Although some progress has been made toward integrating society, two basic features of modernity—for example, seat belts and public seating—remain harshly exclusionary. Every day, it is a battle against danger for millions of individuals with disabilities or chronic health conditions, those of larger body size, and, truly, anyone who might prefer very differently designed public spaces to buckle in or take a seat. These issues constitute not inconveniences but, rather, are systemic failures in past universal design—an injustice of safety and accessibility enforcement opened up by legal standards, such as the anachronistic seat-belt law in New Hampshire.
The Design Failure in Personal Safety
The standard three-point seat belts are indeed the greatest innovation in automobile safety for mankind, and oddly enough, they rank among the most insurmountable hurdles for certain groups of individuals. For quite a few, it becomes impossible or sometimes even wrong to buckle up.
There are many children with special needs, such as autism and cerebral palsy, who would require adaptive crash-tested car seats or position-harness for secure buckling. The regular belt poses a risk for these families, so they are forced to scavenge through a pool of niche, specialized equipment that should by all rights be available. Same for the larger folks, who need the essential safety mechanism-a simple seatbelt extender-infrequently given as a standard feature. Instead, it’s generally a process of special ordering it directly from the manufacturer for a basic safety need treated as nothing more than an accessory. Such forethoughtlessness in design makes the user carry all the burden of safety and compliance.
Inconsistent Safety in Public Transit
The regulation of public transport is really problematic. While vehicles ought to have securement systems for wheelchairs, federal law actually creates a weird double standard: passengers with disabilities may not be required by law to use a lap-and-shoulder belt unless, in turn, the transit agency provides lap-and-shoulder belts to all its passengers. The reality is that only a few fixed-route buses provide a full set of seat belts for every passenger on board, rendering the specialized safe harnesses considered for our disabled passengers practically optional. Because of this, the safety standards for users of public transit are inconsistent and, at times, downright embarrassing.
Seating design in public transit stations, shopping malls, and parks mostly violates the principles of accessibility even before we enter the vehicle proper. The tormenting heights of seats, bad back support, and almost complete disappearance of elbow space between the seats are other common obstacles. Such defects become aggravating concerns before rest is even barely set as a need in the lives of the elderly, individuals living with chronic pain, and fatigue.
The Legislative Patchwork and the New Hampshire Exception
At the border, the fragmented, obscure picture of the average person make about highway safety disappears. Whether they call it ”existence” changes with the number of laws in effect and their application, however strict or lenient. In states with primary enforcement laws, officers may stop vehicles solely on the basis of an unbelted occupant. Some have secondary enforcement laws, but in New Hampshire, the buck stops here.
In 2024, it will be almost practically to say that New Hampshire will be the only North American state without any law on mandatory seat belt use for adults. Indeed, riding unrestrained is actually permissible for anyone above 18 years of age. This peculiar kind of legislation correlates with the statistics on state safety, with New Hampshire being rated as having one of the lowest seat belt usages in the country.
The absence of a seat belt law in New Hampshire can seem to stem from personal freedom; however, the other side equally stands about accessibility: without uniform public safety standards, it is that the most vulnerable are left at the greatest risk. With the various nonsensical laws, those with differing abilities crossing from one state to another will needlessly be confused owing to the lack of a uniform safety mandate by which specialized adaptive equipment may or may not be accepted or legally supported across all jurisdictions.
Moving Beyond Compliance
It is an enduring gap that seat and seat belt accessibility still transmit a message that safety standards may need to rise above the ADA minimal threshold and incorporate the philosophy of true universal design. ADA enforcement employs a generally reactive approach, targeting structures that are somehow made inaccessible through case-by-case very costly settlements, which only come into play after the fact of the violations.
For sake of true inclusion, accessibility should be designed from the get-go. Standard would include safety elements like seat belt extenders. Public places should have seating arrangements for all body types or mobility needs. By this combination of thinking, classing accessibility as special accommodation denies society the fulfillment of safety and equal participation for all persons, regardless of physical need or modes of transport.
