News Why Did New Hampshire Reject the Seat-Belt Law?

[Ivan Seeking]

New Hampshire Panel Rejects Seat-Belt Law

...But for many in rock-ribbed New Hampshire, buckling up and being told you have to buckle up are two very different things.

“It harkens to the libertarian ‘don’t tell me what to do’ streak that characterizes much of our politics here,” said the chairman of the House transportation committee, Jim Ryan, a proponent of the bill.

http://www.hendersonvillenews.com/article/20070524/ZNYT04/705240367/1170/BUSINESS/ZNYT04/New_Hampshire_Panel_Rejects_Seat_Belt_Law

I've always been found of New Hampshire for their State motto if nothing else: Live free or die. They understand what America and liberty are all about. "Freedom" means free to make bad decisions, like not wearing a seat belt.

 

[drankin]

The seat-belt laws are driven my the insurance company lobbies. It isn't the governments place to make me wear safety equipment on my own time. That should be entirely at my own discretion. Where does that type of legislation end?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Where does that type of legislation end?

Exactly: It doesn't. And in the course of my life, I have seen many liberties taken away, one by one. Laws that either protect people from themselves, or the masses [insurance companies] from the indirect expenses associated with a particular activity, often have no logical limit in their rationale.

As a young man, I never imagined that would be where we are today. It truly makes me sick to think about it, but its hard not to as liberty and freedom are why we allegedly fought wars.

 

[russ_watters]

I pay for insurance and I pay taxes. That means that if you get hurt because you weren't wearing a seat belt, you hurt me too and you don't have the right to hurt me.

I would, however, support legislation in place of this that requires people to make a choice and stick with it, opting out of medical care (either from insurance or taxes). They could put a little sticker on the license plates of such people that says "please allow me to bleed to death on the road - I'm too dumb to live."

The society we live in has hippies screaming at the loss of small personal liberties while simultaneously and hypocritically forcing other people to pay for their self-destructive lifestyles. You can't have it both ways (well, you can in this country today, but you shouldn't be able to).

Edit: wait, actually I have a better idea. Every year when a car gets it's state inspection, along with all the other safety checks that are done, the inspector can also check the car's seatbelt utilization log and report it to the insurance company for a rate adjustment based on the utilization fraction.

Edit2: I probably shouldn't have just said hippies. Ironically, this is an issue that the extremes on both sides share, though with a slight variation: Personal freedom with the personal responsibility that goes with it is a conservative ideal. My boss, who is somewhat to the right of Rush Limbaugh, does not wear a seatbelt and does not have health insurance. He wouldn't have car insurance either, if it weren't required in PA and he averages about a car accident a year. Since he totaled his last roadster in December, he's been sharing a car with his wife, but is looking to buy a motorcyle right now... Anyway, that ideal is at least internally consistent in that he doesn't demand protection from the government for/from his own stupidity. He truly believes that personal responsibility must go hand-in-hand with personal freedom.

 

[devil-fire]

the "slippery slope" goes both ways. if people are free to not be safe in regards to seat belts, what is to prevent car manufactures from making cars without seat belts, air bags, shatter proof windows? sure the consumer can just not buy unsafe cars, but there is nothing then to prevent car manufactures from claiming seatbelt are nooses, airbags are hand grenades in your face and when your face hits the wind shield, it makes more sense to go through it then be stopped by it.

i understand that you may prefer to be free to make whatever safety choices you deem appropriate, but i disagree.

 

[ray b]

I pay for insurance and I pay taxes. That means that if you get hurt because you weren't wearing a seat belt, you hurt me too and you don't have the right to hurt me.

I would, however, support legislation in place of this that requires people to make a choice and stick with it, opting out of medical care (either from insurance or taxes). They could put a little sticker on the license plates of such people that says "please allow me to bleed to death on the road - I'm too dumb to live."

The society we live in has hippies screaming at the loss of small personal liberties while simultaneously and hypocritically forcing other people to pay for their self-destructive lifestyles. You can't have it both ways (well, you can in this country today, but you shouldn't be able to).

Edit: wait, actually I have a better idea. Every year when a car gets it's state inspection, along with all the other safety checks that are done, the inspector can also check the car's seatbelt utilization log and report it to the insurance company for a rate adjustment based on the utilization fraction.

