Actually, that is just what I took away from the theory – that most people would act normally while wearing seatbelts, but that if you forced seatbelt haters to wear them, then they might take other risks to regain the thrill. This supports my position that seatbelts are good but seatbelt legislation is stupid.
Of course, you’re right that there’s not a lot of empirical evidence backing any of this up. 
Cultural difference. Americans get pretty wound up about this sort of thing, folks on your side of the pond don’t.
Similar attitudes towards motorcycle helmuts have resulted in some states repealing mandatory helmet laws.
And then there’s that whole speed limit issue…
Getting Americans to follow laws passed for public safety can be like herding cats.
OK - understood. But then we’re on to the risk-compensation studies (for example the one quoted), and these DO generally fail to find evidence that mandatory seat belt use causes risk-increase to other road users. Maybe the small proportion of risk-seekers is too small to show up.
I am inclined to believe that the use of shared facilities (such as roads, factories, public transport) justifies the introduction of rules that are for the general good. I reckon that seat belts fall into this category.
Christ. It’s not a condom.
I think speed limits were in the back of my mind when I asked that. Because there doesn’t seem to be the same cultural divide - even on the relatively sedate roads of Britain (when compared to France and Italy, for example), speeding is pretty much the norm. You can’t do 70 on a motorway - it’s either 60 with the lorries, or 80+ with everyone else. There’s no way the 30 limit outside my house is observed more than a fraction of the time. And public opinion is set against more enforcement. Yet we all happily buckle up… 
Thanks - but I should have specified that I was wondering about increased risks to others from people unrestrained in front seats.
OK - sorry. I can’t think of any credible hypothesis for risks to others from unbelted front seat passengers.
I’ve dealt with a few cases of unbelted occupants dying following partial or complete ejection. I seem to come across these far more often than unbelted occupants splattered on the windshield, but that may be because these accidents can occur at pretty well any speed, and even hardened lunatics typically buckle up for longer journeys in NW Europe.
But even so, they don’t harm others physically: just the emotional trauma to friends, family, fellow vehicle occupants, rescue services etc.
What were you thinking of?
Side impacts. If I’m not wearing a belt, and my side of the car is hit, I’m surely going to be a greater risk to a passenger next to me?
Ahh - of course. Good question …
First of all, the mechanism of injury for side impact is very different: it’s related to the load distribution and speed of intrusion for the struck side occupant, and serious, life-threatening injuries occur within the first 20 - 30 milliseconds.
The speed at which the struck-side occupant ends up traveling across the car and potentially hitting the non-struck-side occupant is much lower for a given impact speed than this contact speed, or that of an unbelted rear occupant traveling forwards onto a front seat occupant.
For these reasons, my expectations is that such occupant-bullet deaths in otherwise-survivable side impacts will be quite rare.
Some people will use whatever justification they want to do what it is they feel like doing. Recently, after Cleveland Browns TE Kellen Winslow Jr wrecked his season and possibly his career after breaking his leg on a motorcycle, Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger was brought to task for riding his motorcycle without a helmet. This is a guy with literally millions on the line and what does he say? Since Pennsylvania doesn’t have a mandatory helmet law, “Obviously Pennsylvania doesn’t think people need to [wear a helmet],” he said. “There’s a law you’ve got to wear it in football.”
The weird thing is that my wife’s aunt never wears her seltbelt, she is somewhat overweight and says that they are uncomfortable. And yet, she has totaled three (!) cars and has had both knees crushed from being slammed into the steering column, plus she has glasses so thick she looks like Morroco Mole. Yet despite all this she still stubornly refuses to wear a seatbelt.
So if you drive in Northeast Ohio, beware!
Helmuts, there’s gotta be at least one [http://www.haoffenbach.de/pictures.html]here
Isn’t it possible that the seat belt laws have the opposite effect? I do not wear a seat belt due (in part) to anger over the law. Can anyone provide a cite that seat belt laws lead to more folks using them?
Does this seem like a childish attitude to anyone else? I mean, do you think you’re actually showing legislators a thing or two?
I do not disagre that it may be a childish thing to do. There are many people who behave this way however, and I am wondering if the law has an unintended effect.
Maybe we should prohibit seat belts. Then everyone will get angry and wear seat belts out of spite.
Yup. From the perspective of outsiders looking in to the U.S, these attitudes seem, well, I was going to say stupid, but childish covers it pretty well. “You can’t make me wear a seatbelt for my own safety. If I want to go flying through the windshield and crack my head open like a watermelon on a telephone pole, you can’t stop me!”
I have seen enough accidents happen around me (just last Tuesday a car ran a red and smashed into the car behind me), and managed to avoid fatal ones enough that I have a real, solid fear of driving. I still drive, but I do it with full knowledge of how damned dangerous it is. Anything I can get that will help me walk away from a crash that occurred because some idiot ran into me, I’ll take it and say thank you, may I have some more? The legislation isn’t an issue to me at all; it barely even registers with me.
I was a passenger in a crash where the driver rear-ended a stopped vehicle going maybe 30 mph. We had just pulled out of a parking lot and I had not put my seatbelt on yet (I usually wear one, now I always do). This was in a minivan and we hit a sedan, so we were the obviously bigger vehicle. I was flung forward into the windshield, hitting the sun visor with my head and breaking it (the visor, not my head, although I did get a big goose egg and bruise). I then bounced back and off the side door before ending up partly on the floor and partly on top of the driver. She had no injuries other than a little soreness and having to deal with my being on top of her. So I would say anyone not buckled in a vehicle is a potential threat to others in the car.
As a sidenote, a few months later I was in the same vehicle with the same driver and we got into nearly the same accident (this time it wasn’t her fault, a car pulled out in front of her) and we both had seatbelts on. We both walked away with only a little soreness from it. I refer to it as my own personal crash testing, once with a seatbelt, once without. I always wear a seatbelt now.
When my dad was in college he was in an accident without a seatbelt and went through the windshield. He was in a coma for almost 3 months. He recovered but still has no sense of smell. If you do not wear a seatbelt even minor accidents can cause major injuries, you do not have to be on the highway or going at high speeds. In fact I believe you are statistically safer on the highway because there are fewer factors to cause an accident, it is city driving that causes more accidents (intersections, stop and go traffic, cars turning off and on roads, etc.) When there is an accident on the highway though, it is a big one since people are going so fast, so those are the ones people remember.
I think that the evidence is pretty comprehensive that mandating seat belt use increases belt wearing. The highest wearing rates are in countries that have legislation, and the lowest where there is no such legislation.
The law is just the pointy-end of the education wedge - without the pointy end the education just does not seem to be effective (or existent). Surely the utility of seat belts is about as well established as it could be, and in the USA (which is sufficiently well educated for most people to know this) there is still a comparatively poor wearing rate.
Stuff the civil liberties lobby: legislate!
It’s worse than that. It’s “You can’t make me take safety precautions! In fact, if you try, I’ll STOP TAKING THEM! HA!”
vetbridge, what’s your opinion on laws against people shooting themselves in the head? Because I’m starting to worry.
