Seat Belt Laws: Good or bad?

[Eben]

[QUOTE=Noone Special]
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?
[/QUOTE]

I think that this points out quite well the crux of this issue. You are right that as a licensed activity there are more reasons to arbitrarily (or semi-arbitrarily) constrain those doing the activity. The problem comes in when modern living has made owning a personal vehicle a practical neccessity (at least here in America).

Once something goes from being a luxury to being a neccessity (like electricity for example) people’s attitudes regarding control on it change somewhat.

The slippery slope argument holds some merit in the case of seatbelts because the next time it could easily be mandatory helmets while driving laws, then mandatory flame-retardant clothing, then mandetory shoes for maximum grip on the pedals. All of these make sense in way of increasing safety and crash survivability, but at some point people have to decide when the government is doing too much baby sitting of adults. Apparently people have decided that being told to wear seatbelts is the too much babysitting point.

The real point is perhaps that in the great resource war, setbelt use should take a back seat to the eternal issue of poverty. Let’s have a law saying you have to stop at every light and give five cents towards poverty while driving. Don’t like the law? Don’t drive!

So there’s the beginnings of the socialist side of the seatbelt law argument… sorry.
-Eben

[Burton]

[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]

That’s part of the problem, they’re not. There may be some states that have seatbelt defenses but most do not.

So, I run a stop sign, Mr. Don’t tell me what’s good for me broadsides me with no seatbelt on and is brain damaged forever. Despite the fact that that I can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that his injuries would not have been permanent and catastrophic that evidence is not admissible and he’s awarded more than my insurance policy limits at trial and I lose my home so he can receive medical care and his children can go to college while mine can’t.

That’s not an outlandish, one in million scenario. Usually, the severely injured just end up in social programs funded by tax payers.

[Eben]

[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
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…
[/QUOte]

This part was particularly interesting to me…

The study also found that seat belt wearers, as a group, were slightly older, more often women, more likely to be involved in a rear-end collision and less likely to have required transportation in an ambulance. Use of Medical Data

So the obvious question is: Are the seatbelts responsible for the difference in injury or are the driving habits of older women versus younger men the difference? My guess, some of each. Also this study was published in 1989 and I for one would like to know about the efficacy of airbags without seatbelt use vs. seatbelts without airbags.

-Eben

funny quote somewhat relevant:
Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don’t have the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden

[Eben]

[QUOTE=Burton]
That’s part of the problem, they’re not. There may be some states that have seatbelt defenses but most do not.

So, I run a stop sign, Mr. Don’t tell me what’s good for me broadsides me with no seatbelt on and is brain damaged forever. Despite the fact that that I can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that his injuries would not have been permanent and catastrophic that evidence is not admissible and he’s awarded more than my insurance policy limits at trial and I lose my home so he can receive medical care and his children can go to college while mine can’t.

That’s not an outlandish, one in million scenario. Usually, the severely injured just end up in social programs funded by tax payers.
[/QUOTE]

Is this a problem with seatbelt law or with the state of liability in injury claims?

-Eben

[Ravenman]

[QUOTE=Eben]
I think that this points out quite well the crux of this issue. You are right that as a licensed activity there are more reasons to arbitrarily (or semi-arbitrarily) constrain those doing the activity. The problem comes in when modern living has made owning a personal vehicle a practical neccessity (at least here in America).
[/quote]
It is the fact that driving is more or less a necessity in today’s age that makes seatbelts important. If only one in a hundred people had a car, seatbelts would probably be less important, as it is driving in traffic that is the cause of a lot of accidents.

The slippery slope argument holds some merit in the case of seatbelts because the next time it could easily be mandatory helmets while driving laws, then mandatory flame-retardant clothing, then mandetory shoes for maximum grip on the pedals. All of these make sense in way of increasing safety and crash survivability, but at some point people have to decide when the government is doing too much baby sitting of adults.

Seriously, just stop it. This slippery slope argument is unconvincing and meaningless. Nobody is proposing mandatory Nomex suits for drivers, so you are literally fabricating things that have nothing whatsoever to do with seatbelt laws. I ask you again: would you oppose laws that require automakers to put seatbelts (or airbags) in cars because those laws were the beginning of the slippery slope?

