Compulsory seat belts

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32568, 30 March 1971, Page 16

Compulsory seat belts

Sir,—l have yet to read about seat belts being positively dangerous. There may be the isolated case when they are of dubious advantage. Your correspondent’s example today is certainly not one. It is simpler to undo a buckle and get out when one has a broken arm than to just get out when concussed or dead. And if a person is too dazed even to undo 1 his seat belt (a onefinger exercise) his chances of opening a door are very slim anyway. Of what use will your correspondent’s crash helmets be, if, like his belts, they are kept on the floor? The upholders of noncompulsion should be so free as to pay the total real cost of hospital treatment and loss of productivity. Un-

til then the community is merely investing all too scarce public moneys in the follies of the ignorant.— Yours, etc., J.J.B.G. March 2, 1971.

■Sir,—Had I been restricted by one of these belts some years ago, it is most probable that I would not now be writing this letter. At one of the most dangerous city in: tersections (where lights have since been installed) a violent sou’-wester with rain and sleet reduced visibility to a minimum and the violent impact of a huge lon-y practically wrecked the side of the small car in which 1 was travelling. The impact sent me right over to the passenger’s seat and I escaped injury. There must be many careful . and experienced drivers who, for one reason or another, are partly disabled, and I feel sure this compulsory constriction would be more of a hindrance than a help.—Yours, etc., ■ I. TOO, WAS THERE. March 29, 1971.