The limitation of personal freedom is utterly trivial. Very few people find wearing them uncomfortable. It’s such a tiny loss of liberty compared to the loss of hundreds of lives. Making it illegal sends out a strong message that not wearing one is a stupid thing to do.
And if you really feel strongly about not having to wear a seatbelt, you don’t have to if you’re willing to accept the small possibility of recieving a fine.
And just how often does that happen?
Bryan, of course you know that children are protected from stupid parents against their wishes. Beyond abuse and neglect laws, even.
I’d really like to remphasize the point here.
How much benefit?
At how much intrusion to actually accomplish the benefit?
And at what cost?
Again compare to our response to 9/11. A few thousand dead as a one time horrific event. The reaction to prevent anything similar from ever happening again.
How much benefit? Read many threads for that debate, but let us optimistically assume that it has prevented another similar scale attack over the three years. Benefit less than a third of that garnered from seat belt law enforcement.
At how much intrusion. Certainly more than enforcing seart belt laws.
And the cost? Hoohah. Both in dollars and in lives.
This is not to hijack into these areas, but to illustrate how perceptions of danger and a host of other factors result in inconsistent application of how much intrusion we are willing to accept for what benefit. Seat belts save lives, many lives, for minimal cost and at minimal intrusions.
I have heard reports of people flying through their windshields and into the car of another, though I doubt anyone has compiled statistical data of the frequency of such incidents and if it happened even just a few times it still proves my point that it could have been most likely avoided had they been wearing seatbelts.
DSeid -
5,000 lives a year saved is under a best case scenario. I believe that was calculated based on using the % of people restrained and survived times the number of people not restrained involved in accidents. Likely, it doesn’t take into account things like people on buses and motorcycle riders (who I doubt will ever be restrained). Further, 5,000 pedestrians died in automobile accidents and I don’t know if they were included in the numbers or not.
I can’t argue the $8.8 billion. Is that just half of what we paid this year in medical costs? If it is, did they factor in the additional costs of treating the additional survivors?
So you feel having your live dictated to you is worth it for 5,000 lives a year. How much freedom would you give up to save 1.2 million? That is how many we lose each year to heart disease and cancer. For people 25-44, HIV kills more people a year than does motor vehicle accidents. Do you want to mandate protected sex?
I’m glad your life was saved by a seatbelt. I hope my life never has to be. Should I ever be in an accident, my seatbelt will be buckled, to be sure. The savings, in life and in money, just aren’t worth the forced restriction. Why? Because if you want to be a dimwit and not wear your seatbelt, that is YOUR CHOICE. I won’t even begin to pretend I have the right to tell you differently.
As for airplanes and the 1,000 lives to be saved, what I was driving at is that 1 dimwit can cause the deaths of 1,000 people with a plane (passengers + collateral loss). 1 dimwit without a seatbelt will likely affect just their own life. Again, this isn’t a matter of how many lives/year will be saved, it is a matter of how much collateral damage can someone else’s stupidity cause.
MelCthefirst -
My motorcycle insurance was about 1/4 of my car insurance. I was basing my statement on that fact, so I could very well be wrong.
Well let us analyze the merits:
How much benefit? Quite a bit of potential benefit. You are right there. Getting everyone to have sex only in monagamous relationships or failing that using condoms and foam, would result in many lives saved.
How much intrusion to accomplish that benefit? Well a mandated approach would require a huge intrusion. How would you check this one out? Compare to seatbelts where enforcement is a minimal intrusion.
How much cost? I cannot even imagine what a system to attempt to enforce condom use woud run. I’d hazard to guess it would have a stiff price tag. And that the costs would keep rising. Plus it would be a government program and who knows how much they could pump it up. Ah screw it. 
Whereas an educational approach might have less benefit but a very small fraction of the intrusion. And a fraction of the cost. And a small percentage increase in safer sex would be a large absolute number of lives saved so is still worth the investment.
Again sigaas, the benefit is just one part of the equation. Big benefit with little intrusion and cost? Do it. Bigger benefit but even bigger intrusion and unfathomable expenses (if even able to be accomplished at any cost)? Probably not. Not either/or. Society (not you, not me) has the right, has the obligation, to make these analyses and to impose restrictions when the benefit outweighs the imposition and cost. And to decline when they do not.
DSeid -
Your argument for the seatbelt law boils down to it being a good idea, it has a .001% chance of saving my life, and it doesn’t cost very much.
My argument boils down to the fact that those reasons just aren’t good enough to allow you to dictate to me what I can and cannot do.
There are lots of things people do that I think are stupid, a waste of time and just plain wrong. For example, getting drunk every.single.day., or maybe spending half their take-home pay on lottery tickets or cheating on a spouse. But you know what? People are allowed to make these choices because it is their life they are screwing up. If you want to play parent to everyone one around you that is your choice. Just don’t be surprised when people like me don’t really like it, even if it is a great idea.
I don’t care how cheap and easy it is to legislate and enforce. I don’t care how good an idea it is. I don’t care how unintrusivie it is. If all you are doing is saving MY LIFE and not preventing collateral loss of life, it is WRONG for the gov’t to be involved.
I really enjoyed hearing your views on this and it really made me think about why I was so against this law. You are a class act. My time here is just about up, but I’ve enjoyed my stay.
