Seat belts: personal choice or necessity?

G. J. Blatchford, A. A. Hill, J. A. Edney

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The use of occupant restrains in motor vehicles has become an issue which has received increasing legislative attention in recent years. This has occurred due to the supposition that seat belt use would be effective in preventing automobile related fatalities and injuries. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia now have mandatory safety belt laws in effect which have increased usage rates from 20% or less prior to enactment of the law to between 50% and 70% after implementation. Safety belts have proven effective in minimizing morbidity and mortality. In a study of four states enforcing mandatory usage and neighboring states without seat belt laws as a comparison, between 250 and 350 fatalities were prevented. This extrapolates to an estimated 12,000-15,000 lives saved nationally if restraints were mandatory. Nebraska is one of two states in which a seat belt law has been enacted and subsequently repealed. As a result of the repeal, seat belt usage dropped from 40% in 1986 to 29% in 1987 with an associated increase in injuries. The economic impact associated with this increase in accident related injuries is enormous. The Nebraska repeal campaign was based on the issue of individual rights versus mandatory safety requirements. As health care providers we need to examine the validity of personal rights in comparison to the documented impact of personal restraints on the morbidity and mortality of accident victims.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)117-120
Number of pages4
JournalThe Nebraska medical journal
Volume75
Issue number5
StatePublished - May 1 1990

Fingerprint

Seat Belts
Safety
Accidents
Wounds and Injuries
Morbidity
Automobiles
Mortality
Motor Vehicles
Health Personnel
Economics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Blatchford, G. J., Hill, A. A., & Edney, J. A. (1990). Seat belts: personal choice or necessity? The Nebraska medical journal, 75(5), 117-120.

Seat belts : personal choice or necessity? / Blatchford, G. J.; Hill, A. A.; Edney, J. A.

In: The Nebraska medical journal, Vol. 75, No. 5, 01.05.1990, p. 117-120.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Blatchford, GJ, Hill, AA & Edney, JA 1990, 'Seat belts: personal choice or necessity?', The Nebraska medical journal, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 117-120.
Blatchford GJ, Hill AA, Edney JA. Seat belts: personal choice or necessity? The Nebraska medical journal. 1990 May 1;75(5):117-120.
Blatchford, G. J. ; Hill, A. A. ; Edney, J. A. / Seat belts : personal choice or necessity?. In: The Nebraska medical journal. 1990 ; Vol. 75, No. 5. pp. 117-120.
@article{42ebda0222e745dfb0bb574ba1da244b,
title = "Seat belts: personal choice or necessity?",
abstract = "The use of occupant restrains in motor vehicles has become an issue which has received increasing legislative attention in recent years. This has occurred due to the supposition that seat belt use would be effective in preventing automobile related fatalities and injuries. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia now have mandatory safety belt laws in effect which have increased usage rates from 20{\%} or less prior to enactment of the law to between 50{\%} and 70{\%} after implementation. Safety belts have proven effective in minimizing morbidity and mortality. In a study of four states enforcing mandatory usage and neighboring states without seat belt laws as a comparison, between 250 and 350 fatalities were prevented. This extrapolates to an estimated 12,000-15,000 lives saved nationally if restraints were mandatory. Nebraska is one of two states in which a seat belt law has been enacted and subsequently repealed. As a result of the repeal, seat belt usage dropped from 40{\%} in 1986 to 29{\%} in 1987 with an associated increase in injuries. The economic impact associated with this increase in accident related injuries is enormous. The Nebraska repeal campaign was based on the issue of individual rights versus mandatory safety requirements. As health care providers we need to examine the validity of personal rights in comparison to the documented impact of personal restraints on the morbidity and mortality of accident victims.",
author = "Blatchford, {G. J.} and Hill, {A. A.} and Edney, {J. A.}",
year = "1990",
month = "5",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "75",
pages = "117--120",
journal = "The Nebraska medical journal",
issn = "0091-6730",
publisher = "Nebraska State Medical Association",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Seat belts

T2 - personal choice or necessity?

AU - Blatchford, G. J.

AU - Hill, A. A.

AU - Edney, J. A.

PY - 1990/5/1

Y1 - 1990/5/1

N2 - The use of occupant restrains in motor vehicles has become an issue which has received increasing legislative attention in recent years. This has occurred due to the supposition that seat belt use would be effective in preventing automobile related fatalities and injuries. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia now have mandatory safety belt laws in effect which have increased usage rates from 20% or less prior to enactment of the law to between 50% and 70% after implementation. Safety belts have proven effective in minimizing morbidity and mortality. In a study of four states enforcing mandatory usage and neighboring states without seat belt laws as a comparison, between 250 and 350 fatalities were prevented. This extrapolates to an estimated 12,000-15,000 lives saved nationally if restraints were mandatory. Nebraska is one of two states in which a seat belt law has been enacted and subsequently repealed. As a result of the repeal, seat belt usage dropped from 40% in 1986 to 29% in 1987 with an associated increase in injuries. The economic impact associated with this increase in accident related injuries is enormous. The Nebraska repeal campaign was based on the issue of individual rights versus mandatory safety requirements. As health care providers we need to examine the validity of personal rights in comparison to the documented impact of personal restraints on the morbidity and mortality of accident victims.

AB - The use of occupant restrains in motor vehicles has become an issue which has received increasing legislative attention in recent years. This has occurred due to the supposition that seat belt use would be effective in preventing automobile related fatalities and injuries. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia now have mandatory safety belt laws in effect which have increased usage rates from 20% or less prior to enactment of the law to between 50% and 70% after implementation. Safety belts have proven effective in minimizing morbidity and mortality. In a study of four states enforcing mandatory usage and neighboring states without seat belt laws as a comparison, between 250 and 350 fatalities were prevented. This extrapolates to an estimated 12,000-15,000 lives saved nationally if restraints were mandatory. Nebraska is one of two states in which a seat belt law has been enacted and subsequently repealed. As a result of the repeal, seat belt usage dropped from 40% in 1986 to 29% in 1987 with an associated increase in injuries. The economic impact associated with this increase in accident related injuries is enormous. The Nebraska repeal campaign was based on the issue of individual rights versus mandatory safety requirements. As health care providers we need to examine the validity of personal rights in comparison to the documented impact of personal restraints on the morbidity and mortality of accident victims.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025425988&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025425988&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 2362621

AN - SCOPUS:0025425988

VL - 75

SP - 117

EP - 120

JO - The Nebraska medical journal

JF - The Nebraska medical journal

SN - 0091-6730

IS - 5

ER -