Talk:Seat belt legislation/Archives/2023/November

This Article is a Mess
I have read through the entire article and the talk page. Is anyone currently working on this article? Right now, this thing reads like something that was copy/pasted directly from the NHSTA website with a few refferences to foreign affairs thrown in.

It is completely POV. When editors are offering their opinions on their views of seatbelt usage on the talk page and then saying that this, that or the other should/should not be there and citing thier opinion, that’s clearly POV. NPOV also requires that all sides of an issue be presented, including those held by a minority. When all views are presented, its not POV any longer because the article has been made into a mere listing of viewpoints on a given issue. Therefore, the viewpoints held by the majority of the editors working on this article are as irrelevant as the viewpoints held by the minority, except to make sure all of the bases have been covered. Another possible take on this is that this article should not showcase any viewpoints at all and stick strictly to an archive of statutes and how they got passed, being that this article is titled "Seat belt legislation" and viewpoints on the issue could be best expressed in another article. --Shortfuse 22:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes - a mess. I have added a new opening (and ending) that reflects what science has uncovered -- and what is universally accepted in the professional traffic safety community.  Most of article is the stuff of fringe opinion pieces -- not suitable for an enclycopedia article.  The more than a hundred jurisdictions that have passed belt-wearing laws have a rational evidence-based basis for so doing.  The more than a million traffic fatalities documented in the FARS data file provide no indication that belt laws pose a measurable increased risk to pedestrians -- anyone claiming that they do has an overwhelming obligation to support the claim with a data-based study published in a peer-reviewed journal -- there are many such journals dealing with traffic safety.
 * This article shouldn’t even be dealing with such subject matter. It should cover seatbelt legislation only, not everyone who dislikes seatbelt legislation or everyone who is for it. The effects and criticism and debates and bitching should all be separate articles, IMHO. This article says very little about the actual legislation and quite alot about irrelevant drivel. Shortfuse 02:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy regarding theStates
This article contains factual inaccuracies about seatbelt laws in the United States. Currently every state in the US requires adult, front seat, seatbelt use except New Hampshire. Specifics differ depending on the state, including age requirements. The generalizations made about when US laws were passed is patently false. The United States federal government does not have the power to regular seatbelt use. Only states can. Spinfire 05:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. The US has no federal seatbelt law at this time, this issue has been left up to the several states. As such, it is inaccurate to list 1994 as the date the US established such a law. It may be appropriate to list each state under a main catagory of the US and say when each state established thier law. As such, I removed the "US" row from the table of Section 5. --Shortfuse 06:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

However the federal government has been exploiting a Constitutional loophole and requires states not only to have seatbelt laws but primary seatbelt laws in order to recive back monies taken from the states by means of federal tax.


 * Indeed - It's exactly the same federal blackmail which is used over and over again: "Pass legislation or lose highway funding."  To name but one other example, that's how the nationwide 55mph limit came about in the 1970's.  91.125.148.125 (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Controversial / NPOV tags
So ... it's not enough to add a tag to an article -- how about starting the discussion? &mdash;Morven 05:25, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * This article clearly needs to address why most governments around the world continue to see seat belt legislation as beneficial when all the evidence, according to this article, points in the other direction. - SimonP 06:45, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I have replaced SimonP's accuracy dispute tag with an tag, this user has repeatedly failed to indicate which facts it is that he is disputing. That said is not clear to me the the NPOV accusation would be entirely valid either.

So we can be clear as to the attitudes of the participants the following is from a message user SimonP left on my talk page ""Wikipedia articles should always reflect accepted wisdom (irrespective of its validity), and not be a platform for minority views."

As to the question of what various Governments believe privately and or say publicly these are matters that are best explored in other articles. Similarly, in my view, the fact that the print and broadcast media, who recieve substantial funding from the car lobby, tend to report the car lobby's world view does not dictate that this policy should be endorsed by Wikipedia. For broader discussion of this issue see propaganda model, propaganda. It is self-evident that much of the public information disseminated regarding car safety, be it anti-lock brakes, seatbelts etc, is distributed in support of car advertising campaigns aimed at selling cars. In my opinion, the use of various messages or "accepted wisdoms" in advertising does not render them "facts". --Sf 11:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yet there must be some rationale for current 'accepted wisdom' - some worldview in which it makes sense.


 * I believe that most current automobile safety legislation and thinking is based around the viewpoint of the individual car driver and taking steps that directly increase their safety. Indirect effects are rarely considered, and the safety of other road users and the population as a whole is not often considered at all.


