document_title: Louisiana Purchase

question_text: who made the first offer to buy the port city of orleans

text: Louisiana Purchase

text: Background

text: Throughout the second half of the 18th century, Louisiana was a pawn on the chessboard of European politics.[2] It was controlled by the French, who had a few small settlements along the Mississippi and other main rivers. France ceded the territory to Spain in the secret Treaty of Fontainebleau (1762). Following French defeat in the Seven Years' War, Spain gained control of the territory west of the Mississippi and the British the territory to the east of the river.[3]

text: Following the establishment of the United States, the Americans controlled the area east of the Mississippi and north of New Orleans. The main issue for the Americans was free transit of the Mississippi to the sea. As the lands were being gradually settled by a few American migrants, many Americans, including Jefferson, assumed that the territory would be acquired "piece by piece." The risk of another power taking it from a weakened Spain made a "profound reconsideration" of this policy necessary.[2] New Orleans was already important for shipping agricultural goods to and from the areas of the United States west of the Appalachian Mountains. Pinckney's Treaty, signed with Spain on October 27, 1795, gave American merchants "right of deposit" in New Orleans, granting them use of the port to store goods for export. Americans used this right to transport products such as flour, tobacco, pork, bacon, lard, feathers, cider, butter, and cheese. The treaty also recognized American rights to navigate the entire Mississippi, which had become vital to the growing trade of the western territories.[3]

text: In 1798, Spain revoked the treaty allowing American use of New Orleans, greatly upsetting Americans. In 1801, Spanish Governor Don Juan Manuel de Salcedo took over from the Marquess of Casa Calvo, and restored the American right to deposit goods. However, in 1800 Spain had ceded the Louisiana territory back to France as part of Napoleon's secret Third Treaty of San Ildefonso.[4] The territory nominally remained under Spanish control, until a transfer of power to France on November 30, 1803, just three weeks before the formal cession of the territory to the United States on December 20, 1803.[5] A further ceremony was held in St. Louis, Upper Louisiana regarding the New Orleans formalities. The March 9–10, 1804 event is remembered as Three Flags Day.[6][7]

text: James Monroe and Robert R. Livingston had traveled to Paris to negotiate the purchase of New Orleans in January 1803. Their instructions were to negotiate or purchase control of New Orleans and its environs; they did not anticipate the much larger acquisition which would follow.[8]

text: The Louisiana Purchase was by far the largest territorial gain in U.S. history. Stretching from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains, the purchase doubled the size of the United States. Before 1803, Louisiana had been under Spanish control for forty years. Although Spain aided the rebels in the American Revolutionary War, the Spanish didn't want the Americans to settle in their territory.[9]

text: Although the purchase was thought of by some as unjust and unconstitutional, Jefferson determined that his constitutional power to negotiate treaties allowed the purchase of what became fifteen states. In hindsight, the Louisiana Purchase could be considered one of his greatest contributions to the United States.[10] On April 18, 1802, Jefferson penned a letter to United States Ambassador to France Robert Livingston. It was an intentional exhortation to make this supposedly mild diplomat strongly warn the French of their perilous course. The letter began:

text: The cession of Louisiana and the Floridas by Spain to France works most sorely on the U.S. On this subject the Secretary of State has written to you fully. Yet I cannot forbear recurring to it personally, so deep is the impression it makes in my mind. It completely reverses all the political relations of the U.S. and will form a new epoch in our political course. Of all nations of any consideration France is the one which hitherto has offered the fewest points on which we could have any conflict of right, and the most points of a communion of interests. From these causes we have ever looked to her as our natural friend, as one with which we never could have an occasion of difference. Her growth therefore we viewed as our own, her misfortunes ours. There is on the globe one single spot, the possessor of which is our natural and habitual enemy. It is New Orleans, through which the produce of three-eighths of our territory must pass to market, and from its fertility it will ere long yield more than half of our whole produce and contain more than half our inhabitants. France placing herself in that door assumes to us the attitude of defiance. Spain might have retained it quietly for years. Her pacific dispositions, her feeble state, would induce her to increase our facilities there, so that her possession of the place would be hardly felt by us, and it would not perhaps be very long before some circumstance might arise which might make the cession of it to us the price of something of more worth to her. Not so can it ever be in the hands of France. The impetuosity of her temper, the energy and restlessness of her character, placed in a point of eternal friction with us...

text: Jefferson's letter went on with the same heat to a much quoted passage about "the day that France takes possession of New Orleans." Not only did he say that day would be a low point in France's history, for it would seal America's marriage with the British fleet and nation, but he added, astonishingly, that it would start a massive shipbuilding program.[11]

text: Negotiation

text: While the transfer of the territory by Spain back to France in 1800 went largely unnoticed, fear of an eventual French invasion spread nationwide when, in 1801, Napoleon sent a military force to secure New Orleans. Southerners feared that Napoleon would free all the slaves in Louisiana, which could trigger slave uprisings elsewhere.[12] Though Jefferson urged moderation, Federalists sought to use this against Jefferson and called for hostilities against France. Undercutting them, Jefferson took up the banner and threatened an alliance with the United Kingdom, although relations were uneasy in that direction.[12] In 1801 Jefferson supported France in its plan to take back Saint-Domingue (present-day Haiti), which was then under control of Toussaint Louverture after a slave rebellion.

text: Jefferson sent Livingston to Paris in 1801[13] after discovering the transfer of Louisiana from Spain to France under the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso. Livingston was authorized to purchase New Orleans.

text: In January 1802, France sent General Charles Leclerc to Saint-Domingue (present-day Haiti) to re-establish slavery, which had been abolished by the constitution of the French Republic of 1795, as well as to reduce the rights of free people of color and take back control of the island from Toussaint Louverture. Louverture had fended off invasions of St. Domingue by the Spanish and British empires, but had also begun to consolidate power for himself on the island. Before the Revolution, France had derived enormous wealth from St. Domingue at the cost of the lives and freedom of the slaves. Napoleon wanted its revenues and productivity for France restored. Alarmed over the French actions and its intention to re-establish an empire in North America, Jefferson declared neutrality in relation to the Caribbean, refusing credit and other assistance to the French, but allowing war contraband to get through to the rebels to prevent France from regaining a foothold.[14]

text: In November 1803, France withdrew its 7,000 surviving troops from Saint-Domingue (more than two-thirds of its troops died there) and gave up its ambitions in the Western Hemisphere.[15] In 1804 Haiti declared its independence; but, fearing a slave revolt at home, Jefferson and Congress refused to recognize the new republic, the second in the Western Hemisphere, and imposed a trade embargo against it. This, together with later claims by France to reconquer Haiti, encouraged by the United Kingdom, made it more difficult for Haiti to recover after ten years of wars.[16]

text: In 1803, Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours, a French nobleman, began to help negotiate with France at the request of Jefferson. Du Pont was living in the United States at the time and had close ties to Jefferson as well as the prominent politicians in France. He engaged in back-channel diplomacy with Napoleon on Jefferson's behalf during a visit to France and originated the idea of the much larger Louisiana Purchase as a way to defuse potential conflict between the United States and Napoleon over North America.[17]

text: Jefferson disliked the idea of purchasing Louisiana from France, as that could imply that France had a right to be in Louisiana. Jefferson had concerns that a U.S. president did not have the constitutional authority to make such a deal. He also thought that to do so would erode states' rights by increasing federal executive power. On the other hand, he was aware of the potential threat that France could be in that region and was prepared to go to war to prevent a strong French presence there.[citation needed]

text: Throughout this time, Jefferson had up-to-date intelligence on Napoleon's military activities and intentions in North America. Part of his evolving strategy involved giving du Pont some information that was withheld from Livingston. He also gave intentionally conflicting instructions to the two.[citation needed] Desperate to avoid possible war with France, Jefferson sent James Monroe to Paris in 1803 to negotiate a settlement, with instructions to go to London to negotiate an alliance if the talks in Paris failed. Spain procrastinated until late 1802 in executing the treaty to transfer Louisiana to France, which allowed American hostility to build. Also, Spain's refusal to cede Florida to France meant that Louisiana would be indefensible. Monroe had been formally expelled from France on his last diplomatic mission, and the choice to send him again conveyed a sense of seriousness.

text: Napoleon needed peace with the United Kingdom to implement the Treaty of San Ildefonso and take possession of Louisiana. Otherwise, Louisiana would be an easy prey for the UK or even for the United States. But in early 1803, continuing war between France and the UK seemed unavoidable. On March 11, 1803, Napoleon began preparing to invade the UK.

