In article
,
"B.B." u wrote:

In article ,
Nick Hull wrote:

[...]

Interesting anecdote, but it lacks the scientific big picture. Sure you
can find many people who are saved on one accident due to seat belts,
but no comprehensive scientific test has ever been done. In England,
for example, they found that seat belts saved drivers and there were
more pedestrians run over because the driver felt invulnerable. How
many people would be saved if a reckless driver died in his first
accident rather than surviving to wreck again?

I'm 66 and have been in 2 bad accidents, neither with seat belts. The
first was before seat belts were invented and the other was on a
motorcycle. The #1 method of avoiding injury is to avoid accidents. I
am not in favor of the driver wearing a seat belt, I would prefer to
have all the passengers protected and the driver unprotected.

Sounds clever, but I wouldn't really favor it. My one accident was
caused by another driver not checking her blind spot and just coming
over and hitting me. Her big-assed Ford pickup knocked my tiny Toyota
into a concrete barricade. I was wrapped around a slab of concrete and
she had only a dent in her passenger door. Without belts I'd be dead
and she'd be free to go kill again.
OTOH your plan might work if all cars were the same size.

Nothing's 100% fair but if scientific methods were used we could find a
system that worked better on the average.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/