Seatbelt Poll

[Huckleberry]

If there were no law requiring the use of seatbelts, would you choose not to wear one?

I'm questioning the effectiveness of the seat belt law. I think that someone who is irresponsible enough to not wear a seat belt is also irresponsible enough to ignore the law requiring that they do. While repealing the law requiring the use of seat belts to be used in motor vehicles won't increase the proper use of seat belts, I'm skeptical that there will be much decrease in their use either. I think it's more a matter of good (or not so good) sense.

What do you think? What do you believe would be the result of repealing the seat belt law?

[daveb]

:rofl::rofl:I was just getting ready to post a poll just like this!

edited:I find the third option very amusing:tongue:

[Stevedye56]

Yes, first vote. I use seatbelts all the time no matter what. Even if the law got repealed in CT I would still use them. It seems foolish not to.

[Stevedye56]

ARRRGH! How did you beat me?! I just voted and there were no votes as soon as i started typing!!!

[humanino]

I do not use them now and would use them if there were no law.
Who on Earth would vote that !?
One would have to be pretty silly to choose this.

[Huckleberry]

Hmm, I messed up the and/but order for the options that specify not using seat belts under the law. Hopefully it is still clear enough.

[Huckleberry]

Who on Earth would vote that !?
One would have to be pretty silly to choose this.
I know, seems silly. I thought it would just make the list of options complete. You know if I didn't put it in there then someone would ask why. :rolleyes:

I don't know. Maybe there are some people who like to rebel against all authority.

[Stevedye56]

At least as of now everyone uses them :biggrin:. 7 for 7!

[drankin]

I use a seat belt most of the time. But the law does cause me use it more than I would otherwise.

[Evo]

Apparently members here are smarter than people in New Hampshire that have no seat belt law and have the lowest percent of seat belt users in the nation and where 77% of fatalities are non-seat belt users.

I started wearing a seat belt when they became law, then after learning how important they are to my safety and that of my passengers, I would continue to wear them. I'm glad that a law made me aware enough to wear one.

A question missing from your poll is "Did you start wearing seatbelts because it was a law?"

[humanino]

Personally when I drive a car (it does happen :wink:) I require everybody to put the seatbelt on. And I do not even drink one glass of alchool. And I respect speed limits. About speed limits, this is the main point of argument with drunk passengers by the way :tongue2:

So overall, when I compare to the average person going out of the might club, yes, I am not in the center of the bell curve. I still find amazing that cops here will let you go if you seem to be fine, that is for instance if you can walk straight. Cops in France will not hesitate if they found somebody they know have drunk more than one glass.

[Ivan Seeking]

A question missing from your poll is "Did you start wearing seatbelts because it was a law?"

I wore them before it was a law and before the CHP could pull you over for not wearing one. Of course, when they passed the SB law in Ca, they promised that they would never make it an offense that could get you stopped by the police. So much for that one. :rolleyes:

[BobG]

I started using them because I had to wear them while my dad was teaching me to drive.

Which in a way, was kind of ironic. I'm not sure my dad wore a seatbelt when we were small kids (or if our car even had seatbelts), but us kids were free to roam about the car, standing behing the front seat pestering the parents or hanging out the back window. It wasn't until we were a little bit older and had a station wagon with the fold up seats in the rear that us kids started wearing seatbelts.

[daveb]

I've used seatbelts ever since I could drive, and they were not mandatory at that time. I was simply intelligent enough to see that wearing it made sense.

[Danger]

Seat belts as an option on some cars came out a couple of years before I started driving. I made my dad take our car to the shop and have them installed.
I've occassionally been forced by circumstance to travel as a passenger without access to one, but definitely not outside of our town with its 50kph speed limit. Even then, I was very uncomfortable.

[Huckleberry]

A question missing from your poll is "Did you start wearing seatbelts because it was a law?" Since the law already exists I'm more concerned with what people would do if there were no seat belt law. Though it might be interesting to know how effective the law was when it was made. It might be useful in determining what would happen if it were repealed. Good point.

I don't suppose that polls can be changed after the voting starts? That and/but thing is driving me crazy. Would it be helpful if someone posted a poll about how peoples seat belt habits were changed by the introduction of the law?

[Ivan Seeking]

I've occassionally been forced by circumstance to travel as a passenger without access to one, but definitely not outside of our town with its 50kph speed limit. Even then, I was very uncomfortable.

This has happened to me a few times and I feel naked as a jaybird without one.

[Moridin]

In Sweden, there is a fine for being caught. A person who gets this fine will probably not do it at the same frequency as before. It also brings government revenue. It has been pretty effective as far as Sweden is concerned.

[berkeman]

I always wear a seatbelt (and require that eveybody in my vehicle does as well), and I always wear a helmet whenever riding anything with two wheels (and require that my kids and their guests at our house do the same). It's just the smart thing to do, IMO.

[Ivan Seeking]

Apparently members here are smarter than people in New Hampshire that have no seat belt law and have the lowest percent of seat belt users in the nation and where 77% of fatalities are non-seat belt users.

This is a no brainer: If you have an accident without wearing one, your insurance is null and void. No need for a law here. Or, if you choose not to wear one, your rates go up.

But more than anything, a little public education goes a long way.

[SpaceTiger]

"Buckle Up or You'll Soon Be Saying Fruckle Mup Because of the Brain Damage"

[Moridin]

SpaceTiger, that was priceless :rofl:

[Huckleberry]

Apparently members here are smarter than people in New Hampshire that have no seat belt law and have the lowest percent of seat belt users in the nation and where 77% of fatalities are non-seat belt users.
I figured the poll here wouldn't accurately reflect the nation. I just thought it would be fun to ask and see what people had to say. I'm mostly interested in what people have to say about how repealing the law would affect seat belt use.

How does 77% of non seat belt user fatalities apply to New Hampshire? Is the rate for fatalities among people who do not wear their seat belt in other states lower, or does it suddenly become more dangerous when an unbelted driver crosses the border into New Hampshire? (We are in New Hampshire now. Buckle Up kids! They have no seatbelt law here. See option #3)

What are the statistics for seat belt use nationwide. It would be helpful to compare them, especially in the case of New Hampshire.

[Crosson]

How dare the government restrict my personal freedoms. The status of my seatbelt does not affect anyone other then myself, and I am appalled that a police officers have the power to stop my vehicle.

I am so disgusted, so outraged that the populace allows the government to restrict our personal freedoms by force. Those who think that they have a right to impinge on anyone elses personal liberty are pigs.

And what if I rebel? There is no discussion, just brutish physical force inflicted on my body. Then ignorant people will defend the actions of the terrorist policeman.

It seems that the only reasons people give up their personal liberty are laziness, weakness, and stupidity. The fact that police can pull me over depending on the buckled-status of my vinyl strap is not guarunteed (or even likely) to make anyone safer, and definitely comes at the cost of a huge loss of privacy and personal liberty.

[Evo]

How dare the government restrict my personal freedoms. The status of my seatbelt does not affect anyone other then myself, and I am appalled that a police officers have the power to stop my vehicle.