text: As Napoleon had failed to re-enslave the emancipated population of Haiti, he abandoned his plans to rebuild France's New World empire. Without sufficient revenues from sugar colonies in the Caribbean, Louisiana had little value to him. Spain had not yet completed the transfer of Louisiana to France, and war between France and the UK was imminent. Out of anger towards Spain and the unique opportunity to sell something that was useless and not truly his yet, Napoleon decided to sell the entire territory.[18]

text: Although the foreign minister Talleyrand opposed the plan, on April 10, 1803, Napoleon told the Treasury Minister François de Barbé-Marbois that he was considering selling the entire Louisiana Territory to the United States. On April 11, 1803, just days before Monroe's arrival, Barbé-Marbois offered Livingston all of Louisiana for $15 million,[19] (equivalent to about $300 million in 2016 dollars,[20]) which averages to less than three cents per acre (7 ¢/ha).[21][22]

text: The American representatives were prepared to pay up to $10 million for New Orleans and its environs, but were dumbfounded when the vastly larger territory was offered for $15 million. Jefferson had authorized Livingston only to purchase New Orleans. However, Livingston was certain that the United States would accept the offer.[23]

text: The Americans thought that Napoleon might withdraw the offer at any time, preventing the United States from acquiring New Orleans, so they agreed and signed the Louisiana Purchase Treaty on April 30, 1803.[24] On July 4, 1803, the treaty was announced,[25] but the documents did not arrive in Washington, D.C. until July 14.[26] The Louisiana Territory was vast, stretching from the Gulf of Mexico in the south to Rupert's Land in the north, and from the Mississippi River in the east to the Rocky Mountains in the west. Acquiring the territory would double the size of the United States, at a sum of less than 3 cents per acre.

text: Domestic opposition and constitutionality

text: Henry Adams and other historians have argued that Jefferson acted hypocritically with the Louisiana Purchase, due to his position as a strict constructionist regarding the Constitution since he stretched the intent of that document to justify his purchase.[27] This argument goes as follows:

text: The American purchase of the Louisiana territory was not accomplished without domestic opposition. Jefferson's philosophical consistency was in question because of his strict interpretation of the Constitution. Many people believed that he and others, including James Madison, were doing something they surely would have argued against with Alexander Hamilton. The Federalists strongly opposed the purchase, favoring close relations with Britain over closer ties to Napoleon, and were concerned that the United States had paid a large sum of money just to declare war on Spain.[citation needed]

text: Both Federalists and Jeffersonians were concerned over the purchase's constitutionality. Many members of the House of Representatives opposed the purchase. Majority Leader John Randolph led the opposition. The House called for a vote to deny the request for the purchase, but it failed by two votes, 59–57. The Federalists even tried to prove the land belonged to Spain, not France, but available records proved otherwise.[28]

text: The Federalists also feared that the power of the Atlantic seaboard states would be threatened by the new citizens in the West, whose political and economic priorities were bound to conflict with those of the merchants and bankers of New England. There was also concern that an increase in the number of slave-holding states created out of the new territory would exacerbate divisions between North and South as well. A group of Northern Federalists led by Senator Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts went so far as to explore the idea of a separate northern confederacy.

text: Another concern was whether it was proper to grant citizenship to the French, Spanish, and free black people living in New Orleans, as the treaty would dictate. Critics in Congress worried whether these "foreigners", unacquainted with democracy, could or should become citizens.[29]

text: Spain protested the transfer on two grounds: First, France had previously promised in a note not to alienate Louisiana to a third party and second, France had not fulfilled the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso by having the King of Etruria recognized by all European powers. The French government replied that these objections were baseless since the promise not to alienate Louisiana was not in the treaty of San Ildefonso itself and therefore had no legal force, and the Spanish government had ordered Louisiana to be transferred in October 1802 despite knowing for months that Britain had not recognized the King of Etruria in the Treaty of Amiens.[30]

text: Henry Adams claimed "The sale of Louisiana to the United States was trebly invalid; if it were French property, Bonaparte could not constitutionally alienate it without the consent of the French Chambers; if it were Spanish property, he could not alienate it at all; if Spain had a right of reclamation, his sale was worthless."[31] The sale of course was not "worthless"—the U.S. actually did take possession. Furthermore, the Spanish prime minister had authorized the U.S. to negotiate with the French government "the acquisition of territories which may suit their interests." Spain turned the territory over to France in a ceremony in New Orleans on November 30, a month before France turned it over to American officials.[32]

text: Other historians counter the above arguments regarding Jefferson's alleged hypocrisy by asserting that countries change their borders in two ways: (1) conquest, or (2) an agreement between nations, otherwise known as a treaty. The Louisiana Purchase was the latter, a treaty. The Constitution specifically grants the president the power to negotiate treaties (Art. II, Sec. 2), which is just what Jefferson did.[33]

text: Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution"), assured Jefferson that the Louisiana Purchase was well within even the strictest interpretation of the Constitution. Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin added that since the power to negotiate treaties was specifically granted to the president, the only way extending the country's territory by treaty could not be a presidential power would be if it were specifically excluded by the Constitution (which it was not). Jefferson, as a strict constructionist, was right to be concerned about staying within the bounds of the Constitution, but felt the power of these arguments and was willing to "acquiesce with satisfaction" if the Congress approved the treaty.[34]

text: The Senate quickly ratified the treaty, and the House, with equal alacrity, authorized the required funding, as the Constitution specifies.[35][36]

text: The opposition of New England Federalists to the Louisiana Purchase was primarily economic self-interest, not any legitimate concern over constitutionality or whether France indeed owned Louisiana or was required to sell it back to Spain should it desire to dispose of the territory. The Northerners were not enthusiastic about Western farmers gaining another outlet for their crops that did not require the use of New England ports. Also, many Federalists were speculators in lands in upstate New York and New England and were hoping to sell these lands to farmers, who might go west instead, if the Louisiana Purchase went through. They also feared that this would lead to Western states being formed, which would likely be Republican, and dilute the political power of New England Federalists.[35][37]

text: When Spain later objected to the United States purchasing Louisiana from France, Madison responded that America had first approached Spain about purchasing the property, but had been told by Spain itself that America would have to treat with France for the territory.[38]

text: Treaty signing

text: The Louisiana Purchase Treaty was signed on April 30 by Robert Livingston, James Monroe, and Barbé Marbois in Paris. Jefferson announced the treaty to the American people on July 4. After the signing of the Louisiana Purchase agreement in 1803, Livingston made this famous statement, "We have lived long, but this is the noblest work of our whole lives... From this day the United States take their place among the powers of the first rank."[39]

text: The United States Senate advised and consented to ratification of the treaty with a vote of twenty-four to seven on October 20. The Senators who voted against the treaty were: Simeon Olcott and William Plumer of New Hampshire, William Wells and Samuel White of Delaware, James Hillhouse and Uriah Tracy of Connecticut, and Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts.

text: On the following day, October 21, 1803, the Senate authorized Jefferson to take possession of the territory and establish a temporary military government. In legislation enacted on October 31, Congress made temporary provisions for local civil government to continue as it had under French and Spanish rule and authorized the President to use military forces to maintain order. Plans were also set forth for several missions to explore and chart the territory, the most famous being the Lewis and Clark Expedition.[40]

text: A timeline of legislation can be found at the Library of Congress: American Memory:The Louisiana Purchase Legislative Timeline--1803-1804.[41]

text: Formal transfers and initial organization

text: France turned over New Orleans, the historic colonial capital, on December 20, 1803, at the Cabildo, with a flag-raising ceremony in the Plaza de Armas, now Jackson Square. Just three weeks earlier, on November 30, 1803, Spanish officials had formally conveyed the colonial lands and their administration to France.

text: On March 9 and 10, 1804, another ceremony, commemorated as Three Flags Day, was conducted in St. Louis, to transfer ownership of Upper Louisiana from Spain to the French First Republic, and then from France to the United States. From March 10 to September 30, 1804, Upper Louisiana was supervised as a military district, under Commandant Amos Stoddard.[citation needed]

text: Effective October 1, 1804, the purchased territory was organized into the Territory of Orleans (most of which would become the state of Louisiana) and the District of Louisiana, which was temporarily under control of the governor and judicial system of the Indiana Territory. The following year, the District of Louisiana was renamed the Territory of Louisiana, aka Louisiana Territory (1805–1812).[citation needed]

text: New Orleans was the administrative capital of the Orleans Territory, and St. Louis was the capital of the Louisiana Territory.[citation needed]

text: Boundaries

text: A dispute soon arose between Spain and the United States regarding the extent of Louisiana. The territory's boundaries had not been defined in the 1762 Treaty of Fontainebleau that ceded it from France to Spain, nor in the 1801 Third Treaty of San Ildefonso ceding it back to France, nor the 1803 Louisiana Purchase agreement ceding it to the United States.[42]

text: The United States claimed Louisiana included the entire western portion of the Mississippi River drainage basin to the crest of the Rocky Mountains and land extending southeast to the Rio Grande and West Florida.[43] Spain insisted that Louisiana comprised no more than the western bank of the Mississippi River and the cities of New Orleans and St. Louis.[44] The dispute was ultimately resolved by the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819, with the United States gaining most of what it had claimed in the west.[citation needed]