So there’s the beginnings of the socialist side of the seatbelt law argument… sorry.

In your thesaurus, do the synonyms of “socialist” include the terms, “anything I personally disagree with” or “laws I don’t like?” Because I don’t think socialism has anything to do with what we’re talking about here.

[Burton]

“Is this a problem with seatbelt law or with the state of liability in injury claims?”

All in favor of keeping their freedom and bearing the full responsibility for doing so, line up here.

[Eben]

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
It is the fact that driving is more or less a necessity in today’s age that makes seatbelts important. If only one in a hundred people had a car, seatbelts would probably be less important, as it is driving in traffic that is the cause of a lot of accidents.
[/quote]

As an alternate, why not just regulate that the max speed be 25mph? That seems like a very sure way to reduce the levels of injury. The point is that there is a gray area where control for safety’s sake turns into control for control’s sake. The argument we’re having on this thread is really over where in that gray are the line lies.

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Seriously, just stop it. This slippery slope argument is unconvincing and meaningless. Nobody is proposing mandatory Nomex suits for drivers, so you are literally fabricating things that have nothing whatsoever to do with seatbelt laws. I ask you again: would you oppose laws that require automakers to put seatbelts (or airbags) in cars because those laws were the beginning of the slippery slope?
[/quote]

You didn’t ask me the first time, but yes, I would oppose laws that require them to put in seatbelts. In America there is a clear priority for wealthy people to get better safety and therefore charging more for safe cars with seatbelts should be the automotive manufacturer’s choice. There is a corrollary that without the expense of installing seatbelts and airbags cheap cars could be cheaper. If safety is really an issue, bumper hight should be regulated the way Andy Rooney advocated so long ago.

The slippery slope argument is very valid as shown on the post a bit further up in this thread with the timeline. The danger of a real slippery slope is that each step is logical on its own, but in the end you get away from logic. Of course I’ve made up further things that haven’t been proposed, there’s no way to point out a slippery slope in the future without speculation. On the other hand, Washington State (where I currently reside) has just passed legislation against using a cell phone without a headset. Rather than hijack the thread on that subject, suffice to say that I beleive it to be the continuation of the ‘for safety!’ slippery slope.

@ravenman

In your thesaurus, do the synonyms of “socialist” include the terms, “anything I personally disagree with” or “laws I don’t like?” Because I don’t think socialism has anything to do with what we’re talking about here.

Thanks to wikipedia…

Socialism refers to a group of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers’ councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

Given that we’re talking about control of property and wealth, we are of neccessity discussing socialism. Note that I never said that was a negative thing. I happen to beleive that a certain level of basic socialism is a good thing. I’d rather see it applied in a rational manner instead of the hodge-podge we have right now though.

-Eben

[Eben]

[QUOTE=Burton]
“Is this a problem with seatbelt law or with the state of liability in injury claims?”

All in favor of keeping their freedom and bearing the full responsibility for doing so, line up here.
[/QUOTE]

I sign up! (probably obvious that I would, huh?)

In order to keep this within the bounds of the OP…

Seatbelt laws are bad! Personal responsibility is good!

Sadly, I see America becoming less personaly responsible and more controling as time goes on. Is the rest of the world following this trend?

-Eben

[Gorsnak]

Just for the record, Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. It is completely and utterly unrelated to the subject of this thread. Seatbelt laws may be the first step out onto the slippery slope to totalitarianism, but not to socialism.

[Noone_Special]

**Eben **and others – I see where you’re coming from re: should the state have seat-belt laws. However I read the OP as asking what right they have to pass them. I think that question has been answered.

As to the current question – I’m willing to be swayed by contradictory data, but I strongly feel that universal seat-belt use does tend to benefit society as a whole, economically speaking (through reduced medical expenses / increased productivity.)
I would however be all for some form of the suggested opt-outs (although I think the default **should **be opt-in, with necessary action to be taken to opt out – because wearing seat belts is safer!)

