(7-85) R-396 Form
Standard Title Page Report Project State on
Report Report N/A No. Pages Date Type Report- No. Project No. Final
VHTRC N/A
N/A Period
Covered- Contract No.
1986 May
86-R41
Title Subtitle and Key Words
Constitutionality The Mandatory of Belt Seat Laws tutionali ti Cons ty
Mandatory
Belts Seat
Safety Belts Author(s)
Law Mark L. Booz
Org'aniz•tion 'Performing
and Name Address
Virginia Highway Transportation and Research Council
3817, University Box Station
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-0817
Agencies" Sponsoring and Names Addresses
of Highways Dept. University Transp. Va. Virginia of &
1221 Street E. Broad Charlottesville
Virginia Richmond, 23219 Virginia 22903
Supplementary Notes by" Project funded
Virginia Vehicles, Department Safety Transportation of Motor Administration
Abstract
challenges potential legal mandatory The examines belt laws. The report to seat
usage
flurry questions laws propriety regulation of such about the of recent
resurrects state
individuals' private safety. highway of behavior .sake the for of questions Many of these
discussed
several mandatory motorcycle debate the helmet laws. in
ago years were
over
precedents examples These provide examining useful for of similar the issues in context
belt laws. seat
first history The portion of the the federal sumnarizes for the of incentive report
mandatory public then belt laws. belt The towards attitudes examines report seat seat
efficacy
discussing them saving and lives, the evidence of belts of in to
compares use
why compulsion
belt increase to rates. necessary usage seems
provides information This for the foundation discussion the constitutional of issues.
a
right The privacy, travel, freedom protecting and life dis- interest in to to state
are
Next, cussed. due question strength the about of the the between correlation
process
mandatory public goal laws Concluding and saving the of lives examined. is comments
offered sufficiently voluntary inadequate belts that
effective and
are usage
are so
mandatory that legal belt laws challenges. would survive all use
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MANDATORY SEAT LAWS BELT
by
Mark L. Booz
Legal Graduate Assistant
(The findings, opinions, expressed and conclusions this in
those of necessarily the author and report not
are
agencies.) those sponsoring of the
Highway Virginia Transportation Research Council
&
(A Cooperative Organization Sponsored by Jointly Virginia the
Highways Department Transportation of and &
Virginia) University the of
Charlottesville, Virginia
May 1986
86-R41 VHTRC
SAFETY ADVISORY RESEARCH COMMITTEE
Chairman, DOUGLAS, Planning E. Director, Development, W. Programs &
Department of Vehicles Motor
Safety Transportation BURGESS, Administrator, M. V. Department of Motor
Vehicles
Program HEITZLER, Manager, C. JR., Department P. Information of
Technology
Supervisor, JOHNSON, Education, G. Department B. Driver Education of
Police, JOHNSTONE, Chief F. Albemarle of W. County Department Police
LYNN, Scientist, Reseach C. W. VH&TRC
Safety Program MCCARTY, Coordinator, R. F. FHWA
MCDONALD, Project Transportation Director, Safety M. R. Training Center,
Virginia University Commonwealth
Valley PHIPPS, Director, Safety Roanoke J. T. Alcohol Project Action
Supervisor, Field ROBINSON, Department C. M. of Police State
Director, Blacksburg, SISSON, ANDREW Substance Abuse Services, &
Virginia
Highway SMALL, Engineering Program F. Supervisor, F. VDH&T
SPENCER, General, Attorney A. J. Assistant Attorney of the Office
General
THACKER, Director, C. Office of Substante W. Abuse Department Services,
Health Mental of Mental and Retardation
Affairs, TIMMONS, of E. Public Virginia, of Tidewater W. Director AAA
Norfolk, Virginia ii
ABSTRACT
belt Low persisted have despite for efforts seat
rates usage
years
belts' people educate about benefits. ample There documentation is to
of the contribution of saving belts reducing lives and injury. to
seat
The
pecuniary emotional and of the failure toll belts
is to
use
people's modifying little of effect in behavior. yet
enormous,
Involuntary
only
the effective be solution the to
to
seem measures
problem belts' misperceptions of about effectiveness ingrained and
attitudes
Compulsory which education. resist belt laws have been
use
successful other in countries, 1984 and have since by considered been
Department the
Transportation of viable be alternative passive
to to a
restraints.
possibility The widespread adoption mandatory of
the of •elt
use
has laws again legitimacy raised questions about the of such
self-protective legislation. similar spawned
debate A
court
many cases
mandatory 15-20 motorcycle when helmet passed. laws
ago years were use
Many of
the then made relevant the belt arguments issue. to
seat
are
The basic question the remains: enough devices effective Are and the is
public
interest protecting the enough in individual
strong to warrant
the privacy? intrusion on
The driving
place consider public that takes in must answer a
Further,
studies indicate substantial correlation between arena. seat
a
belt
the and protection of health. life and A made
be for use case
can
third
effects and social accidents, of party this many
costs matter
so
involves than
right question of
the individual of privacy.
more mere a
the Given traditional deference legislatures of the in
state to courts
highway the safety
regulation, of
mandatory
belt laws
seat area may use
well challenges. constitutional pass
legal Various theories this right conclusion. The support
to
subject travel regulation. is applicable reasonable law all A to
to
hardly automobiles discriminatory,
described be dismissing thus
can as
equal
objections. long protection As there
substantial is
as
no
interference with "local" travel interstate tangible and there
are
benefits,
the flow of impermissibly is restricted. The
not
commerce
volume belts' of efficacy supporting statistics reasonable constitute
a
legitimate
of serving public health and interest in
state means
a
welfare. They
well
rigorous standard,
and may amount pass to
more
a
a
and real substantial relation between the law objective. and The its
challenge due being thus satisfied, the remaining question process
policy becomes of legislature
choice for the about the one a
desirability
of this
alternatives. other means over iii
TABLE CONTENTS OF
Page
1 INTRODUCTION
2 BACKGROUND
4 REGULATION OCCUPANT RESTRAINT OF HISTORY
SEAT
6 USAGE RATES BELT
Belts; 9 for Attitudes Towards Seat Nonuse Reasons
12 INJURY AND DEATH EFFECTIVENESS SEAT BELTS OF IN PREVENTING
15 SEAT BELT DEFENSE LIABILITY" THE BELT AND. CIVIL SEAT USE
17 DEBATE MOTORCYCLE HELMET THE
Mandatory Against 18 Arguments Laws
Mandatory 19 Arguments for Laws
23 LAWS USE MANDATORY BELT LEGAL CHALLENGES TO POSSIBLE
27 STATE AND REGULATION LIMITS THE EXTENT DUE PROCESS" OF
32 Perspectives Commerce Power
33 CONCLUDING COMMENTS
(REFERENCES) 39 BACKNOTES
CONSTITUTIONALITY THE MANDATORY OF SEAT BELT LAWS
by
Mark L. Booz
Legal Graduate Assistant
INTRODUCTION
have belts Seat been installed automobiles manufactured in in
most
the for United They States the 20 required
past
years. every are now on
regardless sold place assembly. America in of the of their
Yet car
nearly
ubiquitous
today
in the road does translate
presence not
cars on
regular by
public. them of into the motoring American When
seat use
relatively phenomenon, belts
for disuse
often
were a new reasons
re-
skepticism flected efficacy. about their that contended Some in certain
might
belts situations injury.
This suspicion aggravate
even was
reflected
the reluctance of duty in establish law
courts to
to
a common
belts allow
damages
mitigate evidence of civil in to to
wear or
nonuse
Many today. those of suits. persist attitudes
studying efficacy of But the of saving belts lives in seat years
injury generated and preventing has substantial evidence that the old
Acknowledgement fears unfounded. proof
of this found is in are
some
adoptions the of so-called belt defense juris- several in recent
seat
dictions. The prompted results of publicity these studies much and
many
media campaigns increasing aimed of the benefits of wearing at
awareness
belts. show general that Yet the the seat
rate surveys usage among
public dismally Highway low. Safety remains The
National Traffic
(NHTSA) "passive Administration opted for the installation of
years ago
restraints" deployed
automatically that the resolution this
to as
seemingly unjustified public indifference. That resistance tactic
or
fell politics the victim through vicissitudes of has and been several. to
modifications and decade. the restorations The latest past
over
brings federal adopt bear induce strategy laws to to states pressure to
already that of the mandate belts. While passive restraints
present
use
objectionable they
involuntary,
mandatory because
laws
were were use are
odious because of compulsion. the introduction of more
imposition liberty This personal produce
vociferous
may on more
objections predecessors. than less obstructive regulation its such Yet
highway safety the of in precedent. without is similar A
not
name
debate
mandatory
the motorcycle of helmet laws in
passage arose over
use
the early late 1960s 1970s. and The proposed by sides both arguments
likely mandatory
battle belt then resurface the in seat to over are
developments draw
also debate the belt other laws. in But
seat
may on
regulation h±ghway driving safety jurisprudence and the of and the of
rights the and individual basic The automobiles. between tension
the of discussion. of the the still interests remains state at core
through look fully develops the this This
issue report at
more a
history Transpor- leading of Department belt of the laws seat to
up
Then, tation's July furor. of kindled the decision 1984 that current
an
background exploration debate, includ- technical made the for the of is
explanat±ons and statistics, those of ing of studies
rates,
usage
motorcycle life-savlng efficacy belts. The of the of evidence seat
laying opposing
provides the for helmet foundation debate
out
po- a
Finally, underlying of the legal discussion the and issues. sitions
a
involving rights in#olved legal conflicts resolve that the theories and
provide for rights highway safety foundation will those the in
context a
mandatory laws, implications and belt reflections the of the seat
use on
possibly constitutionality. opinion their about an
BACKGROUND
push mandatory from the belt laws for The arises current seat
that the passive the NHTSA latest of restraint the in strategy turn saga
Perhaps
behest of the
decade decided than
at to
pursue ago. more a
(usually producers, passive automobile that felt who American restraints
belts) costly, airbags meaning would be it
automatic too
seat was or
goal reducing accident vehicle of that desirable decided the
motor
same
people simply by ensuring their achieved fatallt±es could that used be
already Transporta- by Secretary of belts. rule announced The extant
July the 1984 stated that Elizabeth behalf Dole of the in NHTSA tion
on
containing passive if rescinded requirement would be restraint
states
States' mandatory passed population belt two-thirds the of United
seat
gradual accompanied by by April ii, laws 1989. This deadline
is
a use
phasing States, United passive of sold the in in restraints autos
on
Septem- after being required sold of with such equipment 10%
cars
new on
1988; 1986; 1987; September i, and September 25% 40% after ber after
goal 1989, April September 1989, 100% I, after if the is not
(I) achieved.
February of has The this been As incentive great.
to
response
1985, passed mandatory law, 4 36 other had and
state
states
a use
parallel legislatures considering interesting bills. is similar An
were
mandatory by device 50 this child that all had restraint time
states
(CRD) although
laws, federal of incentive laws the CRD part
not any were
(2) ruling" stipulated
laws federal the There conditions in program. are
all least the front driver and
must at seat passengers,
cover no ex-
requirement
allowed emptions the be for other from
may any use reason
legitimate provide
medical law for the of than
sort must excuse, some a
$25,
specify mechanism least of laws fine and and the enforcement at a
abridge belt defense also whatever the has in that status must seat
contributory jurisdiction, providing
that considered be
may nonuse as
planning negligence. the federal its is For part, government
mount
to
a
funded publicity large partly public partly campaign, from coffers and
by private contributions, Congress laws. belt has
yet support to to
government's although the share of the that
auto approve expense,
(PAC), political quickly industry assembled action committee its
own
sector's Safety private Traffic less than The motives Now.
seem
altruistic, however, require- of passive the restraint rescission since
design expensive
will hold down and ment costs
car new save
key complaints played industry prompting modifications. role Auto in
a
eventually delays passive the led restraints that and controversy
over
by Secretary this Dole. decision to
primarily by companies suits, number filed of and A insurance
challenge public
waiting federal this interest to
groups, pressure are
abound, questions While federalism the does the
states. too
so on
selecting saving this the of achieve desired end of wisdom to
means
Mandatory enforce,
with the lives. belt well be hard
to
may very use
vehlcle's being requiring able the
of detection into to
non-wearers see
they installed, be Should belt well be interior. automatic systems
may
by experiment ignition circumvented, interlocks shown with the
in
as was
(Ignition early placed of 1970s. the interlocks consisted in
sensors
prevented starting front from unless belts the that the seats seat
car
by simply occupied. Often front each that
in in seat were use was
readily unplugging could accessible the the under the wires system seat,
defeated.) rationality easily analysis of be of the the The means
later chosen this addressed will be in report.
noncompliance challenges by of These well be mooted the states
may
stipulations laws, mandatory for belt however. Of the federal with
use
1985, passed proposed departures from those the bills
in
or some con-
comply by positions covering all the in ditions Most apparent.
are
law's application third the and about
extend front seat,
seat
to
rear a
$20
$25 generally though
the and in Fines to range, passengers. are
be several the tied it versions statutory amount, state to may no
mandatory enforcement classification limit offense. of the of the Some
the secondary meaning enforcement, law belt have been to must
person
largest stopped from for The first. offense deviation other
some
liability only guidelines federal 18 where civil the in
area, occurs
contributory negligence, while allow
be considered to states
nonuse as
specifically consideration, settled forbid leave 15 be I0 and its it to
Safety only told, by the Council that law. All National estimates
case
satisfy third of these bills requirements. federal the Resistance to a
Michigan adopted; blackmail also the law perceived evident federal in is
required should two-thlrds the be will be rescinded it not
coverage
(3) passive requirements reinstated. be the restraint attained and
unusual followed Several decision. the Dole have
consequences
lobbying industry participation the of for First, there is the in auto
highway mandatory laws, and
the and it sometimes
casts
consumer use
the paradoxical safety opposing advocates laws. role the of This in
goal because result of two-thlrds of the the of American
coverage occurs
populace
mandatory accomplished by with of could be the laws passage use
(4)
16 laws such few That would leave miles of in
states.
many as as
populated large, beyond sparsely roadway Another in
states coverage.
explanation public the of for the dissatisfaction interest is
groups
resulting ruling: pushed, the belt dilemma from federal laws if seat
are
people rescinded, passive then standard the some and restraint is are
easily Also, Further, broken. uncovered. left belt laws be seat
may
provide safety alrbags belts combination feel and that in experts some
protection. dilemma the best The horn of the that if other is occupant
long being
passive restraints, the choice then there ends wait is up a
majority least for of the
full until the
road
at
coverage cars are on
post-1989 manufacture.(5) Finally,
lead this of
to not may even avenue
result,
manufacturers have indicated the desired since auto many an
passive install belts rather intention restraints automatic seat to
as
easily airbags.
