As an adult, you can choose not to drive with someone who doesn’t wear a seat belt.
Freedom comes with a price and that means allowing others to make stupid decisions. That means we may all have to pay more when someone drives without a seat belt, climbs a mountain with no training or decides to ride a motorcycle (which come without seat belts). Claiming that not wearing a seat belt intrudes on everyone else’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness because of increased hospital bills is stretching things. It’s the person who has to abide by laws that restrict him from riding without a helmet, wearing a seat belt or not be allowed to partake in any dangerous activity because he may get hurt and everyone’s insurance premiums may go up is the one who has had his freedoms trampled.
Complaining that seat belt laws infringe on personal liberty is every bit as silly as complaining that speed limit laws infringe on personal liberty. The roads are owned by we the people, and we the people can enact any regulations regarding their use that we want to. Don’t like those regulations? Well, you’re perfectly free not to drive.
That’s kinda funny, because I do think that speed limit laws infringe on personal liberty. (Interesting note here, I’m from Montana) I think it would be far more fair for speed to be a tested and licensed thing, so if you have the equipment and training for high speed, go for it. Yes there are practical problems with enforcing under those conditions and the current speed laws are a pretty fair compromise, but that doesn’t keep me from seeing them as an infringment on personal liberty.
On the subject of helmets, I don’t wear one when I bicycle because it reduces my ability to hear traffic comming from behind me on the country roads I ride on. Following the law and wearing a helmet would manifestly reduce my safety. Then again I’m not the majority of bicyclers and the relatively unique conditions of being on rarely traffic, often dirt, roads isn’t accounted for in the law.
So maybe we need a new thread on what makes a law ‘good’ in a more general sense.
-Eben
[I may be new to the forums, but i’m jumping in with both feet. Is there a parachute law in effect? :)]
It’s not as silly. Going any speed you want is dangerous to everyone. Not wearing a seatbelt is very rarely dangerous to others on the road.
Ahh, the old “If you don’t like the laws I like, then you can just stop driving” routine.
Because your ridiculous proposal that one could “opt out of obeying the law” comes with the caveat that one would pay higher insurance premiums. Read my post again. We don;t individually pay the price for freedom, we ALL do.
Not to mention your proposal is rife with other problems:
How are officers supposed to know who opted out? Should drivers all have to have their “Opt out” card on them when driving? Does it have an entire checklist including helmets, seatbelt, etc? Should mountain climbers pay higher insurance premiums? Those who eat at fast food restaurants more than twice a week?
You said, “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.”
The hospital must now determine how much more each individual was because his seat belt wasn’t worn and what the extra cost is?
I didn’t say that people who opted out would be required (by law) to pay higher premiums. However, I’d expect insurance companies would charge those who opted out more, as statistically the costs associated with those individuals would be higher. Just like young males have to pay higher premiums than old ladies.
I don’t think this is a big deal. Have a special sticker on your license, or a special opt-out card, or someplace you can mail a ticket to get it taken care of. It’s not like people are being ticketed right and left for not wearing seatbelts – the point is to have a system in place where those who do get such tickets can get out of having to pay them, or having them on their record.
Sure, why not? If you choose not to wear a seat belt and end up in intensive care for six months after flying through your windshield, you should be liable for the health care costs.
This isn’t something I feel particularly strongly about, incidentally, but it struck me as a reasonable compromise between safety and liberty. Personally, I think it’s pretty dumb not to wear a seat belt so I don’t mind the existing laws, but I recognize that people may feel differently.
Wait, what? What about the uninsured driver that gets ejected and doesn’t die from his injuries? Who pays to keep that guy in the hospital, on life-support, etc, when wearing a seatbelt could have prevented most of his injuries?
Seatbelts are proven to save lives, precisely because you DON’T get ejected, smash into the dashboard (I know, airbags have mitigated that) or steering column, etc.
And your complaint about “dying in a fire” is a really rare occurence. Most accidents do NOT involve fires, and if the seatbelt saved you from the initial impact, then you have the werewithal to undo your seatbelt and escape if you realize that your wrecked car is on fire, right?