Edit2: I probably shouldn't have just said hippies. Ironically, this is an issue that the extremes on both sides share, though with a slight variation: Personal freedom with the personal responsibility that goes with it is a conservative ideal. My boss, who is somewhat to the right of Rush Limbaugh, does not wear a seatbelt and does not have health insurance. He wouldn't have car insurance either, if it weren't required in PA and he averages about a car accident a year. Since he totaled his last roadster in December, he's been sharing a car with his wife, but is looking to buy a motorcyle right now... Anyway, that ideal is at least internally consistent in that he doesn't demand protection from the government for/from his own stupidity. He truly believes that personal responsibility must go hand-in-hand with personal freedom.

plan one the right to life folks would have a fit
as they want one NOT to have a right to die

plan two hippys?? what are you babbleing about??
''their self-destructive lifestyles''
pot smoking and living free are NOT ''self-destructive ''
or at least as self-destructive as the avg buck driven wage slave
who drinks too much eats a high fat diet and is under stress
so dies early of a stroke or heart attack

part 3
the neo-conned hate freedom esp personal freedoms
they support way too many laws that limit freedom
and want to add more all the time
laws againts sex, tv, movie, and book content
very much the same program pushed by the tali-ban

the main push is for CORPs freedom from gov reg by the neo-conned
and CORPs are not people and should have no freedom
or we will get more ENRONs

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I always wear a seatbelt when in a car and I heartily recommend it to others. But the seatbelt law does not belong in the home of the brave and the land of the free. The only time that beltless people infringe on my rights is when they get injured and I have to pay for it. I wish that I could buy car insurance that didn't pay me if I wasn't wearing a belt. I also think that when the beltless are injured or killed in a crash, they should be considered negligent, and the cause of their own injuries regardless of who caused the accident.

 

[IMP]

Hip hip hooray, hip hip hooray, hip hip hooray! Three cheers is right!
Forcing someone to wear a seat belt inside their own vehicle is wrong no matter how you try to justify it...

 

[Huckleberry]

Just make separate rates for people who choose not to wear seatbelts. Then the only person punished would be the person who told their insurance company they would wear their seat belt and yet did not.

They should do away with mandatory insurance also.

 

[drankin]

Sometimes I wear a seatbelt, sometimes I don't. Regardless, I should not be penalized by my government if I do not. Surely there are more important things that our law enforcement officers can be paying attention to.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The society we live in has hippies screaming at the loss of small personal liberties while simultaneously and hypocritically forcing other people to pay for their self-destructive lifestyles. You can't have it both ways (well, you can in this country today, but you shouldn't be able to

Where did you come up with the hippy thing? I don't think you even know what a hippy really was.

Of course, you are too young to know what a hippy was, but using the word is an easy way to try to discredit anyone with whom you disagree. Of course I doubt that is your motive as it is cowardly.

And for the record, while hippies were painting their flowers, I was hanging with the Young Republicans. But many of the hippies were two-faced and later became yuppies driving SUVs.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

using the word (hippy) is an easy way to try to discredit anyone with whom you disagree.

I lived through those days. I don't recall the word ever being used in any other way. What is your definition of what a hippy is?

 

[BobG]

I think it's a strange victory to win the right to live stupidly, but surely it isn't worth selling your liberty just for lower car insurance rates.

I lived through those days. I don't recall the word ever being used in any other way. What is your definition of what a hippy is?

I'd say those kids only concerned about drugs and dodging the draft, but that would encompass our last two Presidents, at least if you include Ivan's two-faced hippies that later became yuppies. (couldn't help myself )

 

[Tsu]

from dictionary.com

hippie:
a person, esp. of the late 1960s, who rejected established institutions and values and sought spontaneity, direct personal relations expressing love, and expanded consciousness, often expressed externally in the wearing of casual, folksy clothing and of beads, headbands, used garments, etc.

According to Russ, these heinous people in their beads and flowers are probably directly responsible for everything bad that is happening in the world today. Hell, they probably even CAUSED global warming just by trying to warn the world about it.

 

[Hurkyl]

They understand what America and liberty are all about.

Securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity is, indeed, one of the things America is about. But so is promoting the general welfare.

