Would Repealing Seat Belt Laws Change Behavior?

[out of whack]

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 thought it was clear. You assume that "The government exists to enforce social responsibility" without showing how. Enforcing a responsibility must be done by coercing the unwilling into doing it, like your responsibility to wear a seat belt to prevent burdening others. How does the government enforce it without restricting my freedom to drive without seat belt?

Or if instead you meant my responsibility to repay for my care and rehabilitation after recovery then you need to consider something else. The consequences of making bad decisions often exceed your ability to ever do reparation by a very long shot. Once someone is paralyzed or brain damaged by his own negligence, how is this person to cover the fees of his own care, let alone all other damages that are even more significant? Even after recovery, how can one fulfill his social responsibility to repay all expenses if he is a pensioner or a young parent with a family to feed? It's a glossy ideal but it just does not work.

If I am a responsible adult then I should be allowed to make any decision that concerns only myself.

Irresponsible adults are responsible for at least something: all these laws. Laws exist because there are so many irresponsible people who often don't realize that what they do affects others because, well, they are irresponsible.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Many people here seem to be working under the assumption that the laws are the reason people are more likely to wear seatbelts in the modern world, while the responses to this poll would seem to suggest otherwise. Even worse is assuming that the decreased severity of accident injuries is due only to increased seatbelt use -- let's not forget the progress that has been made in car safety and structural integrity.

And even if the changes were due entirely to the seatbelt laws, that still doesn't make it someone else's place to legislate the level of risk I take with my life. Should we ban all risky activities because of the concerns Moonbear mentioned -- hospital beds, insurance rates, etc? Should people not be able to climb mountains, go bungee jumping, smoke cigarettes, or eat fried food? Honestly, I would rather pay higher insurance rates and risk the injury of loved ones than live in a police state.

I will always wear my seatbelt and will always encourage others to do so as well, but for everyone's sake, I think we should keep it out of the law books.

 

[radou]

I will always wear my seatbelt and will always encourage others to do so as well, but for everyone's sake, I think we should keep it out of the law books.

No, we shouldn't, because we don't want to see people flying through windshields, that's all. At least I don't.

Btw, regargind vote option number 3, there is some logic in it, since there are always nutcases who'll do anything that is the contrary of "what one shoud doo" - if there's a law, they'll break it, and it will turn them on. If there is no law, lots of people won't be wearing seatbelts anymore, so the nutcases get turned off because of that. Hence, they wear seatbelts.

 

[Huckleberry]

I read Moonbear's post, but it doesn't change what I believe. It's unfortunate that some people get injured because of their own recklessness. Does this mean they shouldn't need to be responsible for themselves, and that a prohibitive law should be passed that takes the personal responsibility away from every reasonable citizen? I would rather let people suffer the consequences of their own actions. That's how one practices responsibility. People should be more concerned about making their lives and the lives of their loved ones better, rather than trying to force every individual, regardless of their will, to make better personal decisions. That seems like a tremendous waste of time and energy.

Cars are made differently now than when Moonbear was a child. As Bob G pointed out, they are made to absorb the impact of a collision. This also reduces the severity of injuries as compared to years ago.

Because seat belt use has moderately increased does not mean that a seat belt law is the primary cause. There are other factors such as a campaign of public awareness, and the introduction of safer, 3 point seat belts. People need to trust the product. New Hampshire has the lowest seat belt use in the nation, but it is only slightly lower than it's neighbor, Massachusetts, which does have a seat belt law. The entire northeast region has the lowest percentage of seat belt use of any region in the United States.

I also take issue with the use of the word stupid. The word is too often used to denigrate people, and the argument that comes after is usually biased. Who are people stupid in comparison to, Moonbear or themselves? I'm sure lots of people are stupid compared to Moonbear. That is no surprise, but it doesn't help prove her point. It seems like a bad idea to make a law because people are not as intelligent as Moonbear. It doesn't seem logical to make a law because people aren't as intelligent as themselves either. Ofcourse, Moonbear is entitled to believe however she wishes, as long as society doesn't later determine it is necessary to fine people for having personal opinions that conflict with those of society.