What about carseats for children? Why not abolish those too and call them stupid?
How about you have kids restrained in car seats, you aren’t wearing a seatbelt, crash, and you’re incapacitated due to not wearing your seatbelt and the car catches fire?
Who gets the kiddies out of their carseats before they burn to death? Not you!
Would you ride a rollercoaster without the restraints?
So, to summarize, YES it does affect others, and yes, there ARE laws in place in some states with regards to motorcycles, too, although wearing your helmet can only do so much if you’re reckless and travelling at a great rate of speed.
Not much metal around those bikes to spare you.
The thing is, yeah, you can sign a waiver and all, saying you’re responsible for the health care costs, but if you’re un or under insured, it won’t amount to a hill of beans if you can’t pay, because tjhe hospital can’t throw you out.
And all ya had to do was buckle up.
I overstated when I said that such laws are the “very definition” of socialism, but the tendencies are there: Enact a law that takes away a personal freedom, a freedom that could potentially harm only that individual, for a perceived greater societal good.
Also, what is with the “opt out” argument against seat belts, but the person would have to pay full costs for injuries, etc.? Why stop with seat belts? Let’s go with smoking, motorcycling, drinking, overeating, gliding, skydiving, boating, running with scissors, swimming less than 30 minutes after eating, talking on a cellphone, and not keeping your hands at the 10 and 2 position while driving.
You are free to do all of these things, but must be insured fully in case one of these things cause an accident. What kind of “freedom” is that?
No, I don’t have a constitution right to not wear a seat belt anymore than I have one to eat an ice cream cone, but I think that it would be included in the spirit of the 9th amendment, or a 4th amendment privacy right.
You all don’t see a slippery slope in the seat belt laws? Lets start down, shall we:
1960s, belts required in cars. “They are just there. No one HAS to use them” said the do-gooders.
1970s, belts/seats required for children. “These laws are for bad parents, and to protect children who’s parents don’t buckle them up. We don’t say that ADULTS have to use them” said the do-gooders.
1980s, seat belt laws for adults, but only secondary enforcement. “We are just trying to get the ‘bad’ drivers. Cops aren’t going to pull you over for not wearing a seat belt” said the do-gooders.
1990s, primary enforcement seat belt laws, “Seat belts save lives!” said the do-gooders.
2000s, points and insurance hikes for failure to wear seat belts, “We must save lives” say the do-gooders.
I agree with other posters that for those under 18 they should be mandatory, and a waiver that if you’re hurt, you’re on your own, would be acceptable.
A couple of points here. A Mandatory sealtbelt law is not so far away from a manadatory insurance law. Most states, I think, require you to have some form of auto insurance to drive. Isn’t that basically the same thing?
And as to your specific proposal – I don’t buy it unless the government is actually willing to let you die when your money runs out. When your isurance pays its max, and your house has been auctioned off, and you’re still lying drooling on a hospital bed; someone – us taxpayers – are gonna pick up the costs of wiping your ass and keeping you alive.
Claiming you can do this higher risk behavior entirely at your own and only your own risk is simply not a reasonable possibility.
But again, the point is, not everyone would be on their own!
Just because you sign a waiver doesn’t mean that you could afford extended healthcare as a result of your refusal to wear a safety restraint system, insurance or no.
Everything. Injuries and deaths don’t just cost money in health care, emergency services and funeral costs, but take a chunk out of productivity in general. There’s a widespread social cost to a lot of injuries; a CNC machinist who’s in the hospital can’t machine parts.
Okay, so where is it? Seat belt laws have been on the books a long time. Can you please tell us what the slippery slope consequences have been?
One of my criteria for a law being a valid intrusion on freedoms is that there NOT be a slippery slope, but I don’t see the fallout from seat belt laws.
Well, of course it would, what a ridiculous question. Do you think the penalty for speeding should be burning at the stake?