 

[Astronuc]

Jon Corzine wasn't wearing a seat belt when the SUV in which he was traveling (at 91 mph) swerved to avoid another car which was veering to avoid some idiot who pulled off the shoulder into traffic. The SUV driver lost control and the vehicle hit a guard rail.

http://scienceblogs.com/drcharles/2007/04/corzines_injuries.php :

Large scalp laceration.
Fractured clavicle.
Fractured sternum. I point out that it takes a really high-energy hit to the chest to fracture a sternum.
Fractured ribs, six on each side. It sounds as though this may well have been enough to give Governor Corzine a flail chest, a condition where there is paradoxical movement of the chest wall inward with each breath using the diaphragm, severely compromising respiration. No wonder he's still on a ventilator. Given his sternal fracture and multiple rib fractures, Corzine almost certainly also has a nasty underlying pulmonary contusion that could easily blossom into ARDS, which could kill him if it develops. (If enough force hits you to break your sternum and multiple ribs, it's a good bet that it banged around the underlying lung tissue as well.) Corzine's chest injuries are certainly his most life-threatening injuries at this point.
Fractured lower vertebrae.
An open, comminuted femur fracture with a large laceration and muscle damage.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

some idiot who pulled of the shoulder into traffic.

Yeah, it's amazing how many idiots there are on the road. Travel 91 mph and they jump out at you from every direction. Here is a description of what this particular idiot did.

Police caught up with the driver of that red pickup they said caused the accident. But it turns out he wasn't responsible. He had pulled over the side of the road to make way for Corzine's motorcade, its lights blaring. When he swerved back on the road, another pickup truck behind him swerved to avoid hitting him, and collided with the Suburban. The driver of the second truck wasn't to blame, either.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/19/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_corzine.fortune/index.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hippies
http://www.history.com/shows.do?episodeId=221518&action=detail

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that the NH law was proposed by liberals. It ain't the "hippies" arguing against the seat belt law, it's the Republicans. The only reason that this law even got close to passing is that NH threw out the neo-cons in the last election which gave more seats to liberal Democrats.

Being the true conservatives that they are, NH believes in liberty. It is the neo-cons and the liberals who believe in intruding on our lives based on their perspective that a few bucks are worth more than liberty paid for with blood.

 

[Evo]

I can't imagine not wanting to wear a seat belt?

According to the article

The state would receive $3.7 million in federal money for enacting a primary seat belt law, which allows a driver to be stopped solely for not wearing a seat belt. The bill’s supporters say it will save the state $48 million in medical costs.

New Hampshire has the lowest rate of seat belt use in the country, 49.6 percent, according to the National Transportation Safety Board, which supports the bill. Last year, 77 percent of fatal crashes in the state involved occupants who were not wearing seat belts, according to the state’s Safety Department.

I'm sorry, but can someone explain why killing this bill was a good thing? Obviously the residents of the state don't have enough brains to buckle up without it being a law. Or is the idea to cost the state millions and increase death and serious injury?

I just don't get it. Putting on a seatbelt is automatic for me and I don't even realize it's on when I'm driving. Why would someone drive without one?

 

[Ki Man]

If you get in a crash, when you fly out of the car because you don't have your seatbelt on, you are a potentially dangerous projectile to bystanders. If you are dumb enough to not wear one, at least do it for the people who weren't directly causing the wreck

 

[Hurkyl]

Being the true conservatives that they are, NH believes in liberty.

So NH doesn't believe in promoting the general welfare?

 

[Integral]

Seat belt laws seem pretty silly to me. But I do agree that wearing them is a good idea, I do. It is not clear to me why the insurance companies should be lobbying for such laws. They are the ones making the terms, all they need do is put it in the policy, no seat belt no medical coverage. Simple, and no laws are needed. If you want help with the medical bills from an insurance company, wear your seat belt. If you don't, then don't. It would be a personal chose, as it should be.

Why it doesn't work that way is not clear to me.

 

[Gokul43201]

So NH doesn't believe in promoting the general welfare?

Perhaps it just doesn't believe in shoving the "general welfare" down our throats, under the threat of punishment. I would imagine you promote the general welfare by putting out the information and educating the citizenry about the risks.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps it just doesn't believe in shoving the "general welfare" down our throats, under the threat of punishment.

