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