Have you checked to see if you’re allowed to say that.
We’ve had motorcycle helmet laws struck down so the precedent is there for seat belt laws to be challenged. It’s not the government’s job to baby-sit us, at least not in a free society.
Pragmatically, I’m a fan of seatbelt laws. People who don’t wear seatbelts are stupid. Especially people who don’t wear them because they might wrinkle their clothes or because they heard some one in a million story about someone who was saved because they didn’t wear a seatbelt.
It’s very very hard for me to argue against seatbelt laws. However, based on my feelings about other laws against consensual acts (i.e drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, etc) I have to sheepishly agree to be opposed to seatbelt laws on principle. However, I don’t have a problem with mandating seatbelts for minors, since minors are legally considered to not be able to consent to certain things. And in states where auto insurance is mandatory I don’t have a problem with there being a higher fee for those not wearing a seatbelt. Besides the consensuality issue, there’s also one of consistancy - the government doesn’t ticket other activities that are even more dangerous or unhealthy such as smoking.
I’m not sure what would happen in a UHC situation. But I guess there’d already be issues with whether having UHC would impact whether the government tries to control other health issues such as smoking and diet.
For those proposing waiver i.e. “opt out” with full financial responsibility borne by the non-seat belt wearer:how do you envision tort brought by compliers or their decedents in the cases where the belt has significant bearing on injury or death?
The OP obviously believes that the windshield of liberty must be splattered from time to time with the blood of patriots. I don’t.
Besides, only people with a poor grip and no sense of balance are afraid of slippery slopes.
I think the OP and others are missing the point that not only is driving not a “constitutional right,” it’s a licensed activity.
As such, when you accept your driving license from the local DOT, you agree to abide by the terms and conditions that they set on your usage of the license.
Which means that insurance can be mandated. And that speed limits can be mandated… And that seat belts can be mandated, and that you, as a licensed operator of a vehicle, can be held responsible for others in it adhering to the licensing agency’s regulations.
And yes; if you don’t like it, don’t apply for a license – IOW don’t drive.
So, I think the argument that seat belt laws somehow infringe on personal liberties is a non-starter.
Now, whether these laws make good social and economic sense is a different question (one to which I incidentally think the question is also “yes,” but YMMV.) But “liberties” never get into it. Or would you challenge the FAA’s (or local equivalent’s) authority to force a licensed (private) pilot to submit to its myriad regulations, as well?
I wear seats belts all the time now… after they started raising the fine and giving points for seat belt citations, I surrendered. When not wearing a seat belt was a secondary offense and the fine was $10.00, I just paid the tickets when I got them. Now, I follow the rules.
Many of the posters in this thread have said that they always wear a seatbelt, but object to their mandatory use on principle. While not quite logically inconsistent, I fail to see any good reasons for holding this view (in this thread or elsewhere).
Others seems to dislike mandatory seatbelts because they wish for the freedom to not wear one. Why the antipathy? Putting on a seatbelt is a trivial, two-second-per-trip task that is far more likely to save your life than curtail it. The overall inconvenience is minimal to non-existent. Why not wear one?
Noone Special nails it. The broader libertarian issues of how much of an interest the state has in protect individuals from their own stupidity, and how much the state has an interest in protecting itself from the unavoidable cost imposed upon it by virtue of individuals’ stupidities need not apply. However interesting they may be.
I think (someone will doubtless correct me if I think in error) there’s sometimes a tendency to perceive ‘freedoms’ as an end, rather than a means.
I don’t smoke, but I feel you have the right to. I don’t skydive, but I feel you have a right to. I wear a seatbelt, I feel you have the right not to. Just because I do or don’t do something doesn’t mean I feel I want to impose my choice on you. What part are you failing to see?
If you’re working in a fire-hazardous environment, your employer can force you not to smoke on the premises. You can smoke at home, I guess.
If you’re a professional athlete, your club can put a clause in your contract that says you can’t skydive. At all.
If you’re a licensed driver, the DOT can put in your “contract” (the license) that you must wear a seatbelt while exercising your license on public roadways. And yes, if you built a track on your own land, you could drive the very same car you use on the highway, without wearing your seatbelt.
Rights and justice have nothing to do with this issue – it’s all a question of entering a contract that has various terms and agreements in it. Period.
I think “full financial responsibility” is a bit strong – I’d argue that it simply acknowledges one’s liability in this particular circumstance. I wouldn’t expect there would be any way to force people who signed it to die without costing the state or others a penny. It wouldn’t magically fix any wrongs caused by not wearing a seat belt, but it’s not supposed to. People can do risky things all the time that could potentially injure others – that’s why we have civil courts. Opting out simply gives hard evidence that you chose not to wear a seat belt with full knowledge and acceptance of the possible consequences.
Basically, I agree with others that people who want to be free not to wear their seat belts should be, but not without potential consequences as a result of their choice.
