Theoretically, from a Libertarian standpoint, I should. Hm. But as it establishes an environment for people to function in, and could be considered a proper function of government, like zoning.
::sigh::
If I were premier / king for a day…
I would pass a law allowing all motorists to ride / drive helmet / seatbelt free so long as they signed an irrevocable consent to donate their organs if they die in a traumatic accident.
No-helmet motorcycle accident victims make wonderful organ donors, because they usually die of traumatic skull injurries that otherwise leave their bodies (more or less) intact.
Take it from a guy who used to hang out with a bunch of bio-medical engineers who needed human cadaver knees for experiments:
They used to call them donorcycles…
I can understand not wanting to live as an invalid again, but I hope you realize that most of the time a seat belt helps you walk away from an accident with some bumps and bruises that would otherwise kill you, or make you an invalid anyway.
You seem to think only 2 things can happen: 1) wear a seatbelt, become an invalid 2) don’t wear a seat belt, die peacefully.
What about when you become an invalid from not wearing a seatbelt, when you would have walked away fine if you did?
Your failure to wear a seatbelt in the event of an accident increases my insurance rates (if we share a carrier).
Or so I am informed by my insurance agent.
Also, wearing a seatbelt can mean the difference between another motorist living with having caused injuries that ultimately healed and living with having killed another human being. Not to mention the nightmare of driving past an accident and having my child seeing someone who failed a basic safety precaution hanging half in and half out of their windshield bleeding.
That being said, I think seatbelt laws for adults are stupid and an intrusion into my life by government I could well live without, but I also consider people who omit safety precautions that could save their lives just to protest said laws to be irrational and short-sighted, if not actually full-on stupid. To me, that is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Twice now my wearing of a seatbelt saved my life. At least once it was the only thing that saved my life. I value my life. I refuse to risk my life just because I think the law is a stupid and intrusive one. As I don’t drink bleach because I think the laws requiring poison warnings on bleach bottles are stupid, so do I not fail to wear a seatbelt because I think those laws are stupid. There are less self-destructive ways to express my displeasure in the behavior of my government.
To expand on this, I’m not sure that seatbests don’t cost tax payers more money: I mean, dead is cheap compared to even something like a busted leg that has to be surgically set and requires six months of PT. Are seatbelta more likely to move people from the “dead” to the “injured” catagory or from the “injured” to the “not injured” catagory? I don’t know that I’ve ever read anything about that.
That said, I put on my seatbest to drive across a parking lot, because it is so automatic.
I like trupa’s idea. Only let’s not bother with the contracts - we scrape you off the highway, dead or brain-dead, and if you weren’t wearing a seatbelt, those organs are OURS, bucko. If they’re not fit for donation, there must be something useful we can still do with them.
I agree with this as well. I wear my seatbelt, but I was VERY resistant to the idea for many years. I don’t think it’s anyone’s business whether or not I wear it, but now, I actually like wearing it, having gotten used to it. Same with helmets. Nobody’s business whether I wear it or not. It’s nice not having to wear a helmet in Illinois.
If your disabling injuries and/or your death as a result of not wearing a seatbelt (or not wearing a helmet in the case of driving a motorcycle) has no impact upon others (your family, friends, coworkers and the innocent people who may also involved in your accident), then don’t wear a seatbelt.
That’s right. If your life is so inconsequential and meaningless that your death will have no significant adverse consequences on other people, then by all means, don’t buckle up.
Oh, and you may as well disable those airbags, while you’re at it.
I know I’m in the minority here but I think legislators do care about our safety thus mandatory seatbelt laws. I just can’t be cynical enough to think that no one cares about anybody.
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. Other traffic laws are about safety as well. I challenge anyone who feels they’re exercising freedom when they don’t wear a belt to go ahead and just ignore stop lights from now on. Why let the gubmunt dictate what you can and can’t do?
It is impossible to measure this, because advances in trauma medicine are saving a lot of lives that even 20 years ago would not have been saved. you’d have difficulty isolating the effect of seat belts as opposed to medical advances, car safety differences, road design, etc.
Personally, to address the OP, I think anyone who doesn’t wear a seat belt is a nut case. I don’t care what the law says.
Question for any of the belt-avoiders - is there any evidence for or against the increased risk to other people from non-seatbelt-wearing passengers? I can’t find any.
Well you are dead wrong on this point. Here are some interesting facts to ponder:
Primary laws allow a police officer to pull you solely for an infraction. Secondary enforcement means you have to have been pulled over for something else to be ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt.
