Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


27

Advocates Push for Rear Seatbelt Laws

They reduce fatalities by up to 73%

Share

(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
27 comments
VIEWING:
 
Doctor_Zaius
Jun 15, 09 10:00 AM CDT
but opponents say the move would set a precedent for the government to tell citizens what to do...WTF planet do they live on? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
DJM420
Jun 15, 09 11:40 AM CDT
comedy dr
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Yourself
Jun 15, 09 10:29 AM CDT
mind boggling. this is a PERFECT example of how stupid we've become of a society, we'd rather not wear a seatbelt in a majority of the states even though it's PROVEN to save lives just so that we can stick it to the government cause we feel they are setting a "precedent for the government to tell citizens what to do"......... yeah dipshit, they are, cause obviously you morons are too damn stupid to realize it just might save your life while you're driving around like the idiots that you are!!! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
AClotfelter
Jun 15, 09 3:24 PM CDT
Seatbelts and helmets (or lack therof) are one of the few examples of natural selection at work these days... I don't believe we should require them, except for the burden that parentless children place on society.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Stuart
Jun 15, 09 10:32 AM CDT
Just like those people who refuse to wear helmets when they ride motorcycles, I say let them. Just make it an 'implied consent' for being an Organ Donor. If you want to increase the costs for all of us when you are in a wreck, then the least you can do is give life to someone else when you die as a result of that decision. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+9
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.