Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Jocabia]

Seat belts are a catch-22 law.
The government has a duty to protect the weakest members of society - eg, the ones with mental health issues - even from themselves.
"A concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Comalander was crazy and should be protected. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and wouldn't have to wear his seatbelt. Comalander would be crazy to drive without his seatbelt and sane if he did, but if he was sane he was allowed to drive without one. If he went unbelted them he was crazy and had to belt up; but if he belted up then he was sane and didn't need to.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Everyone else agreed.



Also, the talk about wikipedia impartiality is funny. Though I generally perceive Wiki as a decent enough source for forum discussions, the page on seatbelt legislation is a horrible mashup of incorrect facts and libertarian wanking, and it has improved significantly since its original form...

Yes, it's been found that the more controversial the issue is, the less likely it is to be unbiased and if it's both obscure and controversial (I don't there is a massive debate going on around the country about seat belt laws. It mostly gets talked about in debate wank forums like ours.) then it's much more likely to have that problem. Seat belt legislation has to fall pretty far up there on issues that it's difficult to get an unbiased representation of. It's odd, because if you step back just a little bit, it's pretty hard to cock it up.

[Comalander]

Yes, I definitely agree that seat belts are safe, decrease loss of life, and in my opinion everyone should wear them. I have never stated otherwise.

However, in my opinion (and the opinion of the United States constitution), it isn't the governments job to protect people from themselves. If a passenger in a car is struck and injured by the driver of the same car, it is not only the drivers fault, but also partly the passengers. The passenger could ask the driver to wear a seat belt, or refuse to ride with said driver due to his/her lack of respect for logical safety measures. You wouldn't get in a vehicle with someone who was intoxicated or clearly incapable of properly operating a motor vehicle, and seat belt is the same way.

Therefore, the only reasons to mandate the use of a safety belt are:

1. To protect those outside of the vehicle (Which it has not been proven that this is necessary, nor is it the governments job)
2. To protect those inside the vehicle (Which is not the job of the government)
3. To create revenue for the state. (Which is done by traffic tickets)

Also, as I stated earlier, I do not believe that people wear seat belts simply because they will be punished if they don't. They wear seat belts because it is the smart, safe, and responsible thing to do. Therefore, I maintain that while seat belts are good, laws mandating their use are unnecessary.

Another thing, I just want to cool down the situation a bit and say: If I have personally offended you in any way, I apologize, as it was not my intention. I only intend to share my perspective and opinion while also receiving the perspective and opinion of others.

No, it is exactly the governments job.

1. To promote the general welfare is an explicit clause of the US Constitution. You can dispute whether you approve of the Republic founded by that document, but it is the role we gave the government to protect us as a group within reason.
2. When your actions put my rights, namely my right to life, in danger, it is precisely the job of the government to restrain you from doing so, within reason.

Now, it's clear that not wearing a seat belt does put others in danger for a number of reasons already stated and demonstrated in the thread. It's also been shown that being required to wear a seat belt does not put the wearer in danger nor does it prevent them from reasonable exercising their rights. There is simply no argument why your right to be stupid should trump my right to life.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/oli ... df/341.pdf

And, of course, your unsourced claim that people wear seat belts for safety and not as a result of the law does not hold up to scrutiny. They found an 11% increase in seat belt usage as a result of secondary enforcement and a 22% increase as a result of primary enforcement. They also found that a 10% increase in usage result in about 500 lives saved per year. That means that the increase in belt usage has a significant value in both the primary and secondary enforcement scenarios.

The paper found usage rates at about 68% and would expect usage rates to jump to 77% with primary enforcement country wide. Again, that's a significant change in lives saved. Note that the paper is from 2001.

Incidentally, to those who brought up negative compensating behaviors, this paper addresses that and finds it to not be accurate.

Seat belts, because of the harm caused by not wearing them, have a net cost to society. I can think of no other group who is better suited to carrying that cost than the people not wearing them.

EDIT: You didn't personally offend me in any way. I have no idea why I was being such an ass, but I'm sorry about that. I certainly did seem offended, didn't I?

1. The preamble, which you quoted, also says it is the governments job to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". So would you say a persons welfare outweighs their liberties?

2. I agree, however I don't think that the abolishment of current seat belt mandates would grossly increase the threat to life of other individuals.

Speaking from personal experience here: My father worked (and does to this day) as a commercial truck driver here in the US. He was called into a meeting of some sort before he drove to pick up his trailer, where he and his coworkers were informed that my fathers friend, and coworker, died in a car accident on his way to work that morning.The coworker was wearing his seat belt and swerved off of the road for some unknown reason. His car flipped and he was either knocked unconscious, or was just unable to reach the release on his seat belt. He was suspended upside down in a roadside ditch (It may have been a lake or a river, I don't remember. Pretty sure it was a ditch though) that was filled with water from the previous days rain storm, where he subsequently drowned.

