Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jeffk
I have seen others allude to the "control" aspect of a seat belt. I just don't buy it. An average car seat belt does not function like a belt in a race car that locks you in position as soon as you put it on. Car seat belts are designed to be loose until the inertial force of an impact locks them down. By the time they lock down you're already in the accident.
The function of a seat beat if to keep you alive and reduce your injuries. I believe the impact effect of even a low speed accident will make it almost impossible for the driver to focus on any "corrective driving action". Further, if the airbags go off you will be even more stunned and probably blinded briefly. Accidents are over in a matter of seconds. You are not going to have time to recover from the initial impact and then react in any meaningful way. It will be all over before you have a chance.
This is why I don't believe seat belts should be mandatory. Their function is to protect you, not allow you to "drive the car to safety". If I choose to risk my own life I don't think the government should be butting in. If that's the direction we take then we should outlaw all types of skiing, mountain hiking and climbing, sky diving, all contact sports, and all sorts of other "risky" personal behavior. Where do you draw the line. How could you enforce all these nanny actions? I don't need the government forcing me act for my own good. Make the case for the desired "good" behavior. Gather statistics to reinforce it. From there it's my decision.
|
I am against a seatbelt law too, but I can see how some parameters of an accident could possibly dislodge someone from the driver's seat and still leave them mentally and physically capable of controlling the car, but in the wrong place to do so. It's obviously not going to be a common occurance, but it's the only reason I could think of that the driver's seatbelt use is more important than the passenger's. That was the question...