If people are not as informed as they should be, then why should they be punished with a restricitive law? Wouldn't it be better to educate them and let them make their own personal decisions? That could have been done with a public awareness campaign. There are other methods for handling the finacial burden to society. Let people be responsible for themselves rather than creating a precedence for the removal of personal freedoms in the interest of personal safety. That decision does not involve society, and we should have no right to impose our beliefs on others in such a manner.

 

[russ_watters]

And even if the changes were due entirely to the seatbelt laws, that still doesn't make it someone else's place to legislate the level of risk I take with my life. Should we ban all risky activities because of the concerns Moonbear mentioned -- hospital beds, insurance rates, etc? Should people not be able to climb mountains, go bungee jumping, smoke cigarettes, or eat fried food? Honestly, I would rather pay higher insurance rates and risk the injury of loved ones than live in a police state.

I will always wear my seatbelt and will always encourage others to do so as well, but for everyone's sake, I think we should keep it out of the law books.

If you can suggest an efficient way for isolating the risk to those who are making the choice, I'm all ears, but it will be very difficult to do. Medical ethics requires rescuers to rescue even those who choose to make stupid mistakes and working around that to force such people to take personal responsibility for the risk is not easy.

You mention mountain climbing and we've discussed it here before. It should be easy to force mountain climbers to take responsibility for the risk, yet it isn't done. Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if a Park Service official had to defend a decision not to attempt to rescue a hiker? I don't think 'but look, he signed a waiver!' would work very well, do you?

As I mentioned in the thread in P&WA, one possible remedy would be to raise insurance rates for non-wearers by $120/yr, but that would require active monitoring of seatbelt use - and I tend to think the same people who are against the law would be against just such a window into their personal habits.

 

[SpaceTiger]

If you can suggest an efficient way for isolating the risk to those who are making the choice, I'm all ears, but it will be very difficult to do. Medical ethics requires rescuers to rescue even those who choose to make stupid mistakes and working around that to force such people to take personal responsibility for the risk is not easy.

This is a separate issue -- I don't think that the difficulty in rewarding cautious behavior should prevent us from having the freedom to take risks. The medical ethics are reasonable -- they should rescue anyone who needs it. However, I don't think it at all unreasonable for people engaging in risky behavior to have higher insurance rates or lower priority at hospitals.

You mention mountain climbing and we've discussed it here before. It should be easy to force mountain climbers to take responsibility for the risk, yet it isn't done. Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if a Park Service official had to defend a decision not to attempt to rescue a hiker?

The hiker's stupidity shouldn't be a factor in whether or not they attempt a rescue, that's just human decency.

 

[Evo]

I don't see the safety belt law as an infringement on my personal freedom, but different people will have differing opinions.

In response to a request for statistics on safety belt use. (It's a little outdated, I will try to find a newer report, many more states have moved to primary laws since this report).

Seventy-three percent of the people who were in a fatal crash in 2001 and were restrained survived; of those who were not restrained, only 44 percent survived. [NHTSA, Annual Assessment of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2001]

In fatal crashes, 75 percent of all passenger car occupants who were totally ejected were killed. Only 1 percent of those occupants had been using a safety belt. [NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts Overview, 2001]

In the past 26 years, safety belts prevented 135,000 fatalities and 3.8 million injuries, saving $585 billion in medical and other costs. If all vehicle occupants had used safety belts during that period, nearly 315,000 deaths and 5.2 million injuries could have been prevented — and $913 billion in costs saved. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

In 2000, the deaths and serious injuries prevented by safety belts resulted in savings of $50 billion in medical care, lost productivity and other injury-related costs. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

Motor vehicle crashes in 2000 cost a total of $230.6 billion, an amount equal to 2.3 percent of the gross domestic product, or $820 for every person living in the United States. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

In 2000, the economic cost to society was more than $977,000 for each crash fatality and an average of $1.1 million for each critically injured person. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

The general public pays nearly three-quarters of all crash costs, primarily through insurance premiums, taxes, delays and lost productivity. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

In 2002, belt use in States with primary laws was 80 percent, compared with 69 percent in States without primary laws. [NHTSA, National Occupant Protection Use Survey, June 2002]

Teen safety belt use is significantly higher in States with primary safety belt laws than in States with secondary laws. [National Safety Council, Teenage Safety Belt Use, 2002]

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/buckleplan/mayplanner2003/factsheet.html

 

[radou]

Another interesting and completely illogical statement which can be found in this thread is something like "I wear a seatbelt, but if I don't, that's just my own buisness."

