Would Repealing Seat Belt Laws Change Behavior?

[out of whack]

Uhh, it's part of the job. Personal freedoms must be restricted for society to function efficiently. Live with it.

I disagree strongly. Personal freedoms should never be restricted. Social responsibility should never be avoided. The government exists to enforce social responsibility.

When the government enforces my social responsibility not to impose a burden on others, it restricts my freedom to do so. Different point of view, same result.

Who gets to decide what it means for society to function efficiently?

Voters like you.

So you statement can be more truthfully recast as 'Personal freedoms must be restricted by those with the superior fighting force so that the society can be the way that they want it to be'.

If you prefer. One way or another your freedoms will be restricted by those in charge of making things work, even if you don't like that. You must be mad every day that society is the way it is, while driving on its roads, in the vehicle that it built, to reach the school that... you get the idea. Damned government.

"Democracy" has pitfalls

Agreed. But hey, beats anarchy.

 

[larkspur]

"Buckle Up or You'll Soon Be Saying Fruckle Mup Because of the Brain Damage"

I am part of a medical team that frequently evaluates people for visual disturbances and double vision after traumatic accidents. We see any adult who complains of visual problems while in the rehabilitation floor. One day, we saw two patients that had been in motor vehicle accidents. One was wearing a seat belt when the accident occurred, the other was not. The guy wearing the seat belt walked in unassisted, signed himself in and basically only needed new glasses because his were lost in the crash. The unbelted guy was strapped into a wheelchair, drooling, and rolled into the waiting room by an orderly. He was being evaluated because his pupils were not reactive to bright light and the attending physician questioned if he could see anything.



Personally , I feel naked without my seat belt and wore it before it was law.

 

[Mk]

Felt naked without your seatbelt? Go for a week or two without one and you'll feel fine! I was using a French car for a month and it didn't have any seatbelts! At first it was strange, and as I was getting in, my hand always went straight to where the seatbelt would be, but it wasn't there! A few more times, and I learned that there were no seatbelts to put on.

Anyway. The only reason seatbelts are there are to make sure you aren't ejected out of the vehicle and your head smashes into a telephone pole or the ground. So that's why I wear one.

 

[Moonbear]

I think the seatbelt laws changed people's way of thinking about seatbelts by seeing how effective they are. Then again, before the laws were put in place and enforced, most cars only had lap belts, and those DID sometimes cause worse injuries than no belt at all since it was easy to wear them incorrectly (people would wind up with internal injuries because they had the belt across their abdomen rather than hips), and since it didn't stop you from slamming your head into the windshield very well, just kept you from going the rest of the way through it.

When I was a kid, you'd often hear people saying, "I'd rather be thrown clear," with no real understanding of how much more injury they'd sustain that way than being restrained by a 3-point belt (because we didn't have 3-point belts). Now I think seatbelt laws have provided many opportunities for someone to know people who have survived fairly serious car accidents with little more than a bruise on their shoulder to realize how important they really are. If seatbelt laws were repealed, I doubt it would change the behavior of the current generation, but I'd be concerned that the next generation who never lived through knowing how bad car accidents can be without seatbelts will grow careless without any laws.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

As was pointed out by another member, laws are enacted due to what the majority wants.

So you agree with the decision in New Hampshire? Me too.

In my town, you need a kennel license if you have more than two animals in your house. You can be fined for having more than two. Tell me how that affects anyone else?

So you disagree with your town's law? Me too.

 

[Evo]

So you agree with the decision in New Hampshire? Me too.

No, I was merely pointing out to a previous poster that laws went into effect by majority vote, not brute force. Don't try to take my comments out of context and twist them, it won't work.

I was also pointing out how stupid some majority votes are (New Hampshire) which is a law that actually hurts the public, go figure. Glad I don't live in New Hampshire.

 

[Smurf]

Honestly, I can't believe people actually think that repealing this law makes them 'more free'. That's just silly. Furthermore, the possibility of a human projectile scenario makes it more than worth it to force people to put them on. They're not just risking themselves, they're also risking anyone who gets in their way, or more likely, someone else's property. Unless you can sue someone for damaging your property for not wearing a seat belt... hmm... then again, can you sue someone for damaging public property like said telephone pole?