Another story: My distant Cousin was in a car accident as a teenager where she became pinned in her car and the seat belt was affected insuch a way that it tightened, and left a permanent scar on her leg, and likely could have done serious damage to her tissue and arteries.

With those stories out of the way, I can confidently say there are cases in which a seat belt can in fact be harmful to an individual. Do note that my disdain for the seat belt law does not stem from either of the above stories



my "Unsourced claim" was clearly presented as an opinion, I in no way intended it to be taken as fact. However,


About your paper, one of the graphs presented showed that in the state of Ohio, seat belt usage actually dropped after legislation mandating it was passed, and based on the other graphs presented, each state (Ohio, California, and Oregon) had exponential growth in usage when legislation was passed but this exponential growth declined rapidly after legislation was introduced.

Also, according to the paper, many states saw a decline in seat belt usage years after the law was passed. This decline dropped the rate of use below the previous rate of use immediately after the law was taken in to affect. This trend is seen on a national level, where overall usage in 1998 dropped 8% from the time immediately after the legislation mandating seat belts was introduced.

Which brings another factor into play.

It is clear that the only way to discover the rate of seat belt usage is through a survey, and it is stated in the paper that the information came from: Data from the Highway Safety Offices of each state, Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and Data form the Center for Disease Control. All of this information was found through surveys. Granted, there were observational surveys, the CDC data in particular came from the question: “How often do you use seat belts when you drive or ride in a car?”. There are
five possible answers: never, seldom, sometimes, almost always, and always."

Now, this data could be held the most accountable for the raise in usage after the implementation of the law, as citizens are more informed of a penalty and therefore would not risk telling the truth. This is simply the "human element" argument, which plagues all social experiments.



Therefore, based on your credible source (assuming I wasn't off by any exponential factors this time ), I acknowledge that seat belt mandate laws immediately increase seat belt usage (In most cases), however, I maintain that the removal of these laws would not decrease seat belt use, as people are more aware of the dangers of not implementing safety measures. I say this because the paper provided shows that seat belt use was on the increase prior to legislation mandating said use, and in some cases it can be said (though, not proved simply because there was no control group, and the study was therefore lacking), that, based on the graphical data prior to legislation, the exponential rate of increase was halted after legislation was passed and this proves that the legislation was counterproductive.. However, as I said, this can neither be proven nor disproven.



I'm glad you weren't offended, and don't worry, everyone gets defensive when in a heated debate, I know I did.

[Comalander]

This debate is about whether or not seat belt laws should remain in place. I acknowledge that current laws mandate seat belt usage and, I have never said otherwise.

So why did you bring up bathtubs as an example? If you're trying to pitch the trade off against seat belts as being anti-freedom, might I remind you that you don't have freedom to use the road in the first place.

Huge potential to reduce death, insurance premiums, government expenditure for the slight inconvenience of wearing a strap over your shoulder and around your waist. Can there actually be any debate about this? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Because bathtubs are an example of a personally owned device that have the ability to cause injury or death to the individual, yet there are no protection requirements in bath tubs. Also, not every road is owned by the government. In fact, every road over 10 years old is considered an "Open Public Road", if it isn't part of the highway or interstate system. So yes, I do have the freedom to use the road, as most of them are not owned by the government.

I am not saying seat belts are a bad thing. I support seat belt usage.

I am saying they shouldn't be mandatory. There is a huge difference.

[Imperializt Russia]

Let's say n+1 times. Where n is between 0 and 1 million times a year. Given you still can't give an explanation of why it you should be allowed to not where a seat belt. If your "right" to not do something affects other people, then it's not just a matter of "for your own good". And you acknowledge that it happens. Now, the onus is on you to establish what activity it's preventing you from doing. Because seat belts are literally made to cooperate with the seat you are required to remain while driving.

I've given you a reason because it doesn't affect enough people often enough to justify it. If you can show me some real data then fine but otherwise it's merely paternalism which as I said is almost always wrong.

Forcing idiots to think is wrong?
Better ban schools.

[Comalander]

Are you an undertaker?

Because you sure as hell dug up this old post.

Anyway, I love sources, and my demands for a credible one should show that...

An old post? It's from about a page ago on a forum. On a forum of this type, expect posts from as much as a day ago to come up regularly. That's what is supposed to happen. This isn't a chat.

As far as sources, it's rather silly to hold posts to unnecessarily high standards, particularly with something that doesn't matter that much like these statistics or the definition of a word, and then not take a reasonable effort at making sure you accurately reflect them. Two times in about a page, you misread either a source or a summary of a source (the time mentioned above and when you referred the 40% to fatalities rather than injuries). What's the point of so much diligence on sources when you aren't going to use them properly?

