N
Nick Maclaren
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"vernon" <[email protected]> writes:
|> "Colin McKenzie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
|> news:[email protected]...
|>
|> >> Chart 5 is interesting, in that the two main 'bumps' in cyclist death
|> >> and injury were immediately following changes to the seatbelt laws
|> >> (compulsory fitting in 1968 ...
|> >
|> > Except that it wasn't 1968. My 1965 car had the cheapest possible belts
|> > fitted because it was compulsory. I think compulsory fitting was 63 or 64.
|> > 63 is more likely to be misprinted as 68.
|> >
|> Wikipedia suggests '67
Actually, it wasn't that simple, but I got the date of 1968 off the
Web and it related to the mandatory retrofitting - both 1967 and 1968
could have been correct (e.g. an Act being passed and coming into
force - which is the date?)
The requirements for the fitting of belts came in gradually over a
period of decades, and the period to which I refer was one when there
was a major, if gradual, change. All newish cars were required to have
them (retrofitted if needed) and there was the "klunk-klick" advertisement
campaign. In the first phase, only new cars needed them, and they only
needed lap belts.
But, even if the dates match, such synchronicity is always a bit iffy
as an indicator of association. I was merely remarking that there was
SOME evidence that risk homeostasis may be partly a transient effect.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
"vernon" <[email protected]> writes:
|> "Colin McKenzie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
|> news:[email protected]...
|>
|> >> Chart 5 is interesting, in that the two main 'bumps' in cyclist death
|> >> and injury were immediately following changes to the seatbelt laws
|> >> (compulsory fitting in 1968 ...
|> >
|> > Except that it wasn't 1968. My 1965 car had the cheapest possible belts
|> > fitted because it was compulsory. I think compulsory fitting was 63 or 64.
|> > 63 is more likely to be misprinted as 68.
|> >
|> Wikipedia suggests '67
Actually, it wasn't that simple, but I got the date of 1968 off the
Web and it related to the mandatory retrofitting - both 1967 and 1968
could have been correct (e.g. an Act being passed and coming into
force - which is the date?)
The requirements for the fitting of belts came in gradually over a
period of decades, and the period to which I refer was one when there
was a major, if gradual, change. All newish cars were required to have
them (retrofitted if needed) and there was the "klunk-klick" advertisement
campaign. In the first phase, only new cars needed them, and they only
needed lap belts.
But, even if the dates match, such synchronicity is always a bit iffy
as an indicator of association. I was merely remarking that there was
SOME evidence that risk homeostasis may be partly a transient effect.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.