Seat Belt Laws: Good or bad?

Great Debates
1

I didn’t want to hijack the Canadian gun thread, so I started this one to respond to RickJay’s seat belt comments:

[QUOTE=RickJay]
To use an example, I believe seat belt laws are a reasonable intrusion upon people’s liberty:

  1. The societal benefit of seat belt laws has been enormous. It is fact that the laws have increased the use of seat belts, and it is fact that the corresponding costs saved are astronomical.
    [/quote]

I won’t deny that the laws have increased seat belt usage. That goes without saying. If you passed a law mandating gum chewing, I’m sure that would go up as well.

I’m curious, though about these cost savings, though? In what? Health care?

[QUOTE=RickJay]
2. While such laws do constitute an infringement upon liberty, it’s an extremely minor one. Nobody loses any property by obeying the law, the inconvenience is trivial, and there’s not really any reasonably likely slippery slope into the loss of additional freedoms. Even the penalties for non-compliance are pretty small.
[/quote]

I see a terrible slippery slope. A law telling a person what to do when it harms no one else because of some greater public good? That is the very definition of socialism.

You mention the small penalties for non-compliance. Would your views change if failure to wear a seat belt were a criminal misdemeanor instead of a traffic infraction? What about a felony for the second offense? First offense?

[QUOTE=RickJay]
3. The law is appropriately and reasonably limited in scope; specifically, it is to the use of motor vehicles on highways belonging to the people (or Her Majesty, in Canada, if you want to get technical) and so the legislature legitimately has a say as to how those roadways can be used. If you want to build a track on your own property and bomb around it at 140 miles an hour wearing no seat belt, there is no law against it.
[/QUOTE]

But if I built a track on my land and drove without a seat belt, wouldn’t I still be exposing society to the same type of “costs” associated with non-use on a public road? Why exempt private property then?

And I agree that the legislature can regulate how the roadways can be used, but you are taking it a step further by regulating what a person does inside a private vehicle ON the public roadway; an act that doesn’t affect the safety of the other drivers.

In the same vein, you could say that the legislature passing a law against criticising George W. Bush in a passenger car on the public roadway is legitimate. After all, if you don’t like it, you can build a track on your own land and criticize him there.

Also, can’t the legislature pass laws regarding how public parks or sidewalks “can be used” (your quote) Can’t they outlaw free speech, religion, and a host of other things under the guise of public order? After all, if you don’t like it, go to your thousand acre mountain retreat to worship as you choose.

Anyway, in case you haven’t figured it out, I take exception to your view of seat belt laws. While I agree with the use of seat belts, I think these laws are an onerous restriction in a free society. Fire away..

2

I’m not RickJay, but a couple things jumped out at me here.

[QUOTE=jtgain]
But if I built a track on my land and drove without a seat belt, wouldn’t I still be exposing society to the same type of “costs” associated with non-use on a public road? Why exempt private property then?
[/QUOTE]

Seems like the big problem would be in enforcement. How would the authorities know you were breaking the law? And if they spotted you through a telescope not wearing a seatbelt, does it make sense to let them come onto your land to give you a ticket? You are simply wondering why laws haven’t been passed yet that would require seatbelts on private property, correct? Just saying it could be for logistical/enforcement reasons…

[QUOTE=jtgain]
In the same vein, you could say that the legislature passing a law against criticising George W. Bush in a passenger car on the public roadway is legitimate. After all, if you don’t like it, you can build a track on your own land and criticize him there.
[/QUOTE]

Well…you do have a constitutional right to say what you want, particularly when it comes to political speech. However, you don’t have a constitutional right not to wear a seatbelt, which is probably why seatbelt laws haven’t yet been struck by the Supreme Court down on constitutional grounds. Anyhow, I’m not sure the GWB law is a good analogy.

[QUOTE=jtgain]
Also, can’t the legislature pass laws regarding how public parks or sidewalks “can be used” (your quote) Can’t they outlaw free speech, religion, and a host of other things under the guise of public order?
[/QUOTE]

If you can prove the intent of the legislature is to discriminate based on religion, or outlaw speech based on content, you’ve gone a long way towards invalidating a law. Are you saying that the stated goal of seatbelt laws is a lie, and the legislature really intends something malicious by requiring people to wear seatbelts?

