Answer:option d. little change in the number of driver deaths, but more accidents and more pedestrian deaths
Explanation: the use of seatbelt does not really reduce accident rate but it's use was enforced by the government to reduce death rate and magnitude of injury to the person using the car.
Injuries as a result of road traffic incidents are the main reason of problem in public health and also a major cause of death and injury in the world at large. A large number of pedestrians have being killed on roads in American.seat-belt likely the one most effective part in a car that helps to limit or reduce the magnitude and severity of injury to occupants of a car or vehiclethat is as a result of road accident.not using seat-belt is
high risk factor for road traffic deaths and injuries among people in a car crash.vehicle occupants who don't like using seat-belts and have a crash especially in the front of the car, are usually likely to have a head damage or injury
U.S. laws requiring seat belts have resulted in a reduction in both driver deaths and pedestrian deaths
U.S. laws requiring drivers to wear seat belts have resulted in a reduction in both driver deaths and pedestrian deaths. The use of seat belts has been proven to save lives in the event of a car accident. When drivers wear seat belts, they are more protected and less likely to be seriously injured or killed in a crash. In addition, seat belt usage also reduces the likelihood of being ejected from the vehicle, which can further reduce fatalities.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), seat belts are estimated to save more than 15,000 lives each year in the United States. This is because seat belts help prevent occupants from being thrown around inside the vehicle during a collision or sudden stop. As a result, both the number of driver deaths and pedestrian deaths have decreased as a result of these laws.
#SPJ3
The correct answer is True
Explanation: Anti-drug campaign ads are equally effective at influencing public opinion and changing offender behavior.
B)far apart
C) touching
D) made of liquid or gas
Answer:
Strange
Explanation:
Its weird "knowing" that this potentially fictional character knows us. its so mindbogglingly to me that this God knows everything about me, yet I seem to not know everything about my self.
Answer: Experimenter Bias
Explanation:
Experimenter bias is a phenomenon in research where the researcher influences the behavior of participants and/or the researcher's interpretation of the experimental results. This is because as humans it is almost impossible to be objective due to the feelings and emotions we have about certain thoughts and actions and as a result, these feelings and biases are mirrored into the research thereby reducing the accuracy of said research.
More often than not, this bias is unconscious which makes it even more deadly because it will be harder to detect by the researcher who will then be unable to take countermeasures to mitigate the effects.
B. The Department of Homeland security assists in counterterrorism measures, while the Department of Defense secures US borders from illegal immigration.
C. The Department of Defense manages the military overseas, while the Department of Homeland security manages and trains the military on US soil.
D. The Department of Defense manages military operations and training, while the Department of Homeland Security educates and assists Americans in preventing terrorist attacks on US soil.
Answer:
Ethics
Explanation:
Utilitarian ethics is based on the belief of evaluating the benefits and harms of actions. In this case the action is lying to the young team in order to keep their spirts high and encourage the team to continue to play and have fun.
So lying although by some considered as unethical, utilitarian ethics considers it acceptable when the action (the lie) has a greater benefit or minimizes harm, than not lying.
Utilitarian ethics does not consider it immoral to lie if the lie has a greater benefit or it reduces harm. It could even be considered immoral not to lie because of the harm it could cause, in this case to the young team.
In this example if the girls' soccer coach did not lie it could hurt the spirts of the young soccer team, and could discourage them from continuing to play and have fun.
So Kathleen the girls' soccer coach estimated the consequence of the lie as a greater benefit than telling the truth and possibly hurting the teams spirits and fun.
Although it seems reasonable to lie to the team and not hurt their feelings, some critizise this approach. The problem that critics have with utilitarian ethics is that people could erronuesly estimate the consequence of the lie and the harm or benefits it could have.
For example, maybe by telling the team the truth it would encourage the team to improve and grow by correcting their mistakes and having a positive outcome.
So although lying could seem as the right thing to do for Kathleen, other coaches could have a different approach, and ethical thought should be considered when making decisions that could harm or benefit people.