They're seat belts people, not shackles of thorns. You push a button and *add noise effect* they spring right back out of your way.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

If I didn't grow up being required to wear one, I might not wear one. As it is, I did, and it feels unsafe and just weird not to wear one. At this point, I'd wear it with or without a law, but I thank the law for forcing this habit.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I think frivolous laws put too much power in the hands of the enforcer. In theory, the cops would evenly enforce them. In practice, they would just use them as an excuse to pull over or fine people they find suspect.

I always wear my seatbelt, but if I choose not to, that's my concern.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

As of this writing, the poll results are 39 for "use them with or without the law" and 3 for all others (including choice 3 which is a joke). It indicates to me that the law is a solution in search of a problem. We have traded our freedom for a handful of beans.

 

[Evo]

We have traded our freedom for a handful of beans.

It would seem the majority do not feel that way.

 

[Moonbear]

As of this writing, the poll results are 39 for "use them with or without the law" and 3 for all others (including choice 3 which is a joke). It indicates to me that the law is a solution in search of a problem. We have traded our freedom for a handful of beans.

Did you read my post at all? I was around before seatbelt laws were enacted, and people rarely wore seatbelts, and incurred serious injuries from even minor car accidents as a result. When someone else has to give up their livelihood to stay home and care full time for someone who is now a vegetable or paraplegic because they didn't wear their seatbelt, it hurts more than just the person not wearing it. When all the motorists on the road pay higher and higher insurance rates, and you can't get a bed in a hospital because of an increase in hospitalizations due to serious injuries in minor car accidents, it's not just the person who didn't wear the seatbelt who is affected. When little Johnny doesn't come home because the person driving the carpool to soccer practice that day doesn't think seatbelts are important, it's not just the person who thinks seatbelts aren't necessary who is hurt. When there is no law against being in a car without a seatbelt, and you incur injuries as a result of an accident, the person at-fault for causing the accident has to pay for all of them, even if you could have prevented all of those injuries by wearing a seatbelt. If there is a law in place, and you choose not to wear a seatbelt anyway, and you sustain more injuries because of it, then you and only you are responsible for your own stupidity, and someone else doesn't have to pay for your additional injuries. If nothing else, that's a darn good reason for the law...if you choose to break it, nobody else is held liable for your bad choices.

It used to be that if there was a rollover accident, the occupants were going to be found dead or seriously injured (broken neck, internal bleeding, crushed by the vehicle rolling on top of them as they fell through an open or broken window). Now, people get up and walk out of these types of crashes with a bruise on their shoulder from the seatbelt, and maybe a few easily repaired cuts from broken glass.

The laws were put in place because people were stupid enough to NOT wear seatbelts. Even when the laws were first put into place, people resisted. They would only fine you for not wearing a seatbelt if you were stopped for another traffic violation, so people still wouldn't wear them. It's been a few decades of change to reach the point where we are now that most people realize the benefit of seatbelts and are so accustomed to wearing them that the law isn't as necessary. And, I think the only reason anyone would discuss repealing the law now is that they haven't grown up in a generation that saw the severity of injuries that were a regular occurrence in car crashes when seatbelts were not required and thus not worn.

The responses on this site are also not representative of the general population. The folks here know and understand the laws of physics and know what will happen to an unrestrained passenger should the car around them comes to a sudden stop. They are generally more educated than the general public as well. The folks here are likely the people who would have required everyone in the car wear seatbelts even before the seatbelt laws were enacted making it mandatory, but that was a very small percentage of the overall population when those laws did not exist.

Above all else, driving is a priviledge, not a right. You need a license to drive, and upon getting that license, you are agreeing to abide by all the laws associated with it. If you do not want to abide by those laws, don't pay for the license and don't get in a car. Find another means of getting where you need to go.

 

[Huckleberry]

When the government enforces my social responsibility not to impose a burden on others, it restricts my freedom to do so. Different point of view, same result

No, this is not what I mentioned at all. I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion based on what I wrote. I did not suggest that we have freedom to impose a burden on society. I intentionally stated that we should never avoid social responsibility. You overlooked that part completely. You also misinterpreted the use of freedom to make the quote match your point of view.

I disagree strongly. Personal freedoms should never be restricted. Social responsibility should never be avoided. The government exists to enforce social responsibility.

