distraction if it's on.
499104
you're right, wearing your seatbelt should be your decision.\ni was in a car wreck a few years ago, where the car rolled on it's top.  the cops told me that if i was wearing my seatbelt, i would have been killed.  i didn't have a scratch or bruise on me, because i wasn't wearing my seatbelt.  then the cop wrote me a ticket---for not wearing my seatbelt.
723145
I think belts should be used at all times but I don't like the fact that the gov and insurance companies make the decision for us! It's all a money thing!
752592
Restraints System- A safety device in a vehicle designed to hold the driver or passengers in place in the event of an accident.  Examples are seatbelts, shoulder belts, air bags, child safety seats, and headrests.\n\nHead-on Collision- A crash between two vehicles traveling in exactly opposite directions.  In such a crash the front of one vehicle directly hits the front of another.
138347
Because the general public accepts that it's not a sound decision to drive without a seatbelt.\n\nHowever, there are still many people who believe that a woman has the right to decide if she wants to give birth to what's growing in -her- body.
420129
There isn't really a "law", you have to describe what happened.  If they did this and you were injured as a result, you have a tort claim.  But you cannot just sue someone for doing something dangerous if no one was injured.