3

[QUOTE=jtgain]
A law telling a person what to do when it harms no one else because of some greater public good? That is the very definition of socialism.
[/QUOTE]
The very definition of socialism? Is that really what “socialism” means?

Actually, don’t most laws tell people what to do, and aren’t they enacted in the interest of some public good? And aren’t a substantial number of them of the sort that, if you disobeyed them, you wouldn’t, in a strict sense, be directly harming anyone else?
If you judge it on strictly utilitarian grounds, I think the seatbelt law is a good one. People as individuals, and society as a whole, are better off with than without such a law.

However, it’s the kind of law that tells people they have to do something for their own good, to protect them from their own carelessness or stupidity or laziness or defiance. When you make rules that people have to follow for their own good, you’re essentially treating them as children, not adults. You’re telling them they can’t be trusted to use their own good judgment and take care of themselves.

And, unfortunately, some people can’t be trusted to take care of themselves. So who, if anyone, should step in and take care of them—and what demands are they entitled to make in return? which question may get to the heart of many of today’s political debates.

4

[QUOTE=jtgain]

I see a terrible slippery slope. A law telling a person what to do when it harms no one else because of some greater public good? That is the very definition of socialism.

[/QUOTE]

Looks like the years studying political science were wasted for me. The very definition of socialism? That’s ridiculous. When you make statements like this, you not only show a total lack of understanding of what socialism is, you also make me feel it is highly unlikely to be worth reading the rest of the post.

5

Seat belt laws are stupid- there is no way that something that has no effect on anyone else like this should be regulated. There is only one way it could affect others- the one in a million chance I’m ejected from my car and land on someone else and injure them :rolleyes: . Its like making a law that if I’m doing roof work on my home, I have to wear a harness and helmet- what’s the difference?

I’m eagerly awaiting the first lawsuit from the family of someone who died in a car fire because they couldn’t get out of their seatbelt- that will maybe get the law changed.

And if I’m not mistaken, there are no current laws for adult bike riders…

6

I have no problem if one chooses not to wear a seatbelt, or a helmet. However, those who choose not to wear seatbelts or helmets should be required to bear the full, true and total cost of their decision if they are ever involved in an accident.

7

I wouldn’t be alive today if I didn’t use a seatbelt when driving. But seatbelts are not there just to protect you, but also to protect others from what happens when you go flying because you didn’t wear a seatbelt.

Wee Bairn, there’s a PSA on TV at the moment with a mother being killed by her son who’s sitting in the back seat behind her and not wearing a seatbelt: the car comes to a sudden stop and the lad goes flying into his mother.

8

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Seat belt laws are stupid- there is no way that something that has no effect on anyone else like this should be regulated. There is only one way it could affect others- the one in a million chance I’m ejected from my car and land on someone else and injure them :rolleyes: . ..
[/QUOTE]

How about when you are in the back seat and become a menace to those in the front and passanger seat? That poses a very legitimate danger. Plus if you have any passangers and are not hit directly head on or from behind you become a danger to them.

9

Not to mention the mental health rehab for the EMTs who have to scrape your brains off the pavement.

Oh, and the excess need for medical care, burdening the hospitals. It hurts me if I can’t get treatment for myself or my family because the non-seatbelt wearing independent-minded dufus is using up all the resources in the hospital. Not to mention the extra burden of disability payments, if he lives. The extra burden for society to care for his wife (or widow) and children (or orphans) if any. And then of course if he had a job that was useful to society, he’s no longer performing it.

10

This is perhaps the weakest criticism of seatbelt laws I’ve ever seen.

Slippery slope? Like, first we make laws against speeding, then the next thing you know the government is carrying out a Pol Pot-like extermination campaign. And what if when you complained about your wife’s cooking, instead of her scorning you for a few days, she waterboarded you… would that make you think twice about criticizing dinner?

And this whole red herring about laws against criticizing George Bush – what does that have to do with the purpose of seatbelt laws, namely, saving lives?