AND
This is not like smoking where many states actually make money. Not wearing a seatbelts costs everyone money. Here is another cite with many links, which states the following statistics:
Not wearing a seatbelt s is a selfish and stupid thing to do. It puts your life, and the lives of other in danger and cost society billions. There is no good reason to act in such a reckless way.
It sounds like the most common reason we have put forth for not wearing them so far is that people don’t like the government legislating what they have to do. Well, sorry, folks, but the government does that sometimes, and you can like it or not, but it’s still going to happen.
As for leaving it up to the individual to do the right thing (with traffic as well as workplace safety) I say ha! That’s a joke without a punchline. People don’t do the right thing; they do the easy thing. If people did the right thing, we wouldn’t need any laws.
Not to fan the flames, but there are a few studies out there which suggest that drivers who are forced to wear seatbelts take more risks and drive more aggressively. Google for “risk homeostasis” or check out:
http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/
Here’s the section specifically about seatbelt law:
http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter08.html#8.2
As I mentioned in the original thread, I think seatbelts are a good idea. I would feel very bad if I didn’t wear one on the highway, got into an accident, and caused avoidable grief to my family and others.
However, I think seatbelt laws are stupid, and sometimes I don’t buckle up in low risk situations, for a variety of reasons.
It’s funny that everyone in that linked thread assumed that my assessment of the risks involved was different than theirs. They insisted that by not wearing a seatbelt at every possible moment, I was proving that I was ignorant of the true danger and needed the gov’t to take care of me. I see this differently. I think that some of us just have a higher value for “acceptable risk” and start to feel caged in when too many precautions are taken.
For me, I feel more alive if I don’t try to control for every possible mishap. It’s like the difference between standing on the edge of a cliff looking out over a magnificent canyon vista, or sitting in your SUV back on the road and just snapping a picture of it through your window. One of those is safer, and the other makes you feel more alive.
Up until I got married and became a dad, I used to joke that I cut them out of my car for “weight”. I only didn’t so that I could sneak it on if I got stopped by the police. Of course now I put it on with out even thinking about it. I need to set a good example for my little one, and I’d like to be here to annoy him for many many years to come.
Hacky sack!
I drove to the convenience store (a mile from home) the other day for a soda and one of those really nasty (yet painfully delicious) microwave sandwiches. Anyway, I couldn’t manage to get comfortable in my car and I had this really awful, anxious feeling the whole way. When I parked my car and reached for the seatbelt release, I realized I’d forgotten to put it on. I can’t not wear my seatbelt; it’s habit.
It’s none of the Governments Goddamn business if wear one or not. My opinion will never change on this. Sometimes I will wear it. Sometimes I won’t. It’s my life, and I’ll take my chances.
This part of the study doesn’t seem to me to be substantial.
First of all, the European hard-core seat belt avoiders are not typical of the population of European drivers (the vast majority of whom DO wear seatbelts). So, being different, their behaviour following seat belt use can not be used to infer the behaviour of others. They are probably rish-enjoyers by definition!
Secondly, Table 8 seems to me to show only that seat belt use increased in the USA between 1980 and 1987.
“Risk compensation” is a very old argument against seat belt use. Prof Murray Mackay in the U.K. has entertained audiences for years on the observation that the safest roads would be created by banning seatbelts and fitting all car steering wheels with a large spike aimed at the driver.
BUT real academic studies don’t support the risk-compensation hypothesis. For instance , says in summary:
"Results: Although the decrease in D/VKT after the law was enforced was larger than the absolute number of deaths, it was far less than predicted. The percentage decrease in seatbelt non-use rate showed the strongest correlation with the percentage decrease in driver mortality. Mortality did not increase among other road users after the law was enacted.
Conclusion: Accurate evaluation of the effect of seatbelt legislation must take into account changes in traffic volume. The selective recruitment hypothesis—that high risk drivers were less responsive to seatbelt legislation—fits well with the findings. There was no conclusive evidence supporting risk compensation—that is, an increase in injuries among other road users. "
I’m not a belt avoider, but if you’ll permit, could I point you towards this?
And to quote the meat,
“Results: The odds of death for a belted driver seated directly in front of an unrestrained passenger in a serious head-on crash was 2.27 times higher (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.94 to 2.66) than if seated in front of a restrained passenger.”
Incidentally, this also applies to unbelted luggage in the rear …