Really? Do they support getting rid of Social Security and medicare too?

And why is it ok to force me to support people who choose not to educate themselves but not ok to force people not to kill themselves?

Why is it ok to have no personal responsibility for your actions, but have the government as a safety-net?

(caveat: several people suggested they should be allowed to opt-out of things like insurance and I'm ok with that).

 

[russ_watters]

from dictionary.com

hippie:
a person, esp. of the late 1960s, who rejected established institutions and values...

Also from dictionary.com:

advocates extreme liberalism in politics and lifestyle [emphasis added]

“It harkens to the libertarian ‘don’t tell me what to do’ streak that characterizes much of our politics here,” said the chairman of the House transportation committee, Jim Ryan, a proponent of the bill.

So how exactly is my usage of the word wrong? Is this not a very off-the-mainstream policy?

Yeah - I think extremism is crap. If you'd prefer the word didn't have that connotation because you identify (ied) with the values, that's just too bad. I do, however, enjoy how you guys completely ignore the argument in favor of attacking a single emotionally charged word - appropriate or not. And yet the only content in the OP was a 200 year-old propaganda slogan!

 

[devil-fire]

should a business have the freedom to not install guard rails? employees are free to not work there after all.

any number of building regulations could fall under the same tree. should contractors be required to make buildings in a safe way as long as they inform the people that are using the building?

what about the sale of DDT and asbestos insulation for home use?

the freedom to be unsafe can apply to lots of things

 

[russ_watters]

''their self-destructive lifestyles''
pot smoking and living free are NOT ''self-destructive ''
or at least as self-destructive as the avg buck driven wage slave
who drinks too much eats a high fat diet and is under stress
so dies early of a stroke or heart attack

You hit the nail on the head, ray - this is exactly what bothers me about the hippie ideal and laws that follow it. No, it may not be very self-destructive, but it is certainly irresponsible and that's what this issue is about - the freedom to be irresponsible and self-destructive without the accountability that necessarily goes with it. That's hippieism in a nutshell. And hippies that became yuppies, Bob, because they grew up and started taking personal responsibility for their actions. Promiscuity, drug use, idealism - these things aren't any different today than they were in the 60's except in the degree. But they are all just things that college kids do to blow-off steam. Most adults grow out of it.

Anyway, that fat guy who dies of a stroke or heart attack likely had his blood pressure tested last year and his insurance premiums went through the roof because of it. And so it should be fore people who choose to make other irresponsible choices. But somehow, I don't think my suggested alternate laws would pass...

edit: By the way - assuming this would affect 1/4 of the population of the state (total 1.3 million), it would require raising the insurance premiums for those who don't wear seatbelts by about $120/yr (based on the $48m estimated yearly savings). I rather suspect that few people would actually choose to opt-out of it if that were the choice...

edit2: I have another suggestion for a law: ship captain's are legally responsible for the safety of thsoe who ride on their ships. Let's make car drivers have the same responsibility: they don't need to wear seatbelts or require those in their cars to, but if their passenger gets hurt or killed while not wearing a seatbelt, they get arrested and charged with the appropriate level of criminal neglegence (in addition to paying the medical bills of the passenger). Sound good to you guys? (right now they have such laws, but they are loosely applied)

 

[Huckleberry]

should a business have the freedom to not install guard rails? employees are free to not work there after all.

any number of building regulations could fall under the same tree. should contractors be required to make buildings in a safe way as long as they inform the people that are using the building?

what about the sale of DDT and asbestos insulation for home use?

the freedom to be unsafe can apply to lots of things

I don't quite get the comparison. A person putting on their seat belt protects primarily themselves. A business constructing guard rails is for the protection of others. People who work for a business are not the property of that business.

 

[Huckleberry]

Really? Do they support getting rid of Social Security and medicare too?

And why is it ok to force me to support people who choose not to educate themselves but not ok to force people not to kill themselves?

Why is it ok to have no personal responsibility for your actions, but have the government as a safety-net?

(caveat: several people suggested they should be allowed to opt-out of things like insurance and I'm ok with that).