I meant old as in the situation has been addressed previously.

I admit, I misread a (credible) source , however I did intend to say "A 40% increase of risk of injury does not mean an increase in injury", in which I replaced "Injury" with "death".

I don't think it's an "unnecessarily high standard" to ask that a source be credible. Just because I made a mistake doesn't negate the fact that neither your primary article that you provided earlier nor wikipedia are credible sources.

I will say again, even wikipedia acknowledges that it is not a credible source. Saying it's credible is kind of ridiculous.

[Imperializt Russia]

Which toll roads are privately owned?

In what may serve as a "test case" for the privatization of other major highways in the United States, on June 29, 2006, the state of Indiana received $3.8 billion from a foreign consortium made up of the Spanish construction firm Cintra and the Macquarie Infrastructure Group of Australia, and in exchange the state ceded operation of the 157-mile (253 km) Indiana Toll Road for the next 75 years to these outside corporations. The consortium will collect all the tolls.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_hi ... s#Colorado

Who polices those roads?
I'm guessing it's the Indiana Highway Patrol.
Enforcing Indiana State Law.

[Imperializt Russia]

I referred to vehicle insurance.

And? Vehicle insurance isn't affected by the government's "socialized" healthcare system. It doesn't source funding from vehicle insurance but does so through petrol taxes and vehicle licensing fees.

Ever heard of a thing called "premiums"?

The reckless driving of others raises the amount of risk to insurers in insuring vehicles, and premiums payments rise to offset this perceived risk.
Alcohol-related crashes alone in the US cost about $51bn according to the CDC, which is cost to insurance, to the state, to healthcare.

Well if well being is the goal why not ban alcohol as well? I mean, how many drunk drivers die and/or are killed every year? How many people die from alcohol poisoning? I mean, seriously think about what's being said, basically people are arguing it's ok to force people to do one thing for their own good (ie wear a seatbelt) but at the same time not prohibit them from doing something (ie drinking) which would also be for their own good.

Like I just said, $51bn is the annual cost of drink driving in the US.
Which is a cultural problem, as is not wearing seatbelts because you're an arse.

1) no neither can be entirely enforced. I mean i see peole on very very rare occasion not wearing a seatbelt and also not getting a ticketed it for it. Heck there's plenty of youtube videos of cops not wearing their seatbelts themselves.
2) Not wearing a seatbelt is also not always bad for you, in fact most of the time it doesn't matter at all, it only matters if you actually get into a car wreck.
3)???

2 is only relevant if accidents are entirely preventable and predictable. I assume the only way you'll ever get in a car accident is if it's your fault, yeah?

All accidents are preventable and predictable.

If people actually paid attention when driving, four point six million people wouldn't be treated in emergency rooms for vehicle crashes.

1) the mafia isn't going to spring up and create a violent cartel of seatbeltless cars, and even if they did we can identify them with ease and i don't think anyone would give enough of a shit to bother, is what i'm saying
2) it's good most of the time when it matters though, so...
3) sorry i got kinda bored with my obvious points and started imagining how your name would be pronounced it was welsh. probably something like clamalandia. really changes the meaning.

2) I could say the same thing about bulletproof vests though. I mean most of the time I'm not being shot at but hey, when it matters that vest is really handy, and really is modern body armour really that uncomfortable?

For long periods, yes. Unlike a seatbelt.

Look at footage of police or soldiers standing around or on break, they'll usually have their hands inside the vest to lift it off their chest.
During the spells of low intensity in Afghanistan, more troops were casualties of heat exhaustion from too much gear than they were from enemy fire.

2) I could say the same thing about bulletproof vests though. I mean most of the time I'm not being shot at but hey, when it matters that vest is really handy, and really is modern body armour really that uncomfortable?

honestly we'd probably just start using armour piercing ammo. wearing amour all day is kinda different from clipping a belt in.

AP ammunition is specifically banned from civilian use in the US, so no issue.
The US even bans some steel-cored non-hardened ammunition (Soviet-era stuff), because it's too like AP for BATFE.

I also want to know why people keep comparing seat belt laws to drug laws as the vast majority of the drugs (with the exception of alcohol) are only self inflicted harm. Not wearing a seat belt can result in your own harm, but also at the hands of other people. Other people make mistakes.

Not wearing a seat belt isn't always an automatic ticket to death and destruction. However, that's not to say that it shouldn't be mandatory, because it's common sense. It's like sticking to the posted speed limit or wearing a life jacket.

Alcohol is no more externally harmful than any other drug.
If you get violent on alcohol, you'll get violent on a bunch of other substances.
Personally I have no problems keeping my emotions in check when intoxicated.

It's literally in the US Constitution.

