"droo" <03dakotacc4.7_4x4@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:40:59 -0500, Josh Battles
> <jbattles@bankfinancial.com> wrote:
>
>
> > That's not true. IIRC, they proved that an airbag deployed in an
> > accident
> > without a seatbelt will cause more harm than good. That's why you're
> > still
> > required to sear a seatbelt.
> >
> > Also, a seatbelt interlocking device was tried in the 60's I think, but
> > it
> > failed miserably.
> >
>
> I'm not sure what the study you are mentioning was about. But I think it
> may be in regards to people who are less than average size. I don't know
> what an interlocking device is.
>
> --
> -Droo
>
> http://www.grandroyal.org/dakota
I'm not sure who did the study, but i remember reading about it. An
interlock device (tried in 73 - thanks Ray) was basically a switch that
stopped the vehicle from being started unless the seatbelt was fastened.
The bottom line is that seatbelts are required to be worn BY LAW, so you
should wear them or be ready to get ticketed for not wearing one. It
doesn't really matter to me whether someone I don't know is wearing their
seatbelt or not, but I'm sure going to be wearing mine. Partly because I
have to, partly because I just feel a bit safer with it on.
-- - Josh Lowered 2000 Dakota CC 3.9L www.geocities.com/lenny187/dakota.html www.omg-stfu.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 01 2004 - 00:15:16 EDT