The purpose of social systems isn't to provide a free ride for lazy people. I can't deny that some people do abuse the system, but many have a legitimate need for social service and medicare. We all pay into these government programs for the promoting of the general welfare of this nation. People have earned the right to use them. Not everyone who falls on hard times is irresponsible and uneducated. We earn wealth through society and have an individual responsibility to its welfare.

I don't see how a government has the capability to enforce laws to make a person live against their will, and I don't think they have the right to do so if they could. The government belongs to the people. We are not the property of the government. As long as our actions do not interfere with our social responsibility then the government has no business interfering with our actions, even if they are self-destructive. If society has no financial responsibility for any injury received by a person without a seatbelt, or there is a separate provision for such people, then I don't see how society has any right to complain about these people's preferences for their own personal safety.

 

[BobG]

Really? Do they support getting rid of Social Security and medicare too?

And why is it ok to force me to support people who choose not to educate themselves but not ok to force people not to kill themselves?

Why is it ok to have no personal responsibility for your actions, but have the government as a safety-net?

(caveat: several people suggested they should be allowed to opt-out of things like insurance and I'm ok with that).

To a significant extent, Social Security doesn't fall into the same category. The more you earn in income, the more money in Social Security benefits you receive after retirement.

Admittedly, it's a progressive increase, so the $9700 per year in benefits a $16,000 a year worker will receive in Social Security is a higher percentage of his working income than the $26,000 a year in benefits a $90,000 a year worker will get.

On the other hand, the taxable income for Social Security is capped at $90,000 a year, so those making more than $90,000 a year are paying lower Social Security Tax rates. 15% of the worker earnings are exempt from Social Security taxes due to the $90,000 a year cap.

At least theoretically.

In reality, Social Security isn't sustainable in its current form. Either the cap will be raised to increase the amount of Social Security taxes high earners pay or benefits to high earners will be cut (percentage wise), bringing the benefits paid to high earner workers a lot closer to the benefits paid to low earner workers.

At that point, you'll be more correct in your description of Social Security as nothing more than a safety net for those that failed to earn much money over their life or to plan for retirement. (In fact, any younger worker would be foolish to look at it any other way, since the current form of Social Security won't exist when they retire.)

http://www.cbpp.org/3-21-05socsec.htm
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20050309

 

[Evo]

If society has no financial responsibility for any injury received by a person without a seatbelt, or there is a separate provision for such people, then I don't see how society has any right to complain about these people's preferences for their own personal safety.

So since society is held financially responsible for providing medical care for injuries to people injured due to not wearing a seatbelt (we all pay in some way, be it taxes, higher medical expenses, higher insurance) then you agree that society has the right to complain about these people?

 

[devil-fire]

I don't quite get the comparison. A person putting on their seat belt protects primarily themselves. A business constructing guard rails is for the protection of others. People who work for a business are not the property of that business.

the comparison I am trying to make is that people are no longer free to be in an unsafe work environment, they are no longer free to use unsafe buildings and people are also no longer free to use a number of hazardous products.

some here seems to be saying "of course i don't want to drive without my seatbelt, but i want to be able too". even though vary few people would want to use an unsafe building, many people might not want that freedom taken away from them.

i think the issue here is the right to be unsafe and my opinion is that it is a good thing to regulate unsafty, even though education alone should have the same effect

 

[out of whack]

The so-called freedoms to ride in open cabs, without seatbelts or without helmet on a motorcycle are all unnecessary. There is much more to lose than to gain by protecting your right to burden the state when you put yourself at risk without any other valid reason than being stubborn and/or stupid. "Opting out" of insurance or other support systems doesn't work either: people will not let you die from an accident, that would be illegal and immoral. And once you're paraplegic and without insurance, someone will still have to pay for your care, thanks to your precious right to decide. It's unfair that others should pay for your stupidity. So yes, my opinion is shut up and buckle up, it's reasonable and it's fair.

 

[drankin]

The so-called freedoms to ride in open cabs, without seatbelts or without helmet on a motorcycle are all unnecessary. There is much more to lose than to gain by protecting your right to burden the state when you put yourself at risk without any other valid reason than being stubborn and/or stupid. "Opting out" of insurance or other support systems doesn't work either: people will not let you die from an accident, that would be illegal and immoral. And once you're paraplegic and without insurance, someone will still have to pay for your care, thanks to your precious right to decide. It's unfair that others should pay for your stupidity. So yes, my opinion is shut up and buckle up, it's reasonable and it's fair.