belt be expensive than the These systems
may more
certainly detached.(6) alternatives which of clear the is is It two not
desirable the effective. most most or
primary impetus for the The decision Dole the interest in is seat
also factors belt laws contribute this other its time. But to at
highway safety pertinence; renewed which them the interest in is among
following effort curtail the the of nationwide coattails is to
on
revealing driving. drunken increased the Also Americans is
usage are
feelings, making good during
of of their automobiles this
recover- era a
perhaps ing prices. stable if lower As is consis- and not
gas economy,
drop highway expectations, fatalities of with the in recent tent
memory
disturbing, though, back
has been reversed the and More is
up. way on
figures correcting increased for fact the the that after is usage.,
even
(_7)
also mile driven the number of deaths the is rise. per on
OCCUPANT RESTRAINT REGULATION HISTORY OF
optional originally automobiles offered
belts
Seat
as on were
1960s, safety early equipment 1950s. the the several in In states
passed have either requiring their boundaries within laws sold to cars
1964, belts belts installed. anchors for accommodate this In to or
lap putting laws, belts automakers started in American trend in
state
cars.(8) passed Congress of all National Traffic front the the seats
Safety 1966, provisions of of Vehicle the which Act and in Motor
one
promulgated 1967, Federal this NHTSA. Motor created the In
agency
new
(a lap required Safety 208, belts which Standard shoulder Vehicle and
combination) 1969, several By all after effective
cars. more new on
equipped
experience of with with
of the road the seat years many cars on
belts, prompted
about
of discussions low rates
usage awareness an
required of requiring passive would be restraints, where inltiat•ve
no
(9) possibility mandatory the of automobile time, this the At
occupants.
unpalatable.(10)
being rejected belt laws raised but
seat
as use was
firmly approach passive established. The restraint seemed
promulgated 1971, 1970, 208 of Several Standard versions in
were
required complete 1972. last of The again and those variations in
protection vehicles for passive restraining all front in occupants
seat
1975.(11) challenged ability Chrysler August of manufactured after the
requirement, the such but of the issue Unites States Court NHTSA
to
a
agency's Appeals authority Sixth vindicated the for and the the Circuit
(12) rationality federal the interim, of the rule. essential such In
a
regulations by compliance ignition allowed of the interlock system, use
increasing method of manufacturers this resorted and American auto to
glitches interlocks Technical earned the of
belt seat
scorn
use.
prohibited 1974 requiring drivers, Congress the from and NHTSA in
legislative interlocks buzzers. also retained
continuous It veto or a
manual that involved device other than system seat any
any over
(13)
208 still passive much belts. Standard and restraints
very
were
analysis required testing alive of methods the with
NHTSA at
on an
by Chrysler this remand from the the but in restriction court
case,
suggested preference Congress role manual for the usual for its
some
highway safety belts the of ultimate solution issue. the in
reinstituted postponed, implementation 208 then Standard of The was
1981. attacked This effective
of 1977 with data time it in in
was an
perceived irrationality they by for advocates the in the
court
consumer
NHTSA's authority delay, again both the vindicated
the the and
was on
(14) ability require timing passive the restraints. question of and to
compliance Reagan 1981, 208 imminent, the date Standard with the In
on
changed administration, difficulties citing and conditions in economic
postponed
industry, rule for again automobile the domestic the year.
a
requirement. months, passive few Within rescinded the it restraint
a
challenged by This the the time State rescission Farm Insurance
was
Supreme lost. Company, Court, the
and that the in NHTSA to went case a
legitimacy The said the the of Court rescission criteria must meet
same
promulgation, by upholding
tables the and turned the
agency on a as
justifications previous failed had that the show decision NHTSA its
to
persuaslve.(15) sought longer reversal, this After the
NHTSA
were no a
highway espoused goal reducing satisfy fatalities of also the yet to way
placate complaining the automakers.
Dole
Its the
answer was announce-
July 1984,
mandatory of for and the belt laws. ment pressure use
SEAT USAGE RATES BELT
belt Seat and extensively been have studied. patterns rates usage
discernible;
Certain comparatively trends
higher them is among are
a
subcompacts, smaller imported in in and compacts, rate usage cars, newer
highway
drivers tend belts their
than travel- urban autos; to use more
tend belts
than and is the in to greatest ers, women usage use men, more
over-50
lowest and the bracket. under-25 in data Some category age
even
that bad weather Though buckle drivers these suggest to
spurs up.
interesting
trends plausibility and have
innate to
are
seem even an
they
because telling expectations, with consistent the statis- most
are
the overall Surveys tics different done of in rates. parts usage are
consistently the the belt
the country in put seat net rate
range wearer
10%
20% of of all observed drivers. place Some studies to recent more
that 18%. 15%
The trends in less rate at to rates
usage seem
significant, then, they still since reflect overall low
an use
frequency; determining baseline the for those itself
trends small
was a
Of
drivers. all percentage
There several factors departures which notable from this create
are
of driving public. substantial the majority of in the pattern
nonuse
(CRD) mandatory with child In laws, restraint device CRD states
usage
29% from pre-enactlon varied 39% of the post-enaction. rates
statute
to
Virginia reported change,
10.3% from dramatic before the
an more even
64.6% law afterwards. mandatory motorcycle without helmet In to states
laws,
49%,
the while around laws w.ith such rates states usage use
are
Compulsory laws, 92% far, where thus tried have report
use. proven
safety effective raising device in use.
Several interactions different of between vehicle types occupants
noteworthy. particular, and having
child In who rates usage are a
requires the
CRD in influence the tends behavior of the driver to a car
positively, and other of them
and Also, belts. the
passengers more wear
buckling practice
of the driver induce tends other occupants to
to
use
belts; however, their this right is
much for front true
passengers more
passengers.(16) for than
likely Both the be
seat
most to person rear
an•-the
charge"-- "in
dependent driver--
the others most person on
child-- small be
able
the
and increase of to to a seem awareness use others.
Nonvoluntary
which devices induce of belts for adults have
seat
use
produced applications positive limited their increases in in rates usage
currently far. thus automobiles few A available have passive restraints
already installed the form in of belt automatic Usage of
systems. seat
85%.(17) reported these be is During the that interlock to years
effect,
the in those models in systems reported also rate usage
were
was
50%. above European Several Australia, countries, and at several
provinces
mandatory Canadian have laws, belt compliance and seat
use
anywhere
reported 92%, 62% from with of rates the at
to are many
falling European 70% countries the 90% in These laws
to
range. usage
reportedly
popular (18) enjoy well. support as
The experience Canadian
drawing be for useful lessons may to more
applied be the in United for States if other
than
the
is it
no
reason
neighbor physically closest culturally. perhaps and mandatory When
seat
belt
laws
passed first Canada, in from 21% 61%.
went use were to usage
However, that latter eventually dropped off somewhat. percentage The
this,
for the concluded, Canadians less the enthusiastic reason
was
enforcement effort that after occurred while. only
violators Not
a
were
tough somewhat police but also
somewhat reluctant spot, to
to were
enforce law people the against basically law-abidlng who citizens.
were
The problem resolution perhaps this of found the in practice of
was
enforcing the belt law conjunction in with other offenses. seat Anec-
dotally,
experimented Rico also Puerto mandatory with belt law
seat
a
abysmal with results.
paltry Usage from 5%
only less 10%. went to a or
virtually there
Yet
enforcement
of that law. Both the Puerto
was
no new
Rican experience Canadian and
that enforcement integral is suggest
an
of effectiveness the mandatory laws.(19) of part belt seat use
Another recommendation the of Canadians mandatory that is law
a
publicity
needs campaign People only its promote to acceptance. a not
had educated be about the belts, benefits of but also had be to
to
(2__0) law's notified of the provisions. The apparently Dole decision
subscribes $40
this because publicity
it million
effort to proposes
a
as
of the law belt option. part seat
The has developments been NHTSA of other in has countries and
aware
combined experiences those the with efforts few made the in United
making States in suggestions about what the American endeavor would
some
require. recently 1981,
As
NHTSA methods increasing of report
as a on
with started premise compulsion the that unacceptable. Its use
was
basis for this assumption ignition the Though interlock fiasco.
was
interlocks perhaps did significantly-- raise
they resisted.
use
were
objections The by have been caused technical defects the in inter-
may
they lock
by have
been citizenry resisted vigilant systems
may or a
ever
infringements of rights,
its
combination both. of of Some
on or some
failure the public
ascribed lack of education. to was a
publicity While
efforts indispensable, most commentators
say are
blitzes media being have been attacked totally
being ineffective as or
minimally
effective be worth the Public education not to cost. so as
before, has been and tried from it is that apparent current rates usage
inadequate. contribution overall its is
The has NHTSA to
use gone
even
rebut the far
compulsion publicity Canadian plus formula, to
so as
compulsion saying that form ignition of in publicity the interlocks and
campaigns coordination inadequate. in
deny would it Yet their
not were
place
essential comprehensive
in fact, scheme.
In components as
more a
though public marginally education useful, nevertheless it is
seems
indispensable.
of willing European the None
countries to
were
ram
mandatory belt laws down throats the populations of their without
some
explanation. end, this To educating the people NHTSA recommends the to
being risks
of accident,
in the such of accident, and
consequences an an
the economic and grand of accidents. insurance The scheme the net costs
proposed 1981 plus incorporated NHTSA this, in compulsion elements of
employees, for federal perhaps CRDs, employees and private of companies
engaged while job-related
driving. in plan The
this twist
to
new
was
obligatory requirement the of perhaps certain,
susceptible, in
use more
society example of
for
the segments of the
to
rest serve as
an popu-
(21 ) lace.
pre-1984 These thought contrivances
of avoiding of
were
as means
compulsory
laws.
that. preclude considering does Yet their
not use use
compulsory setting. in The that devised NHTSA these alterna- report
a
laws, mandatory tives considered
only discounted and them for
not
use
ideological
practical but also for problems the cited It
reasons ones.
of enforcement limiting
effectiveness
the of belt laws. It seat as
use
failure the all of behavior the modification approaches tried that was
led the endorse NHTSA passive
restraint the first
in to systems
(2_•2) place.
compulsory that Now laws the chosen those strategy,
are
behavior modification experiences totally ignored. be all, After
cannot
mandatory perhaps influencing the ultimate is form of behavior. One
use
public knowledge wonders whether attitudes and important
if not
are even
passive become the restraints final solution. Both belt laws and
nonvoluntary, automatic European the and and systems Canadian
are
experiences suggested imposed that solutions work better the if
even
general populace how knows laws they why the work and passed.
were
problem enforcement Since applying mandatory laws,
is in and a use
problem detachment
is belt in that automatic for all it systems,
a
seems
failings, previous
public its education important remains of
part
any an
solution lackadaisical the people have attitude to
occupant most to
Also, for restraints. public the of sake assuaging apprehension
over
imposition freedom, of its the laws wisdom of and a=ceptance any on
regulations vital. is
Attitudes Belts: Towards Seat for Reasons Nonuse
perceptions Attitudes and
have effect
to rates, seem some usage
on
by plausibility borne the is detected the of belt trends in out as
logical,
retrospectively least It consistent with at usage. seems or
expectations, that small of children, small sports parents
cars, cars,
and higher would be citizens senior Indicia of This is
rates. usage
also
highway observation the in that drivers tend belts true
to
wear
aren't
all, long after high trips speeds danger- sustained at more;
more
"No
A quest±on concise • that is, The " statistics belie to ous answer
Seventy-five that belief.
of all accidents within percent
common occur
25 home, miles of speeds and 40 below slightly miles hour. A at
per
higher 80% of injuries deaths
and from automobile accidents within
occur
the
radius of speed. home within and the Another,
same same more
Indirect inference the role of
education attitudes about in belt
on use
study from that arises physicians showed 73% that of their a
use
(23) belts. Whether this (it due limitations is study of that
to
was
usage) self-reported
proclivity the safety of doctors be to to or
plausible conscious,
it is believe that there is contribution
to to some
ability this regularity from result the and with which doctors read
scientific studies. plausible also physicians It is that have
at many
their
point
in
with injured into
in contact some careers come
someone
an
diagnostic automobile
accident. For question
asked
purposes,
common
a
"Were of patients such accident?" is, belts the in of the tlme at
use
Perceptions, both inaccurate, and thus indicators strong accurate seem
of habits. usage
"typical"
Profiles of
belt and have been seat
users nonusers
assembled from They the of studies. that reveal
many usage persons
likely buckle
high also tend have educational attainments, to
to
up are
safety-minded, driving generally, habits their conservative in believe
effectiveness the belts, of in valid have and perceptions the of risks
being of being injured. accident in
and Nonusers, hand, other the
an
on
willing risks,
take aggressive drivers,
and do take to not are are
care
of
themselves health. their of in summation, In aspects report many
one
"personality" concluded that of the
indexes belt of
strongest
was one
use.(24)
admittedly generalizations,
These fact the and that
gross are
80% population 90% of the belts do undermines likelihood the to
not
use
profile that accurately will the predict belt particular the
of any uose
Therefore, individual. the usefulness these of studies be in
may
suggesting directions for campaigns aimed the population whole.
at as a
subjective
Numerous have been given wearing belts. for
not reasons
study, single
the In for failure
available greatest one to excuse use
they belts that
uncomfortable. Auto manufacturers have been was were
complaint this
of for have and make tried modifica- aware to
years, some
objection. that tions
would that reduce change One such the devel-
was
of reel, the the inertial that device allows
belted opment to person a
adjust about, dashboard control forward lean
retrieve
to or an a move
without play having free belt. unbuckle the This floor from the item to
safety inertial will affect the device the of the since does system not
would lock such Yet
sudden accidents.
in movements
many up
as occur on
play people indicating perceive that belt ineffec- this free the is
as
reality. divergence perceptions of from again there tive. Here is
a
directly Interestingly, for
relates second
the most
nonuse common excuse
highway phenomenon driving discussed of the belt increased in to
use
"inappropriate" short explanation for above. belts This claims that
are
previously that trips. of address the cited The statistics accuracy
contention.
explanation the that third
for The is
most person nonuse common
simply forgets despite 5-second the that fact buckle This is to
up.
lights still buzzers bells warning 5-second dashboard and present
or are
phenomenon ignorance of this results from If unconscious in
many cars.
mandatory warnings, belts for the then becomes and it argument
use an
making little,
this if decision laws involves active since
any, excuse
people by hoped will be the least these volition the and is It
person.
likely compulsion, by affected and the it. be Converse- resist most to
by ly, education. affected lackadaisical least attitude their the be may
population's 20% for
remaining in of the The
are a excuses nonuse
change. strongly perhaps hardest be will the and the felt
to most sense
actually people
and belts These that
seat unnecessary may argue
are
burning, wrecked, through risk
the harm. of in increase entrapment or a
submerged be beliefs will for vehicle. these statistical The support
(25) below. discussed
possible
that
look First, these in it is
at to
manner a excuses
personality general subjective given
and the combines the
more
reasons
inappro- profiles. uncomfortable, inconvenient, saying belts Those
are
respondents comprised 80%
of the priate for short trips, unnecessary, or
justify those their further When asked the NHTSA in to excuses, survey.