 * From one's narrow personal viewpoint as a car driver, most safety legislation / initiatives make immediate sense. Who'd not want seatbelts, given that they DO, in like for like accidents, reduce the chances of death or serious injury?  Who'd not want ABS, given that in like for like situations, it reduces the chance of losing control of the car?  And since most everyone believes they're a good driver and won't drive more dangerously when feeling safer ... &mdash;Morven 14:57, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed as a daily car driver I always wear my seatbelt does that make me a hypocrite? Probably, but such is life. It all boils down to personal gratification in its broadest sense - but that is part of the whole consumerism debate which goes way beyond road safety and into other fields.  Part of the issue is that words like "safety" and "danger" get co-opted into a form of doublespeak.  Safe for whom? Dangerous for whom? Given that in most societies social elites now tend to be car users it is natural for them and their political leaders to extol the recieved "virtues" of the car-owning classes.  However, should Wikipedia adopt these values and present them as fact? I would have to say no.  As a voluntary community, we cannot be excused for hiding behind commercial or political imperatives.  Lets leave that for the "real world" where getting that vote or corporate sponsorship or keeping your job may depend on toeing the line (How many road safety resarchers are funded directly by the Auto-industry?).  I suspect that there are many people on the street who apply common sense and acknowledge at a personal level that life can't be so simple as simply putting on a seatbelt, helmet etc.   Witness the whole SUV debate - these are sold as having enhanced protection for their occupants but as a driver I am very clear from my own biased observations that their drivers seem to display above average levels of aggression.  This is something that other motorists have remarked.  --Sf 15:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The above reference to seat belt laws being motivated by car manufacturers desire for marketing is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS, pardon me for shouting. Please familiarize yourself with the events leading to laws mandating seatbelts being installed in cars in the US and elsewhere--they definitively and absolutely did NOT originate from car companies but instead from consumer advocates (one prominent example: Ralph Nader and "Unsafe at any speed"). You have to be kidding me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.159.121 (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it is your reading comprehension that is "absolutely ludicrous", given that the discussion was about laws that force people to wear seatbelts, not laws that force car manufacturers to install seatbelts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were not attempting to misdirect the debate, like most pro-seatbelt types do. 69.171.160.152 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC).

Biased point of view
This article is completely POV and must be fixed. In the title The actual experience of seat belt legislation, the word actual is clearly POV, in that it is saying that this view is real as opposed to the view of the previous paragraph that is not. The word simplistic is pejorative, the author is implicitly criticizing those predictions and is not NPOV.

I would like to add a few other things:
 * Have all the studies been made using absolute death numbers? this is clearly wrong as the number of deaths will logically be higher if the number of cars on the roads is also higher (and that number has steadily increased during that time span). A 2.3 % increase, as cited from the study, does not seem abnormal wether new legislation is introduced or not. Of course I may be wrong here, as this seems to be a very basic mistake. It would be interesting to know exactly how the study was conducted, but the only thing google finds is this wikipedia article or other "anti-car" sites :) [I only had a quick look, I may have missed something]
 * This page shows statistics about car accident deaths that clearly contradict this article's thesis that compulsory seat belt laws increase the number of deaths: the year this leglistation was introduced in the UK (1983) and the year after, the number of deaths decreased temporarily (before increasing again in 1985).
 * The arguments against seat belt legislation considering risk compensation cannot apply to laws concerning children, passenger seats, or back seats (risk compensation is unconcious so can't be affected by others' sense of increased security). But do the studies make this distinction? Was there an increase in the number of deaths when laws were passed about back seat passengers? What would be the explanation then?
 * Finally and more importantly, I do not believe the title of this article reflects its contents. The contents of the article are more about the Controversy surrounding seat belt legislation than Seat belt legislation itself. Not that these contents do not have there place in an article called Seat belt legislation, but I would have found it very interesting to see things such as the date legislation was introduced in countries around the world, how the laws were perceived and followed by the public, etc.

laug 23:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * One minor point (and not detracting from the overall thrust of your argument): legislation about child seats, back seat passengers or the like could have a risk-compensation effect, since drivers would be conscious of the greater safety of those in their care. &mdash;Morven 03:02, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've made many changes, trying to be more NPOV and to reflect the majority's view that seat belts help save lives. I have tried to do this without imposing my personal point of view, and respecting the view that seat belts are a bad thing. I welcome any remarks. I also think that there are much more studies backing seat belts than criticizing them, and I think this should be reflected in the article. Please add any other information you may have.

