> Is this just speculation? Common sense / official government propaganda: "In addition to protecting you from injury as a driver, seat belts help you keep co

> Is this just speculation? Common sense / official government propaganda: "In addition to protecting you from injury as a driver, seat belts help you keep control of the vehicle. If you are struck from the side or make a quick turn, the force could push you sideways and therefore you cannot steer the vehicle if you are not behind the wheel." https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/seatbeltuse.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/seatbeltuse.... For some reason there's a lack of double blind studies on the exact statistics of if low/medium-speed T-bone impacts disloge the driver more often with a seatbelt vs without a seatbelt, but don't let me stop you from volunteering... > Without a seatbelt you get thrown from the vehicle when you hit something, but by that point it's by definition already too late to avoid it, and then you're just in butterfly effect land. Many lighter side tbone impacts might simply throw you into your passenger's lap, or even just into the center of the vehicle. Are you really asserting that in such impacts, being behind the wheel of your vehicle is no better than leaving it up to chance? I don't think you're that bad of a driver! > This is not the right comparison because the thing to be compared is not seatbelt use prior to the campaign, it's seatbelt use under a different seatbelt campaign Fair. > That's just a rationalization. So is what I'm initially replying to.