>>>
>>>In that case you're probably right. But I don't think there is much doubt left that on balance seat belts save lives. The safest combination of all is seat belts plus air bags.
>>
>>No doubt, but at what cost? Didn't the guvment take our liberties?
>
>But where's the line? Does requiring the manufacturers to put seat belts and airbags have any effect on our liberties? Does requiring parents to have children appropriately buckled affect our liberties? Is it reasonable interference on behalf of the children.
>
>I'm also seeing an interesting thing here because airbags just work. They're there and we don't have to do anything to use them. Seat belts we have to use or they're worthless. Yet the government requires both in cars.
>
>FWIW, I do not understand why anyone would drive without seat belts and even more, why anyone would fail to strap a child in.
>
>Tamar

Totally agree. However, just last year a new EU regulation was introduces that meant all kids under a certain height (4' 7"?) now have to be in a booster seat. I don't know why - so they get a better view out the window? Meant that parents who'd got rid of them now had to buy new ones. And what if you have to transfer the kids to someone else's car, and they haven't got one, or their aunt or uncle takes them somewhere and they haven't got one? Well I believe there's special allowances for those occasions but doesn't that detract from whatever safety consideration they were meant to address?

The EU is one example of meddling beaurocracy that most of us could do without.

Terry