Why is it not illegal to have to wear a seat belt in the back seat of a car?
971264
Actually I am pretty sure it is illegal for anyone under 15 not to wear a seat belt in the back seat.
449107
Your question is good and very interesting. What it shows is the many contradicitons in the law.\n\nIf goverment had it their way--I imagine they would outlaw many of the personal freedoms we have.\nWhy one law is set in place opposed to another depends on the lobby of folks in higher places that are willing to fight agaisnt it.\n\nIt is a fine line the goverment walks as they make laws on a public level without stepping on peoples personal rights.\n\nHowever--you are not without choice--you can choose not to wear seatbelts and pay the 10$ ticket if caught or you can organize folks to fight agaisnt an unjust law.\n\nLike I said above--it is these fights that explain why we have so many contradictions.
112793
This is a scary thought, but it depends on the way(or area) of the impaction. For example, if you were traveling at a high speed(say 75-80 mph) and were hit from behind, it would be best to not have on the seatbelt...because you would have better chances of surviving if you were thrown out of the car! But, if you were traveling at a relatively low speed(35-40) and were hit from the side or something, it would be best to wear the seatbelt! It really just depends on the situation! Most who street race etc. do not wear seatbelts because they know that they are going to be traveling at high speeds and have a better rate of surviving not wearing the belt. But, that being said, most of us do not drive that fast and the instances where seatbelts did more harm than good are rare...so, always where your seatbelt!!!
1142463
Smaller school buses are treated like passenger vehicles when it comes to seat belt requirements. Because of their small size they are more likely to eject passengers; as a result, they are equipped with seat belts as a matter of course. As for standard size school buses, the effectiveness of seat belts has been a source of debate for several years.\n\nIn 1992, five years after New York passed a law requiring seat belts on school buses, New Jersey passed a similar law. While New York's law makes use of the seat belts optional, New Jersey's law requires children to buckle up. In 1999, Florida, Louisiana, and California also enacted laws for what they called "improved occupant restraint systems" on large school buses, although they have not yet decided exactly what type of restraint they wish to require on their buses.\n\nIt may seem odd that in an atmosphere of increased emphasis on safety there would be any question about seat belts on large buses. Yet opponents, citing data from NHTSA, have said that seat belts on buses might do little to help children. Rather, they believe, the improved interior design of school buses (known as compartmentalization) is more effective. Since the 1970s, school bus seats have been mandated by law to be well-padded on both sides, with high backs and extra-sturdy anchoring, and no exposed rivets. The design of the modern school bus has been compared to that of an egg carton; the extra padding around the seats helps protect the passengers during sudden impacts and keeps them from being ejected from their seats. Moreover, say opponents of school bus seat belts, in the event of an accident, it would be much harder for someone to get children out of a bus if they are all wearing seat belts. This issue will not be resolved easily. What both sides can agree on, however, is that school buses are definitely safer today than they were in the early 1970s.
158009
becuz its the only thing they can wear and it is not the law
54358
No, it violates an individuals right to choose and their right to privacy whether or not they wear a seat belt in their person, private vehicles.  because of Roe V. Wade we have a right to privacy and we are told that women should have the right to choose whether they want to have a child or not.  What is the difference if someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt that may or may not save their life?  There isn't.  It is the same principle.
457778
Thats a hard one to answer. Knowing that my aunty was killed in a car crash years ago because the seatbelt had cut her in half.\n\nI have had to convince myself, if our times up our times up and there isnt much we can do about it. (seatbelt or no seatbelt)\n\nI guess I would still wear a seatbelt cause for me its become habitual.
634989
I agree that the government shouldn't be telling people what to do in their own vehicle, and I think that it should be a personal choice. I choose to buckle up most of the time. Force of habit I guess.
634600
It is against the law to drink and drive or to have an open container in your car/truck.It is against the law to have alcohol within the reach of the driver!Even if you are a passenger in the car,if you are in the front seat,it is illegal for you to have alcohol in your possession!
937731
Because the faster a vehicle goes, the greater the momentum.\n\nMomentum = mass * velocity, so it increases with velocity.\n\nWhen you get in an accident, and if your car is brought to a sudden stop, you still have this momentum, this velocity. If you are not strapped down, then your movement, at the velocity continues, regardless of the new post-accident velocity of the car. If it is stopped then you will impact the instrument panel and windshield with the same velocity and momentum you had.\n\nIf you have an accident without a seatbelt, without airbags, you will get seriously messed up. And the faster you are going, the worse off you'll be.
721728
It IS the law in England, fatal accidents have been cut by people wearing seatbelts, if you don't wear a seatbelt you could go straight through the windscreen and die, I would rather wear a seatbelt and not be dead!
918186
When will people like you understand.....it isn't the knife, gun or tool.... it is the IDIOT behind the weapon.\nWould you feel any better or sleep more soundly if they used TOILET SEATS????????\n\nCars kill more people than all of the guns and knives I own....... so lets outlaw cars.   Your logic is unsound.
72820
According to the Constitution the Federal Government can't enforce seatbelt laws.  They get around it by spending bills, demanding that states create certain laws under the theory it falls under interstate trade clause of the Constitution, which is a complete missinterpetation, but that's the way it's done.
1072653
Yes, all occupants are required to wear seatbelts.
936102
I'm not up on Florida law, but I can tell you how it works in Michigan:  If you have a restricted license and you get a ticket for ANYTHING other than a parking ticket, your license is suspended for one year.  Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.00.  How can they get away with this?  Simple.  There is no right to drive.  Anyone can own a car, but the states only extend the privilege of operating a motor vehicle to certain people -- that's why you have to get a LICENSE.  As such, they can make any rule they want and place any restrictions on the privilege of operating a motor vehicle that they see fit.  You're right, the only person that could be hurt by not wearing a seat belt is you, but when you signed the papers for your license you agreed to obey all traffic laws and regulations.  That's where they get you.
288307
coz dinking and driving is illegal and subject to penalties
115401
Seatbelt laws were probably motivated by the insurance company's desire to keep drivers safe and therefore cut their costs.  However, that doesn't mean we can ignore them - regardless of the motivations behind the law, the net effect is increased safety.