relatively
low chance of pointed who belts the did not
to any
use
only particular being of do accident. driver Not in serious
many a
they'll belts, for people simply also but need these
feel have
never a
by compounded of that that belief this the attitude in is
group many
already they low good able beat fact somehow those drivers and in to
are
significant play role, denial and often odds. fatalism and So trans- a
should late affronted be that corrective
into assertion
measures an
they people simply short, that else. directed feel In
at
many someone
study problem, they will
of of be. that the
In part not
ever nor a are
legislators regarding these belt of the issue, attitudes the seat
state
(These representative paralleled. truly beliefs found be
to
are
were
doubt.) general bodies,
of belt Proponents
in seat
wear measures no
they're
them think and Opponents do belts think effective. and
not wear
they're occurring ineffective. this of self-selection With sort among I0
responsible lawmaking, for remedial
that it those
measures seems
intensively public general also directed will be the have directed
at to
(26) legislators. at
Generalizing why perspectives belts all the
from seat not
are on
public single changing clear,
does of atti- suggest not way any worn
often observed that the tudes. decision is One commentator not to wear
forgetfulness, discomfort, choice, whether
conscious be from it not
or a
Perhaps exaggeration based this since
inconvenience. is excuses on an
discomfort involve minimal rationalization
inconvenience or or
some
cost/beneflt
individual. be the of determination it the But part
may on
people, properly best. these described casual decision For
at
as a
perhaps remedy. Informing really the best them about the education is
accidents, skill the driver accident avoidance role of of in true causes
actual chances and their real level the of and how competence, to assess
being
likelihood of be of accident dire the and in consequences may an
causing them effective make decision. reasoned
in to more a
respond education? There what about those who do is But to not
forgetful by people greatly will affected that believe be to not
reason
knowing still,
Further, who after
there such be the
may measures. some
people, compulsion statistics, take these decide those chances. For
to
profiles only Relating
effective accident method. the be to may
use
likely involvement, found who the that have those studies most to are
likely belts. While least also collisions
those
to cause use are
people, mandatory
of of indications laws these reach
types
may use some
by
significant reached will be hard-core that
segment not any are a
unlikely of belts Within the classification those
is to
use a means.
subcategory regulation resistors, if also risk takers and of not
involved automobile lawbreakers. instance, habitual in For
nonusers
drinking. likely have been The
than accidents
to
were more users
didn't
drop somewhat; experience when deaths this bore Canadian out as
extrapolations before- after-enactment much from and rates
usage
as
people abiding predicted, risk, the
that found the lower law it
were was
(27) comply likely for this that with the is It statute. most to
reason
likely vigorous effective. be enforcement efforts the to most are
single attempted Though preceding has dis- discussion the to out
people
positions often several belt fact combine in seat crete usage, on
fallback belts favorite that for
their is A in seat may nonuse. excuses
actually 48.4% risk harm. showed of of exacerbate the that One
survey
actually thought injuries. sample The belts would the seat
cause
by people being envisaged include these where situations scenarios
being crashing of would jump able clear it
of vehicle thrown to
out
or a
being pinned death, life and where difference between
in the be
or a
by burning submerged harmful. last belt be The would
two
seat
car a or
hypotheticals they perhaps common;•whenever they
the
occur are more
would believe that have Television dramatic media receive coverage. one II
explodes nearly
fact, wrecked flames. automobile in In
every soon
involving together fires for less than submersion accidents account or
being vehicle all 0.5% Chances of acc±dents. these of of in motor
one
therefore, Further, low. is, fatal kinds of of studies events very
only have 1.5% shown accidents of all that submersion deaths for
account
(and involving vehicle fatallt•es death accidents fire this and in motor
people
something include injury fatal the whose fire other than
may was
itself) only
study, 3.6% fatalities. all this the of In
average were
fatally injured belt people 2.5%.
of all for the Yet seat rate
use
was
only 1.7% only 2.0% belted, Of all fatalities while submersion the
were
resulting fatalities of short, the belts. from fire using In
were
living through belted stood indlv•duals better chance of fires and
a
through submersions than other kinds This attributed of accidents. is
through helping belts of the benefit in remain conscious occupants to
themselves.(28) enabling collision; thus the them This is
to
rescue
dramatically popular opposition belief. here in So to two common
unfounded. attitudes prove
EFFECTIVENESS SEAT DEATH OF BELTS PREVENTING AND IN INJURY
previous While the discussion demonstrated belts benefits of the
infrequent for accident, kind dramatic but visible and of
very very a
public impact perceptions its
rather than the overall is main on sur-
vlval of automobile While accidents. of the in wisdom rate
persons
having ability the has clear been undercut for those unusual get to
situations, how 99.5% of bear does which the accidents
of it
on are
types? addressing other question of that look the One is to at
way
through injuries mechanisms vehicle which sustained accidents. in
are
simply, crashing significant Quite ejection vehicle from the
is
cause a
deaths, of trafflc-related 22% accounting fatalities. Belts of all for
extremely keeping crashing people and, effective inside the in
are car,
therefore, Expressed ejection. the best another prevent to way way,
"clear"
40 thrown risk of
of 25
times greater auto
to persons run an a
being significant those killed the inside than do who A stay
car.
Though ejected by portion vehicles. of their
those
run over are own
"jumping "thrown clear" being
difference
be there between and
may a
clear," antlcip•te
ability people
doubt of the experts
to most many a
leap. voluntary collision sufficient make in And
time to
a even a
subject jumper would forces the hazards be
thrown and
to
same someone as
ejection studied, all Of
fatalities the who had out.
not
person one
killed.(29) stayed Though people wrecked vehicle the inside had been
by being killed they
within crushed wrecked least have auto, at
are a
advantage having significant the of the absorb automobile frame
amount
a
one's having only of impact. Imagine the skeleton that bear all to
theory myth. force. jumping
the clear is In sum, a 12
significant prevention ejection contribution While of of is seat
a
injury survival, mechanisms of other belts offset also occupant
to are
"second by Perhaps
these foremost the so-called belt is
among use.
collision" body stopped vehicle the has which the the when of but
occurs
occupant's vehicle's traveling body, origi- still the of the inertia at
speed, now-stopped frame, the vehicle nal dashboard, carries into it or
collisions for windows. These half all second of automobile account
crashing injuries. Being within the thrown
around indeed is
car a
striking significant unyielding only injury, of from the not
source
being by other, interior, struck also from but unrestrained
passengers.
fact, study injuries 22% claims automobile that of all
In
one are
by constantly engineers While collisions. worsened person-to-person
are
modifying crashworthlness, improve automobile their interiors
to
or
hurling ability killing them, maiming human bodies without stop to or
the fact belts still that the effective
of remains seat most
are means
wrecking preventing injury. automobile belted held The in is occupant
a
place automobile automobile decelerates the and with bodies in and
dissipating
of have impact force
the of than the does
many ways more an
body. Slowing gradual human down with vehicle the much than is
more
otherwise, distributing advantage have belts the added and of the force
still-rapid of that deceleration much
wider of the human
over a
area
poignantly body. by study 28,000 point This of made automobile is a
wrecks, accidents Sweden. all those of the belted in In occupants none
60 killed hand, hour. below miles the accident other in On per any were
speeds of of the that less occurred than 20 accidents in miles at
some
(30)
hour, killed. unbelted occupants per were
they actually wearing benefit belts that Another of is prevent may
enough allow
accidents the driver control reduce
to to
some
resume or
keep potential severity. their This belts the driver behind because is
despite position of sudden the control wheel
the and
in
a maneuvers or
keeping jarring
collision. also from of This benefit other
may a accrue
driving during belted from the driver sit- passengers away emergency
(31) uations.
fact,
There violent .that of accidents form
in
are, so some no
injury death will restraint But prevent occupant occupants. to
or
evaluations effectiveness of give results restraint aggregate must
to
figures. possible fact, those it In in- separate net to
out
were
escapably probable accidents, fatal result the be the would increase to
enhancing for effectiveness belts statistics the of in seat
survivability. Further, predicated
the need for restraints is very on
probabilities these of
accident the tremendous and
occurrence same
potential benefits being offset the which chance of accident. in not an
Nevertheless, limitations fairness dictates of discussion the
of a some
belts other of and restraints. seat 13
hierarchy risks of effectiveness from and be deduced A statis-
can
analyses. positions, tical dangerous the As the is occupant
to most
"shotgun"
right by position, driver, front followed the and passenger
or
then Belts decreasing
effective in seat most
passengers. rear
are
impacts injuries side, from the then accidents in in which result in
rollovers, front then impacts, least vehicle and all of end in rear
Airbags collisions. have described been effective frontal in most
as
markedly crashes, higher fatality which have but ineffective in rate,
a
side, specific rollover accidents. of and effects these Because
rear,
specific impacts, of
the that said NHTSA time
types at on a com- one
airbags bination of belts effective would be the and occupant seat most
(32) restraint system.
phenomenon injuries unique belt the of
Some seat arose concern over
which medical literature the raised 1960s. the in late in Some
was
being injuries distinctively of identified
traumatic types were as
problems related
belt but of these attributed to seat to
many use,
were
positioning improper nearly Further, belts. of and snugness
every
quick overall, point that,
belts commentator to
seat out
was were
obviously likely they beneficial. unique injuries occurred, While would
injured
been have much
the
had had belts not person
more severe on.
simply injuries These belt different kind than others in seat were
accidents, sustained overall of belts less
in and Seat nature. a severe
during found be beneficial than where
not to pregnancy, were even more
mother's sustaining belted collision the force of of abdomen
fear
a on a
concerns.(33) only comprehensive pictures such raised this It is
as
problems
by amply with offset belts that benefits.
that prove can are
Predicting highway injuries fatalities reductions and in is net
analyses difficult variety statistical because of Many the of done.
early simply fatality study looked Virginia studies statistics. One
at
only fatally injured 8.2% found wearing belts. that of the
persons were
Correlating 24%, general
this the the which time rate, to at
usage was
study underrepresented belted that the concluded indeed occupants were
cautioning death that there inherent bias the in Even is category. an
analysis this belts those do who be tend since in not to wear
accident-prone, belts still concluded that reduce the it incidence seat
analyses injuries. of fatal confirmed those the in Later state
conclusions.
general categorize studies savings the human tried More lives
to
to
looking by study injuries. fatalities 1969 that the odds found and A at
being killed individuals, 100% of unbelted of for chances greater
were
injury 70% injuries less
and chances of serious greater,
were severe
40% study 1976 found far A benefits from NHTSA greater. greater were
likely 333% concluded belt killed
be it
times
to use; nonusers as were
(Virginia
350%), placed than factor that studies had
at
users more
likely likely injuries, 200% suffer and sustain serious to to more 14
injuries. Experiences moderate mandatory other in where countries
use
simply fatality injury looked effect laws and reductions in at
are
after before reported 15% laws. their of These and nations enactment to
46% 17% 46% depending fewer deaths injuries, fewer and the
to coun- on
Admittedly subject all of these several other studies try. to are
variables, but the uniform that conclusion lives. belts is seat save
simplify
tend this Current summaries numbers of that to
to seat say
maze
50%.(34) by chances belts reduce of injury death that Even statistic
or
efficacy persuasive for is the of belts. argument seat a
manipulation of the illustrative.
One be statistics may more
looking Rather odds, than the this perspective looks savings at at
net
lives, injuries, preliminary of metaphor dollars. in and A is terms
approximately people 50,000
that automobile die accidents in in year a
States; the United almost total of the killed number
soldiers many as as
for either the duration of the the entire
Korean War Vietnam or war.
17,000 100% The belt that lives NHTSA would estimates
seat usage
save a
annually 4 reduce severity of injuries. and million the Other year
have savings
the 70% less for ambitious put commentators
at rate
usage a
i0,000
savings disabling lives injuries. and
of million 2 In
year,
a
a
highway addition, reducing savings the from economic casualties be may
1978, considerable. estimated that In the it loss economic to
net was
$34.2 bills, the billion. This
lost included medical economy wages, was
dependent families, rehabilitation for somewhat and support costs,
more
speculative productivity losses lost of in contribution and the terms to
this include did the estimate of But government not
cost economy.
police, fire, readily such ambulances. services
The
or as more measur-
family hospital bills able of welfare have been and used support
costs
$6.5
savings of realized, 100%
project billion if and
to
usage a was
$5.2 only Though
billion multiplier 80% if the achieved. of usage was
productivity lost and disabled workers from reductions in is
revenue
probably highly speculative, phenomenon real
it is and the raise
may
a
somewhat.(35) figures Regardless savings incongruence the of the of
figures, life, llmb, possible savings of
and indeed with expense any are
belts. the of increase in seat usage
LI•%BILITY"
SEAT AND BELT CIVIL USE SEAT BELT DEFENSE THE
The
15 have the of defensive
past
years
emergence seen a new
litigation personal injury arising automobile in from acci- strategy
dents. This known belt the is defense and tactic it used is seat to
as
by the lessen burden arguing void the
defendant that the or on
plaintiff's
of belts from detracts the worthiness of his seat
nonuse
negligence contributory jurisdictions, suit.
In it
act may
as a
complete
negligence
bar comparative In if the to states, recovery. or 15
damages, mitigation of raised guise defense the under of Is
pro some
sought. apportionment the The reduction other In is award rata or
ambiguous; belt defense of the nationwide is seat status
some
jurisdictions it, allow but majority reject it, its still acceptance
a
(36) growing. is
defense The relevance belt of for discussion of the
seat
a
use Dole's mandatory by Secretary laws described the that •s conditions
July negligence compulsory 1984 the decision the of tie issue
to
use
Transportation's formula, laws. Department the of In To count states
mandatory belt defense. belt the wlth laws Yet bar. seat seat cannot use
by several the of defense the has tied been belt to status courts seat
public has opinion be the about should whether belts One court
worn.
depends duty law the the the belts said
not to
common or on wear
(37) public prevailing percept.lon attitude, If that In is wrong.
even
defense, belt the rejecting another, often-cited the court seat
case
utility widely accepted before belts that the be of courts states must
negligent
opinion failure This buckle will consider
act. to
up as a
complete safely, trips their and that motorists went most note to
on
expressed duty all reluctance because of the variables impose
to a a
by belts and that affect if
the wisdom Even such decision of
are
a
large they beneficial, asked, this
the if what time court
were one
unwilling duty given harmful? belts
The find
to to court any wear was
unlikely.(38)
anomaly, least that
how occasional At court matter
one no
anomaly precedent occasional this took which rested that
in to mean on
particular make fire, other threat
immersion, situations where
or some
"bailing
out" then returned vehicle of Thls desirable. wrecked court
a
majority duty of the If the should that the exist argument vast to
no
public motoring belts. M•ny
did it courts, content
not
seems, are wear
relying public impose
refuse belts perceptions of with to to seat
any on
rationality duty this of them.
Whatever the wisdom to course, or wear
clearly for the federal whole with odds the motivation It is at
public regulations that federal this realize The intervention in
area.
change prodding; only like of will wlth the attitudes •nertia yet courts
pulls mentioning opposite By those the direction. mentioned above in
recognized ruling, liability 1984 the the civil the issue In government
this.