text: The relatively narrow Louisiana of New Spain had been a special province under the jurisdiction of the Captaincy General of Cuba while the vast region to the west was in 1803 still considered part of the Commandancy General of the Provincias Internas. Louisiana had never been considered one of New Spain's internal provinces.[45]

text: If the territory included all the tributaries of the Mississippi on its western bank, the northern reaches of the Purchase extended into the equally ill-defined British possession—Rupert's Land of British North America, now part of Canada. The Purchase originally extended just beyond the 50th parallel. However, the territory north of the 49th parallel (including the Milk River and Poplar River watersheds) was ceded to the UK in exchange for parts of the Red River Basin south of 49th parallel in the Anglo-American Convention of 1818.[citation needed]

text: The eastern boundary of the Louisiana purchase was the Mississippi River, from its source to the 31st parallel, though the source of the Mississippi was, at the time, unknown. The eastern boundary below the 31st parallel was unclear. The U.S. claimed the land as far as the Perdido River, and Spain claimed that the border of its Florida Colony remained the Mississippi River. In early 1804, Congress passed the Mobile Act, which recognized West Florida as part of the United States. The Adams–Onís Treaty with Spain (1819) resolved the issue upon ratification in 1821. Today, the 31st parallel is the northern boundary of the western half of the Florida Panhandle, and the Perdido is the western boundary of Florida.[citation needed]

text: Because the western boundary was contested at the time of the Purchase, President Jefferson immediately began to organize three missions to explore and map the new territory. All three started from the Mississippi River. The Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804) traveled up the Missouri River; the Red River Expedition (1806) explored the Red River basin; the Pike Expedition (1806) also started up the Missouri, but turned south to explore the Arkansas River watershed. The maps and journals of the explorers helped to define the boundaries during the negotiations leading to the Adams–Onís Treaty, which set the western boundary as follows: north up the Sabine River from the Gulf of Mexico to its intersection with the 32nd parallel, due north to the Red River, up the Red River to the 100th meridian, north to the Arkansas River, up the Arkansas River to its headwaters, due north to the 42nd parallel and due west to its previous boundary.

text: Slavery

text: Governing the Louisiana Territory was more difficult than acquiring it. Its European peoples, of ethnic French, Spanish and Mexican descent, were largely Catholic; in addition, there was a large population of enslaved Africans made up of a high proportion of recent arrivals, as Spain had continued the international slave trade. This was particularly true in the area of the present-day state of Louisiana, which also contained a large number of free people of color. Both present-day Arkansas and Missouri already had some slaveholders in the early 19th century.

text: During this period, south Louisiana received an influx of French-speaking refugee planters, who were permitted to bring their slaves with them, and other refugees fleeing the large slave revolt in Saint-Domingue, today's Haiti. Many Southern slaveholders feared that acquisition of the new territory might inspire American-held slaves to follow the example of those in Saint-Domingue and revolt. They wanted the US government to establish laws allowing slavery in the newly acquired territory so they could be supported in taking their slaves there to undertake new agricultural enterprises, as well as to reduce the threat of future slave rebellions.[46]

text: The Louisiana Territory was broken into smaller portions for administration, and the territories passed slavery laws similar to those in the southern states but incorporating provisions from the preceding French and Spanish rule (for instance, Spain had prohibited slavery of Native Americans in 1769, but some slaves of mixed African-Native American descent were still being held in St. Louis in Upper Louisiana when the U.S. took over).[47] In a freedom suit that went from Missouri to the US Supreme Court, slavery of Native Americans was finally ended in 1836.[47] The institutionalization of slavery under U.S. law in the Louisiana Territory contributed to the American Civil War a half century later.[46] As states organized within the territory, the status of slavery in each state became a matter of contention in Congress, as southern states wanted slavery extended to the west, and northern states just as strongly opposed new states being admitted as "slave states."

text: The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a temporary solution.[citation needed]

text: Asserting U.S. possession

text: After the early explorations, the U.S. government sought to establish control of the region, since trade along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers was still dominated by British and French traders from Canada and allied Indians, especially the Sauk and Fox. The U.S. adapted the former Spanish facility at Fort Bellefontaine as a fur trading post near St. Louis in 1804 for business with the Sauk and Fox.[48] In 1808 two military forts with trading factories were built, Fort Osage along the Missouri River in western present-day Missouri and Fort Madison along the Upper Mississippi River in eastern present-day Iowa.[49] With tensions increasing with Great Britain, in 1809 Fort Bellefontaine was converted to a U.S. military fort, and was used for that purpose until 1826.

text: During the War of 1812, Great Britain and allied Indians defeated U.S. forces in the Upper Mississippi; the U.S. abandoned Forts Osage and Madison, as well as several other U.S. forts built during the war, including Fort Johnson and Fort Shelby. After U.S. ownership of the region was confirmed in the Treaty of Ghent (1814), the U.S. built or expanded forts along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, including adding to Fort Bellefontaine, and constructing Fort Armstrong (1816) and Fort Edwards (1816) in Illinois, Fort Crawford (1816) in Prairie du Chien Wisconsin, Fort Snelling (1819) in Minnesota, and Fort Atkinson (1819) in Nebraska.[49]

text: Financing

text: The American government used $3 million in gold as a down payment, and issued bonds for the balance to pay France for the purchase. Earlier that year, Francis Baring and Company of London had become the U.S. government's official banking agent in London. Because of this favored position, the U.S. asked the Baring firm to handle the transaction. Francis Baring's son Alexander was in Paris at the time and helped in the negotiations.[50] Another Baring advantage was a close relationship with Hope and Company of Amsterdam. The two banking houses worked together to facilitate and underwrite the Purchase.

text: Because Napoleon wanted to receive his money as quickly as possible, the two firms received the American bonds and shipped the gold to France.[50] Napoleon used the money to finance his planned invasion of England, which never took place.[51]


document_title: Martinsville Speedway

question_text: who has won the most races at martinsville

root

text: Martinsville Speedway

text: Layout[edit]

text: The track is often referred to as paper clip-shaped and is banked only 12° in the turns. The combination of long straightaways and flat, narrow turns makes hard braking going into turns and smooth acceleration exiting turns a must. The track was paved in 1955 and in 1956 it hosted its first 500-lap event. By the 1970s, a combination of high-traction slick tires and high speed was putting excessive wear on the asphalt surface. In 1976 the turns were repaved with concrete (a rare concept in the 1970s).[2] By 2004, the then 28-year-old concrete had shown significant wear. On April 18, 2004 a large chunk of concrete had become dislodged from the track's surface and caused severe damage to the body of Jeff Gordon's car. In reaction to this, the track was fully repaved with new concrete and asphalt.[3]

tag: p

text: Until 1999, Martinsville was notorious for having two pit roads. The backstretch pit road was generally avoided because if a team had to pit there during a caution, any car pitting on the front stretch had the advantage of pitting first and not having to adhere to pace car speed upon exiting their pit road. This was rectified when pit road was reconfigured to extend from the entrance of turn 3 to the exit of turn 2.[4] This move allowed for a garage to be built inside the track, and leaves Bristol as the only active NASCAR track with two pit roads.

text: History[edit]

text: The first NASCAR sanctioned event was held on July 4, 1948. In 1951, only four cars were running at the finish, the fewest of any race held at the speedway. In 1960, Richard Petty became the youngest winner at Martinsville, at 7003831800000000000♠22 years, 283 days; to date[when?] Petty has the most wins (15). In 1991, Harry Gant became the oldest winner at 7004188830000000000♠51 years, 255 days. It was Gant's fourth win in a row, earning him the nickname Mr. September.[citation needed]

text: Ownership of the track was a joint venture of brothers Jim and Bill France, Jr., and H. Clay Earles, the majority owner, along with daughters Dorothy Campbell and Mary Weatherford, and Dorothy Campbell's children, Sarah Fain and Clay Campbell. In 2004, the track was sold exclusively to the France family for over $200 million as a result of an estate sale following the death of Weatherford.

text: Plans had existed to add an additional 20,000 seats along the back stretch, boosting capacity to over 85,000 seats. In 2005–2006 the Norfolk Southern Railway behind the track was moved 200 feet to make way for the added seats, but nothing more has been officially mentioned regarding this by track management since the sale of the track to ISC.[citation needed]

text: From 1982 until 1994, and again in 2006, the speedway hosted Busch Series events. This occurred first with 200- and 150-lap features (200 laps for the two races with Whelen Modifieds, 150 laps with the September Winston/Nextel Cup race), then 300 laps from 1992 until 1994 as part of a Late Model/Busch Series doubleheader, and 250 laps in the one-off in 2006. The venue was dropped from the Busch Series schedule for 2007 and a race at Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in Montreal was run on the open date.

text: Currently, Martinsville hosts two Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series races — the STP 500 in late March or early April and the Goody's Fast Pain Relief 500 (race seven in the NASCAR Cup Series Chase for the Championship) in late October or early November — along with Camping World Truck Series, Whelen Modified Tour which is held on Labor Day weekend under the lights, and Late Model races.