A seat belt law is counter-productive to an individual's responsibility to society. If I am a responsible adult then I should be allowed to make any decision that concerns only myself. I should have the freedom to do anything I please that does not impose upon the rest of society. A society that allows its government to enforce a seat belt law is making the government responsible for the safety of an individual from himself. Society has no right to do such a thing. If a person is not allowed to be responsible for themselves, then how can they be responsible for society? If we aren't responsible for our own safety, then why should we be concerned for the safety of others?

The growing trend: In order to save a few dollars, adults in this society have given authority to the government to treat us as irresponsible children. We have made the government responsible for us, and have given up our personal freedom. If we are accountable to a government, how can it be accountable to our interests as a society? We are authorizing the government to be responsible for itself, the same freedom we gave up. The government will serve its own best interests and not the interests of society. This is what happens when people allow their freedom to be taken away.

This could explain why there are so many crooked politicians that are allowed to prosper. It could explain the growing apathy among the youth of this nation that haven't had the opportunity to experience freedom as older generations have. They don't feel responsible for their actions because they don't have the freedom to be responsible.

The solution is never to give up our personal freedom. The solution is to accept the personal responsibility for our own actions. Be a responsible citizen and wear your seat belt, or choose not to wear your seat belt and suffer the financial burden caused by your own actions. That's the price of freedom. There are other ways to minimize the financial burden an injured, unbelted motorist has on society that would be much preferable to enforcing a ridiculous law.

Would anyone disagree that if there were a negligible financial burden to society, that an adult individual should be able to do whatever they please in regards to their own personal safety?

 

[Evo]

A seat belt law is counter-productive to an individual's responsibility to society.

I guess you didn't have a chance to read Moonbear's post.

 

[hypatia]

I'm sorry, but no. I worked in a County morgue several years befor seatbelt laws were inacted, the number of dead children alone, was high enough to enact laws for seatbelts.
I don't think think giving people the choice of having their heads smashed into windshilds is a basic freedom. Even the paramedics will tell you how different their job is today, then it was just 20 years ago.
And yes in a flowery world, where everyone does just what's expected of them...blaaa, nope I'm just not going to go there. People are idiots and they need laws.

 

[out of whack]

When the government enforces my social responsibility not to impose a burden on others, it restricts my freedom to do so. Different point of view, same result

No, this is not what I mentioned at all. I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion based on what I wrote.

I thought it was clear. You assume that "The government exists to enforce social responsibility" without showing how. Enforcing a responsibility must be done by coercing the unwilling into doing it, like your responsibility to wear a seat belt to prevent burdening others. How does the government enforce it without restricting my freedom to drive without seat belt?

Or if instead you meant my responsibility to repay for my care and rehabilitation after recovery then you need to consider something else. The consequences of making bad decisions often exceed your ability to ever do reparation by a very long shot. Once someone is paralyzed or brain damaged by his own negligence, how is this person to cover the fees of his own care, let alone all other damages that are even more significant? Even after recovery, how can one fulfill his social responsibility to repay all expenses if he is a pensioner or a young parent with a family to feed? It's a glossy ideal but it just does not work.

If I am a responsible adult then I should be allowed to make any decision that concerns only myself.

Irresponsible adults are responsible for at least something: all these laws. Laws exist because there are so many irresponsible people who often don't realize that what they do affects others because, well, they are irresponsible.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Many people here seem to be working under the assumption that the laws are the reason people are more likely to wear seatbelts in the modern world, while the responses to this poll would seem to suggest otherwise. Even worse is assuming that the decreased severity of accident injuries is due only to increased seatbelt use -- let's not forget the progress that has been made in car safety and structural integrity.

And even if the changes were due entirely to the seatbelt laws, that still doesn't make it someone else's place to legislate the level of risk I take with my life. Should we ban all risky activities because of the concerns Moonbear mentioned -- hospital beds, insurance rates, etc? Should people not be able to climb mountains, go bungee jumping, smoke cigarettes, or eat fried food? Honestly, I would rather pay higher insurance rates and risk the injury of loved ones than live in a police state.

I will always wear my seatbelt and will always encourage others to do so as well, but for everyone's sake, I think we should keep it out of the law books.

