Question:
Should seat belts and air bags be required?
2009-05-14 18:15:06 UTC
Most states require that seat belts be worn. By federal law, all new cars mush have air bags.Both seat belts and air bags use physics principles to save lives.
When a moving car stops quickly, inertia tends to keep the passengers moving forward. Seat belts apply a force that tries to counteract this forward motion, hopefully preventing a serious injury.
Following a front-end-collision, an air bag fills the space between the passenger and the dashboard the air bag allow the passenger's head and upper body to decelerate ore slowly, helping tp prevent injury.
For some people, seat belts are inconvenient or uncomfortable. They feel seat belt laws interfere with their freedom of choice. Theses people believe that if they drive safely, seat belts are unnecessary.
While air bags increase the cost of new cars, many consumers have been happy to absorb the additional cost in the name of safety.
Does the risk of personal injury outweigh the inconvenience of using seat belts and the cost increase of air bags?
What is your position on the use of seat belts and air bags??
Four answers:
Friendly Stranger..
2009-05-14 20:02:07 UTC
I think seat belts and air bags should be required because they have proven to save countless lives. Now it is true that injuries can be a result of an airbag being deployed. However the benefits far outweigh the injuries that can be sustained. Here is proof of my argument.



*NHTSA estimates that airbags have saved almost 20,000 lives.



*NHTSA statistics show that newer cars and trucks have the best airbag records. No deaths were reported from the 2002 and 2003 model years. One death was reported from the 2004 model year.



*Two children died in the U.S. last year as a result of injuries caused by airbags. No adults were killed according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). That is an improvement over previous years.



*Approximately 35,000 people die in motor vehicle crashes each year. About 50 percent (17,000) of these people could be saved if they wore their safety belts.



*Safety belt use is one of the best defenses against the unpredictable actions of the drunk driver.



*Today over 25 countries around the world have some type of mandatory safety belt law. Results of these laws were measured; usage rate went from 20-25 percent before passage to 60-90 percent after passage.



*Of every 100 children who die in motor vehicle crashes at least 80 would survive if they were properly secured in an approved child safety seat or safety belts.
nojuicy
2009-05-14 20:08:50 UTC
Wow good question. First of all the government should not have any say as to whether or not you have to protect yourself from harm. Does the government make you wear knee and elbow pads when you ride a bicycle? Do they make you wear a life vest every time you go swimming? Do they make you where a respirator during flu season? All these things help protect you against harm but are not a 100% effective all the time. If a seat belt guaranteed you would survive any crash I would say it should be mandatory. But we all know it does not.



Now as far as air bags go don't get me started on that. First of all, for a air bag to even be effective in a serious crash you must also be wearing you seat belt. Even with that,statics show the air bag only improves your chances over just wearing a seat belt alone by 5% of surviving a serious crash! On top of that they have been proven time and time again to be deadly to shorter drivers and passengers. Add the cost of installing them in which can easily go into the thousands and basically you got yourself a very expensive balloon in your dash that could kill you!



Now having said that I think it is silly not to wear your seat belt. But, it should be your choice to be silly not the governments.
Andrew F
2009-05-14 23:36:23 UTC
Very good question!



I always wear my seatbelt but not due to the laws. I do it because I value my life and would do it even if it weren't the law. As for airbags, I occasionally meet a person who does not care for them but I would never buy a new car without some form of side-impact airbag.



The seatbelt laws that many people I speak with so dislike come from the 1950s and 60s. The post-war boom was in full swing and the number of vehicles on the road had never been so high. That combined with vehicle speeds that had increased dramatically over pre-war vehicles and safety aspects were practically non-existent was a recipe for disaster. Every year, the death toll on American highways hit a record high. Car companies had tried to market safety packages but the core problem was that Americans did not want to admit that their cars they so loved could very well kill them. Putting on a seat belt was a reminder that the task they were undertaking was indeed very dangerous. Safety didn't sell; just ask Ford who offered a safety package in the late 1950s. It included lap belts, a padded dashboard and steering wheel as well as rubber-edged window cranks. They received very few orders for them and scrubbed it shortly thereafter. As the death tolls continued to climb, the people demanded something be done and Ralph Nader released 'Unsafe At Any Speed', a book aimed at the dangerous nature of the automobile.



The federal government, responding to the outcries of the citizens, made a series of deadlines for auto makers to meet. Crash test standards, 3-point safety belts, crush zones, 5-mph bumpers, and eventually airbags were a result of political push and citizen outrage. It's hardly fair to pin all this on people who didn't feel comfortable wearing a seatbelt 50 years ago. Those older cars were death traps as it was. Metal dashboards, no crumple zones, a lap belt if you were lucky and it was a coffin on wheels. The safety movement within the auto industry was a team effort. The car companies needed to build safer cars and their drivers and occupants needed to take advantage of the safety features provided to them. Every year, seat belt usage increases to a new high and the death toll drops a little more.



Coincidence? I think not.



But if you need further proof, you need only visit your local classic car dealer. Today I sat in a 1956 Chevrolet Bel Air coupe. The steering wheel was huge, easily 18" across, no seat belts, metal dash board, and the window cranks are just begging to be hooked by your clothing in an accident. I stepped back into my 2004 Hyundai Santa Fe which is a padded cocoon, willing to sacrifice itself for me if so needed. I have four airbags, 3-point seatbelts with pre-tensioners, a padded dashboard, four-wheel power disc brakes and less bright shiny chrome. A safer car, indeed.
amorello
2016-10-25 15:24:37 UTC
there have been study that instruct seat belts on buses are extra risky than not having them. without the seat belts little ones will actual leap off of the severe seat backs. the position in the journey that they are buckled contained in the seats are so close jointly that once they pass ahead they destroy their necks ;-(. Airbags might want to probable do an same.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...