Talk:Seat belt legislation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 This Article is a Mess 2 Factual Inaccuracy regarding the United States 3 Controversial / NPOV tags 4 Biased point of view 5 Revert to NPOV version 25/05/05 6 NPOV removed 7 British statistics anomolies 8 Summary section moved here for discussion

[edit] 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)

[edit] Factual Inaccuracy regarding the United States

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.

[edit] Controversial / NPOV tags

So ... it's not enough to add a {{disputed}} tag to an article -- how about starting the discussion? —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 {{npov}}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 ... —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)

[edit] 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. —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. —Morven 03:02, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

• 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?

--Sf 09:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

Seat belt legislation is an interesting case-study in safety intervention. What appears at face value to be a simple and valid inference, that comparisons between those who do and do not use a safety aid voluntarily can be scaled to predict benefits for an entire population subject to compulsory use of that aid, has been shown to be flawed. The same flawed reasoning has been used to support other interventions such as bicycle helmets, with similarly contradictory results. Whether seat belt laws save lives is still disputed. Arguably any risk compensation effect might be diluted or disappear altogether over time as belt use becomes the norm, and trends in motor casualties are undoubtedly favourable (although some put this down to Smeed's law). There is little dissent, though, from the view that any actual savings fall well short of the numbers predicted by simple extrapolation, and it was these predictions which led to the laws being passed. Whether or not laws would have been passed based on much more modest reductions, accompanied by rises in fatalities for vulnerable road users, is debatable.

Specific problems are as follows:

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.

-- de Facto (talk). 14:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Words like "interesting" are NPOV wether 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)