# So many people still don't believe in wearing seatbelts! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 1, 2005, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379 "2005-06-01T15:28:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/181 "2005-06-08T14:44:26Z")
> [@MrAlpen](#): > > EVERYTHING NHTSA mandates for inclusion in the car costs you money! At purchase and during maintenance (and what the hell will happen to ten year old cars with the current level of complexity is largely unknown, but I am damn sure you’ll not be able to get a replacement airbag system of equivalent specification more than ten years after production. This cost is not slight by any means. I don’t propose you retrofit existing vehicles with parts. Like was noted above, cars at one time had the types of features I mention, to presume that in the year 2005 making this feature happen on cars would be costly stretches the imagination. I don’t see how the airbag comments are relevant at all. But, since you brought it up, air bags are _vastly_ more expensive than a seatbelt monitor would be and there was no resistance to making them legally manditory in US made vehicles. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/182 "2005-06-08T14:52:49Z")
> [@MrAlpen](#): > > The cost for enforcement is the low one. The same sets of eyes watching for this offence as for the others, very few resulting fines because wearing rates approach 100%, consequently negligible court costs too. I disagree, though I cannot produce and statistics to bolster the point. Just because the cops are already out there, that doesn’t mean that extra traffic stops and extra attention paid to the new law are cost-free however. Even if you were able to put a dollar figure on it, I cannot fathom that it would be less than what it costs to make carmakers do it. How much do you suppose they spend making sure new cars have airbags installed, I’d wager $0. Even if there were teams of technicians which made routine compliance stops to factories and shipping yards to check this, it’ll be cheaper than whatever the added cost to the millions of police officers on duty, plus as you state, these people are probably already doing that job for other safety complinace issues. There’s no way that patrolling several millions of miles of road to enforce a law is cheaper than making the producers build the cars that way in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/183 "2005-06-08T14:56:14Z")
> [@Hilarity N. Suze](#): > > Oh, please, NOoooo! > > We tried this, I guess you young’uns don’t remember. I had a car–maybe a '71 Vega?–that would not start unless the seat belt was fastened. And if it sensed weight on the passenger seat, unless the passenger seat was fastened as well. So I had to belt in my damn purse. Couldn’t travel with my dog at all (not that this dog wouldn’t have benefited from being belted in). I think you’d agree that technology has improved since 1971. I wager they’ll be able to create a system with better defined tolerances. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/184 "2005-06-08T14:59:33Z")
> [@MrAlpen](#): > > (2) This has now given way to a longer term solution requiring so-called “smart” airbags which automatically adjust themselves to a lower power setting (or even switch off) if a high-risk case is detected such as a small person too close to the airbag. Not to beat a dead horse on the point, but the sensors and computer processing taking place to determine height and/or weight of an occupant for smart airbags, which is legally mandated already mind you, would very easily be tasked with seatbelt monitors at virtually no additional cost. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/185 "2005-06-08T15:14:02Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > The better stat is the one at the far right which measures based on Vehicle-Kilometers. … > > You can see that the US falls right in line with all other countries, beating most, including many European nations including Germany and France. The UK still does an admirable job, but I’m not willing to attribute this to seatbelt laws. Beating Germany with its unrestricted Autobahns, and France with its ingrained drink-driving culture, is something to be proud of? > [@](#): > > Whatever the case, using those stats, and the fact that the US and UK have much different driving requirements (read: vastly different weather conditions and frequent freeway travel) I don’t see the difference in death rates to be notable at all. Fair point about the weather conditions - although Switzerland also ranks better than the US. As for ‘vast’ differences in the amount of motorway/highway driving, you’re going to have to provide a cite. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/186 "2005-06-08T15:20:36Z")
Yeah, my car has a warning light monitor for a passenger. I own a Tumi backpack briefcase. I put it on the seat, it flashes like heck. Do you want me to buckle my briefcase up? Or just not be allowed to put it on the seat? ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/187 "2005-06-08T15:25:46Z")
