India's rear-seat safety gap persists despite 16,025 annual deaths from non-use of seat belts, with children particularly vulnerable due to ill-fitting adult restraints and enforcement gaps between legal compliance and actual protection.
01 Feb 2026 | 149 Views | By Saurabh Verma, Road Safety Network
It is a scene most Indian commuters will recognise: the driver and front passenger buckle up, while those in the back sit more casually. A child may sit on an adult’s lap or move between seats, reflecting the belief that the rear seat is safer and needs less restraint.
This is an Autocar Pro Plus article. Subscribe to continue reading.
It is a scene most Indian commuters will recognise: the driver and front passenger buckle up, while those in the back sit more casually. A child may sit on an adult’s lap or move between seats, reflecting the belief that the rear seat is safer and needs less restraint.
Yet real-world crashes tell a different story. Unbuckled rear-seat passengers are often seriously injured, and children without proper restraints are especially vulnerable. In several high-profile crashes, rear-seat occupants without seat belts have died even when others survived — showing that protection, not seating position, determines safety. The real issue, therefore, is uneven protection across the vehicle, with rear-seat belt use still treated as optional and non-use remaining a major contributor to fatalities.
In 2023 alone, 16,025 people died in road crashes due to seat belt non-use. Studies also show that seven out of ten rear-seat passengers do not wear seat belts, while awareness remains low — only about a quarter know rear-seat belt use is mandatory. Together, these figures point to a simple truth: a car is only as safe as the protection its occupants actually use.
Seated But Not Safe: Understanding Passenger Vulnerability
Crash risk depends on how the body responds in a collision, not seating position. Yet rear-seat occupants, especially children and the elderly, often travel without proper restraints or well-fitting seat belts, increasing their vulnerability.
This is particularly concerning because adult seat belts are designed for adult bodies, not children.
The lap belt may ride up into the abdomen, and the shoulder belt may press across the neck or face instead of resting on the shoulder, increasing the risk of injury. Consequently, in a collision, these forces shift onto vulnerable organs and the neck, raising the likelihood of internal injuries, spinal trauma, and excessive head movement. Apparent compliance can therefore still be unsafe.
The scale of the issue underscores the urgency. More than 9,500 children lost their lives in road crashes in 2022 alone. Child restraint systems, including rear-facing seats and booster seats, are designed to correct this mismatch by positioning the child properly and directing impact forces safely as the child grows. Moreover, globally, safety regulations treat children as a distinct occupant category, requiring dedicated restraints rather than relying on adult seat belts.
If this distinction remains unclear, safety progress risks becoming uneven, as advanced vehicle technologies may coexist with basic gaps in occupant protection. As India advances in frontal airbags, electronic stability control, NCAP protocols, and pedestrian protection, resolving this ambiguity is the next logical step in the country’s road safety transition.
At the same time, rear-seat reminders arrived later than front-seat alerts in many vehicles, and comfort and usability issues continue to limit consistent belt use. Persistent myths that back seats are safer or that short trips and low speeds do not require restraints still shape behaviour, even though low-speed crashes can cause severe or fatal injuries.
Closing the Gap with Risk-Led Design, Clear Policy, and Enforcement
India’s legal framework provides a foundation, but gaps in interpretation and enforcement limit its impact. Section 194B covers both seat belts and child restraints, yet they are often treated as equivalent rather than distinct safety requirements.
In practice, enforcement usually relies on a visual check for a belt without assessing whether it is appropriate. As a result, children using adult belts or travelling without child restraints may go unnoticed, creating a policy-to-outcome disconnect between legal compliance and real-world safety. The problem is less about awareness and more about classification: children require different safety solutions than adults, and enforcement must reflect that distinction.
International evidence shows that strong enforcement of seat belts and mandatory child restraints substantially reduces fatalities. Correct CRS use can cut infant deaths by up to 71 percent and deaths among children aged one to four by 54 percent, while seat belts reduce overall occupant fatalities by up to 50 percent.
Looking ahead, rear-seat safety must shift from compliance-led to risk-led design. As Bharat NCAP evolves, rear-seat protection, including belt effectiveness and CRS compatibility, will face sharper scrutiny.
For manufacturers, this means improving belt comfort and positioning, expanding rear-seat safety features, and ensuring easy child-seat integration, giving rear occupants the same attention as front seats. OEMs that do so will be better positioned as safety expectations rise.
For too long, the rear seat has been assumed safe without being made safe. Without stronger engineering standards, legal clarity, and enforcement prioritising rear-seat occupants, especially children, risk will remain part of everyday travel. Treating every seat equally is essential to closing this gap.
Saurabh Verma is the Co-Founder- Synergie and Member of Road Safety Network. Views expressed are the authors’ personal.