Yeah, no I mean, if not wearing a seatbelt actually results in harm to others often enough then it may be justifiable to make people wear seatbelts while in a car, I just haven't seen enough data to support that conclusion yet. Of course then again, why isn't it illegal to have any unsecured items in a vehicle? I mean a ham from the grocery store is equally likely to hit you as another human (if not more so) why shouldn't the law require that everything (not just people be secured) ?

Paternalism is inherently wrong because coercing someone to do something (when they are the only one harmed) is wrong, people should decide how to live their own lives so long as they don't directly harm others.

An adult male, wearing clothes, stout shoes and with a wallet, weighs the best part of 200lbs.
A ham weighs five, six pounds?

Securing luggage is difficult to enforce. Luggage is concealed, and police need probable cause to search your vehicle to ascertain that. No-one will accept being fined for how their luggage is stacked in their trunk. You are not always carrying luggage in your vehicle. You are always sat in a seatbelt-equipped seat if you are in your car.
The capability of luggage to become missiles can be reduced by ramming them against the bulkhead. What a sensible person should do anyway, to leave more space and prevent things from generally jostling and possibly breaking.

[Comalander]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_hi ... s#Colorado

Who polices those roads?
I'm guessing it's the Indiana Highway Patrol.
Enforcing Indiana State Law.

Private roads are policed at their own expense. Some have agreements with local and state police departments, that allow the police to enforce state law, however.

In Florida for example:

http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/316.640
Section 316.640(3)(a), F.S., sets forth the authority of a municipality to enforce the traffic laws of this state by providing in pertinent part:

The police department of each chartered municipality shall enforce the traffic laws of this state on all the streets and highways thereof and elsewhere throughout the municipality wherever the public has the right to travel by motor vehicle. In addition, the police department may be required by a municipality to enforce the traffic laws of this state on any private or limited access road or roads over which the municipality has jurisdiction pursuant to a written agreement entered into under s. 316.006(2)(b).


This clearly means that private roads within the state will only be policed by the municipal police force if the road is open to the public, or if the owners have an agreement with the police.

[Keyboard Warriors]

So why did you bring up bathtubs as an example? If you're trying to pitch the trade off against seat belts as being anti-freedom, might I remind you that you don't have freedom to use the road in the first place.

Huge potential to reduce death, insurance premiums, government expenditure for the slight inconvenience of wearing a strap over your shoulder and around your waist. Can there actually be any debate about this? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Because bathtubs are an example of a personally owned device that have the ability to cause injury or death to the individual, yet there are no protection requirements in bath tubs. Also, not every road is owned by the government. In fact, every road over 10 years old is considered an "Open Public Road", if it isn't part of the highway or interstate system. So yes, I do have the freedom to use the road, as most of them are not owned by the government.

I am not saying seat belts are a bad thing. I support seat belt usage.

I am saying they shouldn't be mandatory. There is a huge difference.

Do you take baths on the sidewalks? Because that's the only way I could see bathtubs possibly being relevant to seatbelts in cars on public roads. Futhermore, every public road is controlled by the government regardless of who actually owns it. Every contractor agrees to that when it's open to public traffic. So no, you don't have the freedom to use the road. If you want the freedom to use the road, pave it yourself and make sure you haven't got it connected to the rest of the system.

[Comalander]

Because bathtubs are an example of a personally owned device that have the ability to cause injury or death to the individual, yet there are no protection requirements in bath tubs. Also, not every road is owned by the government. In fact, every road over 10 years old is considered an "Open Public Road", if it isn't part of the highway or interstate system. So yes, I do have the freedom to use the road, as most of them are not owned by the government.

I am not saying seat belts are a bad thing. I support seat belt usage.

I am saying they shouldn't be mandatory. There is a huge difference.

Do you take baths on the sidewalks? Because that's the only way I could see bathtubs possibly being relevant to seatbelts in cars on public roads. Futhermore, every public road is controlled by the government regardless of who actually owns it. Every contractor agrees to that when it's open to public traffic. So no, you don't have the freedom to use the road. If you want the freedom to use the road, pave it yourself and make sure you haven't got it connected to the rest of the system.

You clearly don't understand that I am talking about personal injury caused by negligence, so I'm not going to try to explain it to you further.

I reiterate: I am well aware that the law states one must wear a seat belt. I am not debating that one has the choice. I am debating whether or not these mandates should be in place.

[Twilight Imperium]

It's a classic libertarian tactic. Front-load the talking points, nitpick for a few hours, backtrack when nobody buys it, and eventually leave without admitting any kind of fault or wrongness. Season with a healthy dose of arrogance and serve to taste.

I talked about seat belts. That was moderately fun. You made the best for argument.