I will now try to add more content.

laug 00:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Good work. This page was an unresolved POV problem for time. - SimonP 00:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I think most of us wanting a balanced POV simply wore out. &mdash;Morven 03:02, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Revert to NPOV version 25/05/05
I have reverted SimonP changes as he has failed to support them with any justification. laugs Interest in the page is welcome and will help broaden the thing out. I wasn't aware of the renewed interest as I've been concentrating on things other than Wikipedia


 * Re the comments on Risk compensation and laws for child passengers. From memory the introduction of the UK's child seatbelt law was accompanied by a 10% increase in deaths among this cohort (child passengers).   Possible mechanisms include increased risk taking by their drivers or seatbelt induced injuries caused by wearing seatbelts designed for adults of a certain size and weight.  (Why do you think booster seats have been introduced?)
 * Based on the statistics Laug linked to above, there was indeed a substantial increase (actually closer to 20%) in that year -- however, there's more than a 100% increase over the 20 years it covers since the introduction of the first seat belt law in '83, so a 20% increase isn't extraordinary. Similar increases were also seen the following year, in 1992 and in 2000.  None of these 3 seem directly attributable to a seat belt law. JulesH 9 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)


 * Yes there are various influences that can act to modify trends in road deaths: Economic activity, fuel prices, changes in medical practice, enforcment etc etc. The fact remains that we have a measure that we are told repeatedly prevents of the order of 60% of car occupant fatalities.  Not as a trend over time but right now, overnight, as soon as people start wearing them.  However, when substantial numbers of people do start using them overnight, no such effect, or even the opposite effect is seen.  In this case common sense needs to take over.  No amount of statistical "analysis" or "reevaluation" can disguise the apparent fact that something is seriously wrong with the model of safety being touted by the advocates of this measure. --Sf 09:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

--Sf 09:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Re the observation that the UK seat belt law was accompanied by a reduction in deaths among car drivers/car occupants (There was n increase among back seat occupants). The UK seat belt law was accompanied by the simultaneous introduction of evidential breath testing.  Again from memory most of the reduction in UK car occupant deaths occurred between the hours of 10pm and 3am.  It seems reasonable to ask why it is that seatbelts seemed to be selectively saving the lives of people driving home from the pub in the early hours of the morning and not at other times of the day?


 * Perhaps most of the accidents where they do the most good happen at that time of the evening, possibly because they are a form of accident most likely to be caused by drunk driver? We can't argue that the data is meaningless, as we don't have enough to tell. JulesH 9 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)


 * Yes but if this is the case then the "model of safety" and "predictions of lives saved" must be modified accordingly to reflect the real world situation. Curiously this hasn't happened instead, as always, repeated claims of general benefit are propagated (see the "lives saved by seatbelts" graph in main article).  Rather than adjust their models to reflect the real world data, the seatbelt advocacy movement instead uses their experimental model to claim levels of lives saved for which there is no real world evidence. This may be statistics but it is not science by any commonly accepted criteria  --Sf 09:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV removed
The article as it stands is substantially different in both content and tone from the version current when the NPOV tag was added. I believe that it is now a fair summary (although I declare an interest, having some connection with John Adams). I have reviewed the original Adams paper and numerous subsequent analyses and I believe this is now a fair reflection of current mainstream thinking regarding seat belt legislation. So I have decided to be bold and remove the NPOV tag - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a profile so this will do. I found this:

However, proponents of seat belts rightly point out that the benefits in injuries saved far outweigh these risks

"rightly"?

That's a bias. I removed the word.

I added this and it got totaly removed from the artical. I would like to know why. In 2004 after being ticketed for not wearing his seatbelt Allan Cronshaw of the state of New York has challenged The, NY State seatbelt law on the grounds that the law does not allow for a religious exemption. Allan has laid claim to being a reincarnated Ebionite and "James the brother of Jesus" from the Bible. To date the court system will not set a date to hear the case.MyTwoCentsWorth 04:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have lost my password and seemed to not give an Email account when I joined Wikipedia as I did not plan to edit much. The Seatbelt issue tends to tick me off and the half/missinformation feed to the peoples by their Governments is at least challanged here. I posted the above on my first account.MyTwoCentsWorth While no one could show cause as why it should be removed I see it was again and now im glad it has been replaced with a better verson. I would ask that if you have no reasonable arugment that could be discussed on this page as to why it should be removed and has no place in the U.S. section then that alone should be a type of defult judgement and reason for its being. .MyJustTwoCentsWorth

