As I said, everyone should wear a seatbelt. Despite a few people here having anecdotes to the contrary, they save lives.
But it shouldn’t be legally mandated. People should have the right to do stupid things to themselves. People should be allowed to drive with seatbelts, ride motorcycles, smoke cigarettes, get tattoos, and eat cheeseburgers if they want to. Society shouldn’t act like your mother and forbid you to do things because they’re bad for you.
You have laws in Australia telling you to buy food? We don’t have any laws like that in the United States and I would oppose them.
I’d disagree. Red lights are part of the traffic control system and they effect the interaction between drivers. Your personal freedom doesn’t extend to the point of driving in a manner, such as running red lights, that will cause you to hit another car.
Seatbelts are different because they don’t effect other drivers. People don’t have accidents because they’re wearing or not wearing a seatbelt. (I won’t say either case has never happened but both are so statistically low as to be meaningless.) So they decision as to whether or not to wear a seatbelt effects only the person making the decision.
It’s mentioned up above that in the event of multiple collisions, a seat belt can help you retain control of the car to avoid subsequent accidents. This would seem to contradict your main premise.
On the other hand, this often results in the need for a new car, and Detroit is in worse shape today than the hookers and blow industry.
When I was a kid a big news item on Memorial and Labor Day weekends was the projected number of traffic fatalities. Mad Magazine even had a parody of the Jerry Lewis telethon, with Jerry urging people to get out there and speed in order to make the numbers. Don’t hear about that any more, not for years.
I would also suggest that the change in seatbelt laws from a tag-on offense to a pull-over-able offense is a convenient way to afford police the opportunity to engage in a pretextual arrest of a motor vehicle and its passengers.
The point is the cops want your money and they usually receive funding for the extra time from the feds to pay for that overtime so the fines are bonus funding with no extra expenditure at the local level.
It can also prevent a collision. I spun my car out on ice once, and was zipping around at a pretty nice rate. Thanks to my wearing a seatbelt I was able to get back in control without hitting anyone or anything.
If we could schedule our accidents, I’d be fine with a law saying that you’d only have to wear belts just before the accident. Given that we can’t…
I’m a moderator over at www.bmwsporttouring.com, and helmet laws come up for discussion on a regular basis. I will mention up front that I’m a big fan of wearing a helmet (and armored boots/jacket/gloves/pants) on my motorcycle and wearing a seatbelt in my car - but I’m not a big fan of helmet/seat belt laws.
It seems a bit odd to me to tell someone that it’s OK to ride on a machine with no seat belts, doors, airbags or roll cage, as long as they put a helmet on. The simple act of riding a motorcycle greatly increases one’s risk of crippling/expensive injury. and mandating helmet use for all riders provides a rather incremental decrease in the cost to society (compared to the overall cost of medical treatment that still exists despite helmet use)
The use of seat belts in cars seems to offer a more substantial reduction in risk of injury (and commensurate reduction in the medical cost burden to society). This is the argument that gets used in favor of mandating universal seat belt use.
People who are regular/voluntary users of seat belts tend to look down their noses at those who aren’t: “You are an idiot for refusing to take this simple step that could save you from death or debilitating injury.” But in spite of the benefits of seat belts, there are still a great number of head injuries in car crashes. Side impacts are particularly tough to deal with. But what if I told you there was something you could do to substantially reduce your risk of head injury in a car crash? Somethat that if all car drivers/passengers did it, could save society millions of dollars per year?
That simple thing is wearing a helmet in your car. But in spite of its life-saving ability, I doubt it will become popular any time soon, and most people would be irate if the law suddenly required it. Do-gooders would trumpet the reduced burden to society (due to just about eliminating head injuries in car crashes), while some on the other side would whine about loss of freedom; some would whine about how the helmet wrecks their hairdo; and some would whine about the inconvenience of it. All of which nicely parallels the current discussions about mandatory helmets for motorcyclists and mandatory seat belts for car occupants.
I tend to agree with this, but if I may play devil’s advocate: The argument is basically that we should be allowed to do stupid things. Well, then why can’t we go any speed we like and go through red light? The obvious answer will be that out personal freedoms end when you step on mine. I have some sort of right to cross the street somewhat safely.