Well, there’s two obvious responses to this:
I specifically argued that the law must have a proven social benefit to be valid. What are the social benefits of what you’re proposing? None that I can see. Can you prove them?
The Constitutions of both the United States and Canada offer specific protection to speech and freedom of worship. They do not offer specific protection to the right to not wear seat belts. There’s a reason for that; speech and freedom of worship are critically important to protect if you want freedom to continue; seat-belt-less driving is not. I STILL think that it constitutes an infirngment on freedom, which is why I feel a test is necessary to see whether or not such a law is valid, but it’s simply not equivalent to freedom of expression.
There are plenty of things that are illegal that are not necessarily obviously damaging to others. Try going to a big city and climbing up the outside of a skyscraper. Try flying a helicopter with no license, even if there are no passengers and no one within 100 miles who you could crash into. Try owning certain chemicals or certain exotic animals, etc. Try going out onto a tall bridge and bungee jumping all by yourself with no licensing or preparation or anything. There are already illegal, nanny-state (which is NOT the same as socialism… that’s economic) things in the US. Don’t act like one more or one less is this massive point of principle on which we must make our stand.
In any case, there’s another big big big argument in favor of seatbelt laws, which is that if you are in accident and die, it doesn’t just affect yourself, it affects the other person in the accident. Even if it their actual physical safety is in no way impaired, there’s a psychological and potentially legal aspect which is HUGE. The most serious accident I’ve been in involved me getting hit in the passenger side by a minivan, hard enough to cave in the door. I was at fault, legally, and (likely, although I think that whoever laid out those streets could have done a much better job) actually, but everyone walked away just fine. What if someone in the other car had been not wearing a seatbelt and had died. How different would my life be now? First of all, I might have ended up being charged with some sort of vehicular manslaughter or whatnot. Secondly, I would live the rest of my life knowing that I HAD KILLED ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. Isn’t that something that affects me pretty darn directly? And even if I had absolutely positively NOT been at fault, ie, sideswiped by a drunk driver, wouldn’t I still spend the rest of my life wondering if I couldn’t have saved a life by being a teeny bit faster to react, etc?
Suppose there was a trend among young (but legally adult) men to prove their machismo by driving around in cars in which they had deliberately disabled many of the safety features, such that what should be minor accidents would often result in horribly grave injuries or death. They’re only making things more dangerous for themselves. They’re adults. Should that be legal?
How is Giraffe’s suggestion different from the insurance ramifications of any other known personal high-risk activity… such as smoking? Smokers have higher health risks, insurers charge more. Scuba divers run additional risks (to non-divers), insurers may charge a premium or exclude certain treatments.
If driving without a seatbelt increases health risks to a statistically significant point why should insurers not take this into account?
Not sure an opt-out would be required (essentially declaring that you will smoke), an alternative might be for insurers to have a dangerous activity exclusion; if you are injured while not wearing a belt then the insurance won’t cover it.
(FWIW, no dog in this fight. NZ has had mandatory seat belt laws for decades… but then we also have a collective accident insurance – ACC – so the taxpayers directly pick up the expense for all accident victims. Yes… we’re practically red-book carrying communists).
That isn’t socialism. You don’t seem to understand what socialism is. Socialism has nothing to do with traffic laws, nor the drinking age, nor anything else you’re talking about.
Then start a thread on those subjects. Whether or not laws on swimming after eating are good ideas has no bearing on seatbelts. If you’re going to make a case against seatbelts, you’d do better to confine your comments to seatbelts.
Is your argument that we shouldn’t have laws requiring auto manufacturers to install seatbelts because it put us on a slippery slope?
I think each of those actions you listed are entirely defensible on their own merits, in the same way that laws against child labor are good, and laws establishing the 40 hour work week are good, and laws prohibiting unsafe working conditions are good, regardless of any slippery slope. But a bill to establish a 30 hour work week would be bad, even if it is a continuation of any slippery slope.
And by the way, what do you think is the next step on this slippery slope for seatbelts? That in 2030 we’re going to institute executions for failing to buckle up?