> [@MrAlpen](#): > > If you didn’t have to design for the unbelted option then the system could be engineered to perform better than it currently does for belted occupants. The difference between the two represents lives lost amongst belted drivers. I can conceed that this has some truth to it. However, I don’t see how this is germane to the arguement of seatbelt laws. As has been stated, they are a law both here and there, though the different airbag design standards remain. I do not know the argument for designing airbags this way, but the “need for seatbelt laws” aren’t it. Perhaps its simply the fact that compliance is lower here. Fine, and I honestly would take issues with the engineers who made the choice to create specifications like this. In any case, I can’t see why these “smart airbags” aren’t created with the two options in mind. It deploys at one pressure level when the seatbelt is fastened, another when it’s not. Seems feasible. Whatever the case, I don’t think it’s reasonable to characterise this difference as an arguement for why seatbelt laws are a good idea. > [@](#): > > This in only one of the reasons that the European laws produce safer cars, and not the most important one, which is that the European test regime is more realistic since it involves the car striking a deformable target. It is likely that eventually the USA will adopt this as part of its requirement too, but there’s a lot of traditional “not invented here” attitude to be overcome on the way. > > Are European cars safer generally? Well, the best evidence is what happens when US cars are tested in the public EuroNCAP test regime. But maybe you shouldn’t look! I’m not sure that it’s reasonable to say that using a deformable body instead of a rigid one generates a more stringent test. Yes, it is more realistic in one sense. Less realistic in the case of hitting a telephone pole or a bridge abutment. Two different standards for sure, but the question as to which provides for a “safer” test is very much up for debate. Seriously offtopic of course, but just a point that I wanted to make. While it wouldn’t surprise me that taken on average European cars are safer than American cars (though I’d bet that the amount of variation is much greater among EU producers and that French and Eastern European cars fall WAY below the worst US made car), I don’t think this has anything to do with seatbelt usage or the regulation as such. It’s actually an economic issue. US car makers deal in volume, and as such must choose a lower standard to make cars available at a cost to suit the market than some of the major English and German makers. I’d actually be curious to see what the comparison between EU cars and US cars when taken on the whole is. If you just look at MB, BMW, Saab, Volvo, VW etc. you will certainly see them as being better than the average US cars. However, there’s a bunch of other car makers which have a decidedly worse reputation, one which makes even the worst US maker look good. I just don’t know what the volume sold of each is to guess as to the overall average effectiveness. In any case, that fact enforces the economic arguement versus the legislative one. > [@](#): > > Why is this important? Just because the civil liberty argument kills people at the margins who DO wear seatbelts, because their cars are LESS SAFE than they need to be, and they have to pay more for the priveledge! Again, you might take issue with the way the specifications were written. I don’t see the civil liberty argument as being the cause however. The laws are in place, some people don’t follow them anyways. They made a choice, so be it. If this is your argument, it seems to beg for the implementation of my proposal to but the burden on the car maker, not the driver. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/188 "2005-06-08T15:27:10Z")
I’ve got a question for those who don’t wear seatbelts: If you’re in an accident, and you go through the front windscreen or receive some sort of horrific injury that would have been prevented by use of a seatbelt, would you accept a decision by your insurance company (auto and/or health) to refuse to pay for your treatment? After all, many health insurance companies have higher premiums for people who undertake risky activities—from smoking to skydiving—or even refuse to insure them at all. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/189 "2005-06-08T15:32:29Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Fair point about the weather conditions - although Switzerland also ranks better than the US. As for ‘vast’ differences in the amount of motorway/highway driving, you’re going to have to provide a cite. Well, his argument was specifically referring to the UK vs. US. I think it’s self-evident that between these two countries there is a large difference between freeway/city driving. Forgive me if I don’t dig up a cite since I’m supposed to be working right now ;). Even if my presumptions were wrong, I don’t see that it’s reasonable to quote those statistics as an argument for seatbelt laws. Too many variables, as you noted above. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/190 "2005-06-08T15:38:23Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > After all, many health insurance companies have higher premiums for people who undertake risky activities—from smoking to skydiving—or even refuse to insure them at all. I commented on this earlier in a manner of speaking. Cars with built in anti-theft systems, airbags and other safety measures effect your premiums. If premiums are made higher by elective non-use of seatbelts to belay the additional cost to those other’s insured, the argument for the “greater good” seems to be shot in the ass. Whatever the case, it’s a better solution than a seatbelt law. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/191 "2005-06-08T16:03:40Z")
