# So many people still don't believe in wearing seatbelts! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 1, 2005, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379 "2005-06-01T15:28:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/201 "2005-06-08T17:56:24Z")
> [@MrAlpen](#): > > (1) Are US cars less safe because the civil liberties lobby fights against mandatory belt use? > > OK, I’ll try flogging the horse again, and if it doesn’t move this time I’ll accept that it’s dead! > > - WHY does FMVSS 208 require vehicles to meet standards for unbelted occupants? Because a significant proportion of the US vehicle occupant population doesn’t wear seat belts (for whatever reason). > > - If belt use was 96% would FMVSS still require unbelted standards to be met? No, I don’t think so. Ford, GM and Chrysler would petition for change quicker than than blink. > > - My conclusion: increasing belt use would: > > - directly improve the survival chances of new belt users > - lead to changes in US standards that would improve cars for everyone in the US > - take cost out of the vehicle design process (or allow it to be redirected to improving some other features. > > - The regulations in the USA are the way that they are because your legislators choose to take into account the desire of a minority not to wear seatbelts. Them’s just the cold facts of the case. We do agree here. Increasing seatbelt usage would save lives. I accept that wholeheartedly. I however do not abide by the assumption that lack of seatbelt laws is the reason for these design decisions. Only 1 state in the union lacks seatbelt laws, AFAIK. We do indeed have a lower compliance, this needs to be addressed, and if compliance were better cars could be designed differently. These points I conceed. However, considering the fact that de rigueur since 1985 has been madatory seatbelt usage, I cannot accept that the laws are the solution. They in fact cause more harm than good IMO. People choose not to wear them and break the law. The laws do not work and are poor ones to boot. Compliance should be driven by education and if needed design. I can’t see how, with the laws being as established as they are here, you can argue that the legislators have taken the minority of non-seatbelt wearers in account? If anything, they have been largely ignored. This isn’t a problem IMO, but the tactic to make the people comply is a dangerous one. You’re stating that lack of compliance = unsafe cars. That could very well be true. However I don’t think more, stricter seatbelt laws are the solution. And I don’t believe that civil liberties fundies are the cause of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/202 "2005-06-08T18:16:07Z")
> [@MrAlpen](#): > > Firstly, the figures should relate to the proportion of population life spent in cars as drivers or passengers. It isn’t just a case of comparing the % of residents that drive. The % of drivers is only one factor. Having a high number of people who never sit in a car as a driver or passenger will lower the per capita risk, but it isn’t clear that this is even a significant factor, let alone the most significant factor in comparing the US with the UK numbers. I’d guess road types and journey types matter more, but it’s just a guess. Agreed that the rates need to measure both time as a driver and passenger. Difficult to do, but conceptually agreed. Though I would stipulate that the level of urbanization (especially the high quality of mass transit) in the UK vs the US would reasonalby indicate a pretty sizable decrease in proportion of population which spends time in cars. > [@](#): > > Secondly I never claimed that the differences in this table related to seat belt use alone. I only said that it showed that US does relatively poorly in road safety in general, which it does. It’s position in the table varies according to how you normalise, but it’s not a world leader. This is probably due to many things, including the weather. It just makes it worth opening your eyes to what other countries are doing, even if you eventually reject their strategies for whatever reason. True enough, though I think calling our performance “poor” when compared to elsewhere is a little unfair. Based on my interpretation of the data you cited I’d call it average, only soundly beaten in all categories by the UK and Scandinavia. And the US has many special circumstances which a detailed analysis might mitigate these shortcomings. Off topic, but I might as well be a little provincial. > [@](#): > > Thirdly, it IS generally accepted by transport safety researchers that accidents rates are not proportional to distance traveled. This is a complex area, but some examples: > For 2003, there were 22000 UK road users killed or seriously injured on roads in built-up areas, and 13000 killed or seriously injured “out of town”. I suppose it’s not too difficult to accept that high traffic densities with conflicting paths and large speed variations increase the probability of serious accidents. It’s the nature of long journeys that they expose you to lower proportions of such risks. Fair enough, this fact honesly does surprise me and I wonder what a well informed contrarian might argue, but I can accept it for the sake of this argument. The one fact I’ll state is that your example, and perhaps the general assumption you’ve used, seems to apply to a length of one trip. Not the total distance travelled annually. In my argument, I was reasoning that the total distance travelled annually would not only measure long trips versus short trips, but also measure the number of trips taken overall. The latter seems to be the bigger factor in my point. I’d argue that people in the UK average fewer car trips than the US by a sizable margin. This factor is why I see the Vehicle-KM measure to be a more accurate one. This actually is probably a more important measure that the one discussed at the start of this post. While total number of riders per capita is a valuable stat, the number of car trips per capita would be the most informative. I’d guess that the disparity between the two countries in car trips/person out paces the difference between number of riders/person. The point being, I’m not quite ready to conceed that driving in the UK is markedly safer than doing so in the US due to better designed cars, facilitated by seatbelt complaince. Even if it were, you can see that I don’t agree that seatbelt laws are an acceptable solution. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/203 "2005-06-08T18:25:45Z")
