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 Even if the law got repealed in CT I would still use them.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