British statistics anomolies
The numbers given in the section The British Law do not appear to resemble those given in Road Casualties Great Britain (RCGB) data, which is generally accepted as the primary source for such information. Comparing the figures in the article with the RCGB 2004 edition we see:


 * Article: "The year of the law [1983] saw increases in deaths to pedestrians of 135 per year"
 * RCGB: Pedestrians killed - in 1982: 1,869, in 1983: 1,914, the difference: +45


 * Article: "... and of deaths to cyclists of 40 per year"
 * RCGB: Pedal cyclists killed - in 1982: 294, in 1983: 323, the difference: +29


 * Article: "... a 75 year high..."
 * RCGB: Pedestrians killed in 1980: 1,941, so a 3-year high. Pedal cyclists killed in 1973: 336, so a 10-year high

Both were no more than blips in the trend-line, which for pedestrians blipped down to 1,789 (-79) in 1985 and for cyclists blipped down to 227 (-53) in 1988. -De Facto 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They are still different to the figures in RCGB which show:
 * Pedestrian deaths increased by 2.4% in the first year of the new law and dropped by 2.4% in the second, and dropped again by 4.2% in the third.
 * Cyclist deaths increased by 9.9% in year 1 and by 6.8% in year 2 then dropped by 17.1% in year 3.
 * -De Facto 20:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not know why they are different, but these are the figures from the Durbin-Harvey report (published by DTp). Note it says two years.  I have email addresses for Davis and Adams, I will ask them.  Just zis Guy you know? 21:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I recall it, I think the "75 year high" observation relates to the extent of the increase in non-car user fatalities seen at the time. Eg the highest annual increase for 75 years (or since National records began). AFAIK it doesn't refer to the absolute figures for the year in question. SF


 * It can't be that because the annual increase in the seat belt year (1983) was 45 (2.4%) for peds and 29 (9.9%) for cyclists. In 1978 the increase for peds was 114 (4.9%) and in 1971 the increase for cyclists was 38 (10.2%). -De Facto 15:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Myself walking many places adjust my walking habits after two people were killed by seatbelt wearing motorist. Its clear seat belts kill cyclist and walkers and after a few hit the town papers smart people walking or riding bikes pay extra attention to cars. It was the early socialist writers that talked about the importance of using science as a means to push agendas and that even if the science is later shown to be flawed it wouldn't matter because the changes caused by the misinformation would have already become institutionalized. This also supports Professor John Adams work that is mentioned in the artical. Just as drivers that are protected from bad driving habbits drive worse cyclist exposed to seat belted drivers are forced to cycle extra carfuly when the risk increase

Summary section moved here for discussion
I moved the following paragraph to here as I believe it to be a combination of original research, non neutral point of view and weasel words and as such is not permitted under the WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:AWW policies.

Specific problems are as follows: -- de Facto (talk). 14:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The opinions of the efficacy of seat belt legislation and the interpretation of what the available research reveals are not attributed to any previously published reliable source.
 * 2) A non-neutral, non-attributed, opinion of bicyle helmet efficacy is incorporated.
 * 3) Exactly who disputes "whether seat belt laws save lives", or who "put this down to Smeed's law", or who debates "whether or not laws would have been passed based on much more modest reductions, accompanied by rises in fatalities for vulnerable road users" is not stated.

Words like "interesting" are POV whether citation is used or not. The same goes for phrases like "same flawed reasoning". What is intresting to one is not intresting to another, therefore it is an opinion. Of course, someone who calls something flawed reasoning, is expressing an opinion. There can be no arguement made against this.

