Safety belt regulation requires the installation of seat belts for motor vehicles and the use of seat belts by occupants of motor vehicles becomes mandatory. Laws requiring the installation of seatbelts for cars in some cases have been followed by laws that require their use, with the effect that thousands of road deaths have been prevented. Different laws apply in different countries to wear seatbelts.
Video Seat belt legislation
Perbandingan nasional
Australia
In Australia, after the introduction of mandatory front mounting points in 1964, the use of seatbelts by all passenger vehicles was made mandatory in the states of Victoria and South Australia in 1970 and 1971, respectively. In 1973, the use of seat belts was installed by mandatory compounded vehicle dwellers for the rest of Australia and several other countries during the 1970s and 1980s. The subsequent dramatic decline in road deaths is generally due to the law of seat belts and the subsequent road safety campaign. Seat belts are not required for bus passengers, reversing drivers, and those who drive several slow-moving vehicles. The law for this is different depending on the state or territory with jurisdiction.
Canada
All provinces in Canada have law enforcement belt legislation. In 1976, Ontario was the first province to pass a law requiring vehicles occupants to wear safety belts.
United Kingdom
In the UK, seat belts should be worn at all times when mounted on the vehicle except backwards. Passengers can be freed from wearing seatbelts for different reasons. Since September 18, 2006, children traveling in the UK must also use appropriate child seats beside the standard seat belts, unless they are 12 years old and/or have reached at least 135 centimeters (53 inches) in height.
In the UK, the requirements for anchorage points were introduced in 1965, followed by a requirement in 1968 to fit the three-point belt in front positions on all new cars and all existing cars back to 1965. Successive British proposes, but failed to deliver, seat belt legislation throughout the 1970s. The front seat belt is a compulsory equipment on all new cars registered in the UK from 1972, although it does not become mandatory for them to be worn until 1983. The rear seat belts are a compulsory equipment from 1986 and became mandatory for them to be used in 1991. However, it has never been a legal requirement for cars registered before that date to be equipped with seatbelts. In one such attempt in 1979, similar claims for life's potential and sustained injuries were advanced. William Rodgers, then Secretary of State for Transport at Callaghan Labor Government (1976-1979), stated: "Regarding the best available evidence of accidents in this country - evidence that has not been seriously challenged - coercion can save up to 1000 lives and 10,000 injuries a year. "
United States
In the United States, belt legislation varies by country. The state of Wisconsin introduced legislation in 1961 that required seatbelts to be mounted to the outboard position of the car seat. Seat belts have become a compulsory equipment since 1968 models per Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208.
The State of New York passed the first law in the US mandating the use of seat belts in 1984 under the leadership of John D. States, an orthopedic surgeon who dedicated his career to improving automotive safety. Depending on which country the driver is located, not wearing a seat belt in the front seat is a major offense or additional violation, with the exception of New Hampshire, which has no law requiring people over the age of 18 to wear a seat. belt. In the front seat, the driver and every passenger must wear a seat belt, one person per belt. In some states, such as New York, New Hampshire, and Michigan, rear seat belts are not mandatory for people over the age of 16, though strongly recommended. Front-seat drivers and passengers aged 16 and older can be fined up to $ 50 each due to failure to install seatbelts. In California, you must be 15 or older to accompany the driver in the front seat. Children aged 14 and under must sit in the back seat until they reach the age of 15. Template: DMV.org
The principal offense means that the police officer may pull the driver for a legal belt offense only, and additional violations indicate that a person may be punished for a legal belt offense only if they have been pulled over for other reasons. In January 2007, 25 states and the District of Columbia had a primary seatbelt law, 24 had secondary seatbelt laws, and New Hampshire had no laws. In 2009, the Public Health Law Research published several summaries of evidence that summarize research that assessed the effects of specific public health laws or policies. One stated, "The seatbelt law works, but there is strong evidence to support that the primary law enforcement belt law is more effective than secondary law enforcement laws in increasing the use of seatbelts and reducing injury accidents."
Others found that "there is strong evidence that improved belt enforcement interventions can substantially increase the use of seat belts and associated benefits."
Developing country
In many developing countries, pedestrians, cyclists, pedicab operators and moped users represent the majority of road users.