#calledit

[Comalander]

It's a classic libertarian tactic. Front-load the talking points, nitpick for a few hours, backtrack when nobody buys it, and eventually leave without admitting any kind of fault or wrongness. Season with a healthy dose of arrogance and serve to taste.

I talked about seat belts. That was moderately fun. You made the best for argument.

#calledit

Yeah, ok, except that's not what he did.

The argument drifted away from seat belts, someone pointed it out, Sib acknowledged this and then said that the other person had a good argument.

[Maqo]

Private roads are policed at their own expense. Some have agreements with local and state police departments, that allow the police to enforce state law, however.
...
This clearly means that private roads within the state will only be policed by the municipal police force if the road is open to the public, or if the owners have an agreement with the police.

I forget... what are you trying to prove here? That seat belts are enforced on roads which are open to the public? That if you have a private road and therefore accidents with other cars are highly unlikely and you are only putting yourself in danger, people no longer care whether you wear a seatbelt? Or that it is a much larger infringement on your freedoms for police officers to be on your private property and therefore we do not enforce seat belts on private property because we can distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable restrictions?



EDIT: I think the deal was that your example of a privately-managed highway is not a private road. It is a privately-managed public road. As opposed to a private road, such as might exist on large properties, factories, theme parks, etc.

[Comalander]

Private roads are policed at their own expense. Some have agreements with local and state police departments, that allow the police to enforce state law, however.
...
This clearly means that private roads within the state will only be policed by the municipal police force if the road is open to the public, or if the owners have an agreement with the police.

I forget... what are you trying to prove here?

I'm just refuting the claim that state police patrol private roads. If you want to know how that relates to seat belts, you'll have to dig a little deeper, because I was just adding my 2 cents to someones argument.

[Twilight Imperium]

#calledit

Yeah, ok, except that's not what he did.

The argument drifted away from seat belts, someone pointed it out, Sib acknowledged this and then said that the other person had a good argument.

That's the context in which he did it, but it's still basically what he did, man. That said, I liked your bathtub analogy, but the problem I have with it is that bathtubs are used by one's self in the home while cars are used almost exclusively out in the world. Both are private property that can kill you if misused, but only one of them really has a shot at harming anyone else in the process.

That said, the actual thread question never really had anything to do with seat belts, it's to do with politics. If you believe the government can and should intervene in people's lives for their safety, then you're probably for seat belt laws. If you believe the government should absolutely not be meddling in your private property unless (and perhaps not even) in extreme circumstances, you probably won't be in favor of such laws. This is a somewhat older argument and definitely won't be settled by quoting DOT statistics at each other. That's also probably why the thread's been going in circles.

[Comalander]

Yeah, ok, except that's not what he did.

The argument drifted away from seat belts, someone pointed it out, Sib acknowledged this and then said that the other person had a good argument.

That's the context in which he did it, but it's still basically what he did, man. That said, I liked your bathtub analogy, but the problem I have with it is that bathtubs are used by one's self in the home while cars are used almost exclusively out in the world. Both are private property that can kill you if misused, but only one of them really has a shot at harming anyone else in the process.

That said, the actual thread question never really had anything to do with seat belts, it's to do with politics. If you believe the government can and should intervene in people's lives for their safety, then you're probably for seat belt laws. If you believe the government should absolutely not be meddling in your private property unless (and perhaps not even) in extreme circumstances, you probably won't be in favor of such laws. This is a somewhat older argument and definitely won't be settled by quoting DOT statistics at each other. That's also probably why the thread's been going in circles.

Well my bath tub analogy was about personal negligence causing an individual harm. I was arguing against laws that protect people from their own negligence, which is only part of the argument here. I was just refuting the argument that can be found below. (Arguments for: (1) )

Arguments for:
1. Seat belts protect the individual wearing it
2. Seat belts protect bystanders and passengers when other people are wearing them

Arguments against:
1. It's not the government's job
2.


I agree, the thread is pretty much going in circles. However, even though the OP was talking about politics, most of the arguments here have been to show support or the lack thereof for said politics.

[Twilight Imperium]

Well my bath tub analogy was about personal negligence causing an individual harm. I was arguing against laws that protect people from their own negligence, which is only part of the argument here. I was just refuting the argument that can be found below. (Arguments for: (1) )

Arguments for:
1. Seat belts protect the individual wearing it
2. Seat belts protect bystanders and passengers when other people are wearing them

Arguments against:
1. It's not the government's job

I agree, the thread is pretty much going in circles. However, even though the OP was talking about politics, most of the arguments here have been to show support or the lack thereof for said politics.

Seems like ultimately, everything does come down to politics these days. If you'd indulge a filthy nanny-state liberal his curiosity, just what is it that twitches y'all so hard about things like this? I am honestly baffled by people's insistence on not regulating things like this. Explain if you want, I won't take it personally if you'd rather not.