> [@MrAlpen](#): > > I thought you had in mind a more complex system that would force all but the most intransigent to wear belts. > > Buckle switches are trivial to defeat if you are motivated to do so (as other people have said in this thread). Passive belt systems were generally poor performers and unreliable. The passive part was typically diagonal - only. A rubbish safety system, only use in the USA because of rubbish legislation! Argeed that they would not be a challenge to defeat. However, I hope you’ll agree that it’s even easier to defeat the law in place. Which, I think, is a important distinction if you’re trying to argue that a law is better than a mechanical solution. And while I do admit the previous incarnations of the passive systems were not great, it did illustrate that the concept was not prohibitively expensive like you argued. A buckle switch would be the minimum legal requirement as I propose it, car companies would be free to try and develop a better passive system if they so choose, and were able to market it as a desirable feature. None of it’s perfect, but combined with education, they’d be better than a ineffective and suspect law. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/204 "2005-06-08T18:26:01Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > I commented on this earlier in a manner of speaking. Cars with built in anti-theft systems, airbags and other safety measures effect your premiums. If premiums are made higher by elective non-use of seatbelts to belay the additional cost to those other’s insured, the argument for the “greater good” seems to be shot in the ass. > > Whatever the case, it’s a better solution than a seatbelt law. But what about a simple refusal to pay out at all? I know that in Australia, which is the last place i had my car insurance, my policy made very clear that the policy would not pay for anything if my accident was the result of driving while drunk. Would you support a policy system that refused to pay out if the accident victim was not wearing a seatbelt? ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/205 "2005-06-08T18:33:06Z")
> [@MrAlpen](#): > > AHH - that’s the reason! In some countries we have equipped ourselves with upgraded police officers who multi-task! You can’t really cost this in the way you describe. What if no-one breaks the law? I know you’re mostly joking here, but it does warrant comment. You’ll conceed that a officer multi-tasking is necessarily less effective at each function? I know, no matter how trivial the task, that when I juggle multiple responsibilities at work they all suffer for it a bit. Reasonable to believe that time a cop spends writing a seatbelt violation is time taken away from catching drunk drivers. Sure, it’s not sizable in each case, but when viewed on the large scale it’s expensive. It is indeed virtually impossible to measure the cost-benefit there, but certainly there is a cost. If no one breaks the law, let’s take it off the books then. Everyone is happy. 🙂 Obviously this is all a secondary argument in my point. The latitude which this allows the cops is a much more serious “cost” to me. ---
**Author:** ![MrAlpen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@MrAlpen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrAlpen)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/206 "2005-06-08T18:36:30Z")
OK Omniscient, I think we’ll have to part mutually unconvinced on this one. I understand that a lawmaking solution to belt wearing is philosophically unattractive to you, and to others in the USA. I don’t think it would be more expensive than _effective_ technological enforcement, but I don’t know, and maybe you are correct. Since I make some of my pitiful living out of these things being harder to do in the USA I should just say thank you. But please continue to buckle yourself in! ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/207 "2005-06-08T18:47:33Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > But what about a simple refusal to pay out at all? > > I know that in Australia, which is the last place i had my car insurance, my policy made very clear that the policy would not pay for anything if my accident was the result of driving while drunk. > > Would you support a policy system that refused to pay out if the accident victim was not wearing a seatbelt? I’d certainly consider it. I’m not sure that it needs to be quite such a radical departure, speaking in absolutes is always dicey. But if the argument was made for it, I’d be interested to see if it were workable. Perhaps a wiser solution would be to make the deductables substantially higher for non-seatbelt wearing injuries? That way people aren’t dying and/or declaring bankruptcy due to a fairly moderate injuries. But lets say you have a $250 medical deductable, if you’re injured without a seatbelt you have to pay the first $2500 or $5000 and after that your premiums go up sizably. I’d have to guess such a solution would greatly mitigate the “social” cost of those not buckling up. Bet it’d work better than a law too. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/208 "2005-06-09T00:12:58Z")