> [@Hilarity N. Suze](#): > > First of all I wear them (1) when my kids are in the car (my kids are always belted in, I have to set an example (2) if I’m driving on slick roads, (3) when I’m in somebody else’s car. Interesting how many people here think their kids’ lives are so much more valuable than their own. Don’t you think your kids would like to have a mother for their whole lives? > [@](#): > > I don’t wear them when driving alone because they drive me nuts. They are actually a distraction. Only one car I’ve owned ('93 Infiniti) had seat belts that didn’t dig into me in one way or another. I’m a 5’6" female, and my seatbelts are always uncomfortable. Doesn’t matter. I hardly notice the belt chafing the side of my neck anymore. > [@](#): > > And I don’t have wrecks. Seriously? You think you are the only deciding factor on whether you get into an accident or not? How do you stop people from hitting you when they’re doing something stupid? Part of the reason I always wear my belt is because I know how crappy other drivers are. I see it every day. > [@](#): > > \ > What if we took all the money & energy devoted to getting people to buckle up and put it into teaching them, if not forcing them, to drive safely in the first place? Almost all accidents could have been prevented and are the result of bad/sloppy driving habits. Some of the worst driving habits are seen in people who feel the safest in their automobiles. (Well, that’s a generalization.) I agree completely; people should be forced to drive better and safer. But that’s a whole 'nother thread. ---
**Author:** ![MrAlpen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@MrAlpen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrAlpen)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/192 "2005-06-08T16:08:30Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Just need to point out that this statistic is crap. You’re stating the number of deaths per capita, which does nothing to adjust for the fact that our country is about 30 times larger than the UK and has a much higher proportion of citizens who drive. > > The better stat is the one at the far right which measures based on Vehicle-Kilometers. Not knowing the methodology, my best guess is that this value does a somewhat reasonable adjustment for deaths per amount of driving, a much fairer measure. Sorry, but you are quite wrong: the statistic is not “crap”. I am well aware that the statistics are normalised both per capita and per million kilometres travelled. I quoted the one that I intended, and made that explicit: “the average US citizen”. This is true exactly as I stated it. The statistic on the right is NOT better, it is just different. You claim that it is more representative: I disagree. Obviously many things affect the probability of an accident fatality: driver education, nature and length of journeys, rates of exposure to road travel etc. The “per capita” figure combines all of these without prejudice to give an indication of the overall impact on the population. Any one (or all) of the underlying causes may differ between countries. Generally, it is accepted that accident rates in ANY country are NOT proportional to journey length, so a high proportion of long journeys would make that normalisation LESS representative for the USA and not more. As I said in my post, the statistic I quoted (correctly) is the probability per head of population. It’s what I meant to quote, and it is significant. I don’t deny that other normalisations carry information, but so does this one. But, back to the original topic, if you live in the USA you pay more than you need for a less safe car because it has been engineered to try and take care of idiots who don’t wear belts. ---
**Author:** ![MrAlpen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@MrAlpen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrAlpen)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/193 "2005-06-08T16:18:17Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > I don’t propose you retrofit existing vehicles with parts. Like was noted above, cars at one time had the types of features I mention, to presume that in the year 2005 making this feature happen on cars would be costly stretches the imagination. I don’t see how the airbag comments are relevant at all. But, since you brought it up, air bags are _vastly_ more expensive than a seatbelt monitor would be and there was no resistance to making them legally manditory in US made vehicles. To be effective, a passive belt system would be expensive to fit and maintain, and some safety maintenance problems are simply being ignored even for current technology like airbags. Technical fixes can carry a high cost. I can’t easily imagine how such a system would work, but a lifetime in this business hasn’t left me optimistic about this being cheap. If you are only talking about a seatbelt monitor then I don’t think this would change wearing rates as they are so easily defeated. A law is surely cheaper IF you leave out the (unquantified) cost of the civil liberty issue. Surely that’s common ground? ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/194 "2005-06-08T16:34:42Z")
> [@MrAlpen](#): > > The statistic on the right is NOT better, it is just different. You claim that it is more representative: I disagree. Obviously many things affect the probability of an accident fatality: driver education, nature and length of journeys, rates of exposure to road travel etc. The “per capita” figure combines all of these without prejudice to give an indication of the overall impact on the population. If 90% of residents of the US drive and 60% of UK residents drive, how can you argue that the per capita figure is the least bit appropriate to the discussion at hand? Basically the 40% of non-driving UK residents tilt that death figures to your favor completely arbitrarily and unrelated to the “safer due to seatbelt laws” argument you’re making. It just doesn’t hold any water. Also, I highly doubt that it’s “generally accepted” that miles driven is irrelevant to fatality risk. While it’s likely not a linear relationship, it certainly would be a major factor. ---