I am so disgusted, so outraged that the populace allows the government to restrict our personal freedoms by force. Those who think that they have a right to impinge on anyone elses personal liberty are pigs.

And what if I rebel? There is no discussion, just brutish physical force inflicted on my body. Then ignorant people will defend the actions of the terrorist policeman.

It seems that the only reasons people give up their personal liberty are laziness, weakness, and stupidity. The fact that police can pull me over depending on the buckled-status of my vinyl strap is not guarunteed (or even likely) to make anyone safer, and definitely comes at the cost of a huge loss of privacy and personal liberty.I'm really curious what you would be doing in your car while you're driving that your seat belt prevents you from doing? What exactly are you giving up while driving, break dancing?

You can also be pulled over and given a ticket if your head or tail lights aren't working, I suppose you're just furious about that too.

[Smurf]

Who on Earth would vote that !?
One would have to be pretty silly to choose this.

*bashful grin*

[Jimmy Snyder]

You can also be pulled over and given a ticket if your head or tail lights aren't working,
There is a difference between endangering your own life and endangering others.

[out of whack]

How dare the government restrict my personal freedoms.

Uhh, it's part of the job. :uhh: Personal freedoms must be restricted for society to function efficiently. Live with it.

[Evo]

There is a difference between endangering your own life and endangering others.We've gone over how choosing not to wear a seatbelt places a burden on society as a whole in a different thread.

[Huckleberry]

Uhh, it's part of the job. :uhh: Personal freedoms must be restricted for society to function efficiently. Live with it.
I disagree strongly. Personal freedoms should never be restricted. Social responsibility should never be avoided. The government exists to enforce social responsibility. That does not include actions that do not involve society. I should be able to do whatever I wish if it does not impinge upon the rights of others.

I can see how not wearing a seat belt would cause a financial loss to society. If the solution to that is to make people responsible for their own freedom then I would be very pleased. I far prefer it to having a big brother government that is looking through my window to make sure that I am keeping myself safe, but hoping that I am not so they can stop me from my business and require that I pay some extortive toll.

My problem isn't the safety belt. That's a fantastic idea and I recommend everyone use them. My problem is that my responsibility is being taken away from me, and that's the real rub. I want to be responsible for the government. I do not ever want my government to be responsible for me. I want it to be accountable to me and every other citizen and responsible only for fulfilling the will of society. I like New Hampshire's archaic motto, 'Live Free or Die.' An individuals accountability lies with the society that they live in and not the government that enforces the laws.

[Jimmy Snyder]

We've gone over how choosing not to wear a seatbelt places a burden on society as a whole in a different thread.
Do you plan laws against other "burdens on society"? I have a whole shopping list if you are. If freedom isn't worth $86, then what is it worth?

[Evo]

As was pointed out by another member, laws are enacted due to what the majority wants. In my town, you need a kennel license if you have more than two animals in your house. You can be fined for having more than two. Tell me how that affects anyone else?

[Crosson]

Personal freedoms must be restricted for society to function efficiently.

Who gets to decide what it means for society to function efficiently?

I hope you are aware that not everyone agrees on such things...

Whoever has the most superior fighting force will decide what it means for 'society to function efficiently'. In order to do this they apply their superior fighting force to affect the actions everyone else, as you say 'personal freedoms must be restricted'.

So you statement can be more truthfully recast as 'Personal freedoms must be restricted by those with the superior fighting force so that the society can be the way that they want it to be'.

I'm really curious what you wold be doing in your car while you're driving that your seat belt prevents you from doing? What exactly are you giving up while driving, break dancing?

Don't get me wrong, I think seatbelts are a good idea. My post complained about the fact that if my seatbelt is in the wrong position, society will allow the police to use whatever force necessary to punish me, by physically forcing me to change my location to the police station, or forcing my money to go through their hands so that they can take the fine they see fit.

You can also be pulled over and given a ticket if your head or tail lights aren't working, I suppose you're just furious about that too.

This is called a 'strawman attack', creating a false opponent who is easy to defeat. Anyway, these laws do not make me furious because they are logically intended to prevent my actions from having an immediate and direct consequence for other people. I would also happily do away with them, and with the current system of vehicles and roads, but that is aside.

Apparently members here are smarter than people in New Hampshire that have no seat belt law and have the lowest percent of seat belt users in the nation and where 77% of fatalities are non-seat belt users.

This illustrates the real reason for seat belt laws: because politicians love to affect statistics, without concern for the individuals who are involved.

What if they put the money and effort towards people who are dying but want to be saved, rather then those who despite being educated to the contrary would risk there lives as if these were worthless?

[Evo]

Whoever has the most superior fighting force will decide what it means for 'society to function efficiently'. In order to do this they apply their superior fighting force to affect the actions everyone else, as you say 'personal freedoms must be restricted'.

So you statement can be more truthfully recast as 'Personal freedoms must be restricted by those with the superior fighting force so that the society can be the way that they want it to be'. I don't know what country you live in, but here in the US we vote.

[turbo]

As was pointed out by another member, laws are enacted due to what the majority wants. In my town, you need a kennel license if you have more than two animals in your house. You can be fined for having more than two. Tell me how that affects anyone else?That's the result of letting idiots enact laws. The problem is that if you are negatively affected by such laws, you do not have the financial resources to fight them, and your taxes (and those of your neighbors) will be used against you should you choose to make a stand. "Democracy" has pitfalls, especially when there are no effective checks on local governments.

[out of whack]

Uhh, it's part of the job. Personal freedoms must be restricted for society to function efficiently. Live with it.
I disagree strongly. Personal freedoms should never be restricted. Social responsibility should never be avoided. The government exists to enforce social responsibility.

When the government enforces my social responsibility not to impose a burden on others, it restricts my freedom to do so. Different point of view, same result.

Who gets to decide what it means for society to function efficiently?

Voters like you.

So you statement can be more truthfully recast as 'Personal freedoms must be restricted by those with the superior fighting force so that the society can be the way that they want it to be'.

If you prefer. One way or another your freedoms will be restricted by those in charge of making things work, even if you don't like that. You must be mad every day that society is the way it is, while driving on its roads, in the vehicle that it built, to reach the school that... you get the idea. Damned government.

"Democracy" has pitfalls

Agreed. But hey, beats anarchy.

[larkspur]

"Buckle Up or You'll Soon Be Saying Fruckle Mup Because of the Brain Damage"

I am part of a medical team that frequently evaluates people for visual disturbances and double vision after traumatic accidents. We see any adult who complains of visual problems while in the rehabilitation floor. One day, we saw two patients that had been in motor vehicle accidents. One was wearing a seat belt when the accident occurred, the other was not. The guy wearing the seat belt walked in unassisted, signed himself in and basically only needed new glasses because his were lost in the crash. The unbelted guy was strapped into a wheelchair, drooling, and rolled into the waiting room by an orderly. He was being evaluated because his pupils were not reactive to bright light and the attending physician questioned if he could see anything.



Personally , I feel naked without my seat belt and wore it before it was law.