So if I get in a car accident and die because I did not have a seat belt on, how does this cost the tax-payer more money than if I get in an accident with my seat belt on and live? If I live, I will surely be more costly to care for than if I die.

 

[Evo]

So if I get in a car accident and die because I did not have a seat belt on, how does this cost the tax-payer more money than if I get in an accident with my seat belt on and live? If I live, I will surely be more costly to care for than if I die.

Ambulance, coroner's office, autopsy. That's if you're dead before they get there. If you die shortly after they get to you the cost can be astronomical, especially if you are taken to an emergency room. Not to mention the thousands of dollars a month in Social security benefits paid to your survivors.

 

[devil-fire]

theres a Loooong ways between being ok and dead. a seatbelt might leave someone with some nasty bruises in the same accident that would leave someone with broken limbs, huge amounts of road rash, skin graphs, reconstructive surgery, damaged internal organs and the need for a blood transfusion.

 

[out of whack]

So if I get in a car accident and die because I did not have a seat belt on, how does this cost the tax-payer more money than if I get in an accident with my seat belt on and live? If I live, I will surely be more costly to care for than if I die.

I don't think you are being serious with this reply. Following this line of thinking, all safety measures should be eliminated along with seat belts. If in fact you were serious then I think you need to give it more thought.

 

[Huckleberry]

I see two main problems here.

1. There is a financial expense to society when a person needlessly injures themselves. This is a valid reason for the requirement to use a seat bealt. It would be just as irresponsible (even if it would be justice) for society to let people die needlessly. There are solutions to this that allow freedom, but they require the individual to be responsible.

I'll pose some possible solutions.
A. Insurance companies do not cover medical expenses for unbelted drivers/passengers.
B. Insurance companies have a seperate, much higher rate, for people that choose not to wear their seat belts. If the person who enters into this contract is injured in a manner that a seat belt would have prevented then refer to solution 1.
C. Insurance companies only pay an amount of medical expenses that is statictically shown not to raise the national average in cases where a person was injured while not wearing a seat belt. (People can be injured even while wearing a seat belt. If the medical expenses of those only involved in accidents where the injured person was wearing a seatbelt were averaged, then this amount could be the 'cap' for those who are involved in an accident while not wearing a seatbelt. This would make a negligible difference in the national average expense.)

2. The second problem I see is a matter of responsibility. Are we responsible for the government, or is the government responsible for us, or is it a combination of both?

I am of the opinion that society is responsible for the government, and the government is responsible for enforcing the laws that we, as a society, deem best for ourselves. We give it authority over us, but society bears the responsibility. I see a properly functioning government as an employee of the society responsible for it. So, if an individual takes an action that only harms that individual, isn't it their right to govern themselves? If this person's act doesn't injure society, then why should society be involved in the responsibility of the individual's act?

 

[Huckleberry]

How many people actually wear a seat belt because there is a law requiring it? From my experience it still seems to be a matter of choice, and not an action that people take because a law exists that requires them to.

Motorcycles don't have seat belts. They are significantly more dangerous to ride than automobiles. Should we make motorcycles illegal? Why are the insurance rates for motorcycles lower than for automobiles? Are the medical expenses incurred while in a motorcycle accident less expensive than those incurred in a vehicle?
Buses don't all have seat belts. Should we make a law that they do?

 

[MeJennifer]

http://www.hendersonvillenews.com/article/20070524/ZNYT04/705240367/1170/BUSINESS/ZNYT04/New_Hampshire_Panel_Rejects_Seat_Belt_Law

I've always been found of New Hampshire for their State motto if nothing else: Live free or die. They understand what America and liberty are all about. "Freedom" means free to make bad decisions, like not wearing a seat belt.

I have no problem with this `freedom to be stupid` as long as I, my insurance company and society does not have to pay for the hospital bills.

 

[drankin]

How many people actually wear a seat belt because there is a law requiring it? From my experience it still seems to be a matter of choice, and not an action that people take because a law exists that requires them to.

