jeffy124's Journal: Today's JE Brought To You By The Number Zero

My dad caught a short blurb in the local (NJ) newspaper about car accident deaths during 2002 within the state. It seems that the number of people who were killed while wearing their seatbelts was zero. Quote from some high-ranking official: "We needn't unbuckle a corpse." Unfortunately, the blurb is not on the newspaper's website, else I'd link to it.

but still...

[memfree]

while for fender-benders, I'd rather be buckled up and uninjured, I think I'd rather be dead than emerge from a high-speed collision as a quadriplegic.

I must be in a negative mood today. I keep thinking of depressing responses.

Re:but still...

[jeffy124]

yeah, you're right by that. you hear similar arguments when a drunk driver is killed and the person they impact ends up that way. unfortunately, i dont think they track those types of numbers anyway.

one hting i heard some years ago, when air bags started becoming a big thing. injuries in accidents where the person was in a newer car had more leg and lower body injuries than head injuries.

still amazes me when I hear about people going 90 and get tossed out the car when they have an accident. i often think it would be a good idea for insurance companies to not reimburse for injuries (or only pay up to a certain limit) for when people dont wear the belts, regardless of whose at fault for the accident.

Re:but still...

[Cliff]

still amazes me when I hear about people going 90 and get tossed out the car when they have an accident. i often think it would be a good idea for insurance companies to not reimburse for injuries (or only pay up to a certain limit) for when people dont wear the belts, regardless of whose at fault for the accident.

You know? I would prefer just such a thing to actual state and federal laws requiring people to buckle seatbelts. Laws don't necessarily motivate people to do the right thing: self-interest (generally) does. Especially the self-interest of the wallet.