Legislatures abrogate •the ability law duties and have to
common
resolving the might util•zed This well be rules. in device create new
applied by the chaos the belt the defense and in
seat
pressure area,
play actually unwittingly role 1984
in 208
decision Standard
may a on
duty general,
of resolution. absence this the In in statutory to wear
a
duty laws belts, When do
law will find
not to courts
so. common a
became requiring belts installed be in courts to seat
common, more cars
duty unwilling usually belts from that
infer still
to
to
wear were a
clearly legislative requiring law indirect of absence mandate. the In
a
negligence rule. simply
the refused Due to courts to create use, a 16
unpredictability accidents, duty dicta of commented that in courts any
rule The absolute. uniform would of be avoid creation inconsis- must a
policy legislature. from
such tencies, decision the and must
a come
willingness suggested duty Many such belts
courts to create to wear a a
presumption mandate. based
that
Some statutory suggest
to
a seem on a
liability affecting naturally mandatory civil would flow from law.
a use
phenomenon mandatory motorcycle
has Such occurred In to response a
states.(39) laws helmet
in use some
light by approach the of taken has In yet courts,
most court no
judicial efficacy taken belts. the of of notice diets Yet in seat
many
reducing have saving the belts of injuries. lives value noted and in
validity expected,
This recognizing of the the
in
seat occurs, cases ss
defense,(40) surprisingly, belt but also be found where it in
may cases
defense.(41) stubbornly has refused the the admit court to
suggested adopting has that the belt defense One commentator seat
signaling thereby duty and good makes law belts
econom- to
wear s common
cost/benefit analysis, Using
the he finds ic individual sense. a
by
take be far the who precautions best the with occupant to
person
can
effort.(42) least by the This position with the taken is consistent
laws; mandatory minimally belts advocates of require and intrusive
are
little effort While perspective the law economics has and to
engage.
public by opinion take while the and bears yet storm, to courts
more
weight data, than of fate the technical the belt the defense
seat across
immediately legislatures
of the country rest state
may response
more on
signal mandatory impetus laws, the belt for that would and the send to
liability. concerning civil to courts
MOTORCYCLE DEBATE HELMET THE
safety strikingly highway propriety about the of A contest
measures
by mandatory the similar belt laws raised the issues occurred in to seat
early motorcycle mandatory late 1970s 1960s laws. and helmet
over use
legislation gained congressional 1966 These laws that from in momentum
highway safety by laws. funds of helmet tied The to
passage response
thorough; eventually legislatures 49 the had form
state states
was some
public helmet generated books. of law the These debate
statutes
on a
spawned that positions the and that taken issue in court
many cases,
analyzing provide ground proposed fertile for the the of ramifications
laws. belt seat 17
M@ndatory Against Arguments L@ws
motorcycle laws, riders Many resented the helmet quite few and
a
challenged objections these in the Some contested statutes court.
underlying assumption that helmets safe than
helmets. were more
no
along rider's These
limitations lines that the the the arguments
ran
on
hearing and made perceive less able respond him vision and hazards to to
infrequently road. These the
perhaps used, however, contentions
on
were
them.(43)
the They because do, of against parallel however, evidence
a
discerned trend debate, the belt mandatory in where of opponents seat
they laws ineffective;
tend think element the of to use are
inescapable. self-selection seems
mandatory Opponents of laws point also difficulties the of
to
enforcing "free regulations thoroughly of activity. pervasive
Many
so a
riders"
by slip bound limited the surveillance law enforcement to
are
officials Though able devote offense. the violators of to to are
motorcycle helmet laws
much visible
than unbelted
are more car occu-
symbolic disrespect effect the of all engender scofflaws is pants, to
law.(44) for spillover the feel the that effect Some of this attitude
other undermines
foundations of the society. to areas our
Perhaps objection motorcycle the laws the helmet most to common
started with the helmets effective that assertion protecting the in
were
only. public rider from hazard bikers unhelmeted the existed No which
state's justified police
the of intervention the contend- it power, was
ed. helmet effect the of Since limited
the
to nonuse was use or
making individual the whether choice
it, this argument not to
or wear
public that asserted aroused.
presumption
The that interest
no was was
regulation underlying justified by public be need,
and must
some none
self-protectlve safety found be for
lack devices. This of
can
more a
widespread impact that, helmet laws this view, bore in relation meant
no
legitimate public the of protecting the health interest in and to state
welfare.
acceptable they the
did Since statutes
not purpose, serve an
police availability thus invalid
of the The of exercises
power. were
alternatives, less requiring manufacturers such restrictive
to
as
(which safety easily other install equipment using could be the done
power)
employing
necessity undermine
the of this to commerce
was seen
public safety. end compromises This last the denial promote
argument to
instead relationship of public safety helmets between and and any
relationship the of saying that the substantial is route pursues not
enough justify Nevertheless, the chosen. is it with consistent to
means
the protecting theme that simply individual for his
sake is
not an own
(45) legitimate.
of perceived The relationship the of lack substantial consequence
a
public between public laws helmet
and the the lack of interest
any or
regulation protecting interest the individual that in all is thus at 18
right.
infringes protected Failing legitimate
individual
some on a
end, 9th the Amendment of the States United Constitution state
reserves
right privacy Though individual. the of inherent the enumerated, in
not
implicit right
right this includes
the of privacy left be to or zone
alone free from interference. and irrational This the includes
state
right including
what helmets
helmets
to
want you wear or no as
long supposed indecent. it is Besides the violation of the
not
as
implied right privacy, of helmet law the that individu- said
opponents
al's liberty
right by right undercut includes the This statutes.
was
one's freedom of destiny. choice
the and the of be
to master
power own
though the liberty laudable, Even impinged be this be
cannot purpose may
safety. personal supposedly for admirable
Even motivation
on may a
deprivation liberty Privacy unwarranted constitute of freedom. and an
rights, fundamental contends, this require substantial and argument
are
justification
limitation for polls opinion them. Public
about
any
on
belt mandatory by public laws who feel such resistance
suggest seat
many
"rights."(46) similarly laws their violate
objections The infringements constitutional the
center on on
liberty
which of helmet the foremost claim laws values of opponents
are
American society philosophical and Their find
government. arguments
backing liberty by the individual of maximization stressed in John
person's
rights, Mill. according Stuart only Each Mill, limited
to are
another's, they when conflict with helmet and law claim opponents
no
such dilemma
unprotected motorcyclists from the of arises
presence on
highways. the theory and Social contributes streets contract even
something the form of that the the in observation for the exists
state
people, overriding and Any public vice welfare interest in not
versa.
clearly demonstrated, thus be here, and is it is must present none
short, claimed. when In the decision
whether it
to to not
comes or use
motorcycle helmet,
individual the should best his determine a
own
(47) interest.
postscript, interesting, As when is it that the federal to note a
supporting 1976, helmet withdrawn laws
several in pressure
use was
repealed laws, citing their freedom the choice of issues
states as
(48) deciding factor.
Arguments Mand.ator• for Laws
The opposition of much the helmet laws of admitted that
tenor
to a
enough might public justify infringement of interest indi- great
some
rights; motorcyclists vidual simply but the protection of did not
public such of the Much interest. for these strong amount to support
a
refuting
is directed assumption. that. There indeed statutes at
very
are
they social helmets, consequences
of the failure thus It to say. use 19
Mill's philosophy, by granted exceptions summed in falls within the
("So laedas." "Sic
that
allenum
Latin-
utere tuo et your you
use own non
inju'r•
an---other.") 'that Dire'ct 'b'•'neflts
other of do to
not
accrue
immediately public the from of motoring almost of the members use
helmets.
"missile theory called the thesis The offered this is
support
to
hazard" motorcyclist theory. unprotected is that the It proposes
vulnerable hazards automobile driver the roadside which is to
many
by body dangers Among shielded windshield. from the and these
are
car
flying particles bugs, might easily rocks, strike the which other and
subsidiary biker, recognizes causing lose control. him A argument
to
inherently motorcycle the wheels makes that
which rides it
two mere a on
vehicle, stable therefore and less the road four-wheeled than
more
a on
during
likely gravel,
weather, of bad
loose control in out to go or on
from these of
Whether avoidance
from
emergency causes or maneuvers. one
"missile, cyclist
else out-of-control threat is
to everyone
a an a on
highway. Therefore, serving reasonable of helmet laws the
a are means a
legitimate public safety end, travel the the of all those who streets
on
enough highways. reality fact, the and be the of hazard In
great to
may
"substantial" public qualify regulations having relation the
to
a as
public underlies premise welfare. This almost of fide bona interest a
justify laws, all reference rationales the used and helmet
to
some use
legitimate public regulate least activity need the made in is to at
to
a
upheld jurisdictions 30 helmet that have the and considered issue
(4 9) laws.
public parallel development rationale addresses the of interest A
infringe
law when which helmet privacy of the individual the state may a
activity violated. claim that the This is since argument opponents
says
highways public question and
the
in in streets
on occurs arena a
safety problem privacy just affects the of others. is it it since not
a
simply Highway protected unlike
within the it is asserts, not
zone, use
couple leading Supreme described bedroom of the married
in Court
as a a
(5_•0)
propounding right privacy, Griswold the Connecticut.
to case v.
be' a'l•e
"There right place
be would be would let where such to
any no
trucks, highway less busses and assertable
with than modern
cars,
a on
cycles whizzing by When sixty miles hour.
seventy ventures at
or an one
highway, expected required conform such and be he
to to onto
must
a
..."(51) public safety regulations controls and
motorcycle suggested upheld helmet laws of which the Some
cases
might justify acceptable protecting the these that be
laws it
to
as even
including cyclist. affected the welfare all motorists, and of health
simply impinged liberty assumed individual whose the is is into Here,
on
also larger
member. The class the of it he which is is state,
seems, a
individual's only by affected interested the welfare it is in not as
by
his others affected actions. Some also
be it but may cases own as 20
legitimately extend and that this the is interested in assert
state
people protecting from carelessness. their
There is for sanction own
no
risking self-destruction
it, the and of preventing losses these
or means
application police
of examples the is Other required of
proper power. a
self-protective equipment bright clothing include the
orange many
hunters
life skiers, boats and in
hard hats wear, preservers water
on on
goggles workers construction protective and workers.
All these
some on
examples plainly
self-protectlve,
opposed .having public mixed
to
are as
private benefits, they and
and allowed. all have Several courts
are
analogy drawn
the prevention suicide, usually of which is to on an
considered
function. least states I0 At have relied state proper to a
legitimacy state's the of the protecting interest the in someextent
on
upholding himself individual from laws.(52) in helmet
manifestation legitimate of One the rationale of a interest state
safety individual the of in
in the restraints is occupant
area
now
ubiquitous (CRD) child device laws. restraint date, lawsuit To
no
challenging constitutionality their reported. has been These
statutes
usually presumed state's fall the within patriae
to are •arens power,
traditionally public where the all the welfare interest in of children
has been
extensive. This for allows minors
sometimes the
state concern
child's parents' intervene behalf
against
the wishes. to In
on a
even
interesting application the of doctrine, patriae of several an patens
repealed the
which
their helmet laws reenacted them
states
to
cover
minors.(53)___
applicability The patrl.ae analogies of
parens to
regulations affecting limited, adults however, is the since competent
underlying assumption the that the ultimate is guardian those of state
unable for themselves
weak the in of to context very mature care seems
individuals.
The of protecting rationale individuals from the of
consequences
their guardianship the actions and rationale of of the inter- state
own
of weak, the
infirm coalesce the somewhat ests in
young, or
cases
upholding compulsory medical
of adults. While sometimes
treatment
patient's
patriae implicated
because the illness injury parens seems or
debilitated, leaves him medical has other, intervention ordered been on
grounds related for
These often involve competent
persons.
cases
compelling llfe-saving Jehovah's blood transfusions for Witnesses who
religious object grounds.
simply ordering One said that the
on
case
transfusion public interest death.(54) satisfied preventing Others in
a
incorporated patrlae related justified and compul- doctrines and patens
patient's
because preservation the of the llfe the treatment in sory
was
best interests of parties- third innocent dependent children fam-
or
ilies, (55) and adult
sometimes Many of these spouses.
even cases were
compelling for criticized presuming the interest in preservation state
a
life, fact, of
where and,
critics deferred in the
courts to some some
patient's
wishes, citing freedom of choice the
value in paramount
as
our
society.
Nevertheless, legitimate interest the preservation in state a 21
(56) quite life
described few of human without
in Even was
cases. a
protecting third parties, this theories the interest in resort to state
self-protective prevention have avoidable of ramifications death for
may
legislation.
preservation life has of found The the interest in
state
ex-
although slightly rephrased, upholding pression, several in
cases
"It motorcycle helmet laws. of the the is have interest to
state to
capable healthy self-support, robust, bearing citizens, of of
strong,
country."(57) adding
of
of the and the is It to
arms,
resources
reason-
police able, then,
injuries. the critical In prevent to to
power
use
fact, justified of the likelihood injury, the the serious greater
more
intrusion, the appropriateness
of helmet laws The state
say.
cases some
in-curtaillng motorcycle injuries head the of serious greatest
cause
more fatalities --makes persuasive. this all the addresses the It
substantiality adopted of the between the the connection and
measure
achieved.(5_•8) goal Underlying legitimacy be the these is arguments to
productive preserving of the lives members the of of interest in state
constituency. its
motorcycle widespread Returning theme the that helmets have to
effects,
highway all that have the
interest in state
many cases users an
highway frequency of seriousness the of accidents. the and consequences
of but manifestation real effects these One indirect the arguments
are
becoming people that allow the from wards of the prevent
state to
state.
public Regulations becoming charge preventing aimed from
at someone a
legitimate, solely willing declare
helmet laws valid
and to are one was
potential society accident the burden of
victims. This argument
on on
hypothesizes injured that those all medical of their cannot
many pay
charges becoming
welfare bills again, themselves work and
many never
public perhaps thrusting families the rolls. their and assistance onto
longer productively they Further,
the contribute the
to economy or no
nation's Calculations accidents these welfare of of costs revenues.
usually cited billions dollars. least i0 have of the in At states
run
laws.(59) motorcycle upholding the helmet of accidents economic in costs
applications approach disseminated Alternate the of costs argue
everybody's that the insurance, the of that accidents drive and costs
up
risk-taking general public of forced subsidize should the be not to
a
(60) others few. Still impose bikers that helmetless indirect costs
say
public through
need for
the
increased government
emergency
ser- an on
care.(61) police, fire, cumulative medical and vices: The emergency
people accidents,
theory by of far than borne this
costs says, are more
just unfortunate the himself. rider 22
unique validity for One the motorcycle of helmet laws excuse
attempted from
the it of conflict of to interests context
remove state
a
rights
constitutional and m•ght and that said justified it be
as a
mere
regulation, equipment
much like (62) other motorcycles. accessories on
POSSIBLE LEGAL CHALLENGES TO MANDATORY BELT LAWS USE
of rights recognized the One
of individuals which of
opponents
some
thought laws helmet impinged
right the travel. This unenumerated
to was
right
enjoys similar the tr•dltlonal fundamental values, status and to
a
by if affected likely laws, helmet implicated challenges is be in to
to
right
belt laws well. the Yet always travel has been seat held
to
as
subject regulation; particularly this Is ability the to in
of apparent
the unfriendly travel restrict government
countries. to Cases
to
dealing foreign with have, explaining travel dicta ability in the of the
regulate
place of from place, citizens government to movement to
men-
leg•tlmacy tloned the of domestic travel well. restraints The
as
example
that affecting used
of
disaster particular
case one was a
•
epidemic
might
spread which be confined, from afflicted area, or an
a
community. these situations, In prohibited travel be if the
may
prohibition
safety contributes the and welfare of the the nation to
or
area.(62) affected Among regulations these reasonable police the under
regulations safety, for particular in traffic laws. Indeed, power
are
the multitude speed, of turning and restrictions be could stop, said to
public's confine
in the
freedom of Curfews
movement.
manner some
imposed after civil similarly disturbances have upheld been though
even
they far
than laws. restrictive traffic complete Those prohi-
are more
b•tlons required justification than the.less imposing everyday
more
regulations, they upheld state's still
within police the yet
were as
despite preferred
the right of the travel. Even status power to
a
closing the made in safety interest of ensuring permanent the street
and
tranquility neighborhood the of residents of
upheld
a was as
a reason-
able of despite exercise •ts inconvenience others. government
power
to
This
applied rationale specifically
challenge motorcycle
to
was to
one
laws, helmet and resulted being upheld.(63) the in Clearly, the
statute
right regulated. travel be to may
subsidiary challenge
A that flow right from the travel
may to
right claims
dr±ve, Impinged
by which be belt require- to
may seat a
motorcycle
Several helmet attempted dispose ments. of this
to cases
by
denying They premise. contention its classified the operation of
a
privilege, vehicle
right.