Motorcycles don't have seat belts. They are significantly more dangerous to ride than automobiles. Should we make motorcycles illegal? Why are the insurance rates for motorcycles lower than for automobiles? Are the medical expenses incurred while in a motorcycle accident less expensive than those incurred in a vehicle?
Buses don't all have seat belts. Should we make a law that they do?

Motorcycle insurance is less expensive because they can do less damage to another vehicle or their drivers. Rarely is a driver of a 4 wheeled vehicle injured or killed by a motorcyclist. My state doesn't even require motorcycle insurance.

There are two kinds of motorcyclists, those who have gone done, and those that are going down. It's part of the riding a bike.

 

[daveb]

I'll pose some possible solutions.
A. Insurance companies do not cover medical expenses for unbelted drivers/passengers.
B. Insurance companies have a seperate, much higher rate, for people that choose not to wear their seat belts. If the person who enters into this contract is injured in a manner that a seat belt would have prevented then refer to solution 1.
C. Insurance companies only pay an amount of medical expenses that is statictically shown not to raise the national average in cases where a person was injured while not wearing a seat belt.

The biggest problem I see with this is that the more grave the injury, the more expensive treatment costs. Someone has to pay for it. If a person "opts out", then the segment of society that pays for it is the hospital itself, unless of course the individual is wealthy enough to afford to pay for it alone. If the hospital pays for it, then the rest of society pays for it in increased medical costs.

The true question then becomes, do seatbelts reduce severity of inuries sustained? While there are many studies that show this is the case (a Google search will show many sources), there are also questions about whether people who don't use seatbelts are simply more unsafe than those who do wear seatbelts, and thus are in more injurious accidents.

 

[drankin]

Ambulance, coroner's office, autopsy. That's if you're dead before they get there. If you die shortly after they get to you the cost can be astronomical, especially if you are taken to an emergency room. Not to mention the thousands of dollars a month in Social security benefits paid to your survivors.

Social security shouldn't be part of the argument. It's paid now or it's paid later and it depends on what the deceased paid into it. All the costs when you die are one time costs. SS was created so that it would be used, not unused.

If the person escaped death and is merely injured because of wearing a seatbelt, those costs could be much higher after the lawyers get done. I can't count how many commercials I see from injury lawyers boasting of getting hundreds of thousands of dollars out of insurance companies because of accident injuries. It's expensive either way but I'd wager it's cheaper if the driver dies than lives.

 

[Huckleberry]

The biggest problem I see with this is that the more grave the injury, the more expensive treatment costs. Someone has to pay for it. If a person "opts out", then the segment of society that pays for it is the hospital itself, unless of course the individual is wealthy enough to afford to pay for it alone. If the hospital pays for it, then the rest of society pays for it in increased medical costs.

They really should have thought of that before they went for a ride without their seat belt. I would argue that the price for medical care is too expensive, but seeing as it is so high, people should think of this when they choose not to wear their seat belts. I believe in individual responsibility. They can spend the rest of their lives paying their medical bills. That was their decision when they didn't buckle up, just like any uninsured motorist. I've never known a hospital to pay anyone's medical bills.

Frankly, I don't think there would be much difference in the expense to society if the law were repealed. The assumption in this thread so far seems to be that if there wasn't a law requiring the use of seat belts that there would be an additional expense to society from unbelted injuries. I doubt the effectiveness of the seat belt law, so I don't necessarily see any correlation between repealing the law and additional injuries.

 

[drankin]

They really should have thought of that before they went for a ride without their seat belt. I would argue that the price for medical care is too expensive, but seeing as it is so high, people should think of this when they choose not to wear their seat belts. I believe in individual responsibility. They can spend the rest of their lives paying their medical bills. That was their decision when they didn't buckle up, just like any uninsured motorist. I've never known a hospital to pay anyone's medical bills.

Frankly, I don't think there would be much difference in the expense to society if the law were repealed. The assumption in this thread so far seems to be that if there wasn't a law requiring the use of seat belts that there would be an additional expense to society from unbelted injuries. I doubt the effectiveness of the seat belt law, so I don't necessarily see any correlation between repealing the law and additional injuries.

If anything, their would be more deaths. Hence the phrase, "seat belts save lives". I don't think society suffers monetarily through higher medical expenses when someone is dead. I will say that I could be wrong, I don't have the stats, but it seems to me that this the case.