[Mk]

Felt naked without your seatbelt? Go for a week or two without one and you'll feel fine! I was using a French car for a month and it didn't have any seatbelts! At first it was strange, and as I was getting in, my hand always went straight to where the seatbelt would be, but it wasn't there! A few more times, and I learned that there were no seatbelts to put on.

Anyway. The only reason seatbelts are there are to make sure you aren't ejected out of the vehicle and your head smashes into a telephone pole or the ground. So that's why I wear one.

[Moonbear]

I think the seatbelt laws changed people's way of thinking about seatbelts by seeing how effective they are. Then again, before the laws were put in place and enforced, most cars only had lap belts, and those DID sometimes cause worse injuries than no belt at all since it was easy to wear them incorrectly (people would wind up with internal injuries because they had the belt across their abdomen rather than hips), and since it didn't stop you from slamming your head into the windshield very well, just kept you from going the rest of the way through it.

When I was a kid, you'd often hear people saying, "I'd rather be thrown clear," with no real understanding of how much more injury they'd sustain that way than being restrained by a 3-point belt (because we didn't have 3-point belts). Now I think seatbelt laws have provided many opportunities for someone to know people who have survived fairly serious car accidents with little more than a bruise on their shoulder to realize how important they really are. If seatbelt laws were repealed, I doubt it would change the behavior of the current generation, but I'd be concerned that the next generation who never lived through knowing how bad car accidents can be without seatbelts will grow careless without any laws.

[Jimmy Snyder]

As was pointed out by another member, laws are enacted due to what the majority wants.
So you agree with the decision in New Hampshire? Me too.

In my town, you need a kennel license if you have more than two animals in your house. You can be fined for having more than two. Tell me how that affects anyone else?
So you disagree with your town's law? Me too.

[Evo]

So you agree with the decision in New Hampshire? Me too.No, I was merely pointing out to a previous poster that laws went into effect by majority vote, not brute force. Don't try to take my comments out of context and twist them, it won't work.

I was also pointing out how stupid some majority votes are (New Hampshire) which is a law that actually hurts the public, go figure. Glad I don't live in New Hampshire.

[Smurf]

Honestly, I can't believe people actually think that repealing this law makes them 'more free'. That's just silly. Furthermore, the possibility of a human projectile scenario makes it more than worth it to force people to put them on. They're not just risking themselves, they're also risking anyone who gets in their way, or more likely, someone else's property. Unless you can sue someone for damaging your property for not wearing a seat belt... hmm... then again, can you sue someone for damaging public property like said telephone pole?

They're seat belts people, not shackles of thorns. You push a button and *add noise effect* they spring right back out of your way.

[0TheSwerve0]

If I didn't grow up being required to wear one, I might not wear one. As it is, I did, and it feels unsafe and just weird not to wear one. At this point, I'd wear it with or without a law, but I thank the law for forcing this habit.

[SpaceTiger]

I think frivolous laws put too much power in the hands of the enforcer. In theory, the cops would evenly enforce them. In practice, they would just use them as an excuse to pull over or fine people they find suspect.

I always wear my seatbelt, but if I choose not to, that's my concern.

[Jimmy Snyder]

As of this writing, the poll results are 39 for "use them with or without the law" and 3 for all others (including choice 3 which is a joke). It indicates to me that the law is a solution in search of a problem. We have traded our freedom for a handful of beans.

[Evo]

We have traded our freedom for a handful of beans.It would seem the majority do not feel that way.

[Moonbear]

As of this writing, the poll results are 39 for "use them with or without the law" and 3 for all others (including choice 3 which is a joke). It indicates to me that the law is a solution in search of a problem. We have traded our freedom for a handful of beans.

Did you read my post at all? I was around before seatbelt laws were enacted, and people rarely wore seatbelts, and incurred serious injuries from even minor car accidents as a result. When someone else has to give up their livelihood to stay home and care full time for someone who is now a vegetable or paraplegic because they didn't wear their seatbelt, it hurts more than just the person not wearing it. When all the motorists on the road pay higher and higher insurance rates, and you can't get a bed in a hospital because of an increase in hospitalizations due to serious injuries in minor car accidents, it's not just the person who didn't wear the seatbelt who is affected. When little Johnny doesn't come home because the person driving the carpool to soccer practice that day doesn't think seatbelts are important, it's not just the person who thinks seatbelts aren't necessary who is hurt. When there is no law against being in a car without a seatbelt, and you incur injuries as a result of an accident, the person at-fault for causing the accident has to pay for all of them, even if you could have prevented all of those injuries by wearing a seatbelt. If there is a law in place, and you choose not to wear a seatbelt anyway, and you sustain more injuries because of it, then you and only you are responsible for your own stupidity, and someone else doesn't have to pay for your additional injuries. If nothing else, that's a darn good reason for the law...if you choose to break it, nobody else is held liable for your bad choices.

It used to be that if there was a rollover accident, the occupants were going to be found dead or seriously injured (broken neck, internal bleeding, crushed by the vehicle rolling on top of them as they fell through an open or broken window). Now, people get up and walk out of these types of crashes with a bruise on their shoulder from the seatbelt, and maybe a few easily repaired cuts from broken glass.

The laws were put in place because people were stupid enough to NOT wear seatbelts. Even when the laws were first put into place, people resisted. They would only fine you for not wearing a seatbelt if you were stopped for another traffic violation, so people still wouldn't wear them. It's been a few decades of change to reach the point where we are now that most people realize the benefit of seatbelts and are so accustomed to wearing them that the law isn't as necessary. And, I think the only reason anyone would discuss repealing the law now is that they haven't grown up in a generation that saw the severity of injuries that were a regular occurrence in car crashes when seatbelts were not required and thus not worn.

The responses on this site are also not representative of the general population. The folks here know and understand the laws of physics and know what will happen to an unrestrained passenger should the car around them comes to a sudden stop. They are generally more educated than the general public as well. The folks here are likely the people who would have required everyone in the car wear seatbelts even before the seatbelt laws were enacted making it mandatory, but that was a very small percentage of the overall population when those laws did not exist.

Above all else, driving is a priviledge, not a right. You need a license to drive, and upon getting that license, you are agreeing to abide by all the laws associated with it. If you do not want to abide by those laws, don't pay for the license and don't get in a car. Find another means of getting where you need to go.

[Huckleberry]

When the government enforces my social responsibility not to impose a burden on others, it restricts my freedom to do so. Different point of view, same result

No, this is not what I mentioned at all. I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion based on what I wrote. I did not suggest that we have freedom to impose a burden on society. I intentionally stated that we should never avoid social responsibility. You overlooked that part completely. You also misinterpreted the use of freedom to make the quote match your point of view. I disagree strongly. Personal freedoms should never be restricted. Social responsibility should never be avoided. The government exists to enforce social responsibility.

A seat belt law is counter-productive to an individual's responsibility to society. If I am a responsible adult then I should be allowed to make any decision that concerns only myself. I should have the freedom to do anything I please that does not impose upon the rest of society. A society that allows its government to enforce a seat belt law is making the government responsible for the safety of an individual from himself. Society has no right to do such a thing. If a person is not allowed to be responsible for themselves, then how can they be responsible for society? If we aren't responsible for our own safety, then why should we be concerned for the safety of others?