They
argued motor in of not
support as a
as a
theory this
by license that granted the .required is
before state
a
driving.
privilege presumption This of
by undermined 1971 in was
a
Supreme
Bell
Court driver's which Burson,
held that license case, v. a 23
entitlement.
such, could As it revoked be without the
not
was an
specif±cally, trappings due of hearing. implicit But
in the
process; a
holding ability Bell regulate is the of the the the of exercise
state to
ability
by drive represented driver's that entitlement license. to
to a
suspension
License for breathalyzer
refusal take
after
to
test
a an
for driving drunken similarly upheld has legitimately been arrest
as
state's within the This pointed opinion reasonableness the of
to power.
the given the served, end it the and nonfundamental of statute
status
the right subordinate This drive. opinion considered itself be to
to
guidelines
within the Similarly, of Bell. previously
convicted
person a
of operating
owner's
without
the required
auto
post
consent an to
was a
security being driver's before granted Challenging monetary license.
a
right this right travel and theories, drive the found to to
on court
that security the requirement legitimate served
that in state
purpose a
protected drivers it other from potential burdens
instead of
monetary
(64) safety hazards. Though
driving the of notion activity
pursued
as an
the of debunked, legitimacy the the of reasonable at state grace
seems
activity restrictions firmly that
supported. government on seem
Vold-for-vagueness challenges lack and of motorcycle notice
to
poorly. helmet laws fared properly promulgated laws If with
were
hearings like, problem and the of this fact removed. The that part was
reasonably helmet standards well established and known further
were
undercut this
motorcycle for hard it the find r•der argument;
not
to
was
approved
designs. helmet delegation improper
authority it Nor of
was an
for
administrative specifications finalize the technical
to
agency some
of accepted
designs. those Vagueness foregone and notice Issues
seem
conclusions (65) far
belts Approved concerned.
models seat
as as
are
are
currently installed all only in passive and restraint
systems cars,
•mplementation would involve the technology. of there, Even NHTSA new
standards well documented. are
Motorcycle complained
also riders they singled that for
out
were
disproportionate regulation, that thls special and and unwanted
equal problems. created attention protection they short, they felt In
being against. discriminated equal the challenges Yet protection were
usually motorcycles with rebuttal
that unique vehicles that met
a were
special deserved motorcycle the Because almost rider has
treatment.
no
body
only protection rely wheels and balance for and
two to on
stability, special he deserves the rebuttal contends.
treatment,
Regulation only aimed is countering the risks accomp•nylng unusual at
vehicle's
this less-safe equal that protection Note arguments. use.
attach all if
members of the identified treated
even
group are
similarly, might for itself the receiving be unfair attention. group
All the helmet claimed that identification the of motorcycle
cases
deserving riders special distinct
class such attention, for the
as a
warranted.(66) above
challenge One this twist that said
reason,
was
on
equal
protection by better helmet served they since statutes was 24
safety protected highway
the and welfare all of and just the
not
users
motorcyclists
themselves. Also, motorcycles only the of
type not are
singled special vehicle for challenge A truck treatment.
out
recent to
regulatlons inspection identifying that found trucks unique
class
as
a
special regulatory justlfied.(67) with likewise needs is risks Peculiar
problems
part±cular and demand regulations, and th•s form of
may more
special automatically discriminatory. attention is not
good If identifying
for
particular exists equal class,
a reason
a
problems protection
minimized. laws, With the protection CRD of
are a
powerless class, children, infants small and has attacked. be yet to
mandatory helmet where Even laws they
repealed,
often
use were
were
objectlon.(68)
for without reenacted minors, these In
cases,
legislative
behalf intervention help of unable those themselves is to on
accepted.
this Whether
be will extended unable those make to
to
a
reasoned
information, due decision lack
unwilling of fact in
to
to
a or
voluntarily clearly undertake by precaution indicated the scientific
a
problematic. evidence, Though
motorcycle is helmet
did
not cases
use
particular this
reasoning, line of
wonders
the if effect the not
one was
bikers
The themselves should acutely been have the of
most same.
aware
special they faced, the they hazards reality either denied the of yet
obstinately
those risks
defied deficiency, Sensing them. the or a
intervened. government
automobiles Since
the of
vehicle road, the
type most are common
on
"special they wonders risk"
whether will be candidates for one ever
Though consideration. hazards their be different well from those of
may
motorcycles trucks, either hard unique. call them is it After
to
or
all, problems the of automobiles highway safety the bulk of constitute
equal analysis, issues. of Yet protection in this be turned terms
may
regulation around that of the pervasive of mode motorized to most say
transportation kind the likely control of is that the least is
to
equal problems. protection safety regulations Automobile present reach
almost public; the motoring bikers entire
truckers often have
even or
personal
they automobiles that from
risk The time time. of
to use a
disproportionate
falling share of the burden
individual
any any on or
particular class problem thus minimal.
might One which
seems area
equal
protection
the
in the of is the made in
appear presence arena cars
1960s equipped which belts with kind. of these of Owners not
are any
would, therefore, vehicles comply unable be mandatory with belt
to seat
laws; perhaps
unduly
having
be burdened in their retrofit to use or cars
comply.
order kinds in of 4% these Yet than less of to amount to
cars
all the
the road. only However,
this does that
not cars on
mean a
having relative equal few install belts reduces the protection to
problem;
the would
indicate opposite it the contrary, since
to
on seem a
small, virtually well-defined supporting would be all the modi-
group
fication
compliance. Perhaps of grandfather clause excusing costs
a
of satisfactory. older these vehicles would be This occupants would not 25
favor minority, discrimination of that underinclusive in since to amount
upheld safety by classifications traffic the field in
were
(69) Express Agency York. this perspective, From the small New
v.
automobiles
exempted portion of of does less
present
not to
seem a
compliance, problem. angle, by burden from borne The of better this is
than 95% the of drivers.
by passed opposed these Congress, Since
statutes states to are as
possibility discrepancies the of real. from Here state to
state
are
theory equal together burden-on-commerce doctrine and protection
to
come
provide complaint raising recommendations. based
The for
some a avenue
complaint differences borders would that the
be state
across on a
impinged inconsistency
of travel the flow that and but
commerce, on
problems equal laced protection with relevant consid- issue is to
applied problem all However, would if law the erations. exist
to no
state's operating drivers while vehicle roads bound- within the
a on
Only favored, if drivers out-of-staters somehow aries. in-state
were or
unduly inequitable burdened, would However, situation
arise.
an a
plausible might burden-on-commerce made if variety the of be argument
really laws the
chaotic disincentive
states to create
among
was so a as
state's selecting for problems travel. which interstate Practical in
challenge probably problem abound, law lOth there Amendment and is to
a
only disciminatory well. particular within
is So
state treatment
as a
likely litigated. problem potential by be solution this The used to
to
apply registered only laws them that drivers is CRD in
to most to state
(70) driving approach while their home far this has in So state.
not
challenged, perhaps permissible been underinclusive because it is
a
Ra.•lwa• classlficat±on just Express. in as
challenged safety, regulation pertains When often the it state to
examples vindicated. which Several such have been of is intrusions
upheld safety banning Among follow. them of the of the in is
name
highways along safety traveling billboards of of the the the in interest
(71) public. safety Also, of and the inspections trucks random stops
on
highway upheld legitimate have serving been
interest. government
as a
right right
objections this disre- travel and
drive In
to
to case, were
(7•2)
challenging garded. legitimacy the
of
law In state a case a
requiring of
conceivable minimum number
train
persons
any crews, a on
uphold sought the for reasonable requirement the basis
out to
was
(73)
safety regulations short, enjoy
that In it statute. state seems a
special rather for well and hard This bodes status,
overturn. to are
mandatory legislation. belt that does also the But it concept seat
mean
of passed limited when suffers of guise the laws under government are
safety? 26
DUE PROCESS: THE EXTENT AND LIMITS OF STATE REGULATION
mandatory Any belt judicial law climate which favors seat
enters a
safety regulations they challenged. whenever
There is state
are a
validity presumption being of the of these laws within the strong as
police of the
face the in of due proper range
power, process even a
attack.
Supreme The expressed has Court reluctance invalidate
to
a
safety regulations by legislatures, deemed especially
state necessary
measures.(7__4) highway safety regard given safety The traffic laws is
court's recognized acknowledgement state's the in that the here is
power
pervasive."(75) "broad and This results from fact the that such
matters
perceived peculiarly
be local in appropriate and for to nature, are
more
regulation.
Besides, 10th Amendment be made for state argument
a may
safety proposition the that primarily laws responsibility the the of are
federal in the position Given that within the realm states system.
our
safety, highway of exclusively regarded laws
almost local, it
are
as
likely surprise
that
automobiles be assumed this into
to comes as no are
presen•
1941, recognized the In that vehicles
court coverage.
motor
enough danger regulation (76) make of them The idea of to
necessary.
safety passing
automobile
such belt laws in
seat
state
measures as
legislatures therefore, legitimate. is, prima facie
validity This
presumption of translates deference into the
to
a
leglslature's
judgement about the appropriate resolution of state
most
a
problem. perceived
If alternative exist, the will
court not
measures
pick policy best from the decisions, them. Such the has
court among
stated, legislatures. Perhaps for the reserved because
state
are
knowledge technology, public change, and public attitudes the of
concept
safety evolutionary, has been described this, of the Because need
as
legislative (77) for discretion important.
is
Even
more even
a new
mandatory
law, then, such belt
would be concept
seat not automat- as a
ically certainly and ultra vires. suspect, not
validity The presumption long-standlng of from the arises function
of public the safety, health, the welfare. and The protect state to
furtherance legitimate of of these ends because is benefits the it one
population
lot of the whole.
valid,
then, law be For there
to
as a a
public implemented. be seeing Although interest in it this must a
circular, somewhat is it would that argument representative
appear
legislatures commonly expressions the best these of felt needs. As
are
both the public the and of instrument the interest, their measure power
broad. is lles the for deferrence Herein the accorded their
reason
Although actions. legitimate the final determination of public
a
legislature, challenges interest with the safety not rest most may to
pragmatically
thus
directed the chosen
statutes at to
seem means
accom-
plish the. desired end rather the chosen than itself. subject end This
be will addressed below. detail in more 27
challenges questioned motorcycle thresh- the law helmet of the Some
public required which of
whether there determination interest old was a
identified, becomes need
social it Once is official action.
proper
a a
compelled legislation,
individual be subject the for and
may or
liberty Infringed individual with
Interference have his in
way. some
properly legislation liberty automat•cally which invalidate
cannot
clearly public good superior welfare, the for the
Is
to
common serves
public suggested right. the realm private of that the has been in It
regulating individual safety,
latitude the have
in state
may
more
even
perhaps immediacy conduct, with which directness of and the because
compel public result need
benefits This
in
to
may an accrue. even a
motorcycle argued himself, of the individual
in protect
to
as was some
(78) conflicting made, be choice between
interests When must
a cases.
public predominates. need the
public police been
welfare has the of the The protect to power use
nevertheless of is limitable It labeled the least But government.
power
"public interest"
become The circumscribed
In cannot
a manner. some
legislature anything allowing do majority, it the of the tyranny
to
challenges though
public pleases the welfare. of Even in to
many
name
they desirability still of such the helmet laws conceded statutes,
compliance.(79) Though compel ability questioned of the the to state
public outweighs of limited good private interest, the in the system
a
predominance by establish Its the interest government must common
satisfying collective of that which exercise the constrain tests power.
police the given latitude the broad of the The in exercises
power
regulation limited public fact safety, health, welfare and is in of
area
yardstick
propriety guidelines. by of of the The normative state
some
"reasonableness." opinions declar- safety regulations the their Even is
rights ability of individual confine of ing exercises the the
state to
"reasonable." being necessity limitations Yet of refer the these to
amorphous
been used The has standard. reasonableness
test
very a seems
justify public
illogical applications need contrived of
to prevent to a
only regulation, beyond which laws theoret- that
but that It
even seems
upheld. public elucida- ically
be Here is the interest may some serve
be
There standard reasonableness what the of tion must
some means:
regulation logical desired the and of the between connection type
justify reasonable legitimate This it.
used interest state to
or
challenges
assessing rule majority the in rational be relation
to
seems
employed by safety regulations.
the It
courts test
most to
common
was
(80) motorcycle constitutionality laws. evaluating of helmet In the in
specified, long
the short, end chosen
the
in some.way
serve as means as
upheld. will be the laws
conceivably the long could advance law that this
Does
as a mean as
upheld? public of of That standard welfare will be health and it sort
by plausibility the Supreme
that all needed
Court be to was mere seems 28
sustaining regulation of Williamson optometrists their
in in Lee
v.
h#pothesize far $'S
9ptical willing CO,,. There,
the
Court to
to go was
so
legislature (81) for the basis for the question. law The in state
some
reasonably of permissible which allowance related end statute to
any a
highway safety theory will then sustain which in protects statute
a
people, perhaps approach individual other the and This himself.
certainly proof challenger the of burden the of
puts statute.
on a
Further, established, minimal
the is connection is act
once a once
police properly legislature only be deemed within the then the to
power,
judge wisdom.
chosen they The be its scrutinized if
not may can means
legitimate validity
end.