[AiliailiA]

It isn't a 40% risk of death. It's a 40% increase in the rate of injury. And given that injuries occur 2 millions times a year, that's a significant number of injuries. It would vary, based on the percentage of people wearing seat belts, which has been shown to vary for a number of reasons. However, it's pretty well agreed upon that seat belts decrease injuries and fatalities for all involved, including the people around you who are also wearing their seat belts. (And by "agreed upon" I mean your source and my source and dozens of studies have all shown this.)

Yes, I definitely agree that seat belts are safe, decrease loss of life, and in my opinion everyone should wear them. I have never stated otherwise.

Great.

However, in my opinion (and the opinion of the United States constitution), it isn't the governments job to protect people from themselves. If a passenger in a car is struck and injured by the driver of the same car, it is not only the drivers fault, but also partly the passengers. The passenger could ask the driver to wear a seat belt, or refuse to ride with said driver due to his/her lack of respect for logical safety measures. You wouldn't get in a vehicle with someone who was intoxicated or clearly incapable of properly operating a motor vehicle, and seat belt is the same way.

Therefore, the only reasons to mandate the use of a safety belt are:

1. To protect those outside of the vehicle (Which it has not been proven that this is necessary, nor is it the governments job)
2. To protect those inside the vehicle (Which is not the job of the government)

In one particular case it is the job of government: when the passengers are children. Parents should protect their children, by making them wear belts, and they should also wear a belt themselves so that the children are not endangered by their body becoming a crushing weight or by loss of control of the car if the driver is knocked unconscious by a collision.

And if the driver won't protect their own children (or children put in their care if they're not the parent) then it absolutely is the government's job to pressure the driver to do that, using fines, and if they do it repeatedly despite being fined, by cancelling their license to drive.

Who else's job is it to protect children when their parent is negligent in doing so?

Many state governments take that view too. Infants are usually required to have even more protection than a belt (ie, a capsule) and minors are very often required to wear belts even if the driver is not. The driver can be fined if the child occupants are not wearing a belt, and it's a "primary" requirement: drivers can be fined even if they have committed no other driving offense at the time a cop notices that the kids aren't wearing belts.

Even in New Hampshire, with neither primary nor secondary seatbelt laws for adults, that is so.

3. To create revenue for the state. (Which is done by traffic tickets)

I hear that objection a lot. I doubt it's a significant amount of revenue and probably doesn't cover the cost of highway patrols, but I do think the argument "they just do it to raise money" should be taken away completely so that people who enjoy speeding and other dangerous activities don't have that argument to draw on for why they should not be punished.

Option 1 is to abolish fines. Fines are unequal punishment because some can afford it more than others. Traffic offenders would serve community service (a $75 dollar fine would be ten hours of community service, at federal minimum wage).

Option 2 is to entirely fund a positive intervention program (NOT police, who are a negative intervention, and moreover have the most discretion in whether a driver is fined or not). For instance, direct any revenue from traffic fines (intended to make the road safer) towards signage, lighting, and road rationalization (also to make the road safer).

Option 3 is to operate an annual "revenue lottery". Counties within a state (or for state police, states within the nation) would not know which state the revenue they raise by fines will go to, only that it won't be their county or state. Nor would they know where their year's revenue was going to come from until it was in. None of them would have an financial incentive to raise more revenue ... only to do their jobs well enough to keep citizens safe on the roads.

Also, as I stated earlier, I do not believe that people wear seat belts simply because they will be punished if they don't. They wear seat belts because it is the smart, safe, and responsible thing to do. Therefore, I maintain that while seat belts are good, laws mandating their use are unnecessary.

"I could die" is clearly less of an incentive for each and every car journey, than "I could die or be fined". It's odd that such a petty upping of the ante on a journey could make a real difference, but the same thing happens with drunk driving too. The real prospect of getting caught and fined, though that is trivial compared to the consequence of an accident, does significantly modify the driver's choices. I don't know why ... but it does.


Remember that New York Times source you criticized before? I was curious about Reagan's stance on seat belts, so I looked it up. In 1988, his last year of office, Reagan signed a bill providing funding to states if they implemented fines for not wearing seat belts.

According to that article: back in 1981, with seat belts fitted having been compulsory for the past 17 years, seat belt usage was at 10%.

Were drivers and passengers not aware of risks that drivers and passengers are aware of now? How could that be, when the risk of being a driver or passenger then was so much higher than it is now? Is it at all plausible that seat belt usage rates would have risen to around 70% without laws to push them that way?

Anyway, in the course of investigating the claims made in the NYT article, I ran across this prepared speech by Ronald Reagan, from New Years Day 1983.