It's pretty much obvious that, if one doesn't wear a seatbelt, he/she can crash through the windshield with a pretty great velocity and *hit someone else*. Doesn't ring any bells?

 

[SpaceTiger]

Another interesting and completely illogical statement which can be found in this thread is something like "I wear a seatbelt, but if I don't, that's just my own buisness."

It's pretty much obvious that, if one doesn't wear a seatbelt, he/she can crash through the windshield with a pretty great velocity and *hit someone else*. Doesn't ring any bells?

Because that happens so very frequently.

If that's your concern, you should be against the storage of any loose items inside a car, since they're potentially capable of striking someone in an accident (and probably more likely to).

 

[russ_watters]

This is a separate issue -- I don't think that the difficulty in rewarding cautious behavior should prevent us from having the freedom to take risks. The medical ethics are reasonable -- they should rescue anyone who needs it. However, I don't think it at all unreasonable for people engaging in risky behavior to have higher insurance rates or lower priority at hospitals.

I guess we see the issue exactly opposite each other: I see it as rewarding people who make stupid decisions by forcing people who make good decisions to cover their mistakes. To me, that should be unconstitutional, though today's culture has a lot of people saying that the government should provide a safety net for all sorts of stupid behavior.

The hiker's stupidity shouldn't be a factor in whether or not they attempt a rescue, that's just human decency.

I don't necessarily agree, but assuming I do - why is it wrong to attempt to force such people to take responsibility for their own risks, say by requiring climbers to carry special insurance and/or locator beacons? Why must we allow people to do whatever they want and force other people to assume most of the risk? Why does their right to a free rescue override my right not to have to pay for someone else's free rescue?

 

[Evo]

If that's your concern, you should be against the storage of any loose items inside a car, since they're potentially capable of striking someone in an accident (and probably more likely to).

Like that guy that had metal poles in the back of his truck and when he stopped suddenly they went into his cab through the rear window and killed him. Isn't there a law about securing items in truck beds and on cars? Or would that be the brutal police state taking away more freedoms?

I cringe every time a see a truck owner with a dog running around loose in the back. One sudden stop and that poor animal will become a projectile. They do sell harnesses and tethers to keep the dog from being thrown to it's death.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I guess we see the issue exactly opposite each other: I see it as rewarding people who make stupid decisions by forcing people who make good decisions to cover their mistakes.

You see being stranded in the middle of a forest until help arrives as a reward? Certainly we're helping the careless, but I would hardly say that their risky behavior is being rewarded. Nature already has a built-in punishment for this sort of thing.

I don't necessarily agree, but assuming I do - why is it wrong to attempt to force such people to take responsibility for their own risks, say by requiring climbers to carry special insurance and/or locator beacons? Why must we allow people to do whatever they want and force other people to assume most of the risk?

In most of these cases, other people are assuming much of the cost, but little or none of the risk. The former is part of living in a civilized society, which some say should be judged on how it treats its weakest members. On the other hand, if the behavior is putting others at serious risk, then it should be legislated against. The legal system, after all, does protect the innocent.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Like that guy that had metal poles in the back of his truck and when he stopped suddenly they went into his cab through the rear window and killed him. Isn't there a law about securing items in truck beds and on cars? Or would that be the brutal police state taking away more freedoms?

You're thinking of the restraint of objects on the outside of the car or truck. Not doing this is obviously extremely hazardous to other motorists. I'm talking about items inside the car, such as drinks, ipods, etc.

 

[Cyrus]

To be honest, I would prefer no seatbelt laws. Ideally, it should be up to the individual to decide their own risk. On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves how much 'freedom' are we giving up? Can you consider wearing a seatbelt as really giving up a freedom? I think its a stretch. As for all laws, we have to weigh the costs and the benefits. On the one hand, you can not wear a seatbelt and *technically* be more "free" (by free I mean less restraint) while you are driving. On the other hand, you save people millions of dollars and prevent the hospitals from being jam packed.