The growing trend: In order to save a few dollars, adults in this society have given authority to the government to treat us as irresponsible children. We have made the government responsible for us, and have given up our personal freedom. If we are accountable to a government, how can it be accountable to our interests as a society? We are authorizing the government to be responsible for itself, the same freedom we gave up. The government will serve its own best interests and not the interests of society. This is what happens when people allow their freedom to be taken away.

This could explain why there are so many crooked politicians that are allowed to prosper. It could explain the growing apathy among the youth of this nation that haven't had the opportunity to experience freedom as older generations have. They don't feel responsible for their actions because they don't have the freedom to be responsible.

The solution is never to give up our personal freedom. The solution is to accept the personal responsibility for our own actions. Be a responsible citizen and wear your seat belt, or choose not to wear your seat belt and suffer the financial burden caused by your own actions. That's the price of freedom. There are other ways to minimize the financial burden an injured, unbelted motorist has on society that would be much preferable to enforcing a ridiculous law.

Would anyone disagree that if there were a negligible financial burden to society, that an adult individual should be able to do whatever they please in regards to their own personal safety?

[Evo]

A seat belt law is counter-productive to an individual's responsibility to society. I guess you didn't have a chance to read Moonbear's post.

[hypatia]

I'm sorry, but no. I worked in a County morgue several years befor seatbelt laws were inacted, the number of dead children alone, was high enough to enact laws for seatbelts.
I don't think think giving people the choice of having their heads smashed into windshilds is a basic freedom. Even the paramedics will tell you how different their job is today, then it was just 20 years ago.
And yes in a flowery world, where everyone does just whats expected of them....blaaa, nope i'm just not going to go there. People are idiots and they need laws.

[out of whack]

When the government enforces my social responsibility not to impose a burden on others, it restricts my freedom to do so. Different point of view, same result
No, this is not what I mentioned at all. I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion based on what I wrote.

I thought it was clear. You assume that "The government exists to enforce social responsibility" without showing how. Enforcing a responsibility must be done by coercing the unwilling into doing it, like your responsibility to wear a seat belt to prevent burdening others. How does the government enforce it without restricting my freedom to drive without seat belt?

Or if instead you meant my responsibility to repay for my care and rehabilitation after recovery then you need to consider something else. The consequences of making bad decisions often exceed your ability to ever do reparation by a very long shot. Once someone is paralyzed or brain damaged by his own negligence, how is this person to cover the fees of his own care, let alone all other damages that are even more significant? Even after recovery, how can one fulfill his social responsibility to repay all expenses if he is a pensioner or a young parent with a family to feed? It's a glossy ideal but it just does not work.

If I am a responsible adult then I should be allowed to make any decision that concerns only myself.

Irresponsible adults are responsible for at least something: all these laws. Laws exist because there are so many irresponsible people who often don't realize that what they do affects others because, well, they are irresponsible.

[SpaceTiger]

Many people here seem to be working under the assumption that the laws are the reason people are more likely to wear seatbelts in the modern world, while the responses to this poll would seem to suggest otherwise. Even worse is assuming that the decreased severity of accident injuries is due only to increased seatbelt use -- let's not forget the progress that has been made in car safety and structural integrity.

And even if the changes were due entirely to the seatbelt laws, that still doesn't make it someone else's place to legislate the level of risk I take with my life. Should we ban all risky activities because of the concerns Moonbear mentioned -- hospital beds, insurance rates, etc? Should people not be able to climb mountains, go bungee jumping, smoke cigarettes, or eat fried food? Honestly, I would rather pay higher insurance rates and risk the injury of loved ones than live in a police state.

I will always wear my seatbelt and will always encourage others to do so as well, but for everyone's sake, I think we should keep it out of the law books.

[radou]

I will always wear my seatbelt and will always encourage others to do so as well, but for everyone's sake, I think we should keep it out of the law books.

No, we shouldn't, because we don't want to see people flying through windshields, that's all. At least I don't.

Btw, regargind vote option number 3, there is some logic in it, since there are always nutcases who'll do anything that is the contrary of "what one shoud doo" - if there's a law, they'll break it, and it will turn them on. If there is no law, lots of people won't be wearing seatbelts anymore, so the nutcases get turned off because of that. Hence, they wear seatbelts. :tongue:

[Huckleberry]

I read Moonbear's post, but it doesn't change what I believe. It's unfortunate that some people get injured because of their own recklessness. Does this mean they shouldn't need to be responsible for themselves, and that a prohibitive law should be passed that takes the personal responsibility away from every reasonable citizen? I would rather let people suffer the consequences of their own actions. That's how one practices responsibility. People should be more concerned about making their lives and the lives of their loved ones better, rather than trying to force every individual, regardless of their will, to make better personal decisions. That seems like a tremendous waste of time and energy.

Cars are made differently now than when Moonbear was a child. As Bob G pointed out, they are made to absorb the impact of a collision. This also reduces the severity of injuries as compared to years ago.

Because seat belt use has moderately increased does not mean that a seat belt law is the primary cause. There are other factors such as a campaign of public awareness, and the introduction of safer, 3 point seat belts. People need to trust the product. New Hampshire has the lowest seat belt use in the nation, but it is only slightly lower than it's neighbor, Massachusetts, which does have a seat belt law. The entire northeast region has the lowest percentage of seat belt use of any region in the United States.

I also take issue with the use of the word stupid. The word is too often used to denigrate people, and the argument that comes after is usually biased. Who are people stupid in comparison to, Moonbear or themselves? I'm sure lots of people are stupid compared to Moonbear. That is no surprise, but it doesn't help prove her point. It seems like a bad idea to make a law because people are not as intelligent as Moonbear. It doesn't seem logical to make a law because people aren't as intelligent as themselves either. Ofcourse, Moonbear is entitled to believe however she wishes, as long as society doesn't later determine it is necessary to fine people for having personal opinions that conflict with those of society. :rolleyes:

If people are not as informed as they should be, then why should they be punished with a restricitive law? Wouldn't it be better to educate them and let them make their own personal decisions? That could have been done with a public awareness campaign. There are other methods for handling the finacial burden to society. Let people be responsible for themselves rather than creating a precedence for the removal of personal freedoms in the interest of personal safety. That decision does not involve society, and we should have no right to impose our beliefs on others in such a manner.

[russ_watters]

And even if the changes were due entirely to the seatbelt laws, that still doesn't make it someone else's place to legislate the level of risk I take with my life. Should we ban all risky activities because of the concerns Moonbear mentioned -- hospital beds, insurance rates, etc? Should people not be able to climb mountains, go bungee jumping, smoke cigarettes, or eat fried food? Honestly, I would rather pay higher insurance rates and risk the injury of loved ones than live in a police state.