 

[radou]

I will always wear my seatbelt and will always encourage others to do so as well, but for everyone's sake, I think we should keep it out of the law books.

No, we shouldn't, because we don't want to see people flying through windshields, that's all. At least I don't.

Btw, regargind vote option number 3, there is some logic in it, since there are always nutcases who'll do anything that is the contrary of "what one shoud doo" - if there's a law, they'll break it, and it will turn them on. If there is no law, lots of people won't be wearing seatbelts anymore, so the nutcases get turned off because of that. Hence, they wear seatbelts.

 

[Huckleberry]

I read Moonbear's post, but it doesn't change what I believe. It's unfortunate that some people get injured because of their own recklessness. Does this mean they shouldn't need to be responsible for themselves, and that a prohibitive law should be passed that takes the personal responsibility away from every reasonable citizen? I would rather let people suffer the consequences of their own actions. That's how one practices responsibility. People should be more concerned about making their lives and the lives of their loved ones better, rather than trying to force every individual, regardless of their will, to make better personal decisions. That seems like a tremendous waste of time and energy.

Cars are made differently now than when Moonbear was a child. As Bob G pointed out, they are made to absorb the impact of a collision. This also reduces the severity of injuries as compared to years ago.

Because seat belt use has moderately increased does not mean that a seat belt law is the primary cause. There are other factors such as a campaign of public awareness, and the introduction of safer, 3 point seat belts. People need to trust the product. New Hampshire has the lowest seat belt use in the nation, but it is only slightly lower than it's neighbor, Massachusetts, which does have a seat belt law. The entire northeast region has the lowest percentage of seat belt use of any region in the United States.

I also take issue with the use of the word stupid. The word is too often used to denigrate people, and the argument that comes after is usually biased. Who are people stupid in comparison to, Moonbear or themselves? I'm sure lots of people are stupid compared to Moonbear. That is no surprise, but it doesn't help prove her point. It seems like a bad idea to make a law because people are not as intelligent as Moonbear. It doesn't seem logical to make a law because people aren't as intelligent as themselves either. Ofcourse, Moonbear is entitled to believe however she wishes, as long as society doesn't later determine it is necessary to fine people for having personal opinions that conflict with those of society.

If people are not as informed as they should be, then why should they be punished with a restricitive law? Wouldn't it be better to educate them and let them make their own personal decisions? That could have been done with a public awareness campaign. There are other methods for handling the finacial burden to society. Let people be responsible for themselves rather than creating a precedence for the removal of personal freedoms in the interest of personal safety. That decision does not involve society, and we should have no right to impose our beliefs on others in such a manner.

 

[russ_watters]

And even if the changes were due entirely to the seatbelt laws, that still doesn't make it someone else's place to legislate the level of risk I take with my life. Should we ban all risky activities because of the concerns Moonbear mentioned -- hospital beds, insurance rates, etc? Should people not be able to climb mountains, go bungee jumping, smoke cigarettes, or eat fried food? Honestly, I would rather pay higher insurance rates and risk the injury of loved ones than live in a police state.

I will always wear my seatbelt and will always encourage others to do so as well, but for everyone's sake, I think we should keep it out of the law books.

If you can suggest an efficient way for isolating the risk to those who are making the choice, I'm all ears, but it will be very difficult to do. Medical ethics requires rescuers to rescue even those who choose to make stupid mistakes and working around that to force such people to take personal responsibility for the risk is not easy.

You mention mountain climbing and we've discussed it here before. It should be easy to force mountain climbers to take responsibility for the risk, yet it isn't done. Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if a Park Service official had to defend a decision not to attempt to rescue a hiker? I don't think 'but look, he signed a waiver!' would work very well, do you?

As I mentioned in the thread in P&WA, one possible remedy would be to raise insurance rates for non-wearers by $120/yr, but that would require active monitoring of seatbelt use - and I tend to think the same people who are against the law would be against just such a window into their personal habits.

 

[SpaceTiger]

If you can suggest an efficient way for isolating the risk to those who are making the choice, I'm all ears, but it will be very difficult to do. Medical ethics requires rescuers to rescue even those who choose to make stupid mistakes and working around that to force such people to take personal responsibility for the risk is not easy.