**Author:** ![MrAlpen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@MrAlpen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrAlpen)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/195 "2005-06-08T16:44:18Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > I can conceed that this has some truth to it. However, I don’t see how this is germane to the arguement of seatbelt laws. As has been stated, they are a law both here and there, though the different airbag design standards remain. I do not know the argument for designing airbags this way, but the “need for seatbelt laws” aren’t it. Perhaps its simply the fact that compliance is lower here. Fine, and I honestly would take issues with the engineers who made the choice to create specifications like this. In any case, I can’t see why these “smart airbags” aren’t created with the two options in mind. It deploys at one pressure level when the seatbelt is fastened, another when it’s not. Seems feasible. Whatever the case, I don’t think it’s reasonable to characterise this difference as an arguement for why seatbelt laws are a good idea. > > I’m not sure that it’s reasonable to say that using a deformable body instead of a rigid one generates a more stringent test. Yes, it is more realistic in one sense. Less realistic in the case of hitting a telephone pole or a bridge abutment. Two different standards for sure, but the question as to which provides for a “safer” test is very much up for debate. Seriously offtopic of course, but just a point that I wanted to make. > > While it wouldn’t surprise me that taken on average European cars are safer than American cars (though I’d bet that the amount of variation is much greater among EU producers and that French and Eastern European cars fall WAY below the worst US made car), I don’t think this has anything to do with seatbelt usage or the regulation as such. It’s actually an economic issue. US car makers deal in volume, and as such must choose a lower standard to make cars available at a cost to suit the market than some of the major English and German makers. > > I’d actually be curious to see what the comparison between EU cars and US cars when taken on the whole is. If you just look at MB, BMW, Saab, Volvo, VW etc. you will certainly see them as being better than the average US cars. However, there’s a bunch of other car makers which have a decidedly worse reputation, one which makes even the worst US maker look good. I just don’t know what the volume sold of each is to guess as to the overall average effectiveness. In any case, that fact enforces the economic arguement versus the legislative one. > > Again, you might take issue with the way the specifications were written. I don’t see the civil liberty argument as being the cause however. The laws are in place, some people don’t follow them anyways. They made a choice, so be it. If this is your argument, it seems to beg for the implementation of my proposal to but the burden on the car maker, not the driver. (1) Are US cars less safe because the civil liberties lobby fights against mandatory belt use? OK, I’ll try flogging the horse again, and if it doesn’t move this time I’ll accept that it’s dead! - WHY does FMVSS 208 require vehicles to meet standards for unbelted occupants? Because a significant proportion of the US vehicle occupant population doesn’t wear seat belts (for whatever reason). - If belt use was 96% would FMVSS still require unbelted standards to be met? No, I don’t think so. Ford, GM and Chrysler would petition for change quicker than than blink. - My conclusion: increasing belt use would: - directly improve the survival chances of new belt users - lead to changes in US standards that would improve cars for everyone in the US - take cost out of the vehicle design process (or allow it to be redirected to improving some other features. - The regulations in the USA are the way that they are because your legislators choose to take into account the desire of a minority not to wear seatbelts. Them’s just the cold facts of the case. (2) I won’t go into the nitty-gritty of European versus US car safety. I agree with much of what you say there. Certainly the spread of performance in the European fleet will overlap the US fleet, with specific vehicles from either continent outperforming the averages in both directions. But vehicle structures really do have to be designed differently for the two regions, and manufacturers had to make major changes to their designs to comply with European standards. That really WAS off-topic, though. Sorry. And finally, in defence of the French (not a natural instinct, you understand, but in the interests of fair play), the best performing European cars in EuroNCAP are the French! Renault have a higher proportion of 5-star vehicles than any other. They don’t sell them in the USA now. I am sure that the need to re-engineer them for US safety standards is one of the reasons. Peugeot-Citroen are also doing very well these days. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/196 "2005-06-08T16:50:00Z")
> [@MrAlpen](#): > > To be effective, a passive belt system would be expensive to fit and maintain, and some safety maintenance problems are simply being ignored even for current technology like airbags. Technical fixes can carry a high cost. I can’t easily imagine how such a system would work, but a lifetime in this business hasn’t left me optimistic about this being cheap. > > If you are only talking about a seatbelt monitor then I don’t think this would change wearing rates as they are so easily defeated. > > A law is surely cheaper IF you leave out the (unquantified) cost of the civil liberty issue. Surely that’s common ground? Please explain to me how a passive seatbelt system would be expensive? Toyota and Honda did it for years in the 80’s and 90’s without a whole lot of difficulty. I propose that a car require the seatbelt to be buckled to be driven. This really couldn’t be any simpler. The seatbelt buckle is a circuit, without completing the circuit it disables the starter. Yeah, they can sit on it, or they can bypass the circuit, sure. If you want to take the effort to disable it, fine. But are you honestly trying to tell me that any workaround here is less effort than just violating the silly law? And no, even when you disregard the civil