where presumption the is of Here
serve a comes
"better" methods, arguably The alternative of in. existence
even
or
beyond judicial
effective all, be scrutiny. After the
may ones, more
policy sphere the of within choice the is the of argument
goes,
underlying legislature, only propriety the and of the whether
program--
acceptable objectives falls within it for the is not
state or
judiciary good judgement Lack determine. of basis for is
to not a
(82) overturning statutes.
question The of what relation reasonable between
constitutes
a a
regulation public
still and somewhat elusive.
purpose seems a
suggested hypothetical plausibility. Williamson that it
meant
mere
Following motorcycle lead, this
helmet effective- said that the
one case
(83) achieving the of stated
end irrelevant. in its statute
ness was
Supreme highway uphold Another opinion would indicated that Court it
a
safety
speculative only if
had contribution it safe- statute to
even a
(8__4)
this the law
question the But since in ty. went to overturn case on
presented trial that
evidence the law effective in state at
no was
safety, relying promoting validity presumption instead the of of
on
safety regulations. Apparently presented, but be evidence it
must
some
"in vivo"
subjets be
need human tried it
actual
under not seems or on
"Speculative,
thing conditions. however " the is
not
same as
"theoretical"
proof, applied by least the Often the at courts.
as
legislature passed evidence used
the be will in get to
measure a
speculative; extrapolated laboratory experiments is, that from and
analogous something situations. still This has than substance
more
merely logic. appeals though. necessarily which prospective, It is
to
explains Perhaps discounting proof this the of the importance of of
by effectiveness helmet which
overturned One court.
statute
case one a
unsubstantiated.(85) theory rejected being the hazard missile The
as
justifications purely difference
here that offered the theoret-
was were
proof ical. might that law could the Some lives have it, sustained save
sayi'ng
migh different be would and than While lives. evidence it t
save
(although of be
experience in based need actual support
statute not a on
best), apparently this would be have scientific it basis. must
some
safety highway empirical These concerned with
data,
seem cases more even
only laboratory, hypotheticals gathered by proposed if than the in a
Williamson 29
"reasonableless" highway the relation in rational The
test
or
empirical
preference of for safety demonstrates thus sort context
some a
predictions based retrospective
evidence, either supporting
on or
proof still of reasoning. is burden This studies and scientific sort
a
"any evidence" subtly, Perhaps initial burden the standard, however. of
though. offer proof
shifted, The been has of must state
some now
presumption validi- of resting instead of the for action evidence its
on
by
safety highway the Court, perhaps heard the In recent most ty. case
safety be shown benefit the is opinion said that
not to
once one
legislature's
judgement judiciary illusory, defer the will the
to state
(86) upholding scheme, the inspection truck regulation. about the In a
Appeals district overturned for Third the Circuit of Court court
a
imposed
burden against judgement the because it
too
state
on onerous a
state's Only of the plan. justification minimal evidence the for the
"reasonable only basis needed; regulations here, efficacy
of the a
was
discovered" sufficient
will be defects that believe
to to
was some
validity.(8_•7) approach scheme's the this uphold that the Note preserves
validity still legislature. of presumption The the deference state
to
proof minimal. The only burden of is that their benefits the in state,
scrutiny of the require connection close does rational relation
not
test
only public sought;
clear and the chosen the between purpose
means
overturned. will be of violations the Constitution
empirical preference leads
for evidence sometimes This
to
a re-
substantial" "real
applicable requiring phrasing and
of the test
a as
really rigorous
This ends. is and relation between test
more a means
employ standard, in it and rational relation than the
states
some
motorcycle
safety helmet challenges the In laws the in
to cases area.
demanding
usually connection this
when the
state
was more
won even
relation" probably "real undercuts required. substantial and The test
statute's validity, well shift and presumption favor the of the in
may
possible explanation for proof of the initial One burden the state. to
directly with interfere tougher laws often that these standard is this
rigorous Therefore, personal liberty.
is form of test
a more some
analysis simple which indirect required relation with rational than the
employers, imposed manufacturers regulation, conditions
such
or on as
relation" "real the substantial this and evaluated. In context, are
accomplishment
of the desired reasonably the for be must
necessar• means
justifying propositions strength such of evidence The must purpose.
empirical raised. then of data importance is the also be greater;
rigorous explicitly they
using
Though they
did test,
not say more were a
of lives motorcycle studies upholding laws helmet cited several
courts
thwarting perhaps by effect, helmets after law into saved the
went
a
"Any evidence" grounds. this
substantiality in challenge
even on
regulatlon's
probative directly
of the instead be
must context more
tougher explanation the for further effectiveness. One resort to
a
regulations danger though well-meaning, these that standard present is
a
rights private
rights. important Because encroachment insidious of on 30
threatened, public Indeed requiring the regulation their interest
are
fact be real substantial, v•ew.(88) according and in this This must
to
though really
less •s just
somewhat rigorous test,
common, a
more
application
analysis of the of by used assessing in type statutes same
"reasonableness" the standard.
statute's The validity of directly
with the test
to
a vary seems
importance right thought of the infringed degree be and the that of
to
infringement. above, safety regulations And
where perceived
so
were as
merely containing somewhat the activity public of general the types
could
in,
rational relation between the law the and
engage state mere a
public being interest
sufficient served law. the Where to
preserve was
the perceived being intrusion
perhaps somewhat because greater,
was
as
defining than just permissible the of strictly activity it
more scope
forbade individual certain evidentiary real actions, substantial and
a
basis required. for
the challenging safety
No statute
was
regu- one a
lation has ought convince that scrutiny strict be yet
to
court
to a
applied, although r•ghts they high the that raise merit of level atten-
right other in tion The travel the and entitlement of contexts. to
a
driver's license subject have shown been be regulation. reasonable to
to
imprecise right
In the liberty privacy of and have been terms,
more even
by
safety held be reachable laws. usually
those But refer to
even cases
back the regulation reasonableness light of the public of in the to
involved, relationship interest and
the of the ends and center on means.
right
privacy, The of safety, interest in and the inter- state
a
the of action setting the in routine, of automobile unannounced
two
safety inspection by discussed Supreme the Court Delaware stops in
was
Prouse. Here, such random produced and
check evidence the of stop v.
a
possess'i'on
of marijuana,
for which the driver arrested. The
outcome was
primarily of depended the
4th the Amendment search and seizure
case
on
although right issues,
the of privacy intimately automobiles in
was
involved discussion. acknowledged the in The Court that the
government
safety
interest in enough indeed but outweigh the great,
not to was
through privacy interest in the mechanism here. used important Two
implications from position. this arise regulation The first that the is
of destroy automobiles does the privacy expectation people of that not
have their
in The by that second the is which
state
cars. means a
all-lmportant advanced interest is answering whether in the
are
regu-•
(89) legitimate. latlon is centrality the of 4th of Because the Amend-
holding this directly applicable the in Prouse is ment
not to case,
mandatory although for laws, belt make prospects well it seat
may
enforcement, laws of such difficult. right does affirm that the It
more
apply privacy perhaps of automobiles, does only but regards their
to
as
physical integrity. all, After operation the of the automobile
on
public highways
really and private activity; is how and streets not a
subject that where vehicle laws. traffic is Neverthe-
to
may
go many
Prouse's less, productivity of
of safety the examination of use an 31
enough
effective be such laws point that
suggests at may some measures
intrus±on. warrant to
safety
nearly upheld identical Interestingly, Ohio
recent
case a
furthering they of reasonable trucks, saying
for that stops
a means were
specifically compared
situation legitimate
its It government
purpose. a
trucks holding that decided and since Delaware Prouse, the in
to were
v.
p'•ivacy •'f'
allow- reduced, right therefore vehicles, commercial the
was
activity.(90) ing this
by affected be who of the drivers and Because
may passengers
many
private mandatory acting their belt laws
citizens in seat
are use
highlighted. the is privacy It freedom capacity, the and issues
are
personal
compel that is ability belt this of the in context state to use
adm±tted
There is the whole troublesome of the concept. aspect
most an
concede public saved, and critics lives seeing interest in may many even
goal. Nevertheless, the that contribution that belts make
to
some
enough, public the question is whether the interest remains strong
means
uphold enough such enough, minimal the effective and intrusion chosen to
making
legislatures concerned
in far several laws. As state
were as
federal after motorcycle the helmets, the calculation for this answer
"No."
of enclosure that the
removed Given incentive an was,
was
motorcycle,
of the
privacy than automobile suggests openness
a
more
made with will be competing weighting perhaps of interests the those
assigned factors. the values various different to
Perspectives Comm..e.r. Power. ce
suggested federal the that least has government At commentator
one
power.(9_•l)
the might under require belt able be seat
to commerce use
automobiles, private likely vehicles than commercial for This is
more
problems potential and the Amendment Also, 10th given the however.
Still, unlikely. is of this it the traditional function in state
area,
safety regulations
perspective looking
the may at
power
on commerce
analyzing questions the about for provide tools additional
Challenges
these laws. constitutionality belt of
to
seat
are
measures
affecting by they possible theory
burden that interstate the commerce•
on
traveling and tourists. habits of businessmen the
might still be regulations due which fact, those In process pass
genuine national There clause. is invalidated under the
a supremacy
(9•2) interference. keeping free from flow of the interest in commerce
regulations
which affect make
that This does
states
not
never can mean
especially jurisdiction, through when their passing travelers interstate
justifica-
long the safety. highway As relate laws those state to
as
illusory, regulation will the for the Court tions not not are 32
judgement second-guess legislature. the the of this But
state
statement
Court's qual±fled by of deference somewhat the that assertion
seems
marginally only where law the regulation effective is and the state
substantially interferes with then the balance Court will the commerce,
two.(93) Where conflict, interests and national interests the state
clause the dominate, should national but the federal suggests supremacy
the and 10th Amendment deference the system Here, suggest
to states.
then, legitimate conflict is between llke much the in two
a purposes,
conflict rights public private of and welfare laws. belt the in In
seat
balancing
approach
has been chosen reconcile the to area,
commerce two a
competitors. The public balanced against restraints the national
are
interest, with safety deference the Expressed interests. to state
some
another question the whether the is burdens
way, on are commerce exces-
(94) relation the sive local benefits in which
Under to
accrue. a
analysis
the usual weighs presumption favor of in the
power commerce
interest,
challenges
and belt law in still will it state seat to
accrue
the the individual debate, In interest this
state.
state versus
balancing "unduly
allowing be treated
laws which
act may not as
are
oppressive." (95)
the belt In presumption the favor of in controversy, seat
state
potentially
expansive, interests is lines and need be
very to
some
liberty weighed drawn. loss of The be against gained, the benefits must
assigned and the value factors
each side affect well the to
may very on
highway instance, if effect the public For of casualties outcome. on
thought welfare insurance is that loses interest rates remote,
too
or
belts' significance. If thought effectiveness insubstantial, is if
or
compulslon's
effect inadequate, belt legis-
the is for usage on cause
lation also reduced. is
hand, significant the other if On
savings lives of be
a can
achieved, compliance if the
burden of thought individual the is
or
on
minimal,
then the against Finally,
the weakens. law of evidence
case as
the determination, need rank values this in has been it that the said
to
infringement liberty
mandatory which
law belt would
seat on
a
use cause
mainly figurative actually be would and minimal. symbolic Yet, if the
regulation value of thought high,
is this affect the government may even
balancing the of outcome process.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
implications Though the of
statistics
their certain
are never as as
might precision mathematical the uniform conclusion of all
suggest,
belts' life-savlng of effects studies that belts is lives. do seat
save
exceptional the departures Even offered situations sometimes from as 33
figures disagree by disproved The about the studies. rule that
are
have, magnitude but the impact of belts the conservative most
may even
nearly place 50%. injuries deaths and reduction the in estimates at
logical opposing of
of the This conceive writer argument cannot any use
belts. seat
general abysmally reported the low the in Yet
rates popu- usage
don't people 85% the this demonstrate of lation around that in country
only Perhaps
they of benefits the if feel about that educated
way. were
change. people
listen belts how will that would But to many or even
public announcements? blitzes have been tried the Media notice service
willing miserably. perhaps before, Still, for failed those who and are
opportunity be the make their minds
listen must to to to
up reason, own provided.
tendency towards that natural Studies of attitudes indicate
a
publicity campaign. this impact of denial undercut the Given any may
public
towards belt variety attitudes of and other the seat
use, some
lazy compulsion for the
be useful It most
appears may necessary. or
consciously forgetful, ignore scientific the of whom choose neither to
compulsion limited effectiveness be in However, evidence.
in may
refuses reaching facts minority obstinate, that the hard-core accept to
personally, consciously flaunts the that touch them that have yet to or
people, for these recklessness machismo. law for thrill of the For
or
likely compulsory only laws have vigorous enforcement of is to any
unpalatable effec- of limited enforcement be and effect. such Yet
may
by costly, be intrusive, constrained will and be tiveness. It
very may
by suggested Delaware There constitutional is limitations Prouse.
v.
the' resul'ts from phenomenon paradoxical that that increment also the
scofflaws' they
circumvent time to arrogance every
more a accrues
vigorously law. enforced
public of of attitude the lackadaisical much the Given nature
trampled by really mandatory laws? rights belts, If toward seat use are
usually
based belts the decision
is inconvenience not to or wear on
forgetfulness, if rational choice it? is how is Even conscious
some
casual, misinforma- involved, be and founded best it
to
at appears on
compulsory by people use? restrained feel much these would tion. How
rely simply violently, object minority, hard-core Those who the
most may
they by facts. the If
contradicted mistaken beliefs which
are
are on
rights? susceptible short, their about
worried
In
to not
reason, are we
minority's
respected, should though this be in
context
must
a concerns a
likely legislation highly that minority block visible able is be to to
by all? benefit accepted majority and the be to
failed. That Voluntary belts
have inducements to recog-
was use
when committed by decade than
it federal nized the government
ago
a more
policy seeking whlch.would passive involve itself of restraints
to no a 34
volitional,
affirmative conduct the of the vehicle part occupant.
on
problems Passive all of alternatives; with the systems
sorts
overcome
they designed
they be
that by be defeated the may cannot even so
minority. obstinate enforcement needed, No is education and also Is
although perhaps
advisable
offset whatever doubts unnecessary
to
so as
Also, passive arise. involving perceived restraints be may •s not may
compulsion kind the
mandatory of
laws, the since directness
same
as use
of the
by imposition impersonal mediated is government mechanical
an device.
compulsion The of Issue something like is
raised
from specter
a
government's obscurity by the from the passive restraint retreat
This is manifested the Dole decision in announced In retreat program.
the 1984.