 

[daveb]

They really should have thought of that before they went for a ride without their seat belt.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this. My point is that allowing an opt out clause will increase costs to society based on the assumption that those who exercise the opt-out will have more serious injuries, should an accident occur. These increased costs are borne not by the person, but by society. Thus, opt-out should not be available. (we can debate later about whether lack of seatbelts does increase injury severity).

I would argue that the price for medical care is too expensive, but seeing as it is so high, people should think of this when they choose not to wear their seat belts. I believe in individual responsibility. They can spend the rest of their lives paying their medical bills. That was their decision when they didn't buckle up, just like any uninsured motorist. I've never known a hospital to pay anyone's medical bills.

Yes, they should pay for it for the rest of their lives. However, this isn't always the case, which is the problem. If there were a way to enforce thaem paying for the rest of their lives, I have no problem with opt-out clauses. The problem with this is that since medical care is so expensive, it could amount to slavery if the person owes so much that they literally have to work several jobs just to keep up with payments, and have nothing left over for basic necessities.

Frankly, I don't think there would be much difference in the expense to society if the law were repealed. The assumption in this thread so far seems to be that if there wasn't a law requiring the use of seat belts that there would be an additional expense to society from unbelted injuries. I doubt the effectiveness of the seat belt law, so I don't necessarily see any correlation between repealing the law and additional injuries.

I would tend to agree for most cases that the increased cost will not be seen. I base this in part on the assumption that if the law were repealed, very few people would decide, "Heck, now I can go without! Whoopee!" If they were that opposed to it in the first place, I would hazard a guess they just don't obey the law in the first place. Of course, there would be some finite percentage that would decide that since it is no longer a law, they would do without the seatbelt. That's a difficult to quantify number, unfortunately, so until it can be quantified, I would prefer a seatbelt law.

 

[Evo]

Social security shouldn't be part of the argument. It's paid now or it's paid later and it depends on what the deceased paid into it. All the costs when you die are one time costs. SS was created so that it would be used, not unused.

Let's say this person dies and has three young children and a wife. The kids are 1, 3 & 5. They will receive survivor benefits until they are 18 years old, I will have to check for how long the wife receives benefits. This is MUCH MORE paid out in benefits than if the non-belt wearer started getiing benefits at age 72 and only collected for himself for a few years. This is a HUGE drain on Social Security.

 

[BobG]

Seatbelts not only save lives, they reduce the severity of injuries, which does reduce medical costs.

I still see a problem with the cost to other insurance customers and taxpayers being the justification for mandatory seatbelt laws.

How about mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists? Head protection gives a motorcyclist a better chance of surviving an accident. The side effect is the other injuries a motorcyclist sustains have to be treated, which increases the cost to other insurance customers and taxpayers. Since helmets increase medical costs for motorcyclists involved in an accident, should we have mandatory no-helmet laws instead?

In any event, as someone else at least alluded to, the medical costs aren't the main driver behind increased insurance costs. Cars are built safer, which isn't the same as being built more durable. Every piece of sheet metal that bends or flies off your car in an accident carries away some momentum, sparing the passengers from an even harder impact. That also means the expense of minor accidents skyrockets since the damage to cars is greater and more expensive to repair. Once again, we're paying a higher cost in insurance to increase the safety of motorists. Reduced safety requirments would reduce insurance costs and make cars cheaper to buy as well.

Most people would find it unethical to make life more dangerous for other people just to save a buck or two. Personally, I think it's just as unethical to start taking people's liberties away just to save a buck or two.

 

[BobG]

Let's say this person dies and has three young children and a wife. The kids are 1, 3 & 5. They will receive survivor benefits until they are 18 years old, I will have to check for how long the wife receives benefits. This is MUCH MORE paid out in benefits than if the non-belt wearer started getiing benefits at age 72 and only collected for himself for a few years. This is a HUGE drain on Social Security.

The 1 year old is the driving factor. The benefit paid to the surviving kids is divided up among the number of kids (just in case the kids get split up, I guess?) When the oldest graduates and is no longer eligible for benefits, that kid's share is split among the other kids, leaving the total benefits paid out constant.

I'm not sure how the benefits paid to the wife are affected by benefits paid to the kids.