In this case the benefits far outweigh the costs. To be honest, I can’t honestly see not wearing a seatbelt as being *any* restriction on a freedom whatsoever.

But I do agree with all your points ST. If the benefits were not *so much* better than the costs, I'd agree with you 100%. I am all for no restrictions on personal choices. If the law does no good, then its a useless law and should be removed, but here this is not the case.

One could argue the same thing about wearing a helmet on a motorcycle.

 

[radou]

Because that happens so very frequently.

Even if it happens once, that's enough.

If that's your concern, you should be against the storage of any loose items inside a car, since they're potentially capable of striking someone in an accident (and probably more likely to).

Of course I am.

 

[Cyrus]

Even if it happens once, that's enough.


Of course I am.

I think debating people flying out their windshields into other people is a very weak argument.

 

[radou]

I think debating people flying out their windshields into other people is a very weak argument.

There were a lot of good arguments in this post, but this discussion seems to go on. So, perhaps weak arguments will work.

 

[Cyrus]

Its weak because you can't have a law for something that:

Even if it happens once, that's enough.

That would constitute a very very poor and useless law. (And one that would not be enforced if it were that rare).

If we are going to have a law, it has to be effective and enforced. Something that can happen "Just once" does not cut it. Seatbelt laws in the DC area are strictly enforced. There is a big "click it or ticket" campaign now. If you are caught you get a $50 fine and two points on your licence, and the cops are out on force giving lots of tickets. So its still an issue.

 

[SpaceTiger]

In this case the benefits far outweigh the costs.

I don't think this has been convincingly shown. Certainly most of the people here don't change their behavior because of the law. The only statistic I've seen supporting the law's effect is the comparison of states with and without seatbelt laws, but that was only a 10% difference, and as always, correlation does not prove causation.

 

[SpaceTiger]

There were a lot of good arguments in this post, but this discussion seems to go on. So, perhaps weak arguments will work.

That's an interesting philosophy. Do you think I'll actually be fooled by a weak argument or do you just think it's good to waste people's time?

 

[Cyrus]

I obviously don't care about the freedom to not wear a seat belt, since I always wear one. I simply believe that overlegislation is dangerous to a society.

Overlegislation, yes. But if there's a case where it is shown to work, then its an effective law and should stay. There are other laws out there that are BS and should be removed, but you have to evaluate each one on a case by case basis. In this case, it appears that it does work.

As to your post. My friend is a deputy. He told me he can pull anyone over if he feels like it and make up an excuse. If he thinks you're acting funny he can ask you if he can search your car. If you refuse, he can tell you to get out and search your car becaues you refused. So seatbelts laws won't prevent this.

 

[out of whack]

In principle, nobody wants their behavior legislated when it affects no one else. But when a behavior causes freeloading upon others then it should be prepaid if possible or else forbidden. Fair?

 

[Evo]

I don't think this has been convincingly shown. Certainly most of the people here don't change their behavior because of the law. The only statistic I've seen supporting the law's effect is the comparison of states with and without seatbelt laws, but that was only a 10% difference, and as always, correlation does not prove causation.

You made me invisible, didn't you?

Here are the seatbelt stats - https://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...7&postcount=57 [/quote]

 

[russ_watters]

You see being stranded in the middle of a forest until help arrives as a reward? Certainly we're helping the careless, but I would hardly say that their risky behavior is being rewarded. Nature already has a built-in punishment for this sort of thing.

Maybe I didn't say it correctly: the reward is in giving the rescue to them for free.

In most of these cases, other people are assuming much of the cost, but little or none of the risk.

Cost is a risk (and a reward). Insurance is an investment or a gamble, depending on how you look at it, but either way, it is a risk/reward calculus. A few years ago, I went a few years without health insurance. I figured (bet) that with my healthy lifestyle, I wouldn't get hurt or sick and need medical care (and I didn't). Now I have insurance, but how much is the right amount? More coverage costs more money and essentially what you do with insurance is bet that you will get sick. The "reward" of good insurance is free cancer treatment. You place your bet and spin the roullette wheel and if you "win" (gettin cancer is "winning" in this game), you get the best return on your investment.