My fellow Americans:

I've always thought New Year's Day was an especially American tradition, full of the optimism and hope we're famous for in our daily lives—an energy and confidence we call the American spirit.

Perhaps because we know we control our own destiny, we believe deep down inside that working together we can make each new year better than the old.

Although last night was one of parties, today is one of resolutions. Reviewing the old year, we try to decide what we can do better in the new. Most of us are with our families, near the warmth of the hearth, watching the parades with our children and football with our friends. Gathered together, we find strength and renewal.

But this special holiday time is tragically marred for too many of us. You may have spotted the reason on the road last night if you had to drive home: the drunk driver.

Each year, approximately 25,000 lives are lost in alcohol-related automobile accidents. An additional 650,000 are seriously injured. The personal pain and heartache caused by these needless tragedies is immeasurable, and billions of dollars are lost in medical costs, wages, and through hours of missed work. This weekend, while millions of Americans are traveling on our highways and streets and while hundreds of millions more are celebrating with their loved ones, let's take a few minutes to think of ways to protect ourselves and our families from the menace of the drunk and drug-influenced driver.

The first step is to realize that a drunkdriver accident is no accident. The motorist who drinks too much and then drives, who uses drugs and then gets behind the wheel of a ear, is a disaster waiting to happen. Overall, alcohol is now involved in up to 55 percent of all fatal highway crashes and is a contributing factor in more than 2 million motor vehicle accidents each year. The drunk driver has turned his car into a weapon—a weapon that threatens the lives and safety of the innocent.

Fortunately, there's a brighter side. Today we have one of our best opportunities in years to tackle this tragic problem. Public awareness has never been higher. Citizens groups, local officials, legislators, judges, police officers—people from all over the country are saying, "Enough is enough. Let's get these killers off our roads and get them off now."

Last April, I appointed a Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving to explore the problem more fully and to work with State and local governments to develop effective programs. Their interim report has already come in and has some useful findings. For example, we've found that people who've had too much to drink are less likely to drive when they know they have a good chance of being caught. The potential drunk driver who understands that prosecution is certain and the penalty swift will be less likely to insist on driving home.

For this deterrent to work, however, State and local law enforcement officials must make it clear that they mean business. Programs are already springing up in some States with good results. In areas where police have made drunk drivers a prime target, traffic deaths have begun to decline. For example, in Maine, alcohol-related crashes have dropped 41 percent since that State's drunk driving program was strengthened. The highway death rate there is the lowest since they started keeping records. Maryland has also intensified its program, and highway deaths there are at a 19-year low.

Since 1980, 11 States have raised the legal drinking age and many other communities, counties, and States have strengthened their laws, some requiring mandatory jail sentences for first offenders. In New York, for example, the fines and fees levied on those arrested are directed to local alcohol programs. In many areas, citizen groups are assisting State and local task forces, providing legislative support, and participating in court monitoring and victim assistance. Of course, until we change our attitudes and our laws, our best protection is still to buckle our safety belts.

There's much to be done if we're to rid ourselves of this scourge on our roads, and there's a continuing need for private initiative. We must each make it our personal responsibility. If we band together, we can change the laws that will help make the difference. If we insist long enough and loudly enough, we can save lives. So, I thought it appropriate to start the ball rolling on this, the first day of the new year.

Today, we're taking a break from the concerns and the bustle of the work-a-day world. But we're also making a new beginning. As we gather around our dining room tables for the midday meal, let us thank God for life and the blessings He's put before us. High among them are our families, our freedom, and the opportunities of a new year.

Let us renew our faith that as free men and women we still have the power to better our lives, and let us resolve to face the challenges of the new year holding that conviction firmly in our hearts. That, after all, is our greatest strength and our greatest gift as Americans.

So, till next week, thanks for listening, happy new year, and God bless you.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=40471

[Keyboard Warriors]

Do you take baths on the sidewalks? Because that's the only way I could see bathtubs possibly being relevant to seatbelts in cars on public roads. Futhermore, every public road is controlled by the government regardless of who actually owns it. Every contractor agrees to that when it's open to public traffic. So no, you don't have the freedom to use the road. If you want the freedom to use the road, pave it yourself and make sure you haven't got it connected to the rest of the system.

You clearly don't understand that I am talking about personal injury caused by negligence, so I'm not going to try to explain it to you further.

No, the problem is you don't understand the difference between a public thoroughfare and the confines of somebody's private property. Otherwise you wouldn't be talking about bathtubs.

[Comalander]

Well my bath tub analogy was about personal negligence causing an individual harm. I was arguing against laws that protect people from their own negligence, which is only part of the argument here. I was just refuting the argument that can be found below. (Arguments for: (1) )

Arguments for:
1. Seat belts protect the individual wearing it
2. Seat belts protect bystanders and passengers when other people are wearing them

Arguments against:
1. It's not the government's job

I agree, the thread is pretty much going in circles. However, even though the OP was talking about politics, most of the arguments here have been to show support or the lack thereof for said politics.

