I hope this is not a hijack. But I find the notion expressed in this quote intriguing. What if we were to make such a tax explicit. For instance, what if we were to add an option on your drivers license. You would voluntarily sign up, with an extra fee, and perhaps every now and again, would pay an additional yearly fee, but when you were pulled over for any particular infraction, your license would clearly state that you were not subject to the manditory seatbelt law. We tie the fees to the number of auto fatalities or something. Sort of like saying that if some segment of the society wants to live dangeroously, then we should make that segment pay for the consequences as much as possible.
Oh, no?
I’ve 5150ed 3 times in my life. I think I have a little bit of experience with the non-existant suicide legislation.
I mean, unless they were just dicking me around.
How much time did you spend in jail for breaking the law?
Sure, they can legally require seat belts; I think the existence of seat belt laws is proof of that. That doesn’t mean they should. Licensing and speed limits actually serve a purpose other than protecting drivers from themselves.
Agreed. But who is suggesting that car manufacturers would have to add extra safety features? Why can’t they just put a seat belt in the car and let the driver decide whether or not to wear it?
This is somewhat of a benefit, but I don’t think lowering insurance rates is a good reason to limit drivers’ freedom of choice either. I would certainly support a law saying that if someone is injured in an accident because he chose not to wear his seat belt, he bears the responsibility for his own injuries.
Counting on people to break the law in order to raise money for the state is a cynical move that may ultimately be self-defeating.
The purpose of this law, like any other law, is presumably to discourage certain behavior (not wearing a seat belt), but the more people who obey the law, the less money it raises. The state therefore has no incentive to actually encourage people to obey the law. Communities that depend on speeding fines to raise money often turn into speed traps, with unreasonable or frequently changing speed limits, because they count on people breaking the law.
Taking responsibility for your own actions is part of what being an adult is about, and that implies the freedom to choose wisely or poorly. The government can’t just step in whenever someone makes a poor decision.
Psychologically, I suppose. But it was their choice, not mine.
Sounds like the problem here is that the jury ignored the victim’s choice not to wear a seat belt. As I said above, if someone is injured because of that choice, he should bear the responsibility for it.
No, probably not. But then, neither is “Daddy made a choice to repair the TV himself and got electrocuted” or “Daddy chose not to see a doctor about the lump on his neck”. Stupid choices sometimes end in tragedy. There are many ways a parent can put his own life at risk, but would you really want to live in a world where they’re all outlawed?
Absolutely.
Come, on; seatbelt laws are only employed on already highly regulated public property, so it’s not an intrusion on any private rights (drive around your backyard without a seatbelt all you want). So why should seatbelt laws be challenged? Seatbelts are completely unobtrusive and they SAVE LIVES. Why isn’t that enough?
Some people don’t like being told what to do, even when it can save their life, and they’ll probably do it anyway. I think they call themselves Libertarians these days.
Me, I think the gov’t has a responsiblity to provide for the safety of the people, even when it involves telling them to put on seatbelts.
Maybe the seatbelt laws are uneccesary today. I don’t know. But when they were enacted, they were SORELY needed.
I see this a lot (I’m an insurance biller for a local hospital).
It depends on the circumstances. If it’s an accident and it’s your fault and you have no med pay on your car insurance and you have no health insurance, you could qualify for local or state assistance. We also have in-house programs. If you don’t qualify for any of these plans (which is rare) and you have no way of paying the bill, we eat it. Blood from a stone and all that.
Example (not auto related):
A guy I used to work with contracted an extremely nasty brain infection. He was near death, but did manage to recover. He had no money and no insurance. His final bill was about $65,000. He paid $0.
Bottom line: hospitals are in business (an yes it is a business) to heal people first, collect money second.
It’s possible, in a relatively minor accident, for the driver to be thrown into the passenger seat or onto the floor and not be able to control the car. This can increase the severity of an accident and cause more accidents, inflicting damage to others and not just the driver.
Because saving people’s lives against their will is patronizing and intrusive, not something I want my tax dollars wasted on.
Personally, I agree that seat belts are unobtrusive, and I have always worn mine and always will - law or no law. But if someone else wants to put himself at risk in order to feel a little less constrained around the waist, then I certainly support his right to do that.
