Would Repealing Seat Belt Laws Change Behavior?

[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.