I will always wear my seatbelt and will always encourage others to do so as well, but for everyone's sake, I think we should keep it out of the law books. If you can suggest an efficient way for isolating the risk to those who are making the choice, I'm all ears, but it will be very difficult to do. Medical ethics requires rescuers to rescue even those who choose to make stupid mistakes and working around that to force such people to take personal responsibility for the risk is not easy.

You mention mountain climbing and we've discussed it here before. It should be easy to force mountain climbers to take responsibility for the risk, yet it isn't done. Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if a Park Service official had to defend a decision not to attempt to rescue a hiker? I don't think 'but look, he signed a waiver!' would work very well, do you?

As I mentioned in the thread in P&WA, one possible remedy would be to raise insurance rates for non-wearers by $120/yr, but that would require active monitoring of seatbelt use - and I tend to think the same people who are against the law would be against just such a window into their personal habits.

[SpaceTiger]

If you can suggest an efficient way for isolating the risk to those who are making the choice, I'm all ears, but it will be very difficult to do. Medical ethics requires rescuers to rescue even those who choose to make stupid mistakes and working around that to force such people to take personal responsibility for the risk is not easy.

This is a separate issue -- I don't think that the difficulty in rewarding cautious behavior should prevent us from having the freedom to take risks. The medical ethics are reasonable -- they should rescue anyone who needs it. However, I don't think it at all unreasonable for people engaging in risky behavior to have higher insurance rates or lower priority at hospitals.


You mention mountain climbing and we've discussed it here before. It should be easy to force mountain climbers to take responsibility for the risk, yet it isn't done. Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if a Park Service official had to defend a decision not to attempt to rescue a hiker?

The hiker's stupidity shouldn't be a factor in whether or not they attempt a rescue, that's just human decency.

[Evo]

I don't see the safety belt law as an infringement on my personal freedom, but different people will have differing opinions.

In response to a request for statistics on safety belt use. (It's a little outdated, I will try to find a newer report, many more states have moved to primary laws since this report).

Seventy-three percent of the people who were in a fatal crash in 2001 and were restrained survived; of those who were not restrained, only 44 percent survived. [NHTSA, Annual Assessment of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2001]

In fatal crashes, 75 percent of all passenger car occupants who were totally ejected were killed. Only 1 percent of those occupants had been using a safety belt. [NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts Overview, 2001]

In the past 26 years, safety belts prevented 135,000 fatalities and 3.8 million injuries, saving $585 billion in medical and other costs. If all vehicle occupants had used safety belts during that period, nearly 315,000 deaths and 5.2 million injuries could have been prevented — and $913 billion in costs saved. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

In 2000, the deaths and serious injuries prevented by safety belts resulted in savings of $50 billion in medical care, lost productivity and other injury-related costs. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

Motor vehicle crashes in 2000 cost a total of $230.6 billion, an amount equal to 2.3 percent of the gross domestic product, or $820 for every person living in the United States. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

In 2000, the economic cost to society was more than $977,000 for each crash fatality and an average of $1.1 million for each critically injured person. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

The general public pays nearly three-quarters of all crash costs, primarily through insurance premiums, taxes, delays and lost productivity. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

In 2002, belt use in States with primary laws was 80 percent, compared with 69 percent in States without primary laws. [NHTSA, National Occupant Protection Use Survey, June 2002]

Teen safety belt use is significantly higher in States with primary safety belt laws than in States with secondary laws. [National Safety Council, Teenage Safety Belt Use, 2002]

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/buckleplan/mayplanner2003/factsheet.html

[radou]

Another interesting and completely illogical statement which can be found in this thread is something like "I wear a seatbelt, but if I don't, that's just my own buisness."

It's pretty much obvious that, if one doesn't wear a seatbelt, he/she can crash through the windshield with a pretty great velocity and *hit someone else*. Doesn't ring any bells? :rolleyes:

[SpaceTiger]

Another interesting and completely illogical statement which can be found in this thread is something like "I wear a seatbelt, but if I don't, that's just my own buisness."

It's pretty much obvious that, if one doesn't wear a seatbelt, he/she can crash through the windshield with a pretty great velocity and *hit someone else*. Doesn't ring any bells? :rolleyes:

Because that happens so very frequently. :rolleyes:

If that's your concern, you should be against the storage of any loose items inside a car, since they're potentially capable of striking someone in an accident (and probably more likely to).

[russ_watters]

This is a separate issue -- I don't think that the difficulty in rewarding cautious behavior should prevent us from having the freedom to take risks. The medical ethics are reasonable -- they should rescue anyone who needs it. However, I don't think it at all unreasonable for people engaging in risky behavior to have higher insurance rates or lower priority at hospitals. I guess we see the issue exactly opposite each other: I see it as rewarding people who make stupid decisions by forcing people who make good decisions to cover their mistakes. To me, that should be unconstitutional, though today's culture has a lot of people saying that the government should provide a safety net for all sorts of stupid behavior. The hiker's stupidity shouldn't be a factor in whether or not they attempt a rescue, that's just human decency. I don't necessarily agree, but assuming I do - why is it wrong to attempt to force such people to take responsibility for their own risks, say by requiring climbers to carry special insurance and/or locator beacons? Why must we allow people to do whatever they want and force other people to assume most of the risk? Why does their right to a free rescue override my right not to have to pay for someone else's free rescue?

[Evo]

If that's your concern, you should be against the storage of any loose items inside a car, since they're potentially capable of striking someone in an accident (and probably more likely to).Like that guy that had metal poles in the back of his truck and when he stopped suddenly they went into his cab through the rear window and killed him. Isn't there a law about securing items in truck beds and on cars? Or would that be the brutal police state taking away more freedoms? :tongue:

I cringe every time a see a truck owner with a dog running around loose in the back. One sudden stop and that poor animal will become a projectile. They do sell harnesses and tethers to keep the dog from being thrown to it's death.

[SpaceTiger]

I guess we see the issue exactly opposite each other: I see it as rewarding people who make stupid decisions by forcing people who make good decisions to cover their mistakes.

You see being stranded in the middle of a forest until help arrives as a reward? Certainly we're helping the careless, but I would hardly say that their risky behavior is being rewarded. Nature already has a built-in punishment for this sort of thing.


I don't necessarily agree, but assuming I do - why is it wrong to attempt to force such people to take responsibility for their own risks, say by requiring climbers to carry special insurance and/or locator beacons? Why must we allow people to do whatever they want and force other people to assume most of the risk?

In most of these cases, other people are assuming much of the cost, but little or none of the risk. The former is part of living in a civilized society, which some say should be judged on how it treats its weakest members. On the other hand, if the behavior is putting others at serious risk, then it should be legislated against. The legal system, after all, does protect the innocent.

[SpaceTiger]

Like that guy that had metal poles in the back of his truck and when he stopped suddenly they went into his cab through the rear window and killed him. Isn't there a law about securing items in truck beds and on cars? Or would that be the brutal police state taking away more freedoms? :tongue:

You're thinking of the restraint of objects on the outside of the car or truck. Not doing this is obviously extremely hazardous to other motorists. I'm talking about items inside the car, such as drinks, ipods, etc.