I think you objectors are totally crazy! Unbelted bodies are dangerous missiles in the interior of a car and there are many cases of passengers and drivers killing or injurying each other in high speed crashes. Certainly unbelted back seat passengers can be lethal to those seated in front of them, but the risk is not eliminated between driver and front seat passengers in high speed side impacts. I am trying to find some stats but will be internal industry not on public sites from my initial googling (I work in the insurance industry so have some knowledge and access to loss stats and personal injury proximate cause stats).
Seriously such laws are good ones - in protecting others from the danger of unbelted human missiles following accidents. You could make a law allowing drivers not the belt up when unaccompanied only but I can already see the problems with such an exception/loophole.
I want my government to protect me from the stupidity of others.
Are you, or your insurance company, going to pay for:
Additional police officers assigned to investigate your death via accident
Ambulance sent to cart away whatever parts of you that can be scraped off the road
Additional time and gas of commuters stuck waiting for the accident to be cleared up
These things may happen regardless, BUT an accident where someone dies (or is seriously injured) takes a lot more time and investigation than an accident where nobody is injured. Roads are blocked longer, more police and EMTs are assigned. While you may pay for the EMTs, they are a limited resource that your death or injury takes away from others.
I live in Virgnia, which has mandatory seat belt laws. If there’s also socialized medicine it would news to me.
Virginia has eliminated Medicaid? It may not be universal, but it’s there.
Or not an accident. I went into a spin on ice once, and probably would have been thrown across the seat if I had not been wearing a seat belt. Since I was, no accident, no damage.
I also saw a Caddy flop over a guard rail (better than any stunt I’ve seen in a movie.) The driver was belted, and, though badly shaken, was not injured.
If we were throwing people in jail for not wearing seatbelts, it’s one thing, but in California it is a fine only and does not count as a moving violation. If people were willng to cede injury benefits if they were not belted, maybe I could accept it, however as it stands today, since insurance companies cannot distinguish between belted and unbelted drivers until an accident, belt laws are economically advantageous for all.
Personally, I still like the, “It’s a slippery slope! First seatbelts, then socialized medicine!”
That’s one slippery slope I wouldn’t mind taking a ride on O_o Why doesn’t the world have more dictators who force the horrors of Medicare and seatbelt laws on their people, instead of shooting them and burying them in ditches?
No, please, someone protect me from the evil government trying to ensure my health and safety! Argh! I’m being repressed, albeit in a very healthy manner!
I’ll be very interested in seeing these stats. I may be convinced if you can show that unbelted drivers and passengers pose a significant danger to people other than themselves.
Heh, I’d welcome socialized medicine. I’m more concerned about a different slippery slope: first seatbelts and helmets and suicide laws, then maybe a ban on smoking, then who knows what. Not going to the doctor for your annual checkup? Buying too much soda and Twinkies in a single transaction? Running with scissors?
I have no problem with paying taxes to take care of my fellow citizens when something bad happens to them, even it’s a poked out eye caused by running with scissors. I do have a problem with an intrusive nanny state that attempts to protect people from putting themselves at risk in the first place.
As someone who has had his life altered a great deal by suicide laws, I can’t see any argument against them. Some people may not just be a danger to themselves, but also others.
Can the gov’t prevent you from running around with scissors in your house? Nope. Can they prevent you from doing it in public? Yes. Can they prevent you from digging in on Twinkies at home? No, but they can regulate what is served in public schools. The way I see it, they have a right and responsibility to provide for public safety when they can, even from themselves.
The smoking one is a kicker, but we can’t all do everything we want.
Note quite "stats’, but a pretty good study.
Like a majority of laws; it’s none of the State’s business. But we are a nation of busybody pussies, on both the right and the left, that demand that the Nanny State protect us at almost any cost. (At least the left is honest about it, though they probably think of themselves in far better terms.)
Thanks for the medical study cite, KarlGauss, I was stuggling as the only stats I have are on intranet with no download so not easy (or within company policy) to share.
So, Mr2001, are you persuaded? Are the maths clear to all or need interpretation? And Machetero - what about the “protection from stupid others” angle for you? Or did you just choose to turn a blind eye to it in a knee jerk reaction to “nanny states”?