Would Repealing Seat Belt Laws Change Behavior?

[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.]