liberty costs, there is no way the law is cheaper to enforce on the drivers than it would be to implement on the vehicles. There are close to a million police officers with a cost of $50 billion. If you earmark 1% of their time to enforcing this it’ll still cost $500 million. Based on the fact that many of these police are tasked wholly with traffic enforcement the proportion will be higher than that, which doesn’t even account for nation-wide seatbelt enforcement blockades. Law enforcement is _very_ expensive, and the beuacracy involved in fining and contesting these violation is substantial. The cost to building the system into the cars is a one-time cost, which is slight at best IMHO. While some repairs would be needed, to imply that it’ll be one which is prohibitive to car owners is unreasonable. Cars are very complicated as it is, most of the features are orders of magnitude more complex than a simple seatbelt device, and we don’t have an epidemic of breakdowns. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/197 "2005-06-08T16:51:53Z")
The costs quoted above are annual costs, for clarity. ---
**Author:** ![MrAlpen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@MrAlpen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrAlpen)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/198 "2005-06-08T17:23:30Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > If 90% of residents of the US drive and 60% of UK residents drive, how can you argue that the per capita figure is the least bit appropriate to the discussion at hand? > > Basically the 40% of non-driving UK residents tilt that death figures to your favor completely arbitrarily and unrelated to the “safer due to seatbelt laws” argument you’re making. It just doesn’t hold any water. > > Also, I highly doubt that it’s “generally accepted” that miles driven is irrelevant to fatality risk. While it’s likely not a linear relationship, it certainly would be a major factor. Firstly, the figures should relate to the proportion of population life spent in cars as drivers or passengers. It isn’t just a case of comparing the % of residents that drive. The % of drivers is only one factor. Having a high number of people who never sit in a car as a driver or passenger will lower the per capita risk, but it isn’t clear that this is even a significant factor, let alone the most significant factor in comparing the US with the UK numbers. I’d guess road types and journey types matter more, but it’s just a guess. Secondly I never claimed that the differences in this table related to seat belt use alone. I only said that it showed that US does relatively poorly in road safety in general, which it does. It’s position in the table varies according to how you normalise, but it’s not a world leader. This is probably due to many things, including the weather. It just makes it worth opening your eyes to what other countries are doing, even if you eventually reject their strategies for whatever reason. Thirdly, it IS generally accepted by transport safety researchers that accidents rates are not proportional to distance traveled. This is a complex area, but some examples: For 2003, there were 22000 UK road users killed or seriously injured on roads in built-up areas, and 13000 killed or seriously injured “out of town”. I suppose it’s not too difficult to accept that high traffic densities with conflicting paths and large speed variations increase the probability of serious accidents. It’s the nature of long journeys that they expose you to lower proportions of such risks. Both normalisations are “incomplete” pictures, as averages always are, but they BOTH carry information. Of course there are national differences due to differences in fleet usage and characteristics. ---
**Author:** ![MrAlpen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@MrAlpen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrAlpen)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/199 "2005-06-08T17:28:12Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Please explain to me how a passive seatbelt system would be expensive? Toyota and Honda did it for years in the 80’s and 90’s without a whole lot of difficulty. > > I propose that a car require the seatbelt to be buckled to be driven. … I thought you had in mind a more complex system that would force all but the most intransigent to wear belts. Buckle switches are trivial to defeat if you are motivated to do so (as other people have said in this thread). Passive belt systems were generally poor performers and unreliable. The passive part was typically diagonal - only. A rubbish safety system, only use in the USA because of rubbish legislation! ---
**Author:** ![MrAlpen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@MrAlpen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrAlpen)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/200 "2005-06-08T17:32:55Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > … > > And no, even when you disregard the civil liberty costs, there is no way the law is cheaper to enforce on the drivers than it would be to implement on the vehicles. There are close to a million police officers with a cost of $50 billion. If you earmark 1% of their time to enforcing this it’ll still cost $500 million. Based on the fact that many of these police are tasked wholly with traffic enforcement the proportion will be higher than that, which doesn’t even account for nation-wide seatbelt enforcement blockades. Law enforcement is _very_ expensive, and the beuacracy involved in fining and contesting these violation is substantial. > … AHH - that’s the reason! In some countries we have equipped ourselves with upgraded police officers who multi-task! You can’t really cost this in the way you describe. What if no-one breaks the law? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379.md?page=11)