text: Winners of the NASCAR Cup Series, Truck Series, and Whelen Modified events receive a longcase clock as a trophy, a nod to Martinsville's famous furniture industry. This tradition started in 1964, when Earles decided he wanted to present a trophy that would reflect the Martinsville area. He chose clocks made by a local company, Ridgeway Clocks (now a subsidiary of Michigan-based Howard Miller). The clocks presented as trophies are currently (2009) valued at around $10,000.[5]

text: Future[edit]

text: The two Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series races at Martinsville seem to be on solid footing, despite the somewhat frequent rumblings of the track losing one of its race dates. As recently as December 2008, Track President Clay Campbell said that no one, either from NASCAR, or track owner ISC, has hinted at taking a race from Martinsville and he plans on the sport being there in the long-term future.[citation needed]

text: After multiple Late Model races were forced to count caution laps in later segments in order to beat sunset and the 2015 fall Cup race ended at sunset, the track announced on October 12, 2016, in a news conference with Campbell and Dale Earnhardt Jr., that the track would be adding a 5-million-dollar LED lighting package. Campbell also explained that Martinsville Speedway would be the first sports arena with an all-LED lighting package. Campbell said that the track did not then have plans in place for nighttime races, with its premier series dates in 2017 already locked in to start at 2 p.m. ET (in April) and 1 p.m. ET (October). But Campbell indicated that the $5 million initiative should provide flexibility in case of inclement weather.[6] The project was completed in early February 2017 with testing of the lights in certain sections, then fully lighting the track in mid-February. It was also announced that the 300-lap NASCAR Late Model race will be the first NASCAR race to run in prime-time with the new lighting system in early October 2017.

text: Following a directive by some tracks NASCAR announced in late February to early March 2017, Martinsville was one of three races during the second half of the season (and the only one in the playoff) to experiment with a compressed two-day schedule featuring Saturday practice and Sunday afternoon qualifying, with the race starting between 90 minutes to two hours after the conclusion of knockout qualifying. The playoff race will now finish under the lights, as qualifying will move to 12:10 p.m., and after the session (which typically lasts an hour), the race will start around 3:00 p.m. (typically this would mean the race starts between 15 and 25 minutes after the hour), where with sunset being around 6:25 p.m., meaning the final laps will be run at night.[7]

text: Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series records[edit]

text: (As of 4/7/13)

text:
Most wins
15
Richard Petty

Most top 5s
30
Richard Petty

Most top 10s
37
Richard Petty

Most starts
67
Richard Petty

Most poles
8
Darrell Waltrip

Most laps completed
27891
Richard Petty

Most laps led
3784
Cale Yarborough

Best avg. start*
3.1
Fonty Flock

Best avg. finish*
3.8
Dick Hutcherson

Best avg. finish among active drivers
3.34
Jimmie Johnson

tag: table

text: * from minimum 5 starts.

text: Records[edit]

text:
Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series Qualifying: Joey Logano, 18.898 s (100.201 mph), March 28, 2014
Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series Race: Jeff Gordon, 3 h 11 min 54 s (82.223 mph), September 22, 1996
NASCAR Xfinity Series Qualifying: Clint Bowyer, 19.735 s (95.951 mph), 2006
NASCAR Xfinity Series Race: Jack Ingram, 1 h 42 min 16 s (77.751 mph), March 25, 1984 (250 laps)
NASCAR Camping World Truck Series Qualifying: Joey Logano, 19.504 s (97.088 mph), March 28, 2015
NASCAR Camping World Truck Series Race: Rich Bickle, 1 h 47 min 18 s (75.296 mph), September 27, 1997
NASCAR Whelen Modified Tour Qualifying: Greg Sacks, 18.746 s (101.014 mph), 1986
NASCAR Combined Modified Race: Ted Christopher, 55.773 mph, 2005 (combination races only with 250-lap format)

tag: ul


document_title: Seat belt

question_text: when did seat belts first appear in cars

question_tokens: when did seat belts first appear in cars

text: Seat belt

text: Efficiency[edit]

text: An analysis conducted in the United States in 1984 compared a variety of seat belt types alone and in combination with air bags.[1] The range of fatality reduction for front seat passengers was broad, from 20% to 55%, as was the range of major injury, from 25% to 60%.[1] More recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has summarized this data by stating "seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about half."[2] Most seatbelt malfunctions are as a result of there being too much slack in the seatbelt at the time of the accident.[3]

text: History[edit]

text: Seat belts were invented by English engineer George Cayley in the mid-19th century,[4] though Edward J. Claghorn of New York, was granted the first patent (U.S. Patent 312,085, on February 10, 1885 for a safety belt).[5] Claghorn was granted United States Patent #312,085 for a Safety-Belt for tourists, painters, firemen, etc. who are being raised or lowered, described in the patent as "designed to be applied to the person, and provided with hooks and other attachments for securing the person to a fixed object."

text: In 1946, Dr. C. Hunter Shelden had opened a neurological practice at Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena, California. In the early 1950s, Dr. Shelden had made a major contribution to the automotive industry with his idea of retractable seat belts. This came about greatly in part from the high number of head injuries coming through the emergency rooms.[6] He investigated the early seat belts whose primitive designs were implicated in these injuries and deaths. His findings were published in the November 5, 1955 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in which he proposed not only the retractable seat belt, but also recessed steering wheels, reinforced roofs, roll bars, door locks and passive restraints such as the air bag. Subsequently, in 1959, Congress passed legislation requiring all automobiles to comply with certain safety standards.[7]

text: American car manufacturers Nash (in 1949) and Ford (in 1955) offered seat belts as options, while Swedish Saab first introduced seat belts as standard in 1958.[8] After the Saab GT 750 was introduced at the New York Motor Show in 1958 with safety belts fitted as standard, the practice became commonplace.[9]

text: Glenn Sheren of Mason, Michigan submitted a patent application on March 31, 1955 for an automotive seat belt and was awarded US Patent 2,855,215 in 1958. This was a continuation of an earlier patent application that Mr. Sheren had filed on September 22, 1952.[10]

text: However, the first modern three point seat belt (the so-called CIR-Griswold restraint) used in most consumer vehicles today was patented in 1955 U.S. Patent 2,710,649 by the Americans Roger W. Griswold and Hugh DeHaven. Fatal car accidents were rapidly increasing in Sweden during the 1950s. When a study at Vattenfall of accidents among employees revealed that the majority of casualties came from car accidents, two Vattenfall engineers (Bengt Odelgard and Per-Olof Weman) started to develop the safety belt. Their work set the standard for safety belts in Swedish cars and was presented to Swedish manufacturer Volvo in the late 1950s.[11] The 3-point seatbelt was developed to its modern form by Swedish inventor Nils Bohlin for Volvo—who introduced it in 1959 as standard equipment. In addition to designing an effective three-point belt, Bohlin demonstrated its effectiveness in a study of 28,000 accidents in Sweden. Unbelted occupants sustained fatal injuries throughout the whole speed scale, whereas none of the belted occupants were fatally injured at accident speeds below 60 mph. No belted occupant was fatally injured if the passenger compartment remained intact.[12] Bohlin was granted U.S. Patent 3,043,625 for the device.[8]

text: The world's first seat belt law was put in place in 1970, in the state of Victoria, Australia, making the wearing of a seat belt compulsory for drivers and front-seat passengers. This legislation was enacted after trialing Hemco seatbelts, designed by Desmond Hemphill (1926–2001), in the front seats of police vehicles, lowering the incidence of officer injury and death.[13]

text: Types[edit]

text: Two-point[edit]

text: A 2-point belt attaches at its two endpoints, and was invented in the early 1900s by Jack Swearingen of Louisville, Kentucky.[citation needed]

text: Lap[edit]

text: A lap belt is a strap that goes over the waist. This was the most commonly installed type of belt prior to legislation requiring 3-point belts, and is primarily found in older cars. Coaches are equipped with lap belts (although many newer coaches have three-point belts), as are passenger aircraft seats.

