Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

Advocates Push for Rear Seatbelt Laws

They reduce fatalities by up to 73%

By Ambreen Ali,  Newser User

Posted Jun 15, 2009 9:50 AM CDT

(Newser) – Highway safety advocates are pushing for a federal transportation bill to include incentives for states to make safety belts mandatory for all passengers, but opponents say the move would set a precedent for the government to tell citizens what to do, USA Today reports. Though studies show that rear seatbelts reduce fatalities for all passengers, only 21 US states require them by law.

"When it comes to my own life, I believe I should be able to make that kind of decision myself," says the National Motorists Association president. A recent survey shows that rear seatbelt use is more prevalent in states that require it, and that wearing belts reduces fatalities by 44% in passenger cars and 73% in larger vans and SUVs.

Only 21 states require adult passengers to wear seatbelts in the back seat.
Only 21 states require adult passengers to wear seatbelts in the back seat.   (Shutterstock)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

If a person in the back seat is not belted and the vehicle is involved in a crash, especially a head-on crash, the person in the back seat can become a human projectile.
- Tom Welch, transportation
safety engineer for Iowa's
transportation department

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
A snapshot of the day's best news stories.
 
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 24 comments
freethemall
Jun 16, 2009 1:55 AM CDT
To kokuaguy: You rhetorically ask: "Do we really need speed limits? Safety inspections?" Yes, we do need speed limits and safety inspections, because if you drive at an unsafe speed, or drive an unsafe vehicle you endanger not only your life, but also the life of others. If you drive unrestrained, you endanger only yourself. Do you not understand the distinction?
voiceofreason
Jun 16, 2009 1:13 AM CDT
kokuaguy, I have to 100% agree with you, in fact now that I think about it I can see no reason what so ever for someone to actually need to be on a lake. so we should also outlaw boats. think of all the boating accidents that will be prevented. And is there really any reason to be on a 4 wheeler or dirt bike?? think not. outlaw them as well. professional race car driving, sports, no need outlaw it as well in fact we should only have to leave the house to go to work and back, we should be confined to our homes at all other times. But wait where did our freedom go ??? OH THATS RIGHT YOU GUYS GAVE IT AWAY !!!
Yourself
Jun 15, 2009 11:30 AM CDT
you know, there's some strength to that argument. Insurance companies already have different rates for smokers vs non-smokers. They should in fact have the right to refuse you payments if you don't take the existing precautions to protect yourself.

More Newser Stories

10 Most Dangerous Cars Ever

Surplus Signs Driving Motorists to Distraction

Corzine: Do As I Say, Not As I Did

Look, Ma. No Seatbelt!


NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   Betty Confidential   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Fark   |   Timelines   |   The Frisky   |   Geek Sugar   |   NewsOne