Totally with you.
However, I suspect that one of the reasons that they're mandatory is due to the risk posed to third parties by unbelted passengers/drivers during collisions.
'Victim ejected from vehicle' is a very real thing, and when your car decelerates from 40mph to 0mph in the blink of an eye, the fleshy sacks of blood and bone don't - and won't until something impedes their trajectory.
The chances of actually going through the windscreen of a car made after 1990 are pretty slim, but you're a lot more likely to inflict serious injuries on whoever is in the car with you should you choose to travel unrestrained.
I won't link it here, but there's a video showing a car rolling after a colission and literally flinging an occupant out of a side window a good 15-20 feet in the air. They should probably show that to the anti-belt fuckwits.
(, Sun 4 Dec 2022, 20:40, Reply)
An adult didn’t have to wear a seatbelt in the back till 1991. Kids aged 14 and under since 1989.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sun 4 Dec 2022, 20:46,
Reply)
I remember.
I also remember how put out my uncle was by the whole thing. I was in single figures at the time, but even then I remember thinking it was perfectly reasonable.
(, Sun 4 Dec 2022, 20:52, Reply)