text: University of Minnesota Professor James J. (Crash) Ryan was the inventor of and held the patent on the automatic retractable lap safety belt. Ralph Nader cited Ryan's work in Unsafe at Any Speed and in 1966 President Lyndon Johnson signed two bills requiring safety belts in all passenger vehicles starting in 1968.[14]

text: Until the 1980s, three-point belts were commonly available only in the front outboard seats of cars; the back seats were only often fitted with lap belts. Evidence of the potential of lap belts to cause separation of the lumbar vertebrae and the sometimes associated paralysis, or "seat belt syndrome", led to progressive revision of passenger safety regulations in nearly all developed countries to require 3-point belts first in all outboard seating positions and eventually in all seating positions in passenger vehicles. Since September 1, 2007, all new cars sold in the U.S. require a lap and shoulder belt in the center rear seat.[15] Besides regulatory changes, "seat belt syndrome" has led to tremendous liability for vehicle manufacturers. One Los Angeles case resulted in a $45 million jury verdict against the Ford Motor Company; the resulting $30 million judgment (after deductions for another defendant who settled prior to trial) was affirmed on appeal in 2006.[16]

text: Sash[edit]

text: A "sash" or shoulder harness is a strap that goes diagonally over the vehicle occupant's outboard shoulder and is buckled inboard of his or her lap. The shoulder harness may attach to the lap belt tongue, or it may have a tongue and buckle completely separate from those of the lap belt. Shoulder harnesses of this separate or semi-separate type were installed in conjunction with lap belts in the outboard front seating positions of many vehicles in the North American market starting at the inception of the shoulder belt requirement of the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 on 1 January 1968. However, if the shoulder strap is used without the lap belt, the vehicle occupant is likely to "submarine", or slide forward in the seat and out from under the belt, in a frontal collision. In the mid-1970s, 3-point belt systems such as Chrysler's "Uni-Belt" began to supplant the separate lap and shoulder belts in American-made cars, though such 3-point belts had already been supplied in European vehicles such as Volvos, Mercedes, and Saabs for some years.

text: Three-point[edit]

text: A 3-point belt is a Y-shaped arrangement, similar to the separate lap and sash belts, but unitized. Like the separate lap-and-sash belt, in a collision the 3-point belt spreads out the energy of the moving body over the chest, pelvis, and shoulders. Volvo introduced the first production three-point belt in 1959.[17] The first car with a three-point belt was a Volvo PV 544 that was delivered to a dealer in Kristianstad on August 13, 1959. However, the first car model to feature the three-point seat belt as a standard item was the 1959 Volvo 122, first outfitted with a two-point belt at initial delivery in 1958, replaced with the three-point seat belt the following year.[18] The three-point belt was developed by Nils Bohlin who had earlier also worked on ejection seats at Saab.[19] Volvo then made the new seat belt design patent open in the interest of safety and made it available to other car manufacturers for free.[20][21]

text: Belt-in-Seat (BIS)[edit]

text: The BIS is a three-point harness with the shoulder belt attached to the seat itself, rather than to the vehicle structure. The first car using this system was the Range Rover Classic. Fitment was standard on the front seats from 1970.[22] Some cars like the Renault Vel Satis use this system for the front seats. A General Motors assessment concluded seat-mounted 3-point belts offer better protection especially to smaller vehicle occupants,[23] though GM did not find a safety performance improvement in vehicles with seat-mounted belts versus belts mounted to the vehicle body.[24]

text: BIS type belts have been used by automakers in convertibles and pillarless hardtops, where there is no "B" pillar to affix the upper mount of the belt. Chrysler and Cadillac are well known for using this design. Antique auto enthusiasts sometimes replace original seats in their cars with BIS-equipped front seats, providing a measure of safety not available when these cars were new. However, modern BIS systems typically use electronics that must be installed and connected with the seats and the vehicle's electrical system in order to function properly.[citation needed]

text: 4-, 5-, and 6-point[edit]

text: Five-point harnesses are typically found in child safety seats and in racing cars. The lap portion is connected to a belt between the legs and there are two shoulder belts, making a total of five points of attachment to the seat. A 4-point harness is similar, but without the strap between the legs, while a 6-point harness has two belts between the legs. In NASCAR, the 6-point harness became popular after the death of Dale Earnhardt, who was wearing a five-point harness when he suffered his fatal crash; as it was first thought that his belt had broken, and broke his neck at impact, some teams ordered a six-point harness in response.[25]

text: Seven-point[edit]

text: Aerobatic aircraft frequently use a combination harness consisting of a five-point harness with a redundant lap-belt attached to a different part of the aircraft. While providing redundancy for negative-g manoeuvres (which lift the pilot out of the seat); they also require the pilot to un-latch two harnesses if it is necessary to parachute from a failed aircraft.

text: Technology[edit]

text: Locking retractors[edit]

text: The purpose of locking retractors is to provide the seated occupant the convenience of some free movement of the upper torso within the compartment, while providing a method of limiting this movement in the event of a crash. Most modern seat belts are stowed on spring-loaded reels called "retractors" equipped with inertial locking mechanisms that stop the belt from extending off the reel during severe deceleration. There are two main types of inertial seat belt lock. A webbing-sensitive lock is based on a centrifugal clutch activated by rapid acceleration of the strap (webbing) from the reel. The belt can be pulled from the reel only slowly and gradually, as when the occupant extends the belt to fasten it. A sudden rapid pull of the belt—as in a sudden braking or collision event—causes the reel to lock, restraining the occupant in position.

text: A vehicle-sensitive lock is based on a pendulum swung away from its plumb position by rapid deceleration or rollover of the vehicle. In the absence of rapid deceleration or rollover, the reel is unlocked and the belt strap may be pulled from the reel against the spring tension of the reel. The vehicle occupant can move around with relative freedom while the spring tension of the reel keeps the belt taut against the occupant. When the pendulum swings away from its normal plumb position due to sudden deceleration or rollover, a pawl is engaged, the reel locks and the strap restrains the belted occupant in position. Dual-sensing locking retractors use both vehicle G-loading and webbing payout rate to initiate the locking mechanism.

text: Pretensioners and webclamps[edit]

text: Seatbelts in many newer vehicles are also equipped with "pretensioners" or "web clamps", or both.

text: Pretensioners preemptively tighten the belt to prevent the occupant from jerking forward in a crash. Mercedes-Benz first introduced pretensioners on the 1981 S-Class. In the event of a crash, a pretensioner will tighten the belt almost instantaneously. This reduces the motion of the occupant in a violent crash. Like airbags, pretensioners are triggered by sensors in the car's body, and many pretensioners have used explosively expanding gas to drive a piston that retracts the belt. Pretensioners also lower the risk of "submarining", which occurs when a passenger slides forward under a loosely fitted seat belt.

text: Some systems also pre-emptively tighten the belt during fast accelerations and strong decelerations, even if no crash has happened. This has the advantage that it may help prevent the driver from sliding out of position during violent evasive maneuvers, which could cause loss of control of the vehicle. These pre-emptive safety systems may prevent some collisions from happening, as well as reducing injury in the event an actual collision occurs.[26] Pre-emptive systems generally use electric pretensioners which can operate repeatedly and for a sustained period, rather than pyrotechnic pretensioners, which can only operate a single time.

text: Webclamps clamp the webbing in the event of an accident, and limit the distance the webbing can spool out (caused by the unused webbing tightening on the central drum of the mechanism). These belts also often incorporate an energy management loop ("rip stitching") in which a section of the webbing is looped and stitched with a special stitching. The function of this is to "rip" at a predetermined load, which reduces the maximum force transmitted through the belt to the occupant during a violent collision, reducing injuries to the occupant.

text: A study demonstrated that standard automotive 3-point restraints fitted with pyrotechnic or electric pretensioners were not able to eliminate all interior passenger compartment head strikes in rollover test conditions.[27] Electric pretensioners are often incorporated on vehicles equipped with precrash systems; they are designed to reduce seat belt slack in a potential collision and assist in placing the occupants in a more optimal seating position.[28] The electric pretensioners also can operate on a repeated or sustained basis, providing better protection in the event of an extended rollover or a multiple collision accident.

text: Inflatable[edit]

text: The inflatable seatbelt was invented by Donald Lewis and tested at the Automotive Products Division of Allied Chemical Corporation.[29] Inflatable seatbelts have tubular inflatable bladders contained within an outer cover. When a crash occurs the bladder inflates with a gas to increase the area of the restraint contacting the occupant and also shortening the length of the restraint to tighten the belt around the occupant, improving the protection.[30] The inflatable sections may be shoulder-only or lap and shoulder. The system supports the head during the crash better than a web only belt. It also provides side impact protection. In 2013, Ford began offering rear seat inflatable seat belts on a limited set of models, such as the Explorer and Flex.[31]

text: Automatic[edit]

text: Seatbelts that automatically move into position around a vehicle occupant once the adjacent door is closed and/or the engine is started were developed as a countermeasure against low usage rates of manual seat belts, particularly in the United States. The first car to feature automatic shoulder belts as standard equipment was the 1981 Toyota Cressida, but the history of such belts goes back further.[32]

text: The 1972 Volkswagen ESVW1 Experimental Safety Vehicle presented passive seat belts.[33] Volvo tried to develop a passive three point seatbelt. In 1973 Volkswagen announced they had a functional passive seat belt.[34] The first commercial car to use automatic seat belts was the 1975 Volkswagen Golf.[35]

text: Automatic seat belts received a boost in the United States in 1977 when Brock Adams, United States Secretary of Transportation in the Carter Administration, mandated that by 1983 every new car should have either airbags or automatic seat belts[36][37] despite strong lobbying from the auto industry.[38] Adams was attacked by Ralph Nader, who said that the 1983 deadline was too late.[39] Soon after, General Motors began offering automatic seat belts, first on the Chevrolet Chevette,[40][41] but by early 1979 the VW Rabbit and the Chevette were the only cars to offer the safety feature,[39] and GM was reporting disappointing sales.[42] By early 1978, Volkswagen had reported 90,000 Rabbits sold with automatic seat belts.[35] A study released in 1978 by the United States Department of Transportation claimed that cars with automatic seat belts had a fatality rate of .78 per 100 million miles, compared with 2.34 for cars with regular, manual belts.[43]

text: In 1981, Drew Lewis, the first Transportation Secretary of the Reagan Administration, influenced by studies done by the auto industry,[44] "killed"[45] the previous administration's mandate;[46] the decision was overruled in a federal appeals court the following year,[47] and then by the Supreme Court.[45] In 1984, the Reagan Administration reversed its course,[48] though in the meantime the original deadline had been extended; Elizabeth Dole, then Transportation Secretary, proposed that the two passive safety restraints be phased into vehicles gradually, from vehicle model year 1987 to vehicle model year 1990, when all vehicles would be required to have either automatic seat belts or driver side air bags.[45] Though more awkward for vehicle occupants, most manufacturers opted to use less expensive automatic belts rather than airbags during this time period.