In NH the only law regarding seatbelts is minors must be seatbelted. Likewise, motorcycle helmets are not required. I personally wouldn’t cry if they enacted laws for either thing, because they wouldn’t affect me at all - I wear my seatbelt 100% of the time, require passengers in my car to do likewise, and have no interest in motorcycles - but until then if people wish to natural-select themselves out of the gene pool, it’s there right. Hopefully they do so before they have children. Maybe it’s a cold attitude, but why should I show more concern about their safety than they themselves do? ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/209 "2005-06-09T00:40:37Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Perhaps a wiser solution would be to make the deductables substantially higher for non-seatbelt wearing injuries? This still doesn’t get around the problem of me having to pay for someone else’s deliberate stupidity. The only way to do this is to refuse any payment. Surely this then becomes a medical ethics dillema. The doctors at the hospital would have to leave the guy in the gutter, otherwise my tax money is being used. This is something I’m pretty sure they would never do, and rightly so from their point of view. I understand it is vital not to mess with people’s liberties, but the right to not wear a seatbelt? C’mon, get a grip. If this is really so infuriating to some people, why do they say nothing about the requirement for drivers licences, registered cars, etc? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/210 "2005-06-09T02:05:43Z")
> [@Driver8](#): > > I understand it is vital not to mess with people’s liberties, but the right to not wear a seatbelt? C’mon, get a grip. If this is really so infuriating to some people, why do they say nothing about the requirement for drivers licences, registered cars, etc? Because those requirements protect other drivers on the road. Seat belt laws primarily protect the individuals who are forced to abide by them. ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/211 "2005-06-09T12:37:20Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Because those requirements protect other drivers on the road. Seat belt laws primarily protect the individuals who are forced to abide by them. But they also protect my property, since I don’t have to indirectly pay for the medical costs of the person not wearing a seatbelt in an accident. If driving was a right and not a privilege, I’d see the liberty issue. I for one would not like to see a law stating pedestrians had to wear crash helmets. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/212 "2005-06-09T13:07:57Z")
> [@](#): > > **featherlou** said: > It’s been the law in Canada to wear seat belts in front and back seats for so long that I barely remember a time before the law, but apparently the debate is still raging on down South. I wear my seatbelt all the time when I’m in the car, but I still don’t think that it should be the law that I have to. I see it as the government overstepping its bounds in trying to compel me to do what’s good for me, which is the role of a parent to a child, not a government to a citizen. > [@](#): > > **Madd Maxx** said: > Many people feel the same way about helmet laws for motorcycle riders as vetbridge feels about seatbelts. And this, thanks to ABATE, is why the Pennsylvania helmet law has changed. It is now legal for a motorcycle rider with the proper license and two years experience on a bike to choose whether or not to wear a helmet. > [@](#): > > **jimpatro** said: > And I do think the government does need to intervene when some people aren’t informed enough(being diplomatic here) to make the right decision to wear a seatbelt. And I don’t want some nanny in Washington deciding whether I’m informed enough to make a decision, or deciding that I’m not because I didn’t make what they think was the ‘right’ decision for my personal health/safety. I don’t need a new set of parents telling me to do what’s good for me. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/213 "2005-06-09T13:55:16Z")
> [@Driver8](#): > > This still doesn’t get around the problem of me having to pay for someone else’s deliberate stupidity. The only way to do this is to refuse any payment. Surely this then becomes a medical ethics dillema. The doctors at the hospital would have to leave the guy in the gutter, otherwise my tax money is being used. This is something I’m pretty sure they would never do, and rightly so from their point of view. Not necessarily true. When taken as a group, the difference in the deductable as applied to all claims could surpass the cost to the insured as a whole. Most injuries in traffic related unjuries amount to less than $5000. If all those people who aren’t covered due to seatbelt infractions do not make claims as a result, the money saved would out pace the cost of those relatively few serious injuries which surpass the higher premium threshold. I think it’s probably unreasonable to claim that every unbelted injury would have been cost-free to you had they buckled up. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/214 "2005-06-09T14:20:21Z")
