![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
The above reference to seat belt laws being motivated by car manufacturers desire for marketing is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS, pardon me for shouting. Please familiarize yourself with the events leading to laws mandating seatbelts being installed in cars in the US and elsewhere--they definitively and absolutely did NOT originate from car companies but instead from consumer advocates (one prominent example: Ralph Nader and "Unsafe at any speed"). You have to be kidding me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.159.121 ( talk) 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
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:
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.
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
-- Sf 09:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
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)
I have lost my password and seemed to not give an Email account when I joined Wikipedia as I did not plan to edit much. The Seatbelt issue tends to tick me off and the half/missinformation feed to the peoples by their Governments is at least challanged here. I posted the above on my first account. MyTwoCentsWorth While no one could show cause as why it should be removed I see it was again and now im glad it has been replaced with a better verson. I would ask that if you have no reasonable arugment that could be discussed on this page as to why it should be removed and has no place in the U.S. section then that alone should be a type of defult judgement and reason for its being. . MyJustTwoCentsWorth
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:
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)
Myself walking many places adjust my walking habits after two people were killed by seatbelt wearing motorist. Its clear seat belts kill cyclist and walkers and after a few hit the town papers smart people walking or riding bikes pay extra attention to cars. It was the early socialist writers that talked about the importance of using science as a means to push agendas and that even if the science is later shown to be flawed it wouldn't matter because the changes caused by the misinformation would have already become institutionalized.
This also supports Professor John Adams work that is mentioned in the artical. Just as drivers that are protected from bad driving habbits drive worse cyclist exposed to seat belted drivers are forced to cycle extra carfuly when the risk increase
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:
-- de Facto ( talk). 14:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Words like "interesting" are POV whether 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)
I see that almost two years after first noted this article is still a mess. It contains speculation ("may be..., etc."), uncited assertions and is filled with weasel words. In fact, this is not really an article but a sneaky anti-seat belt polemic, where facts are marshalled to advance POV. When will people learn that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for someone's opinions? I've placed the appropriate tags. — J M Rice 18:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The referencing isn't as tight as it should be, I agree. And the message is clear, namely that seat belt laws don't seem to do anything very useful. Does anyone have any serious scientific evidence that contradicts the message? Until such evidence is produced - and I've never seen any, not that it's my main area of interest - I suggest that attributing "weasel words" to the article is not helpful. I propose to remove this tag. I would also suggest that those who feel that there is a scientific dispute should produce some good work to demonstrate the fact; I suggest that what is available is in fact quite fairly represented in the article. I would suggest removing the neutrality tag as well, though perhaps that should wait until the references are better. Richard Keatinge 10:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC) (not a marxist, but I'll leave the following rant in for the time being, just for its entertainment value)
I agree Wikipedia is not a soapbox for someones opinions, it is a soapbox for Marxism. Any facts favoring favoring Unalienable rights are flat out buried any non socialist opions makes the majority of Wikipedian admins blood boil. Any articl more involved then the temp. of boiling water at sea level is full of marxist propaganda and since these articals are linked together in an effort to support the marxist opion of one articl with the marxist opion of others searching wikipedia will continue to be a trip to disney land untill all the articals are corrected. Corrupt editors using sham proseedings which lack substance to solve disputes will insure its continued Ignorance
To anonymous - Maybe I don't have scientific evidence, but I would suggest that you look at Australia as an example (where it is socially UNacceptable to be UNbuckled, and people will choose NOT to drive with a driver unbuckled). Road deaths have declined since the introduction of laws and they are at their lowest levels ever recorded (in the state of victoria as a reference). Also, you say where is the scientific evidence... Crash test science, that's where. The SCIENCE of it shows that there should be a reduce in injuries and death, while in some countries (such as the U.S.) there is less data in practicality. So even in this case there is scientific evidence. Also may I point out that in the U.S. it is MUCH more socially acceptable to drive and ride unbuckled. In Australia if a PASSENGER is unbuckled the DRIVER will also get fined. Australians have both a financial (and driving penalty) incentive to wear them, but also Australians generally understand and have SEEN the results. Plus with the introduction of airbags becoming mroe standard and passing into laws in the future (this year in Australia if I recall correctly, as of 2009 there was only ONE new car model sold within Australia without a driver airbag)the benefit of seatbelts can only be helpful in conjuction with further aids. In my opinion (I know this is not about opinion but we are discussion after all aren't we) I can't see many disadvantages with seatbelts. Head against the window or a little whip-lash. I know which I'd rather. So if you want to drive around without a seat belt don't try and force everyone elso to. I respect your choice (if you aren't driving me, near me, or on Australian roads that is) and hope that you continue being able to drive (alive). So don't crash. Please :). Thanks!!! 