virsight hearing - Motor Vehicle Hazard Archive Project

n8
@EltIotl 2: Slnce th€ relaase of the rltldral lransportatlqt Sbfety
Board's 1986 report, ho!' many ocher Stales have foltoued or may soon
folrow Neb!aska.s €xampLe in rescinding alI or part of rheir mandatory
sear bel h laws ?
aNsvlER: w€ believc tha(e $ra a noticelble loss of nonen brrn for llfaty
belt use and belt lass follo\ding the lelease of tbe NTSB report on
lear-seat lap bel!s in August 1986. Belt lars in both Massachusetts and
Neb!aska \re.e repealed by voter referenda in Novenber 1986, tihile no
other slate has since repealed 1!s safety law, we note that r€peal bills
have been intlodrc€d in haDy states, ritb varying deg.ees of action. In
llisconsin, for exanple, lhe legislalure approved a proposal to accelerate
the schedu]€d
'sunset'of
the safety belt las; that provision was
llne-i!€rn vetoed by Lbe @vernor. In additlon, teo Stales eill hold
voter referenda on the issue this Novedbe!: !4ontana, on whether to
a€p€a] the belt 1ar already in effect, aDd Oreqon, on pbether lhe belt
lax ahould be allored to 90 into effect. It should aLso be nored that
safety belt bi]ls ril.l conlinire to be considered in nany of the 18 states
currently lacking such lawsr and that nany of the other 32 Stares 'rill
continLre to considet various proposals to an€nd, sLrengthen or weak€n
their safeLy belt Iaws.
Those ongaing Iegislativ€ and public reviers rnay r€ll be influ€nc?d by
publ.iclty abou! lhe p€rformance of safety belt syst€nls, including
rear-seat lap belts. In thal regard, ere are conc€rned that stories such
as the recent ABC-TV '20l/20r
leport on rear-seat lap bel.ts (July 22,
1988) lllay raise pubtic dor.rbls about the effectiveness of safety belts
generally, and Lhus as to the value of safety belt usage and of safeLr
belt use laes. The content ot the'2A/20'proslam appeared to be based
largely on the NTSB's 1985 report, and focused on cas€s rtere lap belts
had induced injury, rather on the overrhelminq najor!cy of cases where
Lap bel!s prevented or reduced injuries. althouqh
'?0/20'
did counsel
vis{€rs to eear lap belts? it nonetheless suggesled Lhat they are
inferior to rap/shoulder belts; and the reporL's !itle ('cutting colne.s,
costing lives') may have left viewe!s rith an unfavorable inplession of
aafeLy bel ts generally.
oUESTION 3: las NlltsA rfrre of the concern about lrp-only !e!r aeat
belts prlor !o lhe r€cent publicily 8ltrroundlng lhe Garret! case?
a!$l|ER: The agency has alr€ys been asare that safely countelri€asurer,
unde! certaiD crash conditions, can occasionally cause occupanc injury,
but lhat fact does 19! negaLe Ehe overall effecti!$ess of thcse safety
features.. I. lhis regard, NHISA has 1on9 re@gnized that Iap belts can
induce injury in sone clashes. of course, this is even true of
lap-shourder belts, But focusing solely on belt-ind'rced injuries
susiained by res!!ained occupaDts j.s hiqhly nisteading; those sane
occupants, if unrestrained, nighl relt have beeo injured or ktlted (thru
ejectlon, for exanple). So eeen rhere a belted passenger is injured, one
3hou1d not auConatically assume that belt Dse tJas necessatily
dellir.enCal. Itor€ove!, the evidence is clear that. on balance, 1ap-b€lt
usage prevenLs or nitigates fa! more inju!ies than it causes.
t
t
t
{
f
':
E T
t !
$