text: When driver side airbags became mandatory on all passenger vehicles in model year 1995, most manufacturers stopped equipping cars with automatic seat belts. Exceptions include the 1995-1996 Ford Escort/Mercury Tracer and the Eagle Summit Wagon which had automatic safety belts along with dual airbags.[citation needed]

text: Systems[edit]

text:
Manual lap belt with automatic motorized shoulder belt — When the door is opened, the shoulder belt moves from a fixed point near the seat back on a track mounted in the door frame of the car to a point at the other end of the track near the windshield. Once the door is closed and the car is started, the belt moves rearward along the track to its original position, thus securing the passenger. The lap belt must be fastened manually.
Manual lap belt with automatic non-motorized shoulder belt — This system was used in American-market vehicles such as the Hyundai Excel and Volkswagen Jetta. The shoulder belt is fixed to the aft upper corner of the vehicle door, and is not motorized. The lap belt must be fastened manually.
Automatic shoulder and lap belts — This system was mainly used in General Motors vehicles, though it was also used on some Honda Civic hatchbacks and Nissan Sentra coupés. When the door is opened, the belts go from a fixed point in the middle of the car by the floor to retractors on the door. Passengers must slide into the car under the belts. When the door closes, the seat belt retracts into the door. The belts have normal release buttons that are supposed to be used only in an emergency, but in practice are routinely used in the same manner as manual seat belt clasps.[citation needed]

text: Disadvantages[edit]

text: Automatic belt systems generally offer inferior occupant crash protection.[49][50] In systems with belts attached to the door rather than a sturdier fixed portion of the vehicle body, a crash that causes the vehicle door to open leaves the occupant without belt protection. In such a scenario, the occupant may be thrown from the vehicle and suffer greater injury or death.[50]

text: Because many automatic belt system designs compliant with the US passive-restraint mandate did not meet the safety performance requirements of Canada—which were not weakened to accommodate automatic belts—vehicle models which had been eligible for easy importation in either direction across the US-Canada border when equipped with manual belts became ineligible for importation in either direction once the U.S. variants obtained automatic belts and the Canadian versions retained manual belts. Two particular models included the Dodge Spirit and Plymouth Acclaim.[51][52]

text: Automatic belt systems also present several operational disadvantages. Motorists who would normally wear seat belts must still fasten the manual lap belt, thus rendering redundant the automation of the shoulder belt. Those who do not fasten the lap belt wind up inadequately protected only by the shoulder belt; in a crash without a lap belt such a vehicle occupant is likely to "submarine" (be thrown forward under the shoulder belt) and be seriously injured. Motorized or door-affixed shoulder belts hinder access to the vehicle, making it difficult to enter and exit—particularly if the occupant is carrying items such as a box or a purse. Vehicle owners tend to disconnect the motorized or door-affixed shoulder belt to relieve the nuisance of entering and exiting the vehicle, leaving only a lap belt for crash protection. Also, many automatic seat belt systems are incompatible with child safety seats, or only compatible with special modifications.

text: Homologation and testing[edit]

text: Starting in 1971 and ending in 1972, the United States conducted a research project on seat belt effectiveness on a total of 40,000 vehicle occupants using car accident reports collected during that time. Of these 40,000 occupants, 18% were reported wearing lap belts, or two-point safety belts, 2% were reported wearing a three-point safety belt, and the remaining 80% was reported as wearing no safety belt. The results concluded that users of the two-point lap belt had a 73% lower fatality rate, a 53% lower serious injury rate, and a 38% lower injury rate, when compared with the occupants that were reported unrestrained. Similarly, users of the three-point safety belt had a 60% lower serious injury rate and a 41% lower rate of all other injuries. Out of the 2% described as wearing a three-point safety belt, no fatalities were reported.[53]

text: This study and others led to the Restraint Systems Evaluation Program (RSEP), started by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 1975 to increase the reliability and authenticity of past studies. A study as part of this program used data taken from 15,000 tow-away accidents that involved only car models made between 1973 and 1975. The study found that for injuries considered “moderate” or worse, individuals wearing a three-point safety belt had a 56.5% lower injury rate than those wearing no safety belt. The study also concluded that the effectiveness of the safety belt did not differ with size of car.[53] It was determined that the variation among results of the many studies conducted in the 1960s and 70s was due to the use of different methodologies, and could not be attributed to any significant variation in the effectiveness of safety belts.[54]

text: Helping to improve safety apparatuses in vehicles, injury testing, and seat belt effectiveness are being tested today by Wayne State University’s Automotive Safety Research Group, as well as other researchers.[55] Wayne State’s Bioengineering Center uses human cadavers in their crash test research. Albert King, the Center’s director, wrote in his 1995 article titled "Humanitarian Benefits of Cadaver Research on Injury Prevention” that that use of cadavers in this type of research since 1987 has saved and will continue to save nearly 8,500 lives each year, due to the vehicle safety improvements made possible by human cadaver testing. He also indicates that due to the improvements made to three-point safety belts an average of 61 lives are saved per year.[56]

text: The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) was put in place by the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 1979. The NCAP is a government program that evaluates vehicle safety designs and sets standards for foreign and domestic automobile companies. The agency has put in place a rating system and requires access to safety test results. As of September 2007[update], manufacturers are required to place a NCAP star rating on the automobile price sticker.[57]

text: Experimental[edit]

text: Research and development efforts are ongoing to improve the safety performance of vehicle seatbelts. Some experimental designs have included:

text:
Criss-cross Experimental safety belt presented in the Volvo SCC. It forms a cross-brace across the chest.[24]
3+2 Point Seatbelt: Experimental safety belt from Autoliv similar to the criss-cross. The 3+2 improves protection against rollovers and side impacts.[58]
Four point "belt and suspenders": An experimental design from Ford where the "suspenders" are attached to the backrest, not to the frame of the car.[59]
3 points Adjustable Seatbelt: Experimental safety belt from GWR Safety Systems that allowed the car Hiriko, designed by the MIT, to fold without compromising the safety and comfort of the occupants.[60]

text: In rear seats[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2014)

text: In 1955 (as a 1956 package), Ford offered lap only seat belts in the rear seats as an option within the Lifeguard safety package. In 1967, Volvo started to install lap belts in the rear seats. In 1972, Volvo upgraded the rear seat belts to a three-point belt.[61]

text: In crashes, unbelted rear passengers increase the risk of belted front seat occupants' death by nearly five times.[62][63]

text: Child occupants[edit]

text: As with adult drivers and passengers, the advent of seat belts was accompanied by calls for their use by child occupants, including legislation requiring such use. Generally children using adult seat belts suffer significantly lower injury risk when compared to non-buckled children.