As for hands-free kits for use of cell-phones – I don’t think this is the continuation of the slippery slope – I think this is a lot closer to saying you can’t do more than 70 mph on a given road. There is a clear and well documented loss of concentration by drivers speaking on the phone; or even listening to the radio. Yet no-one is suggesting dis-allowing either activity.
But holding the phone in your hand while talking is clearly a much more dangerous way of driving still. And the consequences are not only aggravated injuries (as with seat belts vs. no seat belts) but more accidents – involving not only the one-handed driver but other drivers on the road as well.
I’m all for mandating hands-free kits on car phones.

[Eben]

[QUOTE=Noone Special]
**Eben **and others – I see where you’re coming from re: should the state have seat-belt laws. However I read the OP as asking what right they have to pass them. I think that question has been answered.
[/quote]

I agree, that they have the right to pass the laws. With the possibility of amendments they have the right to pass any law they wish. Sorry to be pedantic there, I don’t mean to be snarky, just complete.

Does that mean we can semi-hijack this thread for tangential arguments?

[QUOTE=Noone Special]
As for hands-free kits for use of cell-phones – I don’t think this is the continuation of the slippery slope – I think this is a lot closer to saying you can’t do more than 70 mph on a given road. There is a clear and well documented loss of concentration by drivers speaking on the phone; or even listening to the radio. Yet no-one is suggesting dis-allowing either activity.
But holding the phone in your hand while talking is clearly a much more dangerous way of driving still. And the consequences are not only aggravated injuries (as with seat belts vs. no seat belts) but more accidents – involving not only the one-handed driver but other drivers on the road as well.
I’m all for mandating hands-free kits on car phones.
[/QUOTE]

The documented loss of concentration is from the emotional context of the conversation, not from holding the phone. Wearing a headset in no way reduces the emotional context of the conversation. If holding the phone is a problem, we’d better outlaw eating, drinking (soda/water), gesticulating, and only having one hand. I’m enough of a cynic to think that the telecom lobby which supported the bill here in Washington was really trying to get more sales through the kits themselves and also from people having to upgrade their working phones to ones that are bluetooth capable, since having a cord running from the side of your head is a pretty serious distraction while driving, and silly when you’re not on the phone.

There is no cure for stupidity it seems. Case in point here. Fun task, count the amount of stupidity in that car, don’t forget to multiply by the number of people in the car! It’s not the phone’s fault if stupid people do stupid things with a phone. Until we cure society’s addiction to communication, people will make dumb desicions when given the choice to choose between safety and communication. It doesn’t make logical sense, but it happens all the time.

On the subject of radios… check this article out.

The real answer is that while minor disctractions are dangerous, getting bored while driving is also dangerous. Somewhere in the middle lies personal responsibilty and rather than legislation telling us that boredom is better than distraction, it’s up to every driver when they enter their vehicle to decide if they’re fit to drive. (paraphrased from my remember driving test back when)

-Eben

[kidchameleon]

[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.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but if Princess Di had been wearing her seatbelt, she’d be alive.
Not only that, but there’d be one less conspiracy theory, many fewer court cases, probably more tabloid articles, but most importantly…

…one less remake of Candle in the Wind.

So wear your seatbelt, the world couldn’t handle another remake.

[Cervaise]

[QUOTE=Eben]
getting bored while driving is also dangerous
[/QUOTE]
Next step on the slippery slope: every car must come equipped with a rear-seat hive of angry bees.

[Boyo_Jim]

[QUOTE=Apollyon]
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).
[/QUOTE]

I don’t disagree with anything you say. My point is that that opting out of wearing seat belts in exchange for shouldering all the liability risk yourself is a practical impossibility. When all the private money runs out to keep the vegetables breathing, the government will step in, and those of us functional enough to work and pay taxes will cover the shortfall.

[SmartAleq]

[QUOTE=jtgain]
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:

1. Intrusion into a private vehicle
2. 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”..
[/QUOTE]

Seems to me if you really want to test the slippery slope-ness of car related laws there’s a much better one that fulfills the above criteria but doesn’t have the related water-muddying benefits of seat belt use. How about open container laws? As long as the driver is not drinking or drunk, what possible harm can it be doing anybody that someone else in the car is drinking? What justification does the state have, considering that DUI laws are quite straightforward and unequivocal, in prohibiting people who are not driving a car from drinking liquor in said car? There is no direct or indirect harm to any other person that I can see, aside from that which would occur regardless of the contents of the container being drunk from–if it caroms off someone’s head, that is. Seems to me this is infinitely more of an unjustifiable nanny state law than seat belt requirements by a long shot.