In India, all cars manufactured after March 25, 1994 are equipped with front seatbelts. The rules were extended to the rear seats in 2002. The use of seat belts should be carried out by each state, with most states making the use of seatbelts for mandatory front-seat passengers in 2002. Older vehicles that do not initially have belts safety is excluded.. However, its enforcement is weak in most countries.
In Indonesia, the belt is only mandatory for the front seat. Many low entry car models are not equipped with rear seatbelts.
In Malaysia, the first seat belt legislation was adopted in 1979. It expanded in January 2009 to include rear passengers. Passenger vehicles registered before 1 January 1995, and those weighing more than 3.5 tonnes are exempt from this rule. The third and fourth stages, which will handle infant and child seats and the number of passengers in the vehicle, have no effect.
In the Philippines, seat belt laws, Republicans Law no. 8750, was approved on 5 August 1999. The law came into force in 2000 and requires all public and private vehicles, except for motorcycles and pedicabs, to have their front seats equipped with belt chairs. The front seats as defined by law include the first row of the driver's rear seats for public utility buses. Those under six years are prohibited from occupying the front seat of a motor vehicle even if wearing a seat belt. Jeepney is only required to have seatbelts for front seat passengers and drivers.
The table below gives an overview of when seat belt legislation was first introduced in different countries. This includes regional and national laws.
* - actually only vehicles registered after June 15, 1976; in the previously registered vehicle fitting is optional
  - required by law, but there is no penalty for the offense at that time ? - Required by law, but low law enforcement ? - Must be introduced on this date, maybe earlier
Maps Seat belt legislation
Effects
Studies by road safety authorities concluded that seatbelt legislation has reduced the number of road casualty casualties.
Experiments using crash test dummia and human corpses also show that wearing seat belts should lead to a reduced risk of death and injury in car crashes.
The study of accident results shows that the mortality rate among car occupants is reduced between 30 and 50 percent if the seat belt is worn. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that the risk of death for drivers wearing shoulder safety belts is reduced by 48 percent. The same study shows that in 2007, an estimated 15,147 lives were saved by seat belts in the United States and that if the use of seat belts increased to 100 percent, an additional 5024 lives would be saved.
The previous statistical analysis by NHTSA claims that the seat belt saves more than 10,000 lives each year in the US.
According to a more recent fact sheet produced by NHTSA:
- "In 2012, seat belts save about 12,174 lives among passengers of passenger 5 and older vehicles. [...] Research has found that seat belt/shoulder straps, when used, reduce the risk of Injury fatal on passenger front-seat passenger cars by 45% and moderate to critical risk of injury by 50% [...] Research on the effectiveness of child safety seats has found them to reduce the risk of fatal injuries by 71% for infants (younger than 1 year) and 54% for toddlers (1 to 4 years) in passenger cars. "
In 2009, despite a massive increase in population and number of vehicles, street deaths in Victoria fell below 300, less than a third of the 1970 level, the lowest record since being stored, and well below per capita levels in jurisdictions such as the United States. This reduction is generally associated with an aggressive road safety campaign starting with the law of seat belts.
A 2008 study in the Journal of Health Economics found that mandatory seat belt laws in the US "significantly increased the use of seatbelts among high school age youth by 45-80%" and "significantly reduced traffic fatalities and serious injuries resulting from a fatal collision of 8 and 9% respectively. "The authors note that" these results indicate that if all countries have a primary law enforcement belt law then the use of regular youth seat belts will be almost universal and the youth casualties will drop by about 120 per year."
Opposition
A number of groups and individuals are opposed to seat belt legislation. The most common reasons for opposition are:
- The view that laws requiring the use of seat belts constitute a violation of individual freedom.
- Claims that the official estimate of the number of lives saved by the seat belt is overestimated or fails to take into account additional risks for other road users.
