You missed my point. You can still operate a car without putting a seatbelt on. You can even “trick” the sensor by putting the belt on first or a dummy latch. It doesn’t solve the person chosing to not wear one.
Insurance doesn’t stop crime or deaths l. A license or plate is only good for identification, it wont protect the rider. Having “stiff OVI” laws wont stop a person from driving intoxicated.
You can even look at OVI trends and see it’s been fairly consistant with only slightly declining trend. However drug based OVI started increasing slightly due to legilization.
Your chart is misleading. It doesn’t take into consideration of early vehicles that didn’t have seatbelts at all or lack of safety devices (airbags, crumble zones, fibreglass bodies instead of steel). Manufacturers today are required to include all those safety devices for sale.
Legislation doesn’t protect anyone at all. It’s just a feel good solution. You can look exactly at cars and see laws don’t protect anyone.
Removed by mod
Anti lock brakes had an equal or stronger effect. The safest crash result is the crash you avoid.
Removed by mod
You missed my point. You can still operate a car without putting a seatbelt on. You can even “trick” the sensor by putting the belt on first or a dummy latch. It doesn’t solve the person chosing to not wear one.
Insurance doesn’t stop crime or deaths l. A license or plate is only good for identification, it wont protect the rider. Having “stiff OVI” laws wont stop a person from driving intoxicated.
You can even look at OVI trends and see it’s been fairly consistant with only slightly declining trend. However drug based OVI started increasing slightly due to legilization.
Your chart is misleading. It doesn’t take into consideration of early vehicles that didn’t have seatbelts at all or lack of safety devices (airbags, crumble zones, fibreglass bodies instead of steel). Manufacturers today are required to include all those safety devices for sale.
Removed by mod