text: The UK extended compulsory seatbelt wearing to child passengers under the age of 14 in 1989. It was observed that this measure was accompanied by a 10% increase in fatalities and a 12% increase in injuries among the target population.[64] In crashes, small children who wear adult seatbelts can suffer "seat-belt syndrome" injuries including severed intestines, ruptured diaphragms and spinal damage. There is also research suggesting that children in inappropriate restraints are at significantly increased risk of head injury,[65] one of the authors of this research has been quoted as claiming that: "The early graduation of kids into adult lap and shoulder belts is a leading cause of child-occupant injuries and deaths."[66]

text: As a result of such findings, many jurisdictions now advocate or require child passengers to use specially designed child restraints. Such systems include separate child-sized seats with their own restraints and booster cushions for children using adult restraints. In some jurisdictions children below a certain size are forbidden to travel in front car seats."[67]

text: Reminder chime and light[edit]

text: In Europe and some other parts of the world, most modern cars include a seat-belt reminder light for the driver and some also include a reminder for the passenger, when present, activated by a pressure sensor under the passenger seat. Some cars will intermittently flash the reminder light and sound the chime until the driver (and sometimes the front passenger, if present) fasten their seatbelts.[68]

text: In North America, cars sold since the early 1970s[vague] have included an audiovisual reminder system consisting of a tell-tale light on the dashboard and a buzzer or chime reminding the driver and passengers to fasten their belts. Originally, these lights were accompanied by a warning buzzer whenever the transmission was in any position except park[clarification needed] if either the driver was not buckled up or, as determined by a pressure sensor in the passenger's seat, if there was a passenger there not buckled up.[citation needed] However, this was considered by many to be a major annoyance, as the light would be on and the buzzer would sound continuously if front-seat passengers were not buckled up. Therefore, people who did not wish to buckle up would defeat this system by fastening the seat belts with the seat empty and leaving them that way.[citation needed]

text: To combat this dangerous habit, in 1971[citation needed] NHTSA amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard № 208 (FMVSS 208) to require a seat belt/starter interlock system to prevent passenger cars from being started with an unbelted front-seat occupant. This mandate applied to passenger cars built after August 1973, i.e., starting with the 1974 model year. The specifications required the system to permit the car to be started only if the belt of an occupied seat were fastened after the occupant sat down, so pre-buckling the belts would not defeat the system.[69][70] The interlock systems used logic modules complex enough to require special diagnostic computers, and were not entirely dependable—an override button was provided under the hood of equipped cars, permitting one (but only one) "free" starting attempt each time it was pressed.[71] However, the interlock system spurred severe backlash from an American public who largely rejected seat belts. In 1974, Congress acted to prohibit NHTSA from requiring or permitting a system that prevents a vehicle from starting or operating with an unbelted occupant, or that gives an audible warning of an unfastened belt for more than 8 seconds after the ignition is turned on.[70] This prohibition took effect on 27 October 1974, shortly after the 1975 model year began.[72]

text: In response to the Congressional action, NHTSA once again amended FMVSS 208, requiring vehicles to come with a seat belt reminder system that gives an audible signal for 4 to 8 seconds and a warning light for at least 60 seconds after the ignition is turned on if the driver's seat belt is not fastened.[70] This is called a seat belt reminder (SBR) system. In the mid-1990s, an insurance company from Sweden called Folksam worked with Saab and Ford to determine the requirements for the most efficient seat belt reminder. One characteristic of the optimal SBR, according to the research, is that the audible warning becomes increasingly penetrating the longer the seat belt remains unfastened.[73]

text: In 2003, the Transportation Research Board Committee, chaired by two psychologists, reported that ESBRs could save an additional 1,000 lives a year.[74] Research by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that Ford's ESBR, which provides an intermittent chime for up to five minutes if the driver is unbelted, sounding for 6 seconds then pausing for 30, increased seat belt use by 5 percent.[74] Farmer and Wells found that driver fatality rates were 6% lower for vehicles with ESBR compared with otherwise-identical vehicles without.[75]

text: Efficacy[edit]

text: In 2001, Congress directed NHSTA to study the benefits of technology meant to increase the use of seat belts. NHSTA found that seat belt usage had increased to 73% since the initial introduction of the SBR system.[70] In 2002, Ford demonstrated that seat belts were used more in Fords with seat belt reminders than in those without: 76% and 71% respectively. In 2007, Honda conducted a similar study and found that 90% of people who drove Hondas with seat belt reminders used a seat belt, while 84% of people who drove Hondas without seat belt reminders used a seat belt.[73]

text: Legislation[edit]

text: Observational studies of car crash morbidity and mortality,[76][77][78] experiments using both crash test dummies and human cadavers indicate that wearing seat belts greatly reduces the risk of death and injury in the majority of car crashes.

text: This has led many countries to adopt mandatory seat belt wearing laws. It is generally accepted that, in comparing like-for-like accidents, a vehicle occupant not wearing a properly fitted seat belt has a significantly and substantially higher chance of death and serious injury. One large observation studying using US data showed that the odds ratio of crash death is 0.46 with a three-point belt, when compared with no belt.[79] In another study that examined injuries presenting to the ER pre- and post-seat belt law introduction, it was found that 40% more escaped injury and 35% more escaped mild and moderate injuries.[80]

text: The effects of seat belt laws are disputed by those who observe that their passage did not reduce road fatalities. There was also concern that instead of legislating for a general protection standard for vehicle occupants, laws that required a particular technical approach would rapidly become dated as motor manufacturers would tool up for a particular standard which could not easily be changed. For example, in 1969 there were competing designs for lap and 3-point seat belts, rapidly tilting seats, and air bags being developed. But as countries started to mandate seat belt restraints the global auto industry invested in the tooling and standardized exclusively on seat belts, and ignored other restraint designs such as air bags for several decades[81]

text: As of 2016, seat belt laws can be divided into two categories: primary and secondary. A primary seat belt law allows an officer to issue a citation for lack of seatbelt use without any other citation, whereas a secondary seat belt law allows an officer to issue a seat belt citation only in the presence of a different violation. In the United States, fifteen states enforce secondary laws, while 34 states, as well as the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, enforce primary seat belt laws. New Hampshire lacks both a primary and secondary seat belt law.[82]

text: Risk compensation[edit]

text: Some have proposed that the number of deaths was influenced by the development of risk compensation, which says that drivers adjust their behavior in response to the increased sense of personal safety wearing a seat belt provides.

text: In one trial subjects were asked to drive go-karts around a track under various conditions. It was found that subjects who started driving unbelted drove consistently faster when subsequently belted.[83] Similarly, a study of habitual non-seatbelt wearers driving in freeway conditions found evidence that they had adapted to seatbelt use by adopting higher driving speeds and closer following distances.[84] A 2001 analysis of US crash data aimed to establish the effects of seatbelt legislation on driving fatalities[85] and found that previous estimates of seatbelts effectiveness had been significantly overstated. According to the analysis used, seatbelts were claimed to have decreased fatalities by 1.35% for each 10% increase in seatbelt use. The study controlled for endogenous motivations of seat belt use, which it is claimed creates an artificial correlation between seat belt use and fatalities, leading to the conclusion that seatbelts cause fatalities. For example, drivers in high risk areas are more likely to use seat belts, and are more likely to be in accidents, creating a non-causal correlation between seatbelt use and mortality. After accounting for the endogeneity of seatbelt usage, Cohen and Einav found no evidence that the risk compensation effect makes seatbelt wearing drivers more dangerous, a finding at variance with other research.

text: Increased traffic[edit]

text: Other statistical analyses have included adjustments for factors such as increased traffic, and other factors such as age, and based on these adjustments, a reduction of morbidity and mortality due to seat belt use has been claimed.[76] However, Smeed's law predicts a fall in accident rate with increasing car ownership and has been demonstrated independently of seat belt legislation.

text: Mass transit considerations[edit]

text: Buses[edit]

text: School buses[edit]

text: In the US, six states—California, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, and Texas—require seat belts on school buses.[86]

text: Pros[87][88][89] and cons[90][91][92] had been alleged about the use of seatbelts in school buses. School buses which are much bigger in size than the average vehicle allow for the mass transportation of students from place to place. The American School Bus Council states in a brief article saying that, “The children are protected like eggs in an egg carton – compartmentalized, and surrounded with padding and structural integrity to secure the entire container.” (ASBC). Although school buses are considered safe for mass transit of students this will not guarantee that the students will be injury free if an impact were to occur. Seatbelts in buses are sometimes believed to make recovering from a roll or tip harder for students and staff as they could be easily trapped in their own safety belt.[93]

text: In 2015, for the first time, NHTSA endorsed seat belts on school buses.[94]

text: Motor coaches[edit]

text: In the European Union, all new long distance buses and coaches must be fitted with seat belts.[95]

text: Australia has required lap/sash seat belts in new coaches since 1994. These must comply with Australian Design Rule 68, which requires the seat belt, seat and seat anchorage to withstand 20g deceleration and an impact by an unrestrained occupant to the rear.[96]

text: In the United States, NHTSA has now required lap-shoulder seat belts in new "over-the-road" buses (includes most coaches) starting in 2016.[97]

text: Trains[edit]

text: The use of seatbelts in trains has been investigated. Concerns about survival space intrusion in train crashes and increased injuries to unrestrained or incorrectly restrained passengers led the researchers to discourage the use of seat belts in trains.

text: Airplanes[edit]

text: Lap belts are found on all passenger aircraft. Many civil aviation authorities require a "fasten seat belt" sign in passenger aircraft that can be activated by a pilot during takeoff, turbulence, and landing.[99][100] The International Civil Aviation Organization recommends the use of child restraints.[101]


document_title: Pyridoxal phosphate

question_text: where is vitamin b6 activated to form its active form pyridoxal phosphate (plp)

question_tokens: where is vitamin b6 activated to form its active form pyridoxal phosphate ( plp )

text: Pyridoxal phosphate

text: Role as a coenzyme[edit]

text: PLP acts as a coenzyme in all transamination reactions, and in certain decarboxylation, deamination, and racemization reactions of amino acids.[4] The aldehyde group of PLP forms a Schiff-base linkage (internal aldimine) with the ε-amino group of a specific lysine group of the aminotransferase enzyme. The α-amino group of the amino acid substrate displaces the ε-amino group of the active-site lysine residue in a process known as transaldimination. The resulting external aldimine can lose a proton, carbon dioxide, or an amino acid sidechain to become a quinoid intermediate, which in turn can act as a nucleophile in several reaction pathways.