Well, in your post you mentioned that not wearing seat belts “probably contributes to the overall cost for the rest of society.” Okay? So why again is it okay to not wear a seat belt but it’s not okay to disregard speed limits and traffic lights? Why should it be okay to do what you want as long as you aren’t taking unreasonable risks to the physical well being of others but taking the same risk hurts the wallets of others?
The difference is that disregard of traffic lights endangers others. We should be allowed our personal freedom within the broad panel of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If society wishes not to bear the cost of the recklessness of others, the sanction should be not to bear the cost. It should not be to restrict personal freedom. As a practical matter, if cost is a major consideration, we should begin with laws mandating healthful eating, proscription of smoking and refusal to permit reproduction of marginal genes, or parenting by the incompetent. Seatbelts are way down the list if we decide cost to society supercedes individual freedom to do stupid things as the greatest good.
If it were the case that reckless driving never endangered anyone or any property except the driver and driver’s property, I see no reason to demand universal obedience.
However a hundred years of driving has shown it is impossible to determine that no one else is in danger and that no other property would be damaged. Accident records are full of tragic stories of reckless drivers who unilaterally decided that “nobody is around” and killed someone or destroyed property. As a consequence the only effective means to create safer driving is to legislate universal obedience. In addition to taking the decision-making autonomy away from poor decision-makers, such universal obedience also engenders good driving habits which carry over to situations where others lives are at risk.
Whatever argument you are trying to make here is a complete red herring, unrelated to the core point: where a law mandates behavioural change that affects only the degree of risk taken by an individual for himself, the law oversteps the boundary of the personal right to assign the amount of risk one wants to take for oneself.
I do, in fact, consider a helmet law to be inconsistent with other interpretations of the constitution. If we have found a right to privacy that protects my reproductive rights, for instance, I should surely be extended the right to control other areas concerning only my personal physiology, be it a choice to endanger my heart with McDonald’s or my brain with my motorcycle.
Similarly to seat-belt laws, we had a no helmet law in Louisiana for 4 years. Turns out a past Governor liked to ride motorcycles. While he was in office the legislature was all for freedom of choice and personal liberties. As soon as he left office, saving money in terms of medical costs borne by the state government quickly and quietly (to the non-motorcycling public) brought the law back.
Motorcyclists had to show proof of insurance-I think 25K of insurance-that just about paid for the ambulance to take brain-injured folks to the hospital. After that the bills are paid by the state and federal taxpayers.
Since the state is paying the bills, they decided that helmets were cheaper.
So, the answer to the OP-it is always a balance between cost and politics.
I disagree that there is no cogent argument that can be advanced. All the actions you list cost society money. Someone pays the costs-either the insured public through higher insurance or the taxpaying public through higher taxes. Balanced against this measurable cost is the cost to personal freedom when the government/wife/mother/church-whatever authority figure you wish to respond to compels you to alter your behavior. This loss of freedom is not always measurable but is real. Achieving that balance is what society does. You and I may agree or disagree as to whether society has made the right choice in any particular case, but the cogent argument is made in every case. And a good thing to-I would hate driving an 18-wheeler to work every morning just to be a bit safer.
Others have already mentioned the ability to maintain control of a vehicle while undertaking evasive maneuvers, after spinning on ice, or after a collision. I have no idea if seatbelts actually make a difference here. It sounds like they would. Has anyone tested this? Probably not. I’m not sure how you would. Showing just a small increase in safety to other drivers, passengers, pedestrians and other people’s property would support an argument for requiring such an effortless task as fastening a belt.
I doubt this is what legislators had in mind when they passed seatbelt laws.
When I was in the third grade the truck I was in was t-boned. If I’d been buckled up it would have held me in place and crushed me alive.
Not wearing a seatbelt saved my life now over all seat belts may be safer statistically, but your “get a clue” is reckless telling someone to do something that get them killed like it’s completely safe.
My third grade self had taken your advice I’d be worm food right now. Get a clue yourself.