 

[hypatia]

I don't think 150 dollars a year insurance would be nearly enough to cover the costs of even one day in a hospital, though it may cover the cost of a cheap cremation.
After talking to a friend at AAA, he tossed out the amount of 2 to 3 thousand dollars a year, if you wish to not wear seatbelts or use airbags. He also added that many insurance companies do not cover things like mountian climbing, motocross bikeing,raceing, bungee jumping and sky diveing.

 

[SpaceTiger]

You made me invisible, didn't you?

Here are the seatbelt stats - https://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...7&postcount=57

I included one of your stats in my post. Most of them are about the cost of automobile accidents, but only one really addresses the effectiveness of the law itself, and that's the one I quoted.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think this has been convincingly shown. Certainly most of the people here don't change their behavior because of the law. The only statistic I've seen supporting the law's effect is the comparison of states with and without seatbelt laws, but that was only a 10% difference, and as always, correlation does not prove causation.

What other cause could there be for states with such laws to have higher usage rates? Looking over the data, I only see 4 states that have primary seat belt laws that have anomalously low usage rates and all of those enacted those states enacted those laws in the past 3 years. That's an extremely good level of corellation.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2007/810690.pdf

 

[out of whack]

I don't think 150 dollars a year insurance would be nearly enough

I calculated $430/year in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1346039&postcount=57" It was based on unverified figures from an article, so it's not exactly a solid number but this is a casual discussion, not a graduate thesis... It gives at least some idea.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I think you're abusing the english language a bit here...

Maybe I didn't say it correctly: the reward is in giving the rescue to them for free.

If you save your child from getting hit by a car, would you say you've rewarded them for not looking both ways before crossing? After all, they got a free rescue. A reward implies that the behavior has been reinforced, which in most of the cases we're discussing would not be the case.

Cost is a risk (and a reward). Insurance is an investment or a gamble, depending on how you look at it, but either way, it is a risk/reward calculus.

Cost can be a risk, of course, but they certainly aren't equivalent. For example, an amount of cost evenly distributed amongst taxpayers constitutes a considerably lower risk than the same amount charged to a single person. If risk were not dependent upon distribution of cost, the insurance companies would be out of business!

 

[russ_watters]

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2007/810690.pdf

Here's that in graphical form:

Of note:

-Of the 5 primary law states with low usage, 4 have laws that are less than 3 years old and and the 5th is Louisiana, which saw a notable drop after Katrina.
-The one abnormally high non-primary law state was Utah.
-New Hampshire is the only one in the country with no seatbelt law at all and at last mesurement (in 2003) was 30% below the national average in usage.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you're abusing the english language a bit here...

If you save your child from getting hit by a car, would you say you've rewarded them for not looking both ways before crossing? After all, they got a free rescue.

Sure, they got a free rescue, but the rescue didn't cost anyone anything.

A reward implies that the behavior has been reinforced, which in most of the cases we're discussing would not be the case.

Ahh, now on that, I disagree. There are two reasons why health insurance usage rates are so low in the US - one is the cost of the insurance, but the other is the fact that that safety net exists. I'm an example of that. If there were no safety net whatsoever, I'd have been foolish to have no insurance for a few years when I could have afforded it and I likely would have gotten it. I know others who have done the same.

But now we may be talking about two different behaviors: The not-having-insurance behavior is certainly reinforced by giving the coverage away. The corellation for the not-protecting-yourself behavior isn't as strong, but do you really believe people would climb mountains so often if they didn't know they had a free $20 million helicopter on retainer?

Cost can be a risk, of course, but they certainly aren't equivalent. For example, an amount of cost evenly distributed amongst taxpayers constitutes a considerably lower risk than the same amount charged to a single person. If risk were not dependent upon distribution of cost, the insurance companies would be out of business!

That is precisely my point. It is a lower risk because they make others pay to assume it.

We do not force the public to pay (directly, anyway) for a bad investment in the stock market - why should insurance be different?

 

[Huckleberry]

Liberty : Appendix

I thought it was clear. You assume that "The government exists to enforce social responsibility" without showing how. Enforcing a responsibility must be done by coercing the unwilling into doing it, like your responsibility to wear a seat belt to prevent burdening others. How does the government enforce it without restricting my freedom to drive without seat belt?