It is hard to take seriously a criticism of seatbelts in which every argument against seatbelts isn’t actually about seatbelts.

11

[QUOTE=Quartz]
I wouldn’t be alive today if I didn’t use a seatbelt when driving. But seatbelts are not there just to protect you, but also to protect others from what happens when you go flying because you didn’t wear a seatbelt.

[/QUOTE]

And I would not be alive today if I had been wearing one. Being thrown from a van saved my life as the van became crushed seconds after I was thrown out.

Tit meet Tat.

PS, No I didn’t land on anyone. :smiley:

12

The objections raised in the OP strike me as being philosophically abstract, rooted in what government “should” or “should not” do, based on certain principles. I’m a practical minded guy; I think it’s better to decide what government ought to do based entirely on whether or not it is proven to be effective at achieving a given end. As such, the arguments offered don’t really have a lot of sticking power, as far as I’m concerned.

On the other hand, I can think of a practical real-world objection to seat belt laws: Do they have the inadvertent effect of causing people to drive less safely?

By way of comparison, consider smoking cessation devices and programs. We’ve got patches, gum, and other tools, along with doctor-supervised plans and medically vetted approaches, that increase by some amount the likelihood that somebody will be able to quit smoking. There is growing evidence that the existence of these devices and programs makes it more likely that young people will start smoking in the first place, because they believe it’ll be an easy matter to stop later. Unfortunately, that’s a misperception of the reality: it’s not easy to stop smoking under any circumstances; the availability of these aids makes it easier, not easy. And the result is that people have been led to make the wrong choice, due to this misperception.

Given that, I can see how it would be possible for many people to believe that buckling one’s seat belt (not to mention the installation of an airbag) makes one safe, full stop, when traveling by auto. Obviously, those devices, strictly speaking, make driver and passenger(s) safer, compared to their absence; they do not confer absolute safety. Nevertheless, the dearth of analytical and critical thinking skills possessed by the average human may lead to an overestimation about the effectiveness of the devices, and thereby to less scrupulous attention to one’s driving.

I don’t know that that’s the case. I’m simply offering it as a practical (and testable) objection, in opposition to the nebulously philosophical (and largely untestable) arguments of the OP.

[QUOTE=Duckster]
I have no problem if one chooses not to wear a seatbelt, or a helmet. However, those who choose not to wear seatbelts or helmets should be required to bear the full, true and total cost of their decision if they are ever involved in an accident.
[/QUOTE]
I agree to a certain extent, but just to play devil’s advocate while examining the question further: Is it government’s place to decide that? What if the insurance companies were allowed to refuse medical coverage in the event police investigation determined that the driver in a wreck had not availed himself of the safety devices installed in his vehicle? Let’s say the laws were repealed, and drivers were made aware that they’re free to leave the seat belt unbuckled (and/or deactivate the airbag, etc) but that they are assuming the risk of personal bankruptcy in the event a wreck subjects them to expensive (and uncovered by insurance) medical care. Some would roll the dice, and some would lose. Could society successfully absorb the total financial devastation that would thereby result for that fraction of the population? And would people respond by taking more responsibility for themselves, and choosing to buckle up in order to mitigate the risk of medical bankruptcy?

13

[QUOTE=Quartz]
I wouldn’t be alive today if I didn’t use a seatbelt when driving. But seatbelts are not there just to protect you, but also to protect others from what happens when you go flying because you didn’t wear a seatbelt.

Wee Bairn, there’s a PSA on TV at the moment with a mother being killed by her son who’s sitting in the back seat behind her and not wearing a seatbelt: the car comes to a sudden stop and the lad goes flying into his mother.
[/QUOTE]

There is another plus - seat belts help you maintain control of your car in certain situations. I spun out my car on ice once, and I’m glad my seat belt kept me in front of the wheel so I could come out of it without hitting anyone or anything.

As for other people hurt, how about the family of the injured party?

I also saw an accident where a Caddy flipped over a guard rail. The driver was wearing a seatbelt. When we got there, he was upside down but otherwise fine.

