News Uncovering the Truth Behind Event Data Recorders in Cars

[russ_watters]

Can you provide a citation for that? That would seem to be an arugment against the very existence of seat belt laws. But if the government can legislate it, then they can enforce it as appropriate.

I'm looking for citations myself. So far, it looks like there has never been a court challenge on the general existence of seat belt laws. I found one challenging the lack of a religious exemption and one challenging the vagueness of a particular law.

I found one site with a number of concise arguments against seat belt laws, but none of them address the issue of liberty. The most relevant arguments are not about the law itself restricting liberty but about hypothetical abuses that the law can be used for illegally. That isn't the same thing (it is essentially an adjacent slippery slope argument).

http://www.w3taxi.com/emancipation/holdorf1.shtml

MADD cites an NTSB official about the issue of liberty:

The NTSB's Quinlan says some opponents of seat belt laws confuse liberty with license.

"The issue with primary seat belt laws is not the infringement of liberty; rather, it's the protection of everybody," Quinlan says. "Driving a car has responsibility that goes along with it. You're not entirely free to do whatever you would like to do. There are limits and driver responsibilities. One of them is wearing a safety belt."

http://www.madd.org/stats/5611

I always do find irony in arguing about liberty with a liberal, though, as a central tenant of modern liberalism is the severe limitation of personal liberty in economics. Seat belt laws do no general harm to a person, but do protect people from their own stupidity(ie, you can get hurt by a seatbelt, but it is statistically far more likely you will be saved by one) . Tax laws and entitlements, on the other hand, take money from some people for the benefit of others - a straightforward violation of personal liberty.

The liberty argument is also short-circuted by the fac that peoples' failure to wear a seatbelt does, in fact, harm society. The public pays for the police, fire, and to a lesser extent, ambulance services that have to respond in such cases. [edit: this is discussed in great detail in the court case below]

 

[russ_watters]

One very interesting case I found has this to say:

At the outset we note that, in reviewing the constitutionality of Illinois' mandatory-seat-belt law, this court does not join in the debate over whether the law is desirable or necessary. Our nation was founded in large part on the democratic principle that the powers of government are to be exercised by the people through their elected representatives in the legislature, subject only to certain constitutional limitations. Although this court has never hesitated to invalidate laws that it believes to be unconstitutional, we emphasize that our role is a limited one. The issue here in "not what the legislature should do but what the legislature can do."

http://www.bikersrights.com/states/illinois/kohrig.html

Honestly, I had not considered that. So that voids your "necessary" argument as well. That isn't an issue here: what is at issue is if such legislation is Constitutionally allowable.

It even goes on to say that courts should be wary of an unwarranted expansion of the right to privacy - an other side of the coin I hadn't even considered:

Moreover, recognizing that a court is "most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution," the Supreme Court has emphasized that there should be "great resistance" to further expanding the substantive due process right of privacy. (Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), 478 U.S. ----, ----, 106 S.Ct. 2841, 2846, 92 L.Ed.2d 140, 148.) Thus, attempts by litigants to expand the privacy right beyond matters relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relations, abortion, child rearing and education have largely been unsuccessful.

More to the point:

In the present case it cannot be said that defendant Greene's claimed right to decide whether or not to wear a safety belt on a public highway resembles those liberties identified by the Supreme Court as being included in the right of privacy protected by the fourteenth amendment.

Further:

The States historically have been given a wide latitude to regulate the use of motor vehicles (Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (1959), 359 U.S. 520, 530, 79 S.Ct. 962, 968, 3 L.Ed.2d 1003, 1010), and the individual driver's autonomy on the road has, out of necessity for the public safety and welfare, been significantly curtailed by State regulation. Like the court in Bisenius v. Karns (1969), 42 Wis.2d 42, 165 N.W.2d 377, appeal dismissed (1969), 395 U.S. 709, 89 S.Ct. 2033, 23 L.Ed.2d 655, we reject any notion that the right of privacy includes the right to "do one's thing" on an expressway [emphasis added]

Overall, this court verdict is an extremely strongly-worded decision against the right to privacy on the road.

It also points out another way not wearing a seatbelt can cause harm to others: if a person is injured in a car accident, they may lose control of the vehicle while the accident continues. That brings up another circumstance: quite a large number of accidents occur because of drivers leaving the driver's seat (ie, bending down to retrieve a cigarette), which is something you can't do if you are wearing your seatbelt.

Incidentally, the slippery-slope argument isn't used in court because it isn't a valid argument.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually Russ there are some laws in which you can only be prosecuted if you "willing" break it. If you are ignorant of that law then you arent willing so you arent breaking it.

That's kinda self-evident/redundant, Anttech, that a law about intent can't be broken without intent, but that isn't relevant here.

 

[Andy]

Actually Russ there are some laws in which you can only be prosecuted if you "willing" break it. If you are ignorant of that law then you arent willing so you arent breaking it.

Nobody that has a drivers license can claim to be ignorant of traffic laws. Whats your defence going to be? "I didnt know that the speed limit was 70mph!"

In the UK it is an offence for anyone in a car to not be wearing a seatbelt and anyone under the age of 17 is in the drivers responsibility and anybody 17 or over can be fined.

 

[Anttech]

In the UK it is an offence for anyone in a car to not be wearing a seatbelt and anyone under the age of 17 is in the drivers responsibility and anybody 17 or over can be fined.

actually its over 14 AFAIK:

http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/seatbelts.htm

 

[Andy]

Thank you, did it used to be 17? Maybe i just plucked 17 out of the air from somewhere.

 

[Anttech]

17 is the age you can drive :)

17 makes more sense to me than 14 for being fined, not many 14 year olds have jobs enough to pay for a fine.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In the states I've lived in as an adult (Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin), 15 year olds take drivers ed and get learner's permits, and then can get their real license at (I think) 16. A learner's permit requires you to have a licensed driver in the car with you when you are driving, and that licensed driver CAN (I don't think must always) share legal liability for anything you do wrong.