Well I’m against paternalistic laws so it would follow that I’m against this one. Sure, it helps save lives, and yes, the discomfort is minimal, but so what? Stupid people will remain stupid and they’ll just find another way to endanger themselves. It seems that those arguing from the authoritarian “but it’s good for you!” camp don’t care much for freedom and self-determination. If you don’t allow people to make their own choices–good and bad ones–what kind of a world do you really want to live in? Do you think that a person should have his life planned for him or even be forced into a certain life? Don’t you think there is more to life than work?
I can see a legitimate argument in providing food and shelter for those who need it, but, other than that, people are only responsible for themselves.
sigaas,
Thank you for the kind words. You illustrate why many of us participate here: not to change anyone else’s mind, not with the expectation that our mind will be significantly changed, but with the knowledge that the discussion will help us at least better understand our own points of view.
Not to be a salesman, but you do know that you can stay beyond guesthood for a fairly nominal fee?
Just adding to the debate: why is it that (in my experience) only Americans debate the wearing of seatbelts and see it as unnecessary government control?
There are a fair number of other countries who are also concerned with political, social and religious freedom, but it is just accepted that wearing seatbelts is a good thing and the law, so we do it. It’s not like there aren’t other government issues that people rant about in these countries.
Americans generally don’t like their government telling them what to do, even if it’s something they were going to do anyway.
A question for the folks who believe that because not wearing a seat belt only harms the perp, it’s an unnecessarily intrusive law: does that mean you are equally against all laws regulating “victimless” crimes? Personal drug use? Prostitution? Suicide? Jaywalking? Dog licensing? Abortion on demand? Flag burning? Pornography? Draft-dodging?
I ask because my sense is that you tend to be from the libertarian, conservative, Republican side of US politics, which are in general all for government regulation in all the above areas. I’d be interested to be wrong though.
And, BTW, I believe it is *precisely * the government’s job to protect the stupid from themselves, leaving aside the unspoken assumptions here that 1/ only “stupid” people refuse to wear seatbelts, and 2/ that “stupid” people deserve to die.
But why? If it is something you are not going to do, then you have more of an arguement.
Yes. I don’t think I’d put jaywalking and dog licensing in that list, but I am definitely opposed to banning personal drug use, prostitution, suicide, abortion, flag burning, pornography, and to the draft.
I’m not conservative or Republican. My political compass score is something like -3 (liberal), -5 (libertarian). I voted for Nader in 2000 and I plan to vote for Kerry in November; the only times I’ve voted for a Republican for any office have been when a Republican was running unopposed.
Clearly we disagree on what the government’s job is. But I don’t think stupid people deserve to die… only that they (and everyone else) have the right to make choices that may result in their own injury or death.
I’m not much of a historian… perhaps someone else can explain the American tendency to distrust government.
Personally, I just think it’s patronizing for someone in Olympia to write a law that’ll tell me it’s a good idea to wear a seat belt. I already know it’s a good idea; I’ve worn a seat belt since I was a kid, and it has saved my life at least once. I don’t want my tax dollars being spent to patronize me when they could be spent repairing potholes or funding public transit instead.
Absolutely.
If you think libertarians are for government regulation you clearly don’t know the first thing about libertarianism. I suggest you check out their site. “Conservative” can mean any number of things: political conservatives want a smaller government and less regulation (some would say that they are close to the libertarians while others would say libertarians are political conservatives), social conservatives want “traditional” societies and often support laws that intrude on people’s privacy in the name of morality, and economic conservatives want to keep the budget to a minimum. Republicans are a party comprised of various conservatives, economic, political, social and some combinations of the three. It’s also important to remember that while conservative denotes a political inclination, Republican refers to a political party. Many (but not all) libertarians are members of the libertarian party.
Well that’s where we differ. Mr2001 pretty much said what I think about that.
That’s a good point. Although, as a libertarian, I might disagree with the extent of the public funding to begin with, it’s important to note that there are simply more worthwhile endeavors than the enforcement of laws to protect people from themselves.
Driving is a privliage not a right.
I think they have a law in Texas now that prohibits people from smoking while they drive. (I may be wrong on this I only heard it by word of mouth.)
Anyway, thems the breaks. If you want the privilage to drive, you have to follow the rules set forth by your goverment. Rights aren’t even involved in this matter.
The reason I started this thread was because there was a similar thread in a Greek automotive forum. There was a poll there, too.
I was surprised that 82% voted FOR the existense of such law. Most people had never even questioned it. Their reasoning is that since the seatbelt is good for you, there is nothing wrong with a law requiring it 
Aah, but how and why did you know it was a good idea to wear a seat belt as a kid? Was it because the government made it a law that your parents followed and there were commercials/posters etc that showed you what a good idea it was and the possible consequences of not wearing one?
That’s right, the government makes laws to protect society from things they are not aware of. When I was little, seat belt law was not really in place - certainly not for back seat passengers. We were not stupid people, but once it was pointed out through education and law that it could save lives or reduce damage in an accident, we all started doing it.
You give yourself too much credit if you think your intelligence is the only reason for your seatbelt wearing.
I think the whole premise mentioned numerous times that not wearing a seatbelt doesn’t hurt anyone else is completely false. In addition to the “passenger as projectile” that people have already mentioned, there is this:
http://www.saferoads.com/vehicles/seatbelts.html
From what I remember, that statement is actually backed up by studies showing that unrestrained drivers have a harder time controlling a car than drivers wearing seatbelts. I haven’t searched very hard for any studies that may be related, but I will try and remember to do so either later today or tomorrow. It certainly makes sense that someone who is thrown or jolted from their seat will not be able to control a vehicle as well as someone that remains in their seat because of a seatbelt.