124.177.5.29 ( talk) 14:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I think that this section title might be misleading because it implies that seat belts and airbags are in contrast to each other, although they are safety installations that should be applied together. (For instance, an airbag cannot replace a seat belt or vice versa. So it might be a good idea to change this section title. Best regards, -- 87.189.86.176 ( talk) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've trimmed extensive quotation of the minority/fringe claims of a single researcher and an internal, unpublished British report. WP:WEIGHT requires a focus on the findings of reliable secondary sources, all of which conclude that seat belt laws save lives. JQ ( talk) 10:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Mr Quiggin.. please see my message below and on your talk page. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 18:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is having accurate valid sourced information reverted to present a pro seatbelt point of view. Up to and including removal of sourced studies. I recommend other editors looka the edit history and restore vandalised information. There are many opinions and studies on the actual effectiveness of seatbelt usage. The article should be NPOV and explain both sides of this argument. Not turned into a PRO SEAT BELT page with anything saying otherwise removed as FRINGE manterial. Please get concensus before removing accurate sourced material. Over at least the last month this article has been gutted. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 18:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
10 years is a long time to gather data on... I just find it odd that your edits appear to delete ANYTHING that mentions seat belts may be ineffective.. yet nothing on claims of seat belt effictiveness.. not to mention you have no prob adding a non sourced POV "summary". - Tracer9999 ( talk) 19:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Under "Current Position": "New York State passed the first seat belt law in the US in 1984…," but under "History": "In 1961 the U.S. state of Wisconsin introduced legislation requiring seat belts to be fitted to the front outboard seat positions of cars. New York introduced similar laws in 1962." So, what gives? 69.138.160.129 ( talk) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The 1984 date for New York refers to mandatory use of belts, rather than the fitting of them. I've edited it to clarify. 87.115.88.67 ( talk) 22:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the statement "In 1965 cars built in Europe were required to be fitted with front seat belts" since it is completely false. Regulations regarding the fitting of belts were entirely determined by national legislation in each individual country at the time, as suggested by the table further down the article.
I've also made an amendment to the history for the United Kingdom, since it was incomplete to the point of possibly being misleading. Anchorage points for front belts were mandated from 1965. Legislation requiring the fitting of front belts was passed in 1967, coming into effect in 1968 for all new cars. But - rather unusually for British vehicle legislation - this requirement was also backdated to all the cars which had mandatory anchorage points already fitted. So there was no requirement for belts at all before 1968, but ever since then they have been required in 1965 cars onward. 87.115.88.67 ( talk) 22:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
In 2017, the National Safety Council graded states on road safety measures, such as primary seat belt laws, covering all occupants in all seating positions, and requirements for seat belts on school buses. <ref>National Safety Council (2017). The State of Safety - A State-by-State Report. Itasca, IL. accessed at: http://www.nsc.org/NSCDocuments_Advocacy/State-of-Safety/State-Report.pdf Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
The above reference to seat belt laws being motivated by car manufacturers desire for marketing is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS, pardon me for shouting. Please familiarize yourself with the events leading to laws mandating seatbelts being installed in cars in the US and elsewhere--they definitively and absolutely did NOT originate from car companies but instead from consumer advocates (one prominent example: Ralph Nader and "Unsafe at any speed"). You have to be kidding me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.159.121 ( talk) 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
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:
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.
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
-- Sf 09:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
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)
I have lost my password and seemed to not give an Email account when I joined Wikipedia as I did not plan to edit much. The Seatbelt issue tends to tick me off and the half/missinformation feed to the peoples by their Governments is at least challanged here. I posted the above on my first account. MyTwoCentsWorth While no one could show cause as why it should be removed I see it was again and now im glad it has been replaced with a better verson. I would ask that if you have no reasonable arugment that could be discussed on this page as to why it should be removed and has no place in the U.S. section then that alone should be a type of defult judgement and reason for its being. . MyJustTwoCentsWorth
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:
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)
Myself walking many places adjust my walking habits after two people were killed by seatbelt wearing motorist. Its clear seat belts kill cyclist and walkers and after a few hit the town papers smart people walking or riding bikes pay extra attention to cars. It was the early socialist writers that talked about the importance of using science as a means to push agendas and that even if the science is later shown to be flawed it wouldn't matter because the changes caused by the misinformation would have already become institutionalized.