Compensation risks and other theories
The most common basis for debating the estimated benefits of seat belts is the risk of compensation and risk of homeostasis, as suggested by researchers John Adams and Gerald Wilde. The idea of ​​this theory is that, if the risk of death or injury from a car crash is reduced due to the use of seat belts, drivers will respond by reducing the precautions they take against accidents. Adams accepts the hypothesis that wearing a seat belt increases the likelihood of passenger vehicles being saved from accidents. To explain the difference between an agreed increase in crash survival and observed results, Adams and Wilde argue that protecting a person from the consequences of risky behavior can tend to encourage greater risk taking. Wilde states, "to force a person to use protection from dangerous driving consequences, such as the seatbelt law, is to encourage dangerous driving.The fine for noncompliance will encourage the use of seatbelts, but the fact that the law fails increases the desire of people to be safe encourages compensation behavior. "
Studies and experiments have been conducted to test the theory of risk compensation. In one experiment, subjects were asked to move the go kart on the track under various conditions. It was found that subjects who started driving belted did not drive more slowly when later removable, but those who started driving unbelted drives consistently faster when then belted. A study of non-seat belt driving habits driving on a highway condition found evidence that they have adapted to the use of seatbelts by adopting higher driving speeds and closer distances. In another study, taxi drivers who were accustomed to not wearing clothing were boundary routes with passengers who did, and others who did not, insisted drivers wearing a belt. They complete the route faster when belted.
In addition to risk compensation, Adams has suggested other mechanisms that could lead to inaccurate or unsupported predictions of the positive benefits of seat belt legislation.
- A case-control study based on the voluntary use of safety aids can link the benefits of assistance that actually stem from the risk-averse nature of those who may use it voluntarily (confounder), especially early adopters.
- The fatalities rate is subject to stochastic noise, and a single year or short period comparison can be misleading.
Individual freedom
Opponents have objection to the law on libertarian principles. Some do so on the grounds that seatbelt legislation violates their civil liberties. For example, in a 1986 letter to the editor of the New York Times, a writer argued that seat belt legislation is "coercive" and that "the law of seat belts is obliged to violate the right to privacy of the body and self-control".
A counter to the libertarian view is that by reducing death and serious injury, the use of mandatory seat belts and law enforcement belts produce great social benefits. For example, an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in 2010 non-fatal injuries to motor vehicle occupants cost the United States $ 48 billion in medical expenses and job losses. An example is the unbound driver who kills or injures other road users because he is sliding out of a proper sitting position and can not regain control of the vehicle during slippery conditions. Another important scenario is the passengers behind who are forced to advance in an accident and thus inadvertently harm the driver or front passenger. A study from the University of Wisconsin showed that victims of car accidents that did not wear hospital safety belts (and the state, in an uninsured case) averaged 25% more.
Side effects of seat belts
Neck injuries can be caused by a deceleration of high speed. The passenger's head continues to move forward while the body is stuck, potentially causing a crippling injury. A study of such injury records, "life-saving belts, but they can cause injury to adjacent structures and when they damage can cause injury to abdominal viscera, skeletal bone and vascular structures The motor industry has sought to reduce this injury with modified vehicle design and security equipment. "
See also
- Car accident
- Click This or Ticket
- Clunk Click Every Trip
- Street security
Note
References and further reading
- John Adams (1995). Risk . Routledge. ISBNÃ, 1-85728-068-7.
- Wilde G.S. Target Risk PDE Publication, 1994
- The Islands Report "Seat belt: European Statistical Implications", UK DoT, 1981, Sourced from Road Road, Car, and Street Safety Mythology by Robert Davis, Ujung Actor, North Yorkshire UK, 1992 and "Report the question of whether life belts save lives" by M. Hamer, New Scientist, February 7, 1985 p7
- Car Safety Regulatory Evaluation: The Case of Mandatory Safety Belts and Legislation in Australia . by J.A.C. Coneybeare, Policy Science 12: 27-39, 1980
- Required Seat Belts: Further Inferences , by P. Hurst Accident Analysis and Prevention., Vol 11 : 27-33, 1979
- Wilde G. S.
, Ergonomics 1988 Vol, 31 , 4: 439 - Methodological Issues in Testing the Risk Compensation Hypothesis by Brian Dulisse, Accident and Prevention Analysis Vol. 25 (5): 285-292, 1997
- RS 255 Initial impact of legislative seat belt in Ireland by R. Hearne, An Foras Forbatha, Dublin, 1981
- Efficacy of seatbelt legislation: A comparative statistical study of accident accidents on highways from 18 countries , by J. Adams. Department of Geography University College, London 1981
- Victim Reduction, Whose Problems? By F. West-Oram, Traffic Engineering and Control, September 1990
- Puzzle Belts Explained , Press Releases of the UK Psychological Society Annual Conference, April 1999
- Recognize the effects of Legal Belts and their Enforcement Status by T.S. Dee Accident Analysis and Prevention., Vol 30 (1): 1-10, 1998
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments