Does anyone have actual numbers on how many third-party injuries are caused by seatbelt-less drivers acting as flying projectiles? I’m pretty sure the number would be trivial compared to the number of people killed by lack of seatbelt wearing. As a result, I’m pretty sure the main justification for this law is protecting people from themselves, and the “third-party injury” is handwaving to cover for this policy preference.
You’re absolutely wrong about this. Officers are in fact put on such assignments 6-8 weeks at a time. We call it “wave enforcement”. Waves occur 2-3 times a year. Officers on such assignments are not dispatched to other calls (except in dire emergencies).
Did you read the OP?
I don’t live there I looked it up. But at 50 bucks a pop ,that adds up to real money.
Per my recollection, basically everybody, until they made it the law. After that, tons and tons of people wore seatbelts all the time, and shockingly realized that it was totally no big deal and they were all monumental jackasses for not wearing them in the first place.
I’m sure they would have figured it out without the law, of course, and there wouldn’t simply be tens of thousands of additional corpses to bury.
The seatbelt law is about the best law ever in terms of bang* for your buck**.
- bang - lives saved
** buck - level of intrusion*** into our daily lives
*** intrusion - you’re being asked to spend 2 seconds buckling your belt, suck it up
You pay my medical bills? Thank God! What is your address? 
btw, nice discussion on this issue. Just to comment: It’s not that the police will drop what they are doing to race after seatbelt violators. It’s that they will be stationed in places looking for seatbelt violations instead of looking for more serious crimes.
Like the parent trying to make sure his kid eats all of his vegetables when he has a raging cocaine addiction…
I would be interested to see actual data, but my guess is that “seatbelt-less drivers acting as flying projectiles” isn’t much of an issue, but that seatbelt-less drivers unable to keep control of their car in an emergency due to being thrown out of their seat may indeed be an issue.
Do you have health insurance?
If no, then the taxpayer will pay your bills, because it has been decided by our great society that ambulance drivers don’t require proof of insurance before they scrape you into the back of their woo-woo-mobile.
If yes, then the other people in your insurance pool will pay your bills, and all our premiums are higher because you can’t be bothered to put on your seatbelt. How do you think insurance works? You’re not paying money into an account that State Farm disburses funds to doctors from.
Ain’t no reason junkies’ kids shouldn’t eat healthy, balanced meals…
There are lots of good reasons why it is the government’s business. If you’re belted, you’re more likely to maintain control of your car in the event of a collision, perhaps enough to keep you from having a second collision, perhaps even saving someone else’s life by doing so. Unbelted drivers cost more to fix up after accidents, driving insurance rates up or increasing the burden on society if you’re uninsured. Unbelted drivers have a better chance of dying, leaving their dependents struggling through life or becoming wards of the state. Belt up, for your own good and for everyone’s.
What if your child is stuck in a burning car?
Oh . . . never mind . . . We’ve done that one already.
Two accidents that totaled my car/truck. Walked away from both because of the belts. One happened before my state had a seat belt law. Seat belts save lives. Air bags are the spawn of Satan.
I didn’t know that. I’ve heard of something like that here in New York, but it seems to involve putting police officers on assigment to combat specific crime situations, or quality of life problems, not traffic enforcement. Different places, different policing priorities and strategies, I guess.
Of couse I did, but thanks for the friendly request for clarification. I was just expanding the discussion a bit beyond the OP’s home state. The situation in his state may not be the situation somewhere else.
Primary and secondary enforcement are 2 sides of the same coin.
While secondary is an assault on a citizens (albeit idiotic) right to choose not to buckle up, primary does that AND infringes on the 4th Amendment. Being stopped/detained by the government simply because it appears you don’t have a piece of fabric laying across your chest is, IMHO, fascism! It’s only a matter of time before the courts rule that evidence obtained because an officer that stopped someone because he mistakenly thought they weren’t buckled up is admissible.
I’ve noticed that some of those who babble about the cost of society from those who don’t buckle up tend to be the same that have no problem spending zillions on social programs, parks, and welfare. When it comes to something that involves civil liberties suddenly they become economic conservatives.
What else makes me want to gag is that quite a few people that approve and defend such laws are also the type of people who believe in the legalization of drugs and the right to chose to rip their unborn baby out of their womb.
How are either of those any less of a detriment to our society than some fool who would rather his skull be smashed through the windshield than put on his safety belt?
It is not that social programs, parks, and welfare have no social costs, it is that the social benefits of these things outweigh the social costs. Likewise, the social cost of mandatory seat belt use (a tiny decrease in the happiness that comes from choosing whether one will wear a seat belt or not) is outweighed by the social benefits (reduction of lost productivity, spousal and minor dependents not losing their benefactor, a small increase in the happiness that comes with fewer traffic fatalities).
While I disagree (because you’re wrong) your argument seems to be based on a secondary enforcement situation.
Justify citizens being stopped/detained by government agents for smaller and smaller reasons.
At what point is it acceptable that “just because” becomes probable cause?
At what point will you think that it’s better to pay the social price of people doing stupid shit in order to defend your own liberties?
Don’t forget that what goes around comes around. You can’t restrict someone elses freedom (even if it’s “for the best”:rolleyes:) without it affecting your own liberty somewhere down the line.
There is no right to drive a car. There are laws dictating that a car must have warning lights and brakes and must meet certain criteria in its construction. Some of those laws apply to dirvers.
Meh, it took no time for me to get used to wearing a seatbelt after the law was passed here in California. I can still fire up my suicide machine '64 bug and drive without seatbelts. For added thrills, the windshield is a foot from my forehead, it has a metal dash, and a non-collapsible steering column.
But those are things that affect the safety of people on the outside of the vehicle that have no control over what is going on inside the offending vehicle.
There is also no right to do many things inside you’re own home. But do you want the government to use minuscule reasons as probable cause to come into your home and detain you? *“It smells like you’re barbecuing steak. We’re coming in and checking fat and cholesterol levels”. *
In a country that was born (at gun point, I must add) of the dream of freedom it sickens me that so many of us are willing to surrender our liberties under the guise of safety and “it’s for your own good”.
Do you really think that such laws will lower your insurance costs or what you pay in taxes due to people who don’t buckle up? Do you really freaking believe that? Really? Really?
Even if that were to happen (it won’t!) paying the price for these idiots is better than giving the government another reason to detain and harass everyone else.
Allowing the free market to result in bars/restaurants to go smoke free is better than the government to force such tyranny upon them.
Keeping an eye on your kids activities is better than the government banning strawberry flavored cigarettes for everyone.
Having a voluntary military is better than the government forcing people to serve via a draft.
And so on, and so on.
The fact that I, a government enforcement agent for over 27 years, has to preach freedom and liberty to some of you is proof that you’re too fat, drunk, and stupid for your own good!
Perhaps we need a law against this?;):p:D
I knew some smart-aleck was going to say that.
I was using 55mph as an example, obviously.
Why the eye roll? Costs can be incurred giving medical care to people who foolishly didn’t wear their seatbelts; costs can be incurred giving medical care to people who foolishly didn’t take care of their bodies.
Mandating motorcycle helmets would also most likely save money on medical treatments…but why stop there? Banning motorcycles altogether would certainly be even MORE effective. And what about rock climbing, roller blading, contact sports? Drinkers? Smokers? Think how much money society could save if these reckless individuals were forced to “do what’s right”.
Well posted, pkbites.
I cleave to the personal freedom/nanny state sucks side of the debate but the the increase in medical costs always brings me up short. It IS bothersome that douche bags’ failure to account for their own safety raises costs for the rest of us.
Why not reform the moronic system that requires us to pay for each others’ idiocy?