This also supports Professor John Adams work that is mentioned in the artical. Just as drivers that are protected from bad driving habbits drive worse cyclist exposed to seat belted drivers are forced to cycle extra carfuly when the risk increase
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:
-- de Facto ( talk). 14:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Words like "interesting" are POV whether 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)
I see that almost two years after first noted this article is still a mess. It contains speculation ("may be..., etc."), uncited assertions and is filled with weasel words. In fact, this is not really an article but a sneaky anti-seat belt polemic, where facts are marshalled to advance POV. When will people learn that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for someone's opinions? I've placed the appropriate tags. — J M Rice 18:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The referencing isn't as tight as it should be, I agree. And the message is clear, namely that seat belt laws don't seem to do anything very useful. Does anyone have any serious scientific evidence that contradicts the message? Until such evidence is produced - and I've never seen any, not that it's my main area of interest - I suggest that attributing "weasel words" to the article is not helpful. I propose to remove this tag. I would also suggest that those who feel that there is a scientific dispute should produce some good work to demonstrate the fact; I suggest that what is available is in fact quite fairly represented in the article. I would suggest removing the neutrality tag as well, though perhaps that should wait until the references are better. Richard Keatinge 10:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC) (not a marxist, but I'll leave the following rant in for the time being, just for its entertainment value)
I agree Wikipedia is not a soapbox for someones opinions, it is a soapbox for Marxism. Any facts favoring favoring Unalienable rights are flat out buried any non socialist opions makes the majority of Wikipedian admins blood boil. Any articl more involved then the temp. of boiling water at sea level is full of marxist propaganda and since these articals are linked together in an effort to support the marxist opion of one articl with the marxist opion of others searching wikipedia will continue to be a trip to disney land untill all the articals are corrected. Corrupt editors using sham proseedings which lack substance to solve disputes will insure its continued Ignorance
To anonymous - Maybe I don't have scientific evidence, but I would suggest that you look at Australia as an example (where it is socially UNacceptable to be UNbuckled, and people will choose NOT to drive with a driver unbuckled). Road deaths have declined since the introduction of laws and they are at their lowest levels ever recorded (in the state of victoria as a reference). Also, you say where is the scientific evidence... Crash test science, that's where. The SCIENCE of it shows that there should be a reduce in injuries and death, while in some countries (such as the U.S.) there is less data in practicality. So even in this case there is scientific evidence. Also may I point out that in the U.S. it is MUCH more socially acceptable to drive and ride unbuckled. In Australia if a PASSENGER is unbuckled the DRIVER will also get fined. Australians have both a financial (and driving penalty) incentive to wear them, but also Australians generally understand and have SEEN the results. Plus with the introduction of airbags becoming mroe standard and passing into laws in the future (this year in Australia if I recall correctly, as of 2009 there was only ONE new car model sold within Australia without a driver airbag)the benefit of seatbelts can only be helpful in conjuction with further aids. In my opinion (I know this is not about opinion but we are discussion after all aren't we) I can't see many disadvantages with seatbelts. Head against the window or a little whip-lash. I know which I'd rather. So if you want to drive around without a seat belt don't try and force everyone elso to. I respect your choice (if you aren't driving me, near me, or on Australian roads that is) and hope that you continue being able to drive (alive). So don't crash. Please :). Thanks!!! 124.177.5.29 ( talk) 14:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I think that this section title might be misleading because it implies that seat belts and airbags are in contrast to each other, although they are safety installations that should be applied together. (For instance, an airbag cannot replace a seat belt or vice versa. So it might be a good idea to change this section title. Best regards, -- 87.189.86.176 ( talk) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've trimmed extensive quotation of the minority/fringe claims of a single researcher and an internal, unpublished British report. WP:WEIGHT requires a focus on the findings of reliable secondary sources, all of which conclude that seat belt laws save lives. JQ ( talk) 10:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Mr Quiggin.. please see my message below and on your talk page. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 18:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is having accurate valid sourced information reverted to present a pro seatbelt point of view. Up to and including removal of sourced studies. I recommend other editors looka the edit history and restore vandalised information. There are many opinions and studies on the actual effectiveness of seatbelt usage. The article should be NPOV and explain both sides of this argument. Not turned into a PRO SEAT BELT page with anything saying otherwise removed as FRINGE manterial. Please get concensus before removing accurate sourced material. Over at least the last month this article has been gutted. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 18:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
10 years is a long time to gather data on... I just find it odd that your edits appear to delete ANYTHING that mentions seat belts may be ineffective.. yet nothing on claims of seat belt effictiveness.. not to mention you have no prob adding a non sourced POV "summary". - Tracer9999 ( talk) 19:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Under "Current Position": "New York State passed the first seat belt law in the US in 1984…," but under "History": "In 1961 the U.S. state of Wisconsin introduced legislation requiring seat belts to be fitted to the front outboard seat positions of cars. New York introduced similar laws in 1962." So, what gives? 69.138.160.129 ( talk) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The 1984 date for New York refers to mandatory use of belts, rather than the fitting of them. I've edited it to clarify. 87.115.88.67 ( talk) 22:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the statement "In 1965 cars built in Europe were required to be fitted with front seat belts" since it is completely false. Regulations regarding the fitting of belts were entirely determined by national legislation in each individual country at the time, as suggested by the table further down the article.
I've also made an amendment to the history for the United Kingdom, since it was incomplete to the point of possibly being misleading. Anchorage points for front belts were mandated from 1965. Legislation requiring the fitting of front belts was passed in 1967, coming into effect in 1968 for all new cars. But - rather unusually for British vehicle legislation - this requirement was also backdated to all the cars which had mandatory anchorage points already fitted. So there was no requirement for belts at all before 1968, but ever since then they have been required in 1965 cars onward. 87.115.88.67 ( talk) 22:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
In 2017, the National Safety Council graded states on road safety measures, such as primary seat belt laws, covering all occupants in all seating positions, and requirements for seat belts on school buses. <ref>National Safety Council (2017). The State of Safety - A State-by-State Report. Itasca, IL. accessed at: http://www.nsc.org/NSCDocuments_Advocacy/State-of-Safety/State-Report.pdf Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)