Would Repealing Seat Belt Laws Change Behavior?

[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]

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

edited:I find the third option very amusing

 

[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 Even if the law got repealed in CT I would still use them.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.

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 . 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 ) 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

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.

 

[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

 

[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. 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. 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 what's expected of them...blaaa, nope I'm just not going to go there. People are idiots and they need laws.