The only person at significant risk of physical injury is the one not wearing the seatbelt. If there is an alternate option for him to not be a financial burden to society then he may be acting irresponsibly, but is not being socially irresponsible by not wearing his seat belt, and the government has no reason to impose any law against him. He has not avoided any of his social responsibility.

Rather, what we have done is make a law that creates financial burdens on society and restricts the personal freedom of everyone. Basically, because a minority of people make bad decisions, everyone is considered too incompetent to be accountable for their actions. We are suddenly 'breaking the law' whenever we do anything that has a significant risk of personal injury. We choose to coerce with punishment first, rather than education and rewarding of responsible behavior. We care more about an individuals burden to society than we do about the individual. It is all for little effect, because people still don't always use seatbelts, and not all of the reduction in injuries is directly from their use. So we have sacraficed a small liberty for a small profit. That's a bad trade imo.

Or if instead you meant my responsibility to repay for my care and rehabilitation after recovery then you need to consider something else. The consequences of making bad decisions often exceed your ability to ever do reparation by a very long shot. Once someone is paralyzed or brain damaged by his own negligence, how is this person to cover the fees of his own care, let alone all other damages that are even more significant? Even after recovery, how can one fulfill his social responsibility to repay all expenses if he is a pensioner or a young parent with a family to feed? It's a glossy ideal but it just does not work.

Well, this is a most unfortunate case, and it does happen. Society sometimes has to foot the bill for this sort of thing in cases where the person responsible is unable to. At least we can take comfort that this individual will always be buckled up now. By his own hand he has removed his ability to be irresponsible by not wearing his seat belt. I think he has suffered enough through his physical burden that society can find the grace to forgive the financial burden.

Irresponsible adults are responsible for at least something: all these laws. Laws exist because there are so many irresponsible people who often don't realize that what they do affects others because, well, they are irresponsible.

I agree. I just believe there is a difference between an individuals social responsibility and their private business. Society should make laws for how individuals interact with others. Individuals should have their own rules for their own personal matters. Society should have great respect for individual freedom and not just make laws that restrict it for lack of effort in any other attempt.

 

[russ_watters]

The only person at significant risk of physical injury is the one not wearing the seatbelt. If there is an alternate option for him to not be a financial burden to society then he may be acting irresponsibly, but is not being socially irresponsible by not wearing his seat belt, and the government has no reason to impose any law against him. He has not avoided any of his social responsibility.

Financial burden is a social responsibility issue.

Rather, what we have done is make a law that creates financial burdens on society and restricts the personal freedom of everyone.

Huh? It is well proven that seatbelt laws save money.

So we have sacraficed a small liberty for a small profit.

What profit?

I think he has suffered enough through his physical burden that society can find the grace to forgive the financial burden.

Society doesn't "forgive" the financial burden, society assumes (takes responsibility for) the financial burden.

I agree. I just believe there is a difference between an individuals social responsibility and their private business. Society should make laws for how individuals interact with others. Individuals should have their own rules for their own personal matters.

When I give someone else money to pay for their medical care, isn't that an "interaction"?

 

[SpaceTiger]

What other cause could there be for states with such laws to have higher usage rates?

Don't you think there might be a correlation between the state feeling the need for a seat belt law and the drivers feeling the need for a seat belt? Virtually all states show an increase in seat belt use with time, regardless of the status of the state's laws. This implies that culture and media play a big role. Notice also that the states which implemented laws during the displayed timespan always registered an increase in use after implementation, but at a rate comparable to the increases of previous years. Finally, notice that both seat belt use seat belt laws seem to be more common in the more urbanized states. Not a surprise, I should think. If I lived in Montana, I would probably feel less of a need to wear a seat belt.

Do I think the laws make any difference? Yeah, probably, but these stats suggest that it's not a big effect. I would be surprised if it had a noticable effect on hospital crowding or the rates of job abandonment by nursing spouses.

 

[Huckleberry]

The financial burden isn't a social issue if society doesn't pay for the bill. I was specific about that in my statement.