This is a separate issue -- I don't think that the difficulty in rewarding cautious behavior should prevent us from having the freedom to take risks. The medical ethics are reasonable -- they should rescue anyone who needs it. However, I don't think it at all unreasonable for people engaging in risky behavior to have higher insurance rates or lower priority at hospitals.

You mention mountain climbing and we've discussed it here before. It should be easy to force mountain climbers to take responsibility for the risk, yet it isn't done. Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if a Park Service official had to defend a decision not to attempt to rescue a hiker?

The hiker's stupidity shouldn't be a factor in whether or not they attempt a rescue, that's just human decency.

 

[Evo]

I don't see the safety belt law as an infringement on my personal freedom, but different people will have differing opinions.

In response to a request for statistics on safety belt use. (It's a little outdated, I will try to find a newer report, many more states have moved to primary laws since this report).

Seventy-three percent of the people who were in a fatal crash in 2001 and were restrained survived; of those who were not restrained, only 44 percent survived. [NHTSA, Annual Assessment of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2001]

In fatal crashes, 75 percent of all passenger car occupants who were totally ejected were killed. Only 1 percent of those occupants had been using a safety belt. [NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts Overview, 2001]

In the past 26 years, safety belts prevented 135,000 fatalities and 3.8 million injuries, saving $585 billion in medical and other costs. If all vehicle occupants had used safety belts during that period, nearly 315,000 deaths and 5.2 million injuries could have been prevented — and $913 billion in costs saved. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

In 2000, the deaths and serious injuries prevented by safety belts resulted in savings of $50 billion in medical care, lost productivity and other injury-related costs. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

Motor vehicle crashes in 2000 cost a total of $230.6 billion, an amount equal to 2.3 percent of the gross domestic product, or $820 for every person living in the United States. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

In 2000, the economic cost to society was more than $977,000 for each crash fatality and an average of $1.1 million for each critically injured person. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

The general public pays nearly three-quarters of all crash costs, primarily through insurance premiums, taxes, delays and lost productivity. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

In 2002, belt use in States with primary laws was 80 percent, compared with 69 percent in States without primary laws. [NHTSA, National Occupant Protection Use Survey, June 2002]

Teen safety belt use is significantly higher in States with primary safety belt laws than in States with secondary laws. [National Safety Council, Teenage Safety Belt Use, 2002]

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/buckleplan/mayplanner2003/factsheet.html

 

[radou]

Another interesting and completely illogical statement which can be found in this thread is something like "I wear a seatbelt, but if I don't, that's just my own buisness."

It's pretty much obvious that, if one doesn't wear a seatbelt, he/she can crash through the windshield with a pretty great velocity and *hit someone else*. Doesn't ring any bells?

 

[SpaceTiger]

Another interesting and completely illogical statement which can be found in this thread is something like "I wear a seatbelt, but if I don't, that's just my own buisness."

It's pretty much obvious that, if one doesn't wear a seatbelt, he/she can crash through the windshield with a pretty great velocity and *hit someone else*. Doesn't ring any bells?

Because that happens so very frequently.

If that's your concern, you should be against the storage of any loose items inside a car, since they're potentially capable of striking someone in an accident (and probably more likely to).

 

[russ_watters]

This is a separate issue -- I don't think that the difficulty in rewarding cautious behavior should prevent us from having the freedom to take risks. The medical ethics are reasonable -- they should rescue anyone who needs it. However, I don't think it at all unreasonable for people engaging in risky behavior to have higher insurance rates or lower priority at hospitals.

I guess we see the issue exactly opposite each other: I see it as rewarding people who make stupid decisions by forcing people who make good decisions to cover their mistakes. To me, that should be unconstitutional, though today's culture has a lot of people saying that the government should provide a safety net for all sorts of stupid behavior.

The hiker's stupidity shouldn't be a factor in whether or not they attempt a rescue, that's just human decency.

I don't necessarily agree, but assuming I do - why is it wrong to attempt to force such people to take responsibility for their own risks, say by requiring climbers to carry special insurance and/or locator beacons? Why must we allow people to do whatever they want and force other people to assume most of the risk? Why does their right to a free rescue override my right not to have to pay for someone else's free rescue?