[Cyrus]

To be honest, I would prefer no seatbelt laws. Ideally, it should be up to the individual to decide their own risk. On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves how much 'freedom' are we giving up? Can you consider wearing a seatbelt as really giving up a freedom? I think its a stretch. As for all laws, we have to weigh the costs and the benefits. On the one hand, you can not wear a seatbelt and *technically* be more "free" (by free I mean less restraint) while you are driving. On the other hand, you save people millions of dollars and prevent the hospitals from being jam packed.

In this case the benefits far outweigh the costs. To be honest, I can’t honestly see not wearing a seatbelt as being *any* restriction on a freedom whatsoever.

But I do agree with all your points ST. If the benefits were not *so much* better than the costs, I'd agree with you 100%. I am all for no restrictions on personal choices. If the law does no good, then its a useless law and should be removed, but here this is not the case.

One could argue the same thing about wearing a helmet on a motorcycle.

[radou]

Because that happens so very frequently. :rolleyes:

Even if it happens once, that's enough.

If that's your concern, you should be against the storage of any loose items inside a car, since they're potentially capable of striking someone in an accident (and probably more likely to).

Of course I am. :smile:

[Cyrus]

Even if it happens once, that's enough.


Of course I am. :smile:

I think debating people flying out their windshields into other people is a very weak argument. :frown:

[radou]

I think debating people flying out their windshields into other people is a very weak argument. :frown:

There were a lot of good arguments in this post, but this discussion seems to go on. So, perhaps weak arguments will work.

[Cyrus]

Its weak because you cant have a law for something that:

Even if it happens once, that's enough.

That would constitute a very very poor and useless law. (And one that would not be enforced if it were that rare).

If we are going to have a law, it has to be effective and enforced. Something that can happen "Just once" does not cut it. Seatbelt laws in the DC area are strictly enforced. There is a big "click it or ticket" campaign now. If you are caught you get a $50 fine and two points on your licence, and the cops are out on force giving lots of tickets. So its still an issue.

[SpaceTiger]

In this case the benefits far outweigh the costs.

I don't think this has been convincingly shown. Certainly most of the people here don't change their behavior because of the law. The only statistic I've seen supporting the law's effect is the comparison of states with and without seatbelt laws, but that was only a 10% difference, and as always, correlation does not prove causation.

[SpaceTiger]

There were a lot of good arguments in this post, but this discussion seems to go on. So, perhaps weak arguments will work.

That's an interesting philosophy. Do you think I'll actually be fooled by a weak argument or do you just think it's good to waste people's time?

[Cyrus]

I obviously don't care about the freedom to not wear a seat belt, since I always wear one. I simply believe that overlegislation is dangerous to a society.

Overlegislation, yes. But if theres a case where it is shown to work, then its an effective law and should stay. There are other laws out there that are BS and should be removed, but you have to evaluate each one on a case by case basis. In this case, it appears that it does work.

As to your post. My friend is a deputy. He told me he can pull anyone over if he feels like it and make up an excuse. If he thinks you're acting funny he can ask you if he can search your car. If you refuse, he can tell you to get out and search your car becaues you refused. So seatbelts laws wont prevent this.

[out of whack]

In principle, nobody wants their behavior legislated when it affects no one else. But when a behavior causes freeloading upon others then it should be prepaid if possible or else forbidden. Fair?

[Evo]

I don't think this has been convincingly shown. Certainly most of the people here don't change their behavior because of the law. The only statistic I've seen supporting the law's effect is the comparison of states with and without seatbelt laws, but that was only a 10% difference, and as always, correlation does not prove causation.You made me invisible, didn't you?

Here are the seatbelt stats - http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...7&postcount=57[/quote]

[russ_watters]

You see being stranded in the middle of a forest until help arrives as a reward? Certainly we're helping the careless, but I would hardly say that their risky behavior is being rewarded. Nature already has a built-in punishment for this sort of thing. Maybe I didn't say it correctly: the reward is in giving the rescue to them for free. In most of these cases, other people are assuming much of the cost, but little or none of the risk. Cost is a risk (and a reward). Insurance is an investment or a gamble, depending on how you look at it, but either way, it is a risk/reward calculus. A few years ago, I went a few years without health insurance. I figured (bet) that with my healthy lifestyle, I wouldn't get hurt or sick and need medical care (and I didn't). Now I have insurance, but how much is the right amount? More coverage costs more money and essentially what you do with insurance is bet that you will get sick. The "reward" of good insurance is free cancer treatment. You place your bet and spin the roullette wheel and if you "win" (gettin cancer is "winning" in this game), you get the best return on your investment.

[hypatia]

I dont think 150 dollars a year insurance would be nearly enough to cover the costs of even one day in a hospital, though it may cover the cost of a cheap cremation.
After talking to a friend at AAA, he tossed out the amount of 2 to 3 thousand dollars a year, if you wish to not wear seatbelts or use airbags. He also added that many insurance companies do not cover things like mountian climbing, motocross bikeing,raceing, bungee jumping and sky diveing.

[SpaceTiger]

You made me invisible, didn't you?

Here are the seatbelt stats - http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...7&postcount=57

I included one of your stats in my post. Most of them are about the cost of automobile accidents, but only one really addresses the effectiveness of the law itself, and that's the one I quoted.

[russ_watters]

I don't think this has been convincingly shown. Certainly most of the people here don't change their behavior because of the law. The only statistic I've seen supporting the law's effect is the comparison of states with and without seatbelt laws, but that was only a 10% difference, and as always, correlation does not prove causation. What other cause could there be for states with such laws to have higher usage rates? Looking over the data, I only see 4 states that have primary seat belt laws that have anomalously low usage rates and all of those enacted those states enacted those laws in the past 3 years. That's an extremely good level of corellation.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2007/810690.pdf

[out of whack]

I dont think 150 dollars a year insurance would be nearly enough

I calculated $430/year in the other thread. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1346039&postcount=57) It was based on unverified figures from an article, so it's not exactly a solid number but this is a casual discussion, not a graduate thesis... It gives at least some idea.

[SpaceTiger]

I think you're abusing the english language a bit here...

Maybe I didn't say it correctly: the reward is in giving the rescue to them for free.

If you save your child from getting hit by a car, would you say you've rewarded them for not looking both ways before crossing? After all, they got a free rescue. A reward implies that the behavior has been reinforced, which in most of the cases we're discussing would not be the case.



Cost is a risk (and a reward). Insurance is an investment or a gamble, depending on how you look at it, but either way, it is a risk/reward calculus.

Cost can be a risk, of course, but they certainly aren't equivalent. For example, an amount of cost evenly distributed amongst taxpayers constitutes a considerably lower risk than the same amount charged to a single person. If risk were not dependent upon distribution of cost, the insurance companies would be out of business!

[russ_watters]

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2007/810690.pdf Here's that in graphical form:

Of note:

-Of the 5 primary law states with low usage, 4 have laws that are less than 3 years old and and the 5th is Louisiana, which saw a noteable drop after Katrina.
-The one abnormally high non-primary law state was Utah.
-New Hampshire is the only one in the country with no seatbelt law at all and at last mesurement (in 2003) was 30% below the national average in usage.