That retrenching of unholy has caused alliances
summer
some
both
for mandatory against and laws; perhaps notable the
is
most use
disingenuous industry Safety
lobbying PAC, Traffic Now, behalf auto
on
the Nevertheless, of laws. compulsion
be the effective
most may answer
highway safety problem. the during Use soared the short llfe to
rates
Ignition of telling, perhaps, interlocks. More drop 30% the in was
motorcycle
fatalities
that helmet when occurred laws into
went use
effect. additional proof piece An of of
effectiveness that of
out
comes
repeal the laws,
helmet of where in the first month after the
state one
repeal doubling
of deaths. saw a near
The statistics that lives indeed will be should saved suggest
many
mandatory belt passed. laws
be projections difficult, Exact
use
are
though, only efficacy because supposed compliance statistics and not
inexact, estimates but likely because also those least obey the to are
likely laws also
those accidents. in This situation get most to new are
caused savings the fall Canada in below expectations. Nevertheless,
to
savings significant. the
what numbers enough But substantial
were
are
satisfy challengers? the the If majority motorcycle view the in to
helmet used,
almost then is savings
will rational cases
any
prove a
relation between law the the and health, safety, interest the in state
populace. welfare of and Here, application its the police the of
power
easily analogy is vindicated. the between But safety automobile and.
motorcycle safety
l•mlted is the since of
vehicles types two
very are
different. Motorcyclists public
hazards, view, and to to to open are
the elements. drivers
Car their enclosed in
•re
secure
passenger
with reasonable expectation privacy. here, of compartment Even
a
though,
survivability the benefits of
belts the
seat
pass may more
rigorous likely they scrutiny subjected be passive The to to.
are
substantially requirements restraint held be justified in to
were
challenges, strength several the of and the savings stat•stlcs is court
likely
"real substantial" be within well the
and well. to range as
public furtherance The of the Interest result from the contri-
may
bel•ts bution
of quality intangible
health, safety, such seat to an as 35
the
Here welfare, describable in be it and terms. concrete
may more or
effect There is
forms. take several important, lives this and is
may on
look guardianship unable public arguably of those the in interest to
a
children,
weak, and such includes the themselves. Thls for out
as
applies by Whether powerless ignorance. it perhaps those rendered
even
obstinancy
susceptible guardianship of is their because of those to more
but there of of line this the extension argument,
most tenuous
are
rlsk-taklng. prohibiting precedents irrational for
regulating of public effects the in There also interest is
a
legitimate for the other, each
and it is citizens government to
so on
be those parties. These of behalf third behavior constrain
may
on
oneself, injury immediately by careless of affected the to
consequences
the one's others. dependents. include family, also In and it But
may
the include ripple held motorcycle effects these helmet to were cases,
which and had bear which all welfare and service to
costs were emergency
casualty lists. by the riders addition of helmetless the increased to
catalog from fallout the of this added
Insurance to costs
were even
simply be rlder's social These carelessness. costs may consequences
or
of all
the persuasive, least certain and be attenuated-to too
are
parties. protecting third about arguments
other effects immediate however,
direct and There on
are, more
altogether, accidents of avoidance Among
these the
some persons. are
helping driver by the function in belts attributable their stay seat
to
Also, belted emergencies. during vehicle of the control occupant in a
should there be
travelers fellow since his threat of less is
to an
a
greatly reducing the thus the accident, about he will be thrown
not car,
injuries. possibil•ty their and strike them he will that aggravate
legislature only determine
perhaps phenomena, the real but These
can are
regulation. require enough they of threat
if to a are
public
when it problematic asserting interest is
of The
most a area
The
his alone regulating of the in the situation
to car. person
comes
secondary public other impact motorists the threat welfare and to to a
applicable this if is here. control of remain loss But
person
public rationales independent, of the interest self-sufficient and
some
people should whether question Distilled, becomes the fall not or
away.
question about the Included here protected themselves. is from be
life, if the preserving
in indeed whether there interest is state even a
protected
do has desire But
whose life be is to to man no so.
person no
simple. the this Even island, question
is and such the is
never an
independent
in completely hypothetical exist does not person vacuum
a
possible and burden threat
the certainly drive does in and
not one, so
state's preserving Perhaps in the interest unavoidable. others is
on
public other of bundle riding the along baggage with life is
mere
perhaps ignored, the be those but because interests; cannot
concerns
by gains association. preservation life of support 36
Deciding public fact what the in is another interest
yet poses
problem. public determines the Who interest? Is the vocal it
most
special industry for instance, pro-belt interest the law auto group;
lobby?
the dangerous? mistaken believe
few who Or belts
worse, even are
only public opinion
difficult Not is studies of belt
to seat gauge, as
show, downright attitudes and also often is it inaccurate. usage
legislature Further,
the well reflect misperceptions. these
may common
perhaps legislature easily enlightened the Yet
be than the
can more
general public. assembly The mouthpiece also the best be of state may
people,
whoever's the however works it and
side down This it
comes on.
forms the validity basis legislative for the presumption of of
enact-
particularly public safety the in where the individual ments,
area
great. benefits elusive but the benefits deference, social Judicial
are
given considerations, these admirable, particularly is when
is it
"public" something like being the that interest determined.
The is
body. good
by
best be determined representative may common a
interesting already speculation It is there that about is to note
mandatory the legislation. resistance belt has belt Yet to
seat
use
mandatory airplanes been complains for
and
about
time
on some no one
Statistically, airplanes that. safer than automobiles. are
manipulations After all the of what public constitutes interest,
a
personal determined, how liberty infringed it really and is whether is
light misperception of the carelessly in
lead which risk his to
may one
life, the simple question real
boils dilemma. down if Even
to
own
a
public there compel compliance?
interest, is it The determination
a can
competing weighing by will be made the split These interests. into
two
diametrically
opposed propositions, assuming all the subordinate
argu-
made behalf of either short, side. savings do lives In and in ments
on
justify liberty kind, loss
symbolic? of Balancing of
money
any a even
things these difficult, they kind. is different since in two
are
Liberty quality ready is amenable life and and not measurements, to
a
specific welfare reduced quantities Further, this in to context. are
the values ascribed the factors make that each the of to
two
up
positions subjective, weighting priorities and different with very are
subjective valuations tilt the scales
the other
in
may
way very or one
idiosyncratic
again, helpful, legislature Here reliance the is ways.
on
imperfect. but that Legislatures, all, is after have been
process even
captured by known special be Nevertheless, interests. deference to to
judgement their the be pragmatic solution and fair. the most most may•
peril by posed The basically vehicle accidents is man-made
motor
a
danger; technology.
such, of modern requires As man-made it
cost a
a
remedy. only available One is the form of belts. in The remaining
seat
problem implement how this is solution scheme of the limited in to
which have also devised. government we 37
NOTES
i. Loophole, Middle Bags, Belts July Lane And Time, 23, 1984,
a
47;
'•olicy. •t Up•.a.te Council, Nati0•al Safety (February 1985). 25,
Safer[
2. Child Mandatqry Note, Automobiles- in Restralnt-Use Laws,
Co16'.
(he'r"einafter
(1980) 52 U. 125 L. Rev. cited Note, Child
as
Safer[). S__ee Safety also Council, National I. note supra
Belts 3. Bass Loophole, Middle See Lane
And i;
note supra
a
N-•ional
Safety Council, i. note .supra
4. Reports, 1984, Consumer November 663-666. at
M.andatory Grey, Sea..t 5. J. Belt Highway Use, Virginia and
(1985). Transportation Research Council
Mi.ddle
6.
Bass., Loophole, Belts
Lane- And i. a. note s..upra -.
7. Reports, Consumer 4. note supra
8.
Legal b[ .presented Note, Motor Issues S[stems, Vehicle Restraint 17
7"81
(1984) (hereinafter Akron
L. Rev. Issues). Legal cited Note, as
9. Note, Judicial of Rulemakln$, Review Informal Administrative 1984
L.'•. "347' ('herelnaf't'•r
'Note', (1984)
Duke Review). cited Judicial as
i0. Occupant Automobiles-Airbags Note, Protection a.nd. in Other Passive
th'e
and
R.estraints" The of Art, the State Federal Standard,
Rev'. (hereinafter 'Note, as Beyond, (1978) 27 635
Am. U.L. cited
Protect!0.n). Occupant
Ii. Note, Judicial Review, 9. note supra
Chr[sler
o.f 12. Department TransPortation (6th 472 659 F.2d
Cir. v.
1972).
Legal 13. Note, Issues, 8. note supra
Legal 14. pacific Department Foundation
Transportation, of 593 F.2d
v.
1979'),
444 ('1979). u.S.
(D.C. 1338 d•enied, Cir. 830 also See cert.
Note, Judicial Review, 9. note supra
Mo.tor Manufacturer's 15. Assocla.tion Vehicle of the States, United
Inc.
F'hrm
Mutual'
463'
State Automobile Company, Insurance 29 U.S.
v.
Review,
(1983);
Note, Judicial 9. also Bags See
note supra
or
Automa•e.rs
• 198-----•,
Belts- Word, the August Get Time, 55. at 39
O'Day Michigan.- Wolfe, Observations Belt 16. A. in Seat J. &
Mich'iga'•" August/September. 1.9.8.3, University Transportation of The
O'Day); (1984) (hereinafter
Opinion Research cited J. Institute
as
System .in Usage
Research Traffic Corporation, the Restraint
Hi'ghway Admin'istrati'on
(1983); .Popu.!ation, Safety
Traffic
National
Stoke,
Child Safe.t Amon.$..Urban Safety .S.eat Belt and B. C. Use Z
'Highway
Travelers, Virginia Transportation Council Research and
(1984). 4. also Reports, Consumer See note supra
O'Day, 17. 16. J. note supra
Safety ...S..tudy., Highway Teknekron, Usage 18.
Inc., National Belt Attitude
.Why.' Administrat"ion Bu.e..k.les. (1979); H.ard!y Safety Anybody Traffic
Changing 1982, U__p, 82-84. October Times, at
4; 5; L.aw Grey, Reports, 19. The Consumer J. note note .suPra
sup...ra
Maclean's, Unbuckles, 54. 2, 1981, March at
Id. 20.
MandatorY .The Constitutionality Seat Us.e of 21. Belt Ames, A. W.
Virgini$ (1972) Legislatlon, Highway Council Research
.Stu.dy
Academy Transportation Board, National of Sciences, Research
Sa.fety Highway Increasing Traffic of Belt Use, Methods National of
•'afe-ty 'Ad•in'istration K Multi-Disciplinary (1981) Approa•ch Werber,
(1980). Why Belt 217 29 Clev. also Seat Issues, St. See L. Rev. to
Hard_•y Buckles
An•b0.d.[
.Up, 18. note supra
22. Id.
Safety Highway Book,
Safety Traffic 23. Automobile Belt National Fact
Administration
O'Day, .Why Hardly (1982); 16; Anybody J. note supr.a
...Up, 18. Buckles note supra
Teknekron, 24. 18. Inc., note suPra
of.. .Safety. ..Study Increasin• 21; 25. Belt of Method Use,
note supra,
s
Hardly
An.•body
..Why 18; Teknekron, Buckles Up, Inc., note supr_•a
18. note su•
26. Id.
Anybody Hardly 4; Why 27. Up, Reports, Buckles Consumer note supra
18. note supra
Safer[ 23; Book, 28. Automobile Belt R. Scott Fact J. &
note supra
O'Day, Transporation Belts Research Because, Wear I Do Not Seat 40
(1983); Michigan University Study the of of Institute of Methods of
Belt Safety Increasing Use, 21. supra note
Safety Book, 23;
Kihlberg, 29. Belt Automobile
Fact
J. note supra
Efflcac• of.. Belts. cra..shes, Injur• Nonin•.ur• Seat in and
Cornell
Lab'ora't•ry,
(1969); O'Day Aeronautical Inc. Scott R. J. &
supra
28. note
Safety Book, 30. Automobile 23; Belt Snyder, Fact
R. G. Seat note a supr
InSuries Impact, Belt Office of Medicine, Aviation Federal in
(1969); Teknekron, Administration Aviation 18;
Inc.,
note
supra
Legal 21; Werber, Why
8; Hard.l..y Issues, Note,
note .s.upra note supra
Anybody. Buckles. Up, 8. note supra
B.e!t .Safety Wh.z 31. Book, Anybody 23; Hardly Automobile Fact note
supra
B•ckles...
UP, 18. note supra
21; Kihlberg, Ames, 32. 29; A. w. J. Consumer note supra note supra
Reports, 4. note supra
Safe.t. .Book, .Belt 21; 33. Ames, .Fact Automobile A. W.
note
supra
• supra
Werber,.su__u• 23; 30; Snyder, Th__£e G. 21; R. note note supra note
Unbuckles, 19. La note supra w
34. Simpson, Lynn C. Jr., Belts: Among C. H. Their &
Seat Use Drivers
Vir$'inia,
Virginia
HighWay
Fatal Killed Crashes in
in
Research
"(1974); D.'Mitch'ell,
Safety Council .Ampng of Belt Patterns Use
'Virginia,
Crashes"'in Virginia
Killed
Drivers Highway Fatal
in
and
Research' Counci'•
(1976)..___See _____als° Transportation Safety
Automobile
'5";
Book, Fact 23; Belt Grey, Kihlberg, J. J. note suprj@
note
supra
29; Teknekron, 18;
Inc.,
Legal
Note, Issues, note supra
su• note
..Why .Buckles 8; Anybody Hardly U•, 18. note supr.a note supra
Legal 35. Note, Issues, 8. The Supreme Mexico New Court note supra
recently allowed belt defense the that in seat state.
Safety Automobile Belt 36. Fgct Book, 23; Grey, J. note supra
supr a
5; Werber,
21; Reports, 4. Consumer note note note supra_ supr. a
Walter. ..Trucking 37. Company, Lower Prltts (W.D. 400 Supp. 867 F. .v" Z
1975). Penna.
(1968). Miller, 38. Miller 228, 273 65 160 S.E.2d N.C. v.
867; 39. 400 Pritts, Supp. (D.C. 362 McCord F. Green, A.2d 720
at
v.
1976).
(Sth 1970); Klos, also 426 F.2d Peterson 199 See Cir.
v.
Lipscomb•...
Diamlanl,
(Del.
1967); 914 226 Super. A.2d Ct.
Lafferty
.Insuranc.e Company, (Fla. Allstate 425 1147 2d So. Dist v. 41
Facing Motorcyclists Riders Easy 1982);
Helmetless Note, App. Ct.
41 .M.otorcy.cle Defense, Ohio St. Helmet of the The Rise Hard Facts"
Helmetless
(hereinafter (1980) cited Note, 233
L.J. as
Annot".,
(1979); 92 Motorcyclists); A.L.R. 239 A.L.R.3d 95 Annot.,
(1977). 1033 (1979); A.L.R.3d 80 Annot., 9 3d
(1967). 626
362, N.W.2d 149 2d 34 Wis. Bentzler Braun, 40. v.
720. McCord, 362 A.2d 41.
Ana.l.ysis,
40 Safety U. Economic An Devices: Self-Protectlve 42.
Note,
No£e,
(herelnaf6'e'r cited'
'421"' Rev.
Sel.f-Protec.tiv
(1973) Chl. e L. as
Devices).
43. Id.
18. Teknekron, Inc., 44. note supra
Motorc.ycle
(1971). American also A.L.R.3d See 32 45. Annot.,
"'Ap'•.
35i',
(1968),
72 158 N.W.2d
Mich. Davids, Ii Association
v.
e Poucher,
(1976)
298 133, N.W.2d 240 Peopl rev'd, App. Mich.
67
v.