Every month, we have an online vote.
The ballot includes each individual who is in the hospital due to his or her own foolishness, and who has run out of money and can’t afford to continue medical care. Each individual is captioned with their type of foolishness: smoking, failure to wear a seat belt, failure to wear a motorcycle helmet, sticking bottle rockets up their own anus, or whatever. Each person also gets two hundred words on the ballot next to his or her name and photo, in which they attempt to justify having the public cover their continued medical expenses.
Edit to add condition: In order to apply for this, you have to agree to make all of the applicable records public: your medical history and doctors’ writeups, the police report if there is one, and so on. These would be linked along with your own personal 200-word appeal. If you aren’t willing to expose the facts of your case, you don’t get to beg for public money.
After that is a pair of buttons: yes or no. If you get more than half the voters to click yes, then you get up to five more years of care at taxpayer expense; if you max out the five years, you have to make your case again. If more than half the voters click no, you die.
< / tongue in cheek… mostly >
Nope, that’s the very worst* kind of helmet. The straps that run by your ear catch the wind and create white noise. It’s not much if you’re in a heavy traffic situation, where you’re expecting cars all around you all the time. The problem is when you’re in a low traffic area with cars traveling at high speed and you need to be able to hear them from a ways off.
-Eben
*so maybe saying the very worst is overstating. I imagine there are plenty of worse helmets to wear, like the leather football helmets from the movie I watched last night. In any case, that helmet was exactly the kind I had in mind when I first mentioned the hearing issue.
Does failure to wear a seat belt really increase society’s health care costs? I mean, for every 20 something that you have to treat in a hospital for failing to wear a seatbelt, how much money does each young death save by this person not growing older and require expensive end of life care?
In all seriousness, what is your response to post #45?
I understand that driving is a licensed activity and that the state CAN implement restrictions in accordance with that license.
The whole point of the OP is whether or not it is a good restriction granted that such a law involves:
- Intrusion into a private vehicle
- The activity proscribed harms only the person who fails to abide by it. (Largely)
And another point: Riding in a passenger vehicle requires no license from the state, but I can be cited for failure to wear a seat belt in the passenger seat.
Where does the “don’t get a license if you don’t like it” argument come into play here? I guess it comes down to “don’t ride on the public streets” which to me translates into “You have all of the rights and freedoms in the world so long as you never leave your home”…
Ah, how I lurves me a Bricker-like argument*. Wait…did I say “lurves”? No, no…the opposite of that (at least, when it’s naught but a red-herring to the actual question). The point isn’t that “not only is driving not a “constitutional right,” it’s a licensed activity”. Of course seat-belt laws can be passed. The question asked in the title of the OP is whether or not such laws are good or bad – note the last line:
Personally, I dislike seatbelt laws. I find seatbelts constricting, uncomfortable, and inevitably interfering with my freedom-of-motion (e.g., reaching in a pocket). However, I wear a seatbelt specifically because such laws exist.
Are these laws “onerous”? I think not. Are they an inappropriate restriction from a principled personal freedom stance? I think so, but that’s because I don’t see a clear dividing line between the direct (personal safety) and indirect (insurance/hospital costs) consequences. I tend to come down more on the side of personal accountibility, but there is a grey area between the positions, and I’m quite enjoying the back and forth of this thread.
- Nothing at all against Bricker – I find his arguments to be incredibly well-formed and educational. However, as was stated recently in another thread, he tends to argue – and very effectively, I might add – what is, not what should (or should not) be, which is the argument here.
Did you read the article posted by gonzomax (post #16)? Very interesting. I’d like to know if there are any follow-up studies that have been done…
I agree with Noone Special on practical grounds. Driving is a privilege and the costs are collectively shared; the same goes for flying planes and other licensed activities to a lesser degree.
That doesn’t mean I have to like it. I agree with the OP philosophically, although seat-belt laws aren’t the beginning but rather a long way down the slippery slope slide. Freedom to do what you want should be automatic unless there is a very good reason to limit it. The reasons to limit personal freedoms should have something to do with preventing you from limiting other people’s freedoms. If you are harming no one else, you should be able to screw yourself over as much as you want. All that and I still don’t think seat belt laws are a big deal.
By the way, I wish the healthcare costs argument could go out the window. To whit: I don’t see why providing service to unpaying customers should be mandated, even when it comes to their health. In a lot of cases it is a good, moral thing to do, but it shouldn’t be against the law for doctors to expect the customer to hold up their end of the bargain. Just like it is good to feed the poor, but not against the law to let them starve.
Oh, and Giraffe’s idea is great, except I think it should be opt-in. When you turn 18, you no longer legally have to wear seat belts. If you want, you can go up to the DMV, take the seat belt oath and have them note it on your license and notify your insurance company. You get cheaper insurance and the cops can tell at a glance if you are required to wear them by checking your license or running your plates.