text: In transamination, after deprotonation the quinoid intermediate accepts a proton at a different position to become a ketimine. The resulting ketimine is hydrolysed so that the amino group remains on the complex.[5] In addition, PLP is used by aminotransferases (or transaminases) that act upon unusual sugars such as perosamine and desosamine.[6] In these reactions, the PLP reacts with glutamate, which transfers its alpha-amino group to PLP to make pyridoxamine phosphate (PMP). PMP then transfers its nitrogen to the sugar, making an amino sugar.

text: PLP is also involved in various beta-elimination reactions such as the reactions carried out by serine dehydratase and GDP-4-keto-6-deoxymannose-3-dehydratase (ColD).[6]

text: It is also active in the condensation reaction in heme synthesis.

text: PLP plays a role in the conversion of levodopa into dopamine, facilitates the conversion of the excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate to the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA, and allows SAM to be decarboxylated to form propylamine, which is a precursor to polyamines.

text: Non-classical examples of PLP[edit]

text: PLP is also found on glycogen phosphorylase in the liver, where it is used to break down glycogen in glycogenolysis when glucagon or epinephrine signals it to do so. However, this enzyme does not exploit the reactive aldehyde group, but instead utilizes the phosphate group on PLP to perform its reaction.

text: Although the vast majority of PLP-dependent enzymes form an internal aldimine with PLP via an active site lysine residue, some PLP-dependent enzymes do not have this lysine residue, but instead have a histidine in the active site. In such a case, the histidine cannot form the internal aldimine, and, therefore, the co-factor does not become covalently tethered to the enzyme. GDP-4-keto-6-deoxymannose-3-dehydratase (ColD) is an example of such an enzyme.[7]

text: Catalytic mechanism[edit]

text: The pyridoxal-5′-phosphate-dependent enzymes (PLP enzymes) catalyze myriad biochemical reactions. Although the scope of PLP-catalyzed reactions appears to be immensely diverse, there is a simple unifying principle: in the resting state, the co-factor (PLP) is covalently bonded to the amino group of an active site lysine, forming an internal aldimine. Once the amino substrate interacts with the active site, a new Schiff base is generated, commonly referred to as the external aldimine. After this step, the mechanistic pathway for each PLP-catalyzed reaction diverges. Density functional methods have been applied to investigate the transimination reaction, and the results have shown that the reaction involves three sequential steps: (i) formation of a tetrahedral intermediate with the active site lysine and the amino substrate bonded to the PLP co-factor; (ii) non-direct proton transfer between the amino substrate and the lysine residue; and (iii) formation of the external aldimine after the dissociation of the lysine residue. The overall reaction is exothermic (−12.0 kcal/mol), the second step being rate-limiting, with 12.6 kcal/mol for the activation energy[8]

text: Specificity[edit]

text: Specificity is conferred by the fact that, of the four bonds of the alpha-carbon of the amino acid aldimine state, the bond perpendicular to the pyridine ring will be broken (Dunathan Stereoelectronic Hypothesis).[9] Consequently, specificity is dictated by how the enzymes bind their substrates. An additional role in specificity is played by the ease of protonation of the pyridine ring nitrogen.[10]

text: PLP-enzymes[edit]

text: PLP is retained in the active site not only thanks to the lysine, but also thanks to the interaction of the phosphate group and a phosphate binding pocket and to a lesser extent thanks to base stacking of the pyridine ring with an overhanging aromatic residue, generally tyrosine (which may also partake in the acid–base catalysis). Despite the limited requirements for a PLP binding pocket, PLP enzymes belong to only five different families. These families do not correlate well with a particular type of reaction. The five families are classified as fold types followed by a Roman numeral.[9]

text:
Fold Type I — aspartate aminotransferase family
Fold Type II — tryptophan synthase family
Fold Type III — alanine racemase family (TIM-barrel)
Fold Type IV — D-amino acid aminotransferase family
Fold Type V — glycogen phosphorylase family

text: Biosynthesis[edit]

text: From vitamers[edit]

text: Animals are auxotrophs for this enzyme co-factor and require it or an intermediate to be supplemented, hence its classification as a vitamin B6, unlike MoCo or CoQ10 for example. PLP is synthesized from pyridoxal by the enzyme pyridoxal kinase, requiring one ATP molecule. PLP is metabolized in the liver.

text: Prototrophy[edit]

text: Two natural pathways for PLP are currently known: one requires deoxyxylulose 5-phosphate (DXP), while the other does not, hence they are known as DXP-dependent and DXP-independent. These pathways have been studied extensively in Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis, respectively. Despite the disparity in the starting compounds and the different number of steps required, the two pathways possess many commonalities.[11]

text: DXP-dependent biosynthesis[edit]

text: The DXP-dependent biosynthetic route requires several steps and a convergence of two branches, one producing 3-hydroxy-1-aminoacetone phosphate from erythrose 4-phosphate, while the other (single enzyme) producing deoxyxylulose 5-phosphate (DXP) from glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate (GAP) and pyruvate. The condensation product of 3-hydroxy-1-aminoacetone phosphate and deoxyxylulose 5-phosphate is pyridoxine 5'-phosphate. The condensation is catalyzed by PNP synthase, encoded by pdxJ, which creates PNP (pyridoxine 5' phosphate).[12] The final enzyme is PNP oxidase (pdxH), which catalyzes the oxidation of the 4' hydroxyl group to an aldehyde using dioxigen, resulting in hydrogen peroxide.

text: The first branch is catalyzed in E. coli by enzymes encoded by epd, pdxB, serC and pdxA. These share mechanistical similarities and homology with the three enzymes in serine biosynthesis (serA (homologue of pdxB), serC, serB &emdash;however, epd is a homologue of gap), which points towards a shared evolutionary origin of the two pathways.[13] In several species there are two homologues of the E. coli serC gene, generally one in a ser operon (serC), and the other in a pdx operon, in which case it is called pdxF.

text: A "serendipitous pathway" was found in an overexpression library that could suppress the auxotrophy caused by the deletion of pdxB (encoding erythronate 4 phosphate dehydrogenase) in E. coli. The serendipitous pathway was very inefficient, but was possible due to the promiscuous activity of various enzymes. It started with 3-phosphohydroxypyruvate (the product of the serA-encoded enzyme in serine biosynthesis) and did not require erythronate-4-phosphate. 3PHP was dephosphorylated, resulting in an unstable intermediate that decarboxylates spontaneously (hence the presence of the phosphate in the serine biosynthetic pathway) to glycaldehyde. Glycaldehyde was condensed with glycine and the phosphorylated product was 4-phosphohydroxythreonine (4PHT), the canonical substate for 4-PHT dehydrogenase (pdxA).[14]

text: DXP-independent biosynthesis[edit]

text: The DXP-independent PLP-biosynthetic route consists of a step catalyzed by PLP-synthase, an enzyme composed of two subunits. PdxS catalyzes the condensation of ribulose 5-phosphate, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate, and ammonia, this latter molecules is produced by PdxT which catalyzes the production of ammonia from glutamine. PdxS is a (β/α)8 barrel (also known as a TIM-barrel) that forms a dodecamer.[15]

text: Prebiotic synthesis[edit]

text: The widespread utilization of PLP in central metabolism, especially in amino acid biosynthesis, and its activity in the absence of enzymes, suggests PLP may be a prebiotic compound.[16] In fact, heating NH3 and glycoaldehyde spontaneously forms a variety of pyridines, including pyridoxal.[16] Under certain conditions, PLP is formed from cyanoacetylene, diacetylene, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, water, and a phosphoric acid.[17]

text: Inhibitors[edit]

text: Several inhibitors of PLP enzymes are known.

text: One type of inhibitor forms an electrophile with PLP, causing it to irreversibly react with the active site lysine. Acetylenic compounds (e.g. propargylglycine) and vinylic compounds (e.g. vinylglycine) are such inhibitors. A different type of inhibitor inactivates PLP, and such are α-methyl and amino-oxy substrate analogs (e.g. α-methylglutamate). Other inhibitors have good leaving groups that nucleophilically attack the PLP. Such is chloroalanine, which inhibits a large number of enzymes.[9]

text: Examples of inhibitors:

text:
AlaP (alanine phosphonate) inihibits alanine racemases, but its lack of specificity has prompted further designs of ALR inhibitors.[18]
Gabaculine and Vigabatrin inhibit GABA aminotransferase
Canaline and 5-fluoromethylornithine inhibit ornithine aminotransferase
Amino-oxy SAM inhibits ACC synthase