[russ_watters]

I think you're abusing the english language a bit here...

If you save your child from getting hit by a car, would you say you've rewarded them for not looking both ways before crossing? After all, they got a free rescue. Sure, they got a free rescue, but the rescue didn't cost anyone anything. :confused::confused: A reward implies that the behavior has been reinforced, which in most of the cases we're discussing would not be the case. Ahh, now on that, I disagree. There are two reasons why health insurance usage rates are so low in the US - one is the cost of the insurance, but the other is the fact that that safety net exists. I'm an example of that. If there were no safety net whatsoever, I'd have been foolish to have no insurance for a few years when I could have afforded it and I likely would have gotten it. I know others who have done the same.

But now we may be talking about two different behaviors: The not-having-insurance behavior is certainly reinforced by giving the coverage away. The corellation for the not-protecting-yourself behavior isn't as strong, but do you really believe people would climb mountains so often if they didn't know they had a free $20 million helicopter on retainer? Cost can be a risk, of course, but they certainly aren't equivalent. For example, an amount of cost evenly distributed amongst taxpayers constitutes a considerably lower risk than the same amount charged to a single person. If risk were not dependent upon distribution of cost, the insurance companies would be out of business! That is precisely my point. It is a lower risk because they make others pay to assume it.

We do not force the public to pay (directly, anyway) for a bad investment in the stock market - why should insurance be different?

[Huckleberry]

I thought it was clear. You assume that "The government exists to enforce social responsibility" without showing how. Enforcing a responsibility must be done by coercing the unwilling into doing it, like your responsibility to wear a seat belt to prevent burdening others. How does the government enforce it without restricting my freedom to drive without seat belt?
The only person at significant risk of physical injury is the one not wearing the seatbelt. If there is an alternate option for him to not be a financial burden to society then he may be acting irresponsibly, but is not being socially irresponsible by not wearing his seat belt, and the government has no reason to impose any law against him. He has not avoided any of his social responsibility.

Rather, what we have done is make a law that creates financial burdens on society and restricts the personal freedom of everyone. Basically, because a minority of people make bad decisions, everyone is considered too incompetent to be accountable for their actions. We are suddenly 'breaking the law' whenever we do anything that has a significant risk of personal injury. We choose to coerce with punishment first, rather than education and rewarding of responsible behavior. We care more about an individuals burden to society than we do about the individual. It is all for little effect, because people still don't always use seatbelts, and not all of the reduction in injuries is directly from their use. So we have sacraficed a small liberty for a small profit. That's a bad trade imo.
Or if instead you meant my responsibility to repay for my care and rehabilitation after recovery then you need to consider something else. The consequences of making bad decisions often exceed your ability to ever do reparation by a very long shot. Once someone is paralyzed or brain damaged by his own negligence, how is this person to cover the fees of his own care, let alone all other damages that are even more significant? Even after recovery, how can one fulfill his social responsibility to repay all expenses if he is a pensioner or a young parent with a family to feed? It's a glossy ideal but it just does not work.
Well, this is a most unfortunate case, and it does happen. Society sometimes has to foot the bill for this sort of thing in cases where the person responsible is unable to. At least we can take comfort that this individual will always be buckled up now. By his own hand he has removed his ability to be irresponsible by not wearing his seat belt. I think he has suffered enough through his physical burden that society can find the grace to forgive the financial burden.
Irresponsible adults are responsible for at least something: all these laws. Laws exist because there are so many irresponsible people who often don't realize that what they do affects others because, well, they are irresponsible. I agree. I just believe there is a difference between an individuals social responsibility and their private business. Society should make laws for how individuals interact with others. Individuals should have their own rules for their own personal matters. Society should have great respect for individual freedom and not just make laws that restrict it for lack of effort in any other attempt.

[russ_watters]

The only person at significant risk of physical injury is the one not wearing the seatbelt. If there is an alternate option for him to not be a financial burden to society then he may be acting irresponsibly, but is not being socially irresponsible by not wearing his seat belt, and the government has no reason to impose any law against him. He has not avoided any of his social responsibility. Financial burden is a social responsibility issue. Rather, what we have done is make a law that creates financial burdens on society and restricts the personal freedom of everyone. Huh? It is well proven that seatbelt laws save money. So we have sacraficed a small liberty for a small profit. What profit? I think he has suffered enough through his physical burden that society can find the grace to forgive the financial burden.
Society doesn't "forgive" the financial burden, society assumes (takes responsibility for) the financial burden. I agree. I just believe there is a difference between an individuals social responsibility and their private business. Society should make laws for how individuals interact with others. Individuals should have their own rules for their own personal matters. When I give someone else money to pay for their medical care, isn't that an "interaction"?

[SpaceTiger]

What other cause could there be for states with such laws to have higher usage rates?

Don't you think there might be a correlation between the state feeling the need for a seat belt law and the drivers feeling the need for a seat belt? Virtually all states show an increase in seat belt use with time, regardless of the status of the state's laws. This implies that culture and media play a big role. Notice also that the states which implemented laws during the displayed timespan always registered an increase in use after implementation, but at a rate comparable to the increases of previous years. Finally, notice that both seat belt use seat belt laws seem to be more common in the more urbanized states. Not a surprise, I should think. If I lived in Montana, I would probably feel less of a need to wear a seat belt.

Do I think the laws make any difference? Yeah, probably, but these stats suggest that it's not a big effect. I would be surprised if it had a noticable effect on hospital crowding or the rates of job abandonment by nursing spouses.

[Huckleberry]

The financial burden isn't a social issue if society doesn't pay for the bill. I was specific about that in my statement.

The law as it is creates a financial burden on everyone because people who do not use seat belts are still covered by their insurance, and there is no distinction between the two groups. I'm sure the law has some effect on how people use seat belts, but there are other factors that reduce the severity and frequency of injuries also that are not factored into the correlation.

Perhaps profit was the wrong word. Maybe savings would have been better.

Again you are right. Society doesn't forgive the debt. It doesn't just dissappear. Assume is a more appropriate word when applied to the financial burden. Perhaps society can forgive the injured person for having to assume their financial burden.

[SpaceTiger]

Sure, they got a free rescue, but the rescue didn't cost anyone anything. :confused::confused:

Where did I say that?



But now we may be talking about two different behaviors: The not-having-insurance behavior is certainly reinforced by giving the coverage away. The corellation for the not-protecting-yourself behavior isn't as strong, but do you really believe people would climb mountains so often if they didn't know they had a free $20 million helicopter on retainer?

The question is whether these laws are a significant deterrent. We will all differ on what constitutes "significant", and in the end I think that's all this argument is about. I don't think the rates of mountain climbing would change a great deal if they did away the helicopter rescues, nor do I think the rates of seat belt use change significantly due to the laws. Ultimately, most people just think, "it wouldn't happen to me anyway".



That is precisely my point. It is a lower risk because they make others pay to assume it.