> [@Driver8](#): > > But they also protect my property, since I don’t have to indirectly pay for the medical costs of the person not wearing a seatbelt in an accident. > > If driving was a right and not a privilege, I’d see the liberty issue. I for one would not like to see a law stating pedestrians had to wear crash helmets. People who make this argument are being a little hypocritical. While the “cost to me” argument has some merit, the context used here is short sighted. Everyone makes choices which put themselves in some peril outside of the norm. The concept of shared cost is a fundamental fact of our society. If you’re going to get all bent out of shape over this, even if I do conceed that it’d be fair to make life more expensive for non-seatbelt wearers, you need to make the same argument against all increased-risk activities. For example, if _you_ get into an accident while speeding you’re costing more money. If you’re obese, you’re probably going to cost more money. If you indulge in cigarettes or alcohol you’re probably going to cost more money. If you partake in dangerous sports you’re probably going to end up costing more money. If you choose not to have health insurance, you’re costing more money. Seatbelt wearing isn’t the massive drain on resources to substansiate this line of arguing. Its a pretty thin argument when taken into consideration on the grand scale. What you’re really saying is “if you’re going to take a risk that I wouldn’t take, I don’t want to pay for it”. Thats a fair argument, but to be so myopic as to apply it only here is unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![serious\_lark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@serious\_lark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/serious_lark)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/215 "2005-06-09T19:52:06Z")
This isn’t just an American issue. A surprising number of older drivers in rural Canada also feel passionately that they should not be obligated to wear a seat belt. They use many of the arguments that have already been expounded in this thread. Personally, I would have the heeby-jeebies about driving without a belt. My only comment is that a seat-belt that is worn improperly can actually cause significant injury in the event of an accident. Please see [here](http://www.crashworthy.com/crashworthiness.html) . This is not an argument (to my mind) for saying that seatbelt use should not be mandatory; it is an argument for educating people as to how a seatbelt should be worn. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/216 "2005-06-09T23:40:41Z")
> [@Driver8](#): > > If driving was a right and not a privilege, I’d see the liberty issue. I for one would not like to see a law stating pedestrians had to wear crash helmets. Do you think voting is also a privilege, not a right? If not, how are you distinguishing between a right and a privilege? ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/217 "2005-06-10T02:38:25Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Do you think voting is also a privilege, not a right? If not, how are you distinguishing between a right and a privilege? No. Voting is a right. Driving cannot be a right, since then the drivers license requirement or any subsequent suspension or cancellation would be a violation of your rights. ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/218 "2005-06-10T02:46:39Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > For example, if _you_ get into an accident while speeding you’re costing more money. If you’re obese, you’re probably going to cost more money. If you indulge in cigarettes or alcohol you’re probably going to cost more money. If you partake in dangerous sports you’re probably going to end up costing more money. If you choose not to have health insurance, you’re costing more money. > > Seatbelt wearing isn’t the massive drain on resources to substansiate this line of arguing. Its a pretty thin argument when taken into consideration on the grand scale. > > What you’re really saying is “if you’re going to take a risk that I wouldn’t take, I don’t want to pay for it”. Thats a fair argument, but to be so myopic as to apply it only here is unreasonable. What made you think I only apply it here? 😉 To be fair, this isn’t really a huge deal to me. I doubt the additional cost due to not wearing a seatbelt is causing a substantial increase in my premiums or taxes. I do tend to lean towards supporting seat belt laws however, since getting irate over losing the right to splatter oneself all over the highway seems somewhat silly to me. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/219 "2005-06-10T03:12:09Z")
> [@Driver8](#): > > No. Voting is a right. Driving cannot be a right, since then the drivers license requirement or any subsequent suspension or cancellation would be a violation of your rights. There are requirements for voting. You must be 18 years old, and you must register to vote and keep your registration up to date when you move. If you try to vote when you’re too young or haven’t been registered, you will be turned away. Just as if you try to drive when you’re too young or don’t have an active license, you will be arrested. Voting rights can be revoked if you commit a felony, and in some states you can never get them back. Just as driving rights can be revoked if the court suspends or cancels your license. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379/220 "2005-06-10T15:15:30Z")
> [@Driver8](#): > > No. Voting is a right. Driving cannot be a right, since then the drivers license requirement or any subsequent suspension or cancellation would be a violation of your rights. By you logic then, imprisoning a person is a revokation of rights? Thats fine, but by the same logic, if you prove to be a danger to the community on the road and have your license revoked, therefore having the right to drive suspended, it’s equally as justified. The point is, you rationale for defining it seems flawed. The whole “driving is a privledge, not a right” argument strikes me as a heaping bit of semantic masturbation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-many-people-still-dont-believe-in-wearing-seatbelts/306379.md?page=12)