Opinion ID: 2734036
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lastly, “[w]hile insurance rates in the

Text: State of New Jersey are among the highest in the country, the increased use of safety seat belt systems will cause subsequent reductions in accidents, deaths, injuries, and lost work time. This could lead to reduced cost to business and industry, and local and state governments thereby eventually leading to cost containment and 14 other incentives in automotive insurance rates and premiums.” [Waterson, supra, 111 N.J. at 261 (citing Assembly Law, Public Safety and Defense Committee Statement to Assembly, No. 2304, p.3 (1984)).] In Waterson, supra, this Court explained that “‘seat belts may be the most significant source of automobile crash protection for automobile occupants.’” 111 N.J. at 269-70 (quoting Dunn v. Durso, 219 N.J. Super. 383, 394 n.8 (Law Div. 1986)). The Court also took “judicial notice of the efficacy of seat belts.” Id. at 269. Similarly, in a constitutional challenge to a New Jersey statute requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets, the Appellate Division held that such a law “bears a real and substantial relationship to highway safety generally.” State v. Krammes, 105 N.J. Super. 345, 346 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 54 N.J. 257 (1969). Like the Appellate Division, we also note that other States have declared that seat belt laws protect the community at large. Lenihan, supra, 427 N.J. Super. at 511 (citing cases). For those reasons, we find that the language included in N.J.S.A. 2C:40-18 -- making it an offense “to knowingly violate[] a law intended to protect the public health and safety” -- encompasses the Seat Belt Law.