Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site qubix.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!lab From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: mandatory seatbelt laws Message-ID: <800@qubix.UUCP> Date: Wed, 25-Jan-84 12:41:43 EST Article-I.D.: qubix.800 Posted: Wed Jan 25 12:41:43 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 31-Jan-84 06:13:36 EST References: <895@uw-june> Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA Lines: 22 A Canadian I once worked with told me that Canada has mandatory seatbelt laws, and they are enforced - not that the officers try to find them, but if a passing check indicates no belt, they proceed to attract the offending driver's attention. My personal feeling is that the best way to get protective devices used is through the insurance companies and court system, namely, failure to wear a seatbelt can be considered "contributory negligence" if you are injured in an accident - not using the means supplied to you to reduce your risk of injury is *your* fault. This has been successfully used on several occasions, lessening or even eliminating the defendant's liability for bodily injury. Sidelight: Each week, the Maryland State Police releases a list of the automobile-caused fatalities of the previous week. In about '78 or '79, they began adding a new piece of information: W[N]HL - "would [not] have lessened" - if in the officer's judgment, the wearing of a seatbelt would [not] have lessened the amount of the injury. It wouldn't be applicable in many cases (pedestrians or {motor,bi}cyclists), but it is interesting to note that the WHL's usually exceed the WNHL's. Larry Bickford, {sun,amd70,decwrl,ittvax}!qubix!lab