 

[Evo]

If that's your concern, you should be against the storage of any loose items inside a car, since they're potentially capable of striking someone in an accident (and probably more likely to).

Like that guy that had metal poles in the back of his truck and when he stopped suddenly they went into his cab through the rear window and killed him. Isn't there a law about securing items in truck beds and on cars? Or would that be the brutal police state taking away more freedoms?

I cringe every time a see a truck owner with a dog running around loose in the back. One sudden stop and that poor animal will become a projectile. They do sell harnesses and tethers to keep the dog from being thrown to it's death.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I guess we see the issue exactly opposite each other: I see it as rewarding people who make stupid decisions by forcing people who make good decisions to cover their mistakes.

You see being stranded in the middle of a forest until help arrives as a reward? Certainly we're helping the careless, but I would hardly say that their risky behavior is being rewarded. Nature already has a built-in punishment for this sort of thing.

I don't necessarily agree, but assuming I do - why is it wrong to attempt to force such people to take responsibility for their own risks, say by requiring climbers to carry special insurance and/or locator beacons? Why must we allow people to do whatever they want and force other people to assume most of the risk?

In most of these cases, other people are assuming much of the cost, but little or none of the risk. The former is part of living in a civilized society, which some say should be judged on how it treats its weakest members. On the other hand, if the behavior is putting others at serious risk, then it should be legislated against. The legal system, after all, does protect the innocent.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Like that guy that had metal poles in the back of his truck and when he stopped suddenly they went into his cab through the rear window and killed him. Isn't there a law about securing items in truck beds and on cars? Or would that be the brutal police state taking away more freedoms?

You're thinking of the restraint of objects on the outside of the car or truck. Not doing this is obviously extremely hazardous to other motorists. I'm talking about items inside the car, such as drinks, ipods, etc.

 

[Cyrus]

To be honest, I would prefer no seatbelt laws. Ideally, it should be up to the individual to decide their own risk. On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves how much 'freedom' are we giving up? Can you consider wearing a seatbelt as really giving up a freedom? I think its a stretch. As for all laws, we have to weigh the costs and the benefits. On the one hand, you can not wear a seatbelt and *technically* be more "free" (by free I mean less restraint) while you are driving. On the other hand, you save people millions of dollars and prevent the hospitals from being jam packed.

In this case the benefits far outweigh the costs. To be honest, I can’t honestly see not wearing a seatbelt as being *any* restriction on a freedom whatsoever.

But I do agree with all your points ST. If the benefits were not *so much* better than the costs, I'd agree with you 100%. I am all for no restrictions on personal choices. If the law does no good, then its a useless law and should be removed, but here this is not the case.

One could argue the same thing about wearing a helmet on a motorcycle.

 

[radou]

Because that happens so very frequently.

Even if it happens once, that's enough.

If that's your concern, you should be against the storage of any loose items inside a car, since they're potentially capable of striking someone in an accident (and probably more likely to).

Of course I am.

 

[Cyrus]

Even if it happens once, that's enough.


Of course I am.

I think debating people flying out their windshields into other people is a very weak argument.

 

[radou]

I think debating people flying out their windshields into other people is a very weak argument.

There were a lot of good arguments in this post, but this discussion seems to go on. So, perhaps weak arguments will work.

 

[Cyrus]

Its weak because you can't have a law for something that:

Even if it happens once, that's enough.

That would constitute a very very poor and useless law. (And one that would not be enforced if it were that rare).

If we are going to have a law, it has to be effective and enforced. Something that can happen "Just once" does not cut it. Seatbelt laws in the DC area are strictly enforced. There is a big "click it or ticket" campaign now. If you are caught you get a $50 fine and two points on your licence, and the cops are out on force giving lots of tickets. So its still an issue.

 

[SpaceTiger]

In this case the benefits far outweigh the costs.

I don't think this has been convincingly shown. Certainly most of the people here don't change their behavior because of the law. The only statistic I've seen supporting the law's effect is the comparison of states with and without seatbelt laws, but that was only a 10% difference, and as always, correlation does not prove causation.

 

[SpaceTiger]

There were a lot of good arguments in this post, but this discussion seems to go on. So, perhaps weak arguments will work.

That's an interesting philosophy. Do you think I'll actually be fooled by a weak argument or do you just think it's good to waste people's time?