The law as it is creates a financial burden on everyone because people who do not use seat belts are still covered by their insurance, and there is no distinction between the two groups. I'm sure the law has some effect on how people use seat belts, but there are other factors that reduce the severity and frequency of injuries also that are not factored into the correlation.

Perhaps profit was the wrong word. Maybe savings would have been better.

Again you are right. Society doesn't forgive the debt. It doesn't just dissappear. Assume is a more appropriate word when applied to the financial burden. Perhaps society can forgive the injured person for having to assume their financial burden.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Sure, they got a free rescue, but the rescue didn't cost anyone anything.

Where did I say that?

But now we may be talking about two different behaviors: The not-having-insurance behavior is certainly reinforced by giving the coverage away. The corellation for the not-protecting-yourself behavior isn't as strong, but do you really believe people would climb mountains so often if they didn't know they had a free $20 million helicopter on retainer?

The question is whether these laws are a significant deterrent. We will all differ on what constitutes "significant", and in the end I think that's all this argument is about. I don't think the rates of mountain climbing would change a great deal if they did away the helicopter rescues, nor do I think the rates of seat belt use change significantly due to the laws. Ultimately, most people just think, "it wouldn't happen to me anyway".

That is precisely my point. It is a lower risk because they make others pay to assume it.

We do not force the public to pay (directly, anyway) for a bad investment in the stock market - why should insurance be different?

I'm not sure I follow you here. I said the general public bears most of the cost, but very little of the risk, but you came back saying that the cost was the risk. Are you now agreeing with me?

 

[out of whack]

He has not avoided any of his social responsibility.

Huh, this looks like the root of our disagreement. I say that freeloading on the social safety net is socially irresponsible. You say otherwise. I guess we're done with that.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I don't want to give the impression that I don't respect and appreciate why people feel the need to legislate car safety -- car accidents are scary and extremely dangerous. In fact, that so many people disagree with me is probably a good thing, it means people are more conscious of seat belt use than they used to be. I just think there are much better ways to deal with our problems than just passing laws. I don't have numbers offhand, but I'm sure we can all agree that the tobacco and fast food industries cost the taxpayer and insurance payer a great deal of money. Does everyone think that those things should be illegal? If not, why not? What about alcohol? Drunk driving is one of the leading causes of death among young people and it would certainly be reduced if alcohol were made illegal.

I don't think that the freedom to not wear a seat belt is in itself a big deal, but I do think that we should think twice before trying to force a solution to a problem that is already sorting itself out through social means.

 

[Huckleberry]

Huh, this looks like the root of our disagreement. I say that freeloading on the social safety net is socially irresponsible. You say otherwise. I guess we're done with that.

The only person at significant risk of physical injury is the one not wearing the seatbelt. If there is an alternate option for him to not be a financial burden to society then he may be acting irresponsibly, but is not being socially irresponsible by not wearing his seat belt, and the government has no reason to impose any law against him. He has not avoided any of his social responsibility.

One sentence does not make a paragraph. I may not be the best at grammar and word usage, but I think the paragraph is clear enough for anyone that gives a fair attempt at understanding it.

I stated that If there is an alternate option for him to not be a financial burden to society then he may be acting irresponsibly, but is not being socially irresponsible by not wearing his seat belt. People who don't use their safety belt now are freeloading on the system and not paying anything extra. I'm recommending repealing the law, thus making people free to use whatever judgement for their safety they deem best, and removing much of the financial safety net, thus placing more responsibility on the individual. This increased level of financial responsibility could eventually be much more effective in promoting seat belt use than the current law, and doesn't step on anyone's freedom. Why do people seem locked into the idea that the current law is the only, or even the most effective solution?

 

[radou]

That's an interesting philosophy. Do you think I'll actually be fooled by a weak argument or do you just think it's good to waste people's time?

The former is possible, why the heck not.

You decided to waste your time by replying to my post, so it's your problem. What I think doesn't matter.

[I'm out of this discussion.]