[pingnak]

I’m completely against seatbelt and helmet laws.

If you’re stupid enough to make your brains into porridge, then who are we as a society to stand in your way?

Simple amendment: If you bash your brains out on the highway because you weren’t strapped in or on a motorcycle without a helmet, emergency responders can just leave you there to die… OK I suppose they SHOULD pick up the soon-to-be cadavers and cart them off for proper organ harvesting and disposal. That’ll solve the ‘extra costs’ portion of the argument, too.

Actually, a GREAT idea! If you die of head injuries because you weren’t using safety equipment, you’re a DONOR. Period. This way, you’ll at least get ‘some’ treatment for scrambling your brains, to preserve the other organs to save lives more important than your own life was to you.

[Boyo_Jim]

[QUOTE=pingnak]
…Actually, a GREAT idea! If you die of head injuries because you weren’t using safety equipment, you’re a DONOR. Period. This way, you’ll at least get ‘some’ treatment for scrambling your brains, to preserve the other organs to save lives more important than your own life was to you.
[/QUOTE]

Talk about your slippery slope. You’ll have EMTs and bystanders tossing helmets into the brush, taking off seatbelts and slamming chests and heads with a few shots from a tire iron to make it look real.

[Crocodiles_And_Boulevards]

Slippery slope:

[QUOTE=Slippery slope - Wikipedia]

The slippery slope as fallacy

This form of argument often provides evaluative judgments on social change: once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule.

Note that these arguments may indeed have validity, but they require some independent justification of the connection between their terms: otherwise the argument (as a logical tool) remains fallacious.

The “slippery slope” approach may also relate to the conjunction fallacy: with a long string of steps leading to an undesirable conclusion, the chance of all the steps actually occurring is actually less than the chance of any one of the individual steps occurring alone.
[/QUOTE]

[Eben]

[QUOTE=Crocodiles And Boulevards]
Slippery slope:
Originally Posted by Slippery slope - Wikipedia

The slippery slope as fallacy

This form of argument often provides evaluative judgments on social change: once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule.

Note that these arguments may indeed have validity, but they require some independent justification of the connection between their terms: otherwise the argument (as a logical tool) remains fallacious.

The “slippery slope” approach may also relate to the conjunction fallacy: with a long string of steps leading to an undesirable conclusion, the chance of all the steps actually occurring is actually less than the chance of any one of the individual steps occurring alone.
[/QUOTE]

I’m glad you posted this after all the discussion of the slippery slope.

Using the above I can clarify my position on seatbelt laws being a slippery slope by stating explicitly that past laws increasing restrictions upon motorists give good evidence that further restrictive laws will be passed. The nature of each past law being passed as an end point law “Don’t worry, adults won’t be required to use them, etc.” give good reason to think that further incremental restrictions will be justified on a one-by-one basis leading to a position where we have an undesirable conclusion. In fact, I think the slippery slope has validity in this case because going from no safety devices to mandated seat belts for adults is not well justified.

The point about open containers is a good one. They seem to be based more upon the proclivity of people with easy access to alcohol while driving not being able to refrain from imbibing. Like I’ve said before, there doesn’t seem to be any cure for stupidity. I’m not sure laws are the answer, but since I don’t have an answer to it…

-Eben

p.s. On the topic of slippery slopes, another classic example of the slippery slope being a valid argument is to be found here:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

[freekalette]

I just wanted to pop in and say that, although everything I could possibly hope to say has already been posted by Dopers far more intelligent and articulate than I, I’m enjoying this thread immensely.

Slight hijack: Eben, welcome to the boards!! You wouldn’t happen to be a fan of Anti-Flag, would you? It wasn’t until I clicked the link in that last post that I realized you weren’t quoting them.