14

I wear my seatbelt, because I want the extra protection. If I’m driving, you will be wearing your seatbelt. I’m an adult, I can make those decisions. I have no problem with mandating seatbelt and safety seats for children. They are not adults, they often can’t make a reasoned decision about it.

As for laws mandating seatbelts for adults? Get rid of them. But let insurance companies add clauses to their policies. You can get a non-seat-belt policy, which will probably cost you more, but would cover you if you get injured while not wearing a seat-belt. If you have a seat-belt policy and aren’t wearing one, the insurance companies should have the right to limit payouts on health costs.

15

I think the seatbelt laws should stay on the books as they are, but we should allow adults to formally opt out, at which point they could not be ticketed. People who opt out would be subject to increased insurance premiums, however, and would be held legally liable for any increased health care costs deemed to be the result of their not wearing a seat belt. All children will still be required to wear them.

Seems win-win to me. The handful of people who find mandated safety upsetting could liberate themselves from the legal requirement, but only if they’re willing to assume responsibility for the potentially greater costs.

16

This is an article showing seat bely safety and health cost safety correlation.
I am sure it saves lives and money but I dislike so many rules. Same with cycle helmets.
I wear my seat bely every time. My wife must be forced to.

17

[QUOTE=Giraffe]
I think the seatbelt laws should stay on the books as they are, but we should allow adults to formally opt out, at which point they could not be ticketed. People who opt out would be subject to increased insurance premiums, however, and would be held legally liable for any increased health care costs deemed to be the result of their not wearing a seat belt. All children will still be required to wear them.

[/QUOTE]

Perhaps if children was defined as all those under 18. I don’t think anyone under 18 has the driving experience to know what kind of driver they are yet, and are more accident prone. It will also get them in the habit.

The waiver should be co-signed by a spouse or domestic partner, since that person will be directly affected by the death or severe injury of the driver.

And what about passengers?

18

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Perhaps if children was defined as all those under 18. I don’t think anyone under 18 has the driving experience to know what kind of driver they are yet, and are more accident prone. It will also get them in the habit.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I should have said minors instead of children. I meant anyone under 18 would have to wear a seat belt.

I’d say that anyone who opts out of wearing a seat belt is liable for any injuries caused to their passengers as a result of them flying around the car. Passengers and spouses have the option to not ride with someone who isn’t wearing a seat belt. I don’t think their consent should be mandatory before allowing someone to opt out, although I’d probably support requiring people to wear belts if there are minors in the car.

19

This is a subject that has been a pet peeve of mine for some time now.

I totally agree that laws for children wearing seatbelt are good, mainly due to the fact that we expect them not to have as much self preservation as adults.

I also think that adults should not have restrictive laws placed upon them when the ‘cost’ to others is indirect. (ie: theft is direct cost, increased insurance is indirect)

The slippery slope argument has some bearing, after all it increases health care and insurance costs every time someone new is brought into this country, either through birth or immigration, so perhaps that should be made illegal to prevent costing others more. In a narrower scope, what if legislation is made causing it to be illegal to not wear a safety harness in the bathroom where most deaths occur do to falls. (yes, I recently watched The Darwin Awards)

The false safety argument is a good one as well. I’m looking now for the article I saw on the increase of injury when driving a larger vehicle (SUV), even though most people think it’s safer to drive one. I’m also looking for the article on removing traffic signage bringing a decrease in accidents to busy areas of Europe. Essentially the theory is that when people think they’re in a dangerous area, they act more cautiously and are in fact safer than when they think they’re safe.

So there’s my two cents

-Eben

20

[QUOTE=Lanzy]
And I would not be alive today if I had been wearing one. Being thrown from a van saved my life as the van became crushed seconds after I was thrown out.

Tit meet Tat.

PS, No I didn’t land on anyone. :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

Same thing happened to my brother. If he had a seatbelt on he’d be dead. A truck hit the driver side door and he was pushed to the passenger side. Imagine if he was strapped in? Instant death.

yeah, I’m sure they (whomever, authorities, insurance companies etc…) leave the ‘death by seatbelt’ statistics out of the mix when they’re arguing for seatbelts…