virsight hearing - Motor Vehicle Hazard Archive Project

n9
the lssue of tho c!a3h protection plovided by reer-eeat Iag belts nas
highlighted in Ngu6t 1986 l{hen the National Transportarion Safety Board
reteased its repolt. that report questioned rhether rear-seaL tap beLts
{ere effecliv€. In lesponse to the reporc and the discussion it
stinulaled, NHISA and other safety researchers revtered nunerous analyses
oo the erfectiveness of lap betts, erhich confirmed the value of rhose
aysteN. In Febflrary I98?, $e Society of Aulonstive hgineers sponsored
a stmlposiufr on rear-seat occupan! crash protecti,rn, The findinss of th€
reEearchers chat parcicipated in the sympcsium overwhelmingly supporLed
tbe coDclusion that, over tire spectrun of crashes, rear-seaC tap belts
.t€ eEfectrve in redcing the risk of occupst inlury or deaLh,
QUESTIoN {: Of the rear selt passenge! fatalitieE rhat have occurr€d
over th€ la.st s€veral years, hor many have been atlribuled !o lap-on]y
safety belts and hor nany to the passenger erearing no restraint devic??
ANSTWER: notor vehicle crash experi€nce indicates lhat a rear seat
occupant eho vrears a lap belt has a significantly snatler risk of dealh
or injury than an occlpaDt Lho is unlestrained. rn iLs srudy of lap belt
effecliveness, NHlsa has found that rear seat Lap beIcs, rhen worn, are
approxlmaLely 32 per cant €ffective in reducing Lh€ risk of fatality.
tithout a deLailed invesligarim of each fatality, it i6 no! possibl€ to
&cermin€ the exact cause of death for pelsons sho !ea! Iap belrs ani
thcse sbo do not, sa.ever, *e believe the diff€rence in farality
experience speals for itself: a lap-belted occupanL is safer than an
unrestrained occutEDt,
{
d
I
t
,_',
.{ *d
f
I
q
?
i
,
:4