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.