 

[BobG]

Don't you think there might be a correlation between the state feeling the need for a seat belt law and the drivers feeling the need for a seat belt? Virtually all states show an increase in seat belt use with time, regardless of the status of the state's laws. This implies that culture and media play a big role. Notice also that the states which implemented laws during the displayed timespan always registered an increase in use after implementation, but at a rate comparable to the increases of previous years. Finally, notice that both seat belt use seat belt laws seem to be more common in the more urbanized states. Not a surprise, I should think. If I lived in Montana, I would probably feel less of a need to wear a seat belt.

Do I think the laws make any difference? Yeah, probably, but these stats suggest that it's not a big effect. I would be surprised if it had a noticable effect on hospital crowding or the rates of job abandonment by nursing spouses.

One example where the laws reflect trends that already exist vs the laws causing the change: tobacco bans and tobaco use. (Not a direct example, but tobacco data and bans are easier to get and compile)

22 states have restrictive state wide bans to include most bars (kind of the criteria I used as restrictive, since bars, casinos, and bowling alleys are the most often exempted).

Based on 2004 & 2005 statistics, 8 of the 10 states with the lowest smoking rates have enacted bans - 7 of the bans were enacted in 2004 or later, with 5 enacted 2006 or later. I think it's safe to say the 5 bans in 2006 or later didn't reduce smoking in 2004 and 2005.

12 of the 14 lowest states enacted smoking bans, with 7 of the bans enacted in 2006 or later and 10 of the bans enacted in 2004 or later.

3 of the 17 states with the highest smoking rates have statewide smoking bans, all enacted in Oct 2005 or later.

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k5state/AppB.htm#TabB.13 (You have to go all the way down to table B.13 and import into a spreadsheet if you want to sort the data)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States

The states where smoking is highest have the least support for smoking bans and they're not passed. The states where smoking is lowest have more support for bans and they are passed.

It's perfectly reasonable to believe trends in seatbelt usage affect seatbelt laws as to believe seatbelt laws affect trends in seatbelt usage. To show the laws have an effect, there needs to be before and after statistics - (something hard to get for tobacco bans unless you live in California, Maine, or Delaware, which have had bans for quite some time)

 

[Huckleberry]

I don't want to give the impression that I don't respect and appreciate why people feel the need to legislate car safety -- car accidents are scary and extremely dangerous. In fact, that so many people disagree with me is probably a good thing, it means people are more conscious of seat belt use than they used to be. I just think there are much better ways to deal with our problems than just passing laws. I don't have numbers offhand, but I'm sure we can all agree that the tobacco and fast food industries cost the taxpayer and insurance payer a great deal of money. Does everyone think that those things should be illegal? If not, why not? What about alcohol? Drunk driving is one of the leading causes of death among young people and it would certainly be reduced if alcohol were made illegal.

I don't think that the freedom to not wear a seat belt is in itself a big deal, but I do think that we should think twice before trying to force a solution to a problem that is already sorting itself out through social means.

Tobacco users pay a lot of taxes. Every pack of cigarettes is charged a federal tax, and sometimes an additional county or city tax. Tobacco users also pay increased insurance rates. I am a smoker myself and think this is a fair deal. The taxes and other costs smokers pay should be sufficient to cover the expenses of smoking related medical care. A similar system could be used for people that choose not to use a seatbelt but still want coverage for medical bills.

Another idea is insurance would only pay some minimum amount of the medical bills for injuries to an unbelted individual, that reflects an average medical expense for belted injuries. The unbelted individual could pay the remainder, whatever that may be. If they can't pay then they could lose their right to drive. Drivers would be responsible for the proper belting of their passengers. Hopefully, people would choose to drive more responsibly and wear a seat belt. This action would take effect only if they were involved in an accident, so would not require the constant monitoring of police to make it effective. Save the punishment for people who have actually endangered others in some way.

Oh man, don't make my Jack-in-the-Box illegal. They just came out with a new #2 that I really enjoy.

I think the laws against drunk driving are a good thing. Drunk drivers are a danger to everyone on the road. They should be kept off it. I wonder if they use their seat belts much. I think if I were drunk, and for some reason wanted to drive, I would definitely want to use my seat belt.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I haven't kept up with all the posts so it may be that someone has already answered this question. Should people have the right to endanger themselves for the specific purpose of not being a burden to society? Coincidentally, this question comes just as Dr. Kevorkian has come out of prison.