316,' '247 Mich. (public
(1976) (aff'd, in 798 interest N.W.2d 398
hlghw•y
privacy)); individual of safety invasion does
overcome
(1969);
866 Note, N.E.2d 175, 252
Ohio 21 Misc. Betts, State
v.
•ons't'itutlo'n'a'ilty
Legislation,
Mot0.r.c•cle 73 .Mandat0r Helmet
f •
.O
(1968') '•.' Re'•. •ck.
(hereinafter Helmet cited
Note,
i00
as
Constltut'•'0nallty
of
Motorc.yc.l Legislation); and the Helmets
Note, e
L.J.' 'St. Ohio
(1969)
355 Legislation, 30 Self-Protectlve
(her'e'ina"fter
Le•islatlon). Self-protectlve cited Note, as
Fries, People 42 Iii. (1971). also 1270 A.L.R.3d See 32 46. Annot.,
v.
Assoc•a'tlon,
Amerl---•an
Motorcycle. 158 (1969);
149
446, 250 N.E.2d 2d
N'.'Y.s.2d
429
Smallw.oo..d., 1027, 277 People 2d 52
72; Misc. N.W.2d
.v..
45; Le•islatl.o.n., He.lme 1967); (Ct. Note, Spec. t Sess. note supra
18. Teknekron, Inc., note .supr.a.
y...Lee.,
45; 51 Hawaii .Legislation, State supra-note 47. Helmet Note,
"(197'0) P'.2d dissentlng); A.L.R.3d (Abe, 32 Annot., J., 573 516, 465
(1971). 1270
Motorcyclists, 39. Helmetless 48. Note, note supra
138, 516 P.2d Hawaii 55
Cotton, 21; State Ames, 49.
A. W.
note supra v.
(1973);
148, 715 516 P.2d (1973); Hawaii 55 Cotton, 709 State
v.
.O'rleans.,
City
N'ew
400 285-, 2d 217 253 So. La. of Everhardt
v..
(1969); appeal 212 dismissed, 395 U.S. (1968), denied and
cert.
1977); Merski,
113 (Me.
State 367 1032 A.2d Quinnam,
State
v.
v.
353, (1973); Super. 103 Mele, N.J. 825 323, State A.2d 307 H. N v. 42
(1968); Peop.le.y.. C.armichael, 176 247 A.2d 388,
56 Misc. 28• 2d
(Genesee 1968); People..v. N.Y.S.2d 931 County Newhouse, Ct. 55
(Ithaca 1064, 1968); 287 2d 713 City N.Y.S.2d Misc. Ct.
State
v.
(1969); Anderson, 168, 275 166 Ode•aard, 49 S_tate S.E.2d N.C.
v.
(N.D. 1969); 677 165 N.W.2d Colvin Lombardi, 104 28, 241 R.I.
v.
(1968); 2d 625
A.2d 42, 42 Karns, 165 Bisenlus N.W.2d 377 Wis.
v.
(1969), ! (1969). dismissed, generally Se___•e 395 709 U.S. app.e.a
(1971). Annot., 32 A.L.R.3d 1270
(1965). 50. Griswold 381U.S. Connecticut,
479 addressing For
v.
cases
right privacy the of motorcycle helmets, and Commonwealth
•see v.
•rut'anoff
4 (1976); 796, Cowan, 344 App
Mass. 419 Ct. N.E.2d
v.
•etropolitan
Count•, Nashville of and Government 223 Davidson Tenn.
(1969)'..' 535, 448 S.W.2d 408
165 Bisenlus, 51. 382. N.W.2d at
(1968),
52. Commonwealth 769, 354
Howie, 238 N.E.2d 373 Mass.
cert.
v.
denied,
'"393
(1968);
Mele, 176; 999 247 Carmichael, U.S. A.2d 288
0degaar• -,
N.w.2d I'6•
931; Newhouse, N.Y.S.2d 713;
287 N.Y.S.2d 677;
M0torc•c.le
N'.W'.'2•
Valld.lt• of. 382; 165 B•sen•us, Helmet Note, The
'(i'968).
421
Legislation, 30 Pitt. Rev. U. L.
Safer.I, va!.i.dlty .The 53. 2; Child Motorcy.cl•e Note, Note, of note supra
Legislation, Helmet 52. note supra
F..Kenned• Hospital John
576, Memorial 58 Heston, 279 N.J. A.2d
v.
modlfi.•d',
(i971),
Conro#,
•70
l'n
321, 486 28 1209, A.2d N.J. R
e
(pub'lic
(1985) 1224 only preserving llfe interest in extends
to
prevention injury right of self-lnfllcted terminally and of
to not
intervention). suspend ill medical to
..Ap.plica.ti.on o.f. 55. Geor•etpwn..College, the of President and Directors
•
1964)",
'(•'.C".
331 Inc., F.2d i000 den•ed, Cir. 331 F.2d I010
(19"64),
(1964). denied, 978 377 U.S. cert.
Compulsor• Medical 56. Paris, Religious
J. Treatment Freedom- and
(1975); Prevail?, Whose Shall 10
Law U.S.F.L. 1 Note, Rev. The
of"'Life-Saving •efusa'l
State's the Treatment the Interest in
vs.
C'larificat±on'
Int•'erests Stal•e,
of Life" Preservation of the A
at
Wash.' (19'80). 58 85 U.L.Q.
(quoting Carmichael, People 57. 288 935 N.Y.S.2d 149 Havnor, N.Y. at
v.
195, 203-204, 541, (1896), 544 43 dismlssed, N.E. 170 U.S.
error
(1898)). 408
573; 465 Le___•e, 58. Newhouse, P.2d
713; 287 N.Y.S.2d Graham, Fatal at
at
Motorcycle Acc.idents, (1969). 14 79 Forensic Scl. J. 43
709; 713; 516 Newhouse, 59. P.2d Cotton, 287 Anderson, N.Y.S.2d
•t
•t
N.W"'2d 1'65
49; Odeg•rd, 677; 625; Colv•n, 166 241 S.E.2d A.2d •t
4. Reports, Consumer note supr•
166 49. Anderson, 60. S.E.2d
(1970);
Albertson, 640, 61. 470 93 300
P.2d Idaho State State
v
v.
L•'itenen',' W•'•h. '77
(1969),
130, 459 789 P.2d 2d
denied, 397 cert.
(1970); Legis!•tion, He.liner 1055 U.S. Note, 45. note supra
reh'g (.1964), Rusk, 62. 381 i, Zemel denied, 15-16 382 873 U.S. U.S.
v. '•i'965).
re.h'..g C....ity (1981) Memphis 451 63. denied, I00 of 452 Greene, U.S.
v.
(1981); V. 1032; 367 955 Dobbins, Quinn•m, A.2d U.S. 277 State N.C.
(1971). 484, 449 178 S.E.2d Annot., •iso 32 A.L.R.3d 1270 See
(1971).
(1971); Mallpy, 64. 402
Bell 535 343 Miller Supp. Burson, U.S. F.
v. v.
'19'72); (D. vt." 4•
Dep•rtmen..t
Vehicles, of Hern•ndez 30 Motor v..
9i•, P.•'d '('1'9•i); Everh•rdt, 5'66 70, 634 3d C•I. C•I. 177 Rptr. 217
(1971). 400. •mnot., 2d A.L.R.3d 32 •lso 1270 So. See
(1971). 65. 32 1270 A.L.R.3d Annot., See
400; 935; Everh•rdt, 66. 288 C•rmich•el, 217 Anderson, N.Y.S.2d 2d So.
S.E.'2d 1'66 A.2d
49;
625; Colvin, 241 382. 165 Btsentus, N.W.2d See
c'•es •nd (1971) A.L.R.3d Annot., •iso 32 1270 cited therein.
Ameri.c.a.n True.king (3rd
67. 683 Association, 787 F.2d Larson, Inc.
v.
(1'9•2). denied,'
U.'S. 4'5• 1982), 1036 Cir. cert.
S.afety., d 68. 2. Note, Chil note supra
(1949); R•ilw.a• Agency Ex.press York, 69. 336 U.S.I06 Ames, A. New W.
v.
Werber, 21; 21; Self-Protective Note, note r• note sup. supr•
Legislation, 45. note supr•
TransP0rt.•tion
R•ymond 70. 434 429
Rice, Motor Inc. U.S.
v.
,,
Associati'on, A•eric•n' (1978); Truckin•
789; 683 F.2d Note, Toward
Unifor•
(1982-83). 301 Child 21 Law, Restraint F•m. J. L. •
Micalite. Highw• Corporation.. Sig.n Dep.•r.tmen.t, S.t•te 498, 71. 126 Vt.
v.
(1967). 236 680 A.2d
(Ohio slip. L-82-253, 72.
App. Benson, C. State Feb. No. Ct.
op., v.
1983). 18, 44
Chicago
Western RY." Follette, 631, North 43 169 Co. 2d La & Wis.
v.
4'41 (1969). N.W.2d
Tra.nsportation, l..nc., Motor 434 429. ond Ra u.s. ..>2n.
.Bibb Freight (1959). Navaho 520, Lines, 359 Inc., 523 U.S. v.
(1941), Mealy, rev'd
314 33 grounds,
Reltz other U.S. Perez
v. on
'C'ampb.e.ll",
v". (cite-•
(1971) 637, 402 654 Validity U.S. Note, The
in
Motorcycle.. (1971)). Statut.es, of 35 Helmet Alb. 533 L. Rev.
Transportation, Raymond .Inc., 429; 434
Bibb, Motor 359 U.S. U.S.
at
Ame'•'ican Bis'enius,
524; Tr.uckin$.. Ass.ociation, 789; 683 F.2d 165
'3'82. 2• N.W.
935; Carmichael, 288
21; Ames, N.Y.S.2d A. W. Note, The
note supra
Validity Legislation,
Motorcycle of 52; Helmet Annot., note su•
'A.L.R.3d a•'d cited'
(1971) 1270 32 therein. cases
He.!met Leg.islati0n, 45; Note, Self-Protective Note, note supra
Legislation, 45. note Supra
Validity Mot.orcycle 825; Merski, 307
A.2d The f Note, Helmet O
S'ta•'utes,
als0"Annot.,
1270'
(1971) 76. 32 A.L.R.3d See
note SUp.ra
and" h'a'ses cited herein.
Wi!liamso Op.i.tcal..Co., (1955).
483 348 Lee U.S. n v.
917; 634 Hernandez, 715; Everhardt, P.2d P.2d 516 Cotton, 217 So.
(1971); 400; 32 A.L.R.3d Annot., 1270 2d
Note, Constitutional
Law-
W'ear
-Michisan_Statute Motorcyclists Re.quiring Police
Power
to
Protective
3'60
Unconstitutional, Helmets 67 Held Mich. Rev. L.
('1980) (hereinafter Note," Constitutional
Law). cited as
Mele, 247 176. A.2d
.ymond Transportation, 434 429. Inc., Ra Motor U.S.
Ame•.r.ican Motor.cycle Association, 158 N.W.2d 72.
Freightways Corporation Consolidated Kassel 450 Delaware, of
v.
•.S. (Brennan, (1981) concurring). 662 J.,
.Truckin$ Associ.ation, 683 American 799. F.2d at
dissenting); (Abe, Cotto__n, 709 P.2d A__nderson, 516 166 J., S.E.2d
49;
21; Ames, A. Note, W. Constitutional Law, note s..upr @
.supra note
82; (1971). 32 A.L.R.3d Annot., 1270 45
(1979). 440 648 Delaware Prouse, U.S. v.
App.). (Ohio slip. L-82-253, Benson, No. Ct. op.,
Validity .Motorc..ycle Helmet Legislation,
of Note, The 52. note supr a
Bibb, 359 520. U.S.
450 Kassel, 662. U.S.
d Kassel, 662; 450 iMotor ,Trans.port.a•t!o.n,.,.In.c., 434 u.s. Ra U.S.
.•mon.
429; 520; Truck'•ng Bibb, 359 Association, 683 U.S. •ertcan F.2d
789.
465 573. P.2d Lee, 46
(7-,55) R-396
orm
Title
Standard PaEe Kepor• Project S•a•e on
Report Report Pages No. Type Date Repot=" No. Project 9206-452-9 40 No. Final
VHTRC
Period Covered- N/A N/A Contract No.- 86 19 171 86-R42 June
Sub=i=le. Ti=le and Key Words
Accident Data SAFETY PROGR•.! TRAFFIC CO•'C.IUNITY-BASED CO•.•REHENSIVE •IE
rob den lem Acci 2 P DISTRICT AND FOR IDENTIFICATION t PROBLLM I" PHASE
i Commun 7 ty DISTRICT
Comp rehens ive
Author(s)
Co Jernigan Jack t D. e rme as re • u
Crash Data
Problem Crash
Performing
0rganiza=ion
Address and Name
fi cation lem rob den ti I P
Safety Traffic Virginia Highway Transportation and Research
Council
3817, University Box S=a•ion
Charlo==esville, Vlr•inla 22903-0817
Agencles' Sponsorln• and Names Addresses
of Highways University Transp. Dept. Virginia of Va. &
1221 S=reet Charlo==esville E. Broad
Virginia Richmond, 23219 22903 Virginia
Supplementary Notes
Abs=ract
This the Identification Comprehensive initial Problem for contains Community_ the
report
(CCBP). Safety Program Traffic districts, Based DMV Two District 2 District 7, and have
pilot
been for selected the CCBP,
the
and districts because both slated have
as
to areas are
they staff, their
treated problem,
That entities. is, support
separate
own are as areas were
only
district, considered ranked and within
rather than the districts. two a across
•he bulk of ranking The this deals with localities within each district report
acc.ording have pronounced which the problems general crash and se.veral
in to most
among
specific problem
of Five data,
baseline 1984, crash 1980 subjected
to years
areas. to were
linear analysis, regression being projec=ions with for made the 1985. These
year
projections, specific
general for either problemareas, crash
ranked the
or among were
localities
problem Separate within
each ranks calculated for the absolute number area. were
of
crashes and another which normalizes absolute the number relative the .of
size
measure to
locality.
together
These produce added ranks then ranks relative both the two to a
to were
absolute the number
normalized and localities grouped The
according also
measure.
to were
(i.e.,
clustering relatively natural localities ranks) which problem have similar crash
to
form priority locality, Further, for days each during of the target the times the areas.
week which the had
of numbers crashes noted. For counties, the greatest and
routes were
high road with
high of numbers crashes and crash segments noted. also rates were
general, In data the show County, that Danville, Lynchburg, Botetourt City and Roanoke
projected the have pronounced problems crash Hampton, 2. District Newport in •o
were most
Norfolk, News, Virginia and
projected Beach the have pronounced problems in to most
were
7. Alcohol-related District crashes, involving crashes speed, pedestrian and excessive
crashes
significantly found contribute problems the crash experienced both to in of to
were
pilot the
districts. recommended initially It that is
the CCBP developing
concentrate
on
problems, for along these developing with countermeasures protectJ_on
occupant
programs,
advisory citizen committees, and traffic public
line hot input and to encourage a
involvement CCBP. the in