You have a right to be stupid, even if it results in your death.
> I'd assume having a seatbelt on as a driver significantly increases your ability to maintain at least some control of a vehicle in a collision
Not a chance. The g forces are tremendous, and you're just along for the ride in a collision. In my major accident, I had a lap belt on, but my arms and legs and torso flung about totally out of my control.
Seatbelts don't magically stop major accidents from happening. But they definitely keep minor accidents from turning into major accidents.
They don't keep you in control after you slam into something head on or flip the car.
They keep you in control after you clip a deer, or hit a rock, or someone rear-ends you, or you swerve hard to avoid something, and that can be the difference between a good story and killing yourself or others.
Do they? I've been rear-ended, wearing a belt. There was no possible way I could control the car under the g forces.
If you've got enough side forces to pull you out of your seat, you've lost control anyway.
BTW, race car drivers know to take their hands off the wheel just before impact, as the front wheels hit they can jerk the steering wheel hard enough to break your arms.
It's true that if you're going to do performance driving, tightly belting yourself in will enable you to feel the car better, and enable you to concentrate on driving rather than trying to stay seated. But hitting something is a whole 'nuther story. If you haven't been hit hard in a car (I have), you're not in control. Belt or not. You're just along for the ride.
That would depend on the collision. The worst I've had, the car I was driving was T-boned by another (their fault). If I'd had no seat belt on I somewhat doubt I would've been able to maintain control of the vehicle and it very likely would have hit other cars.
In my own accident, despite being slammed against the driver's door by the impact, I was able to keep my foot stabbed onto the brake pedal throughout the event thanks to the belt keeping me more or less in the driver's seat.
Er, so? If you're hit hard from the side with no seat belt, your whole body is likely to be thrown around and keeping your foot on the brake is going to be far more difficult.
Sorry but this does seem like a pointless discussion - if you were somehow able to prove that seatbelts basically never helped drivers avoid causing injuries/deaths to others then I'd agree a $50 fine is probably sufficient. But given what I've seen in this thread and elsewhere (including direct personal experience), seatbelts most definitely do help with that, and a fine + license suspension seems quite justified if you're caught driving without one (in Australia the fine is $550 plus a loss of 4 "demerit points" - lose 12 and your license is suspended. Seems a bit soft to me - the penalty for driving at 60k/h in a 50 zone is about the same.)
> if you were somehow able to prove that seatbelts basically never helped drivers avoid causing injuries/deaths to others
I'm not arguing it never happened. I'm suggesting it doesn't happen often enough to be a major factor in seatbelt laws. Laws addressing highly unlikely events often don't take into account other effects.
For example, when seatbelt laws were proposed, many people reported that they were saved from certain death by being thrown from their car. For example, if the car caught fire. Or the car went off a steep embankment. I don't recall any anecdotes about thrown people causing other accidents.
"Laws addressing highly unlikely events often don't take into account other effects."
Agree 100%, but I'm not convinced you could call such events "highly unlikely". I don't have enough data to say.
I don't have data, either. But I do recall the debates about making seatbelts the law. The talk was always about whether one was safer being thrown from a car than staying in the car. I never heard mention about being thrown from a car causing another accident.
After the law passed, I heard many people say they wouldn't wear the belt out of fear of being trapped in a burning car.
It's just that these discussions have been completely forgotten since, and the assumption is that seatbelts are always better.
I wear a seatbelt because the odds are better. I'm aware there are cases where it isn't.
Seatbelts also protect other car occupants. When your car goes from 80mph to 0mph, if you’re not wearing a seatbelt, you become a 80kg, 80mph meat missile bouncing around the car.
If someone else happens to be in that car with you. Then it very likely you’re gonna kill them. If multiple people are not wearing a seatbelt, then the problems only escalates from there.
Sitting in the back doesn’t changes the dynamics much either. Car seats aren’t designed to withstand a 60+kg mass hitting them from behind at 80mph. They fold flat, and anyone still sitting in them gets folded flat at well, and that’s all before you start worrying about what happens when two skulls collide at 30-100mph.
It isn't respected as it should be but I would consider it a natural right to do what you will with your own body. If you don't own that, what do you own? Bodily autonomy is the core of all human rights if you think about it.
Except when there are sufficient cases of people seriously injuring or killing themselves, then the area is typically fenced off/given restricted access.
> I'd assume having a seatbelt on as a driver significantly increases your ability to maintain at least some control of a vehicle in a collision
Not a chance. The g forces are tremendous, and you're just along for the ride in a collision. In my major accident, I had a lap belt on, but my arms and legs and torso flung about totally out of my control.