Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site sdchema.sdchema.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdchema!svn
From: svn@sdchema.UUCP (Sameer Nadkarni)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.auto
Subject: Re: Massachusetts seat belt law
Message-ID: <518@sdchema.sdchema.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Dec-85 00:03:33 EST
Article-I.D.: sdchema.518
Posted: Sat Dec 21 00:03:33 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Dec-85 20:47:41 EST
References: <294@frog.UUCP> <751@mit-eddie.UUCP> <8110@ucla-cs.ARPA> <146@decvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: svn@sdchema.UUCP (Sameer Nadkarni)
Organization: Chemistry Dept, UC San Diego
Lines: 48
Xref: lsuc net.politics:2610 net.auto:1142

In article <146@decvax.UUCP> minow@decvax.UUCP (Martin minow) writes:
>"alex" asks whether independent studies have been done estimating
>the costs of not wearing seat belts.
>
>Two studies were done in Sweden in the early/mid 1970's.  One
>carefully estimated the total cost to society of "cleaning up"
>after a traffic fatality (exclusive of insurance payments, ....
>In round numbers, cleaning up the mess costs about $50,000 per accident.

	Was this for fatalities only involving non-usage of seat-belts or
	was it for all fatal accidents?
>
>A second study examined every fatal accident with Volvos during
>one year.  Particpants included Volvo, the insurance companies,
>TSV (the motor-vechicle bureau), and the people who normally
>investigate airplane crashes.  There were 131 fatalities.
>129 were not wearing seat belts.
>
>Shortly thereafter, Sweden passed a mandatory seat belt law.
>
>Martin Minow
>decvax!minow

What I would like to know is how many of those 131 fatalities were
caused BECAUSE the people did not buckle up. The statistics are
valid only if use of seat-belts would have helped in any way.

What I mean, is that if the accident involved a crash where someone could
have been saved (by preventing a dive into the dash/windsheild, or getting
thrown out of the car) by using a seat-belt, then the argument that
seat-belts save lives is valid. But if the accident resulted in some sort
of explosion thus causing fatalities, or flying "objects" (glass?) caused
deaths, or some such situation where seat-belts would not have made any
difference, then I think that pointing the finger at seat-belt non-users
is baseless.

I presume that studies examining "every fatal accident" (with Volvos or
otherwise) would prob'ly include accidents of the latter type also, where
fatalities were not a direct consequence of not using seat-belts. Is that
correct?


				Sameer Nadkarni
				sdcsvax!sdchema!svn



If you think this is somebody else's opinion, think again.