5 ms·
Also, if seatbelts weren't mandatory, it's conceivable that, in the event of a collision, you could be found liable for injuries that would have been prevented
by rcthompson 11y ago
Also, if seatbelts weren't mandatory, it's conceivable that, in the event of a collision, you could be found liable for injuries that would have been prevented if the person wore a seatbelt. So yes, depending on the law, you could be personally affected by someone else's decision not to wear a seatbelt.
- jessaustin 11y agoVictim-blaming is usually considered obnoxious. (It certainly is when newspapers opine that cyclists run over by automobiles should have been wearing helmets.) I wonder why that isn't the case here?
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoLawyers are involved?
- Vraxx 11y agoProbably because seat belts are ubiquitous and the cost of wearing one is practically nil. When the preventative measures are that easy, so is the jump to victim blaming. I'm not saying whether this is right one way or another, but that's certainly a difference I see between seat belts and many other preventative measures.