Delete the section. Shortfuse 02:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Still a POV mess - or not, as the case may be
I see that almost two years after first noted this article is still a mess. It contains speculation ("may be..., etc."), uncited assertions and is filled with weasel words. In fact, this is not really an article but a sneaky anti-seat belt polemic, where facts are marshalled to advance POV. When will people learn that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for someone's opinions? I've placed the appropriate tags. — J M Rice 18:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The referencing isn't as tight as it should be, I agree. And the message is clear, namely that seat belt laws don't seem to do anything very useful. Does anyone have any serious scientific evidence that contradicts the message? Until such evidence is produced - and I've never seen any, not that it's my main area of interest - I suggest that attributing "weasel words" to the article is not helpful. I propose to remove this tag. I would also suggest that those who feel that there is a scientific dispute should produce some good work to demonstrate the fact; I suggest that what is available is in fact quite fairly represented in the article. I would suggest removing the neutrality tag as well, though perhaps that should wait until the references are better. Richard Keatinge 10:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC) (not a marxist, but I'll leave the following rant in for the time being, just for its entertainment value)

I agree Wikipedia is not a soapbox for someones opinions, it is a soapbox for Marxism. Any facts favoring favoring Unalienable rights are flat out buried any non socialist opions makes the majority of Wikipedian admins blood boil. Any articl more involved then the temp. of boiling water at sea level is full of marxist propaganda and since these articals are linked together in an effort to support the marxist opion of one articl with the marxist opion of others searching wikipedia will continue to be a trip to disney land untill all the articals are corrected. Corrupt editors using sham proseedings which lack substance to solve disputes will insure its continued Ignorance


 * Dear anonymous contributor, you do realize that the times of the HUAC hearings are long gone, don't you? Nowadays, calling someone a communist (or marxist) is about as stirring to the public opinion as calling someone a homosexual. Terrorist is the magic word that will make heads turn today, which consequently is used by everyone who wishes to make ludicrous statements but possesses no substantiated arguments to defend his claims or is too lazy to produce them (except you, obviously). Besides, if being "guilty" of communism enables one to form orthographically correct sentences and grants the knowledge of how to use a dictionary in order to at least not look like an utter twit who slept through all his english lessons in school when calling others names, an ability that seems to be present in most if not all wikipedians, whom you call marxists (but not in you, obviously), I hereby proudly declare that I, Funkysapien, am indeed guilty of marxism, and that I deeply enjoy all the side effects of said marxist afilliation, which include the abilitly to properly use the english language and my native language (which happens to be german, and yes, do feel free to call me a nazi, I know that I am no such thing and will laugh should you make such a baseless statement). And finally, if I may, a word of advice: Feel free to go out and enroll in your local community college. Most of them offer basic english courses to battle analphabetism. Take one of those. And an introductiory course in political theory would do you no harm either. Thank you. --Funkysapien 00:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To anonymous - Maybe I don't have scientific evidence, but I would suggest that you look at Australia as an example (where it is socially UNacceptable to be UNbuckled, and people will choose NOT to drive with a driver unbuckled). Road deaths have declined since the introduction of laws and they are at their lowest levels ever recorded (in the state of victoria as a reference). Also, you say where is the scientific evidence... Crash test science, that's where. The SCIENCE of it shows that there should be a reduce in injuries and death, while in some countries (such as the U.S.) there is less data in practicality. So even in this case there is scientific evidence. Also may I point out that in the U.S. it is MUCH more socially acceptable to drive and ride unbuckled. In Australia if a PASSENGER is unbuckled the DRIVER will also get fined. Australians have both a financial (and driving penalty) incentive to wear them, but also Australians generally understand and have SEEN the results. Plus with the introduction of airbags becoming mroe standard and passing into laws in the future (this year in Australia if I recall correctly, as of 2009 there was only ONE new car model sold within Australia without a driver airbag)the benefit of seatbelts can only be helpful in conjuction with further aids. In my opinion (I know this is not about opinion but we are discussion after all aren't we) I can't see many disadvantages with seatbelts. Head against the window or a little whip-lash. I know which I'd rather. So if you want to drive around without a seat belt don't try and force everyone elso to. I respect your choice (if you aren't driving me, near me, or on Australian roads that is) and hope that you continue being able to drive (alive). So don't crash. Please :). Thanks!!! 124.177.5.29 (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Seat belts vs. airbags
Hello, I think that this section title might be misleading because it implies that seat belts and airbags are in contrast to each other, although they are safety installations that should be applied together. (For instance, an airbag cannot replace a seat belt or vice versa. So it might be a good idea to change this section title. Best regards, --87.189.86.176 (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't there any opinions on this suggestion? Or should I just go ahead and change that section title? Thank you in advance for an answer and best regards, --87.189.106.42 (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not clear that the issue has any relevance unless some commentator has raised the issue of airbags in relation to compulsory seatbelt wearing legislation. Maybe best to just delete this section? --Sf (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also at the risk of pointing out the obvious, they are in contrast to each other if one has been shown to induce a risk compensation effect but the other hasn't. --Sf (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So what should we do with that section? I think -to say this again- the current title might be a quite dangerous one becuase it is misleading. I think there are two alternatives: a.)deleting the section or b.) finding a different title. Any opinions? Thank you, --87.189.93.143 (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If there are no more opinions, I hope no one disagrees if I change that section how I think it's better. Would that be ok? Or are there more opinions? (Actually, I hope there are...) Best regards, --87.189.108.214 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I can see, it is done. Thank you and best regards again, --87.189.104.94 (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fringe claims removed
I've trimmed extensive quotation of the minority/fringe claims of a single researcher and an internal, unpublished British report. WP:WEIGHT requires a focus on the findings of reliable secondary sources, all of which conclude that seat belt laws save lives.JQ (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As stated, WP:WEIGHT is critical here. Minority views and unpublished reports should be given marginal weight when compared to official studies, especially when the actual evidence (look at Victoria) is overwhelming. Read WP:FRINGE before putting any of this stuff back. JQ (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr Quiggin.. please see my message below and on your talk page. -Tracer9999 (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is having accurate sourced information reverted by certain editor(s)
This article is having accurate valid sourced information reverted to present a pro seatbelt point of view. Up to and including removal of sourced studies. I recommend other editors looka the edit history and restore vandalised information. There are many opinions and studies on the actual effectiveness of seatbelt usage. The article should be NPOV and explain both sides of this argument. Not turned into a PRO SEAT BELT page with anything saying otherwise removed as FRINGE manterial. Please get concensus before removing accurate sourced material. Over at least the last month this article has been gutted. -Tracer9999 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to read and apply WP:WEIGHT. An unpublished report, written only 10 years after the introduction of seat belt laws does not have any significant weight and should not be included in a Wikipedia article. We should be looking at secondary sources, such as summaries of the literature by national and international organizations, not selecting individual studies that suit a particular POV. If there are no such sources supporting a POV, it should not be given significant weight in the article. JQ (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