We do not force the public to pay (directly, anyway) for a bad investment in the stock market - why should insurance be different?

I'm not sure I follow you here. I said the general public bears most of the cost, but very little of the risk, but you came back saying that the cost was the risk. Are you now agreeing with me?

[out of whack]

He has not avoided any of his social responsibility.

Huh, this looks like the root of our disagreement. I say that freeloading on the social safety net is socially irresponsible. You say otherwise. I guess we're done with that.

[SpaceTiger]

I don't want to give the impression that I don't respect and appreciate why people feel the need to legislate car safety -- car accidents are scary and extremely dangerous. In fact, that so many people disagree with me is probably a good thing, it means people are more conscious of seat belt use than they used to be. I just think there are much better ways to deal with our problems than just passing laws. I don't have numbers offhand, but I'm sure we can all agree that the tobacco and fast food industries cost the taxpayer and insurance payer a great deal of money. Does everyone think that those things should be illegal? If not, why not? What about alcohol? Drunk driving is one of the leading causes of death among young people and it would certainly be reduced if alcohol were made illegal.

I don't think that the freedom to not wear a seat belt is in itself a big deal, but I do think that we should think twice before trying to force a solution to a problem that is already sorting itself out through social means.

[Huckleberry]

Huh, this looks like the root of our disagreement. I say that freeloading on the social safety net is socially irresponsible. You say otherwise. I guess we're done with that.

The only person at significant risk of physical injury is the one not wearing the seatbelt. If there is an alternate option for him to not be a financial burden to society then he may be acting irresponsibly, but is not being socially irresponsible by not wearing his seat belt, and the government has no reason to impose any law against him. He has not avoided any of his social responsibility.

One sentence does not make a paragraph. I may not be the best at grammar and word usage, but I think the paragraph is clear enough for anyone that gives a fair attempt at understanding it.

I stated that If there is an alternate option for him to not be a financial burden to society then he may be acting irresponsibly, but is not being socially irresponsible by not wearing his seat belt. People who don't use their safety belt now are freeloading on the system and not paying anything extra. I'm recommending repealing the law, thus making people free to use whatever judgement for their safety they deem best, and removing much of the financial safety net, thus placing more responsibility on the individual. This increased level of financial responsibility could eventually be much more effective in promoting seat belt use than the current law, and doesn't step on anyone's freedom. Why do people seem locked into the idea that the current law is the only, or even the most effective solution?

[radou]

That's an interesting philosophy. Do you think I'll actually be fooled by a weak argument or do you just think it's good to waste people's time?

The former is possible, why the heck not.

You decided to waste your time by replying to my post, so it's your problem. What I think doesn't matter.

[I'm out of this discussion.]

[BobG]

Don't you think there might be a correlation between the state feeling the need for a seat belt law and the drivers feeling the need for a seat belt? Virtually all states show an increase in seat belt use with time, regardless of the status of the state's laws. This implies that culture and media play a big role. Notice also that the states which implemented laws during the displayed timespan always registered an increase in use after implementation, but at a rate comparable to the increases of previous years. Finally, notice that both seat belt use seat belt laws seem to be more common in the more urbanized states. Not a surprise, I should think. If I lived in Montana, I would probably feel less of a need to wear a seat belt.

Do I think the laws make any difference? Yeah, probably, but these stats suggest that it's not a big effect. I would be surprised if it had a noticable effect on hospital crowding or the rates of job abandonment by nursing spouses.

One example where the laws reflect trends that already exist vs the laws causing the change: tobacco bans and tobaco use. (Not a direct example, but tobacco data and bans are easier to get and compile)

22 states have restrictive state wide bans to include most bars (kind of the criteria I used as restrictive, since bars, casinos, and bowling alleys are the most often exempted).

Based on 2004 & 2005 statistics, 8 of the 10 states with the lowest smoking rates have enacted bans - 7 of the bans were enacted in 2004 or later, with 5 enacted 2006 or later. I think it's safe to say the 5 bans in 2006 or later didn't reduce smoking in 2004 and 2005.

12 of the 14 lowest states enacted smoking bans, with 7 of the bans enacted in 2006 or later and 10 of the bans enacted in 2004 or later.

3 of the 17 states with the highest smoking rates have statewide smoking bans, all enacted in Oct 2005 or later.

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k5state/AppB.htm#TabB.13 (You have to go all the way down to table B.13 and import into a spreadsheet if you want to sort the data)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States

The states where smoking is highest have the least support for smoking bans and they're not passed. The states where smoking is lowest have more support for bans and they are passed.

It's perfectly reasonable to believe trends in seatbelt usage affect seatbelt laws as to believe seatbelt laws affect trends in seatbelt usage. To show the laws have an effect, there needs to be before and after statistics - (something hard to get for tobacco bans unless you live in California, Maine, or Delaware, which have had bans for quite some time)

[Huckleberry]

I don't want to give the impression that I don't respect and appreciate why people feel the need to legislate car safety -- car accidents are scary and extremely dangerous. In fact, that so many people disagree with me is probably a good thing, it means people are more conscious of seat belt use than they used to be. I just think there are much better ways to deal with our problems than just passing laws. I don't have numbers offhand, but I'm sure we can all agree that the tobacco and fast food industries cost the taxpayer and insurance payer a great deal of money. Does everyone think that those things should be illegal? If not, why not? What about alcohol? Drunk driving is one of the leading causes of death among young people and it would certainly be reduced if alcohol were made illegal.

I don't think that the freedom to not wear a seat belt is in itself a big deal, but I do think that we should think twice before trying to force a solution to a problem that is already sorting itself out through social means.

Tobacco users pay a lot of taxes. Every pack of cigarettes is charged a federal tax, and sometimes an additional county or city tax. Tobacco users also pay increased insurance rates. I am a smoker myself and think this is a fair deal. The taxes and other costs smokers pay should be sufficient to cover the expenses of smoking related medical care. A similar system could be used for people that choose not to use a seatbelt but still want coverage for medical bills.

Another idea is insurance would only pay some minimum amount of the medical bills for injuries to an unbelted individual, that reflects an average medical expense for belted injuries. The unbelted individual could pay the remainder, whatever that may be. If they can't pay then they could lose their right to drive. Drivers would be responsible for the proper belting of their passengers. Hopefully, people would choose to drive more responsibly and wear a seat belt. This action would take effect only if they were involved in an accident, so would not require the constant monitoring of police to make it effective. Save the punishment for people who have actually endangered others in some way.

Oh man, don't make my Jack-in-the-Box illegal. They just came out with a new #2 that I really enjoy.

I think the laws against drunk driving are a good thing. Drunk drivers are a danger to everyone on the road. They should be kept off it. I wonder if they use their seat belts much. I think if I were drunk, and for some reason wanted to drive, I would definitely want to use my seat belt.

[Jimmy Snyder]

I haven't kept up with all the posts so it may be that someone has already answered this question. Should people have the right to endanger themselves for the specific purpose of not being a burden to society? Coincidentally, this question comes just as Dr. Kevorkian has come out of prison.