10 years is a long time to gather data on... I just find it odd that your edits appear to delete ANYTHING that mentions seat belts may be ineffective.. yet nothing on claims of seat belt effictiveness.. not to mention you have no prob adding a non sourced POV "summary". -Tracer9999 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I've removed a ton of WP:FRINGE material. 30-year old published studies and the opinions of a couple of fringe figures deserve a sentence or two, not whole sections. JQ (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of info?
Under "Current Position": "New York State passed the first seat belt law in the US in 1984…," but under "History": "In 1961 the U.S. state of Wisconsin introduced legislation requiring seat belts to be fitted to the front outboard seat positions of cars. New York introduced similar laws in 1962." So, what gives?69.138.160.129 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The 1984 date for New York refers to mandatory use of belts, rather than the fitting of them. I've edited it to clarify. 87.115.88.67 (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracies & incomplete information for Europe & U.K.
I have removed the statement "In 1965 cars built in Europe were required to be fitted with front seat belts" since it is completely false. Regulations regarding the fitting of belts were entirely determined by national legislation in each individual country at the time, as suggested by the table further down the article.

I've also made an amendment to the history for the United Kingdom, since it was incomplete to the point of possibly being misleading. Anchorage points for front belts were mandated from 1965. Legislation requiring the fitting of front belts was passed in 1967, coming into effect in 1968 for all new cars. But - rather unusually for British vehicle legislation - this requirement was also backdated to all the cars which had mandatory anchorage points already fitted. So there was no requirement for belts at all before 1968, but ever since then they have been required in 1965 cars onward. 87.115.88.67 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you'll also find that the section on UK child restraint law is woefully incomplete. The rules on what special seats are required for what age and height groups are now exceedingly complex, requiring prior knowledge of the child's age and height, and the appropriate special seat or cushion. The driver, and the driver alone, is legally responsible for monitoring that the child remains belted-in throughout the journey. Notably the legislation makes no mention of how this monitoring is supposed to be achieved in practice, since in most cars the driver cannot see the rear seats. --Anteaus (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to use the mirror...:D 86.14.187.220 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Report
In 2017, the National Safety Council graded states on road safety measures, such as primary seat belt laws, covering all occupants in all seating positions, and requirements for seat belts on school buses. National Safety Council (2017). The State of Safety - A State-by-State Report. Itasca, IL. accessed at: http://www.nsc.org/NSCDocuments_Advocacy/State-of-Safety/State-Report.pdf Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)