Seems like ultimately, everything does come down to politics these days. If you'd indulge a filthy nanny-state liberal his curiosity, just what is it that twitches y'all so hard about things like this? I am honestly baffled by people's insistence on not regulating things like this. Explain if you want, I won't take it personally if you'd rather not.

In short:

It isn't the government's job to protect people from themselves. Forcing someone to wear a seat belt is like forcing someone to wash their hands after they go to the restroom. YES, it is a good idea and I support both the use of seat belts and soap, I just don't think the government should be tasked with upholding it.

Furthermore, there are many instances where a seat belt can pose a threat or be harmful to the person wearing it (speaking from personal experience), so then the state becomes liable for any injuries acquired from wearing a seat belt.

Put on your tin foil hat and take a seat on your ottoman because it's about to get deeper.

I believe that a majority of traffic laws (Seat belt, speed, etc., etc.) serve only as revenue for the state. These laws are either unnecessary or counterproductive, in my opinion, and should be repealed as their only true benefit to society (*cough* *cough*, the government) is that it brings in a ton revenue from traffic tickets.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Seems like ultimately, everything does come down to politics these days. If you'd indulge a filthy nanny-state liberal his curiosity, just what is it that twitches y'all so hard about things like this? I am honestly baffled by people's insistence on not regulating things like this. Explain if you want, I won't take it personally if you'd rather not.

In short:

It isn't the government's job to protect people from themselves. Forcing someone to wear a seat belt is like forcing someone to wash their hands after they go to the restroom. YES, it is a good idea and I support both the use of seat belts and soap, I just don't think the government should be tasked with upholding it.

How have you managed, this far into the thread, managed to ignore every other reason of why we have seat belts to settle with "protecting people from themselves"?

Furthermore, there are many instances where a seat belt can pose a threat or be harmful to the person wearing it (speaking from personal experience), so then the state becomes liable for any injuries acquired from wearing a seat belt.

I'm tempted to make you list them, but it's unnecessary as there's overwhelming evidence that seat belts ultimately detract from the road toll, not increase it.

I believe that a majority of traffic laws (Seat belt, speed, etc., etc.) serve only as revenue for the state. These laws are either unnecessary or counterproductive, in my opinion, and should be repealed as their only true benefit to society (*cough* *cough*, the government) is that it brings in a ton revenue from traffic tickets.

If you have a better idea to enforce a speed limit, traffic signals and road etiquette without a fine-based system, I'd love to hear it.

[Twilight Imperium]

Seems like ultimately, everything does come down to politics these days. If you'd indulge a filthy nanny-state liberal his curiosity, just what is it that twitches y'all so hard about things like this? I am honestly baffled by people's insistence on not regulating things like this. Explain if you want, I won't take it personally if you'd rather not.

In short:

It isn't the government's job to protect people from themselves. Forcing someone to wear a seat belt is like forcing someone to wash their hands after they go to the restroom. YES, it is a good idea and I support both the use of seat belts and soap, I just don't think the government should be tasked with upholding it.

Furthermore, there are many instances where a seat belt can pose a threat or be harmful to the person wearing it (speaking from personal experience), so then the state becomes liable for any injuries acquired from wearing a seat belt.

Put on your tin foil hat and take a seat on your ottoman because it's about to get deeper.

I believe that a majority of traffic laws (Seat belt, speed, etc., etc.) serve only as revenue for the state. These laws are either unnecessary or counterproductive, in my opinion, and should be repealed as their only true benefit to society (*cough* *cough*, the government) is that it brings in a ton revenue from traffic tickets.

That makes a fair amount of sense, thanks for the breakdown. I'm still having trouble connecting "not their job" to "they should never do this ever" though. If a man saves another man's life despite it not being his job, that man is called a hero. If the government does it, they're called tyrants? That's about the generals of it, by the way, let's not start another 20 pages of automobile statistics again. And of course, apologies if that's not actually your position. I'm admittedly assuming you have some insight.

[AiliailiA]

Well my bath tub analogy was about personal negligence causing an individual harm. I was arguing against laws that protect people from their own negligence, which is only part of the argument here. I was just refuting the argument that can be found below. (Arguments for: (1) )

Arguments for:
1. Seat belts protect the individual wearing it
2. Seat belts protect bystanders and passengers when other people are wearing them

Arguments against:
1. It's not the government's job

I agree, the thread is pretty much going in circles. However, even though the OP was talking about politics, most of the arguments here have been to show support or the lack thereof for said politics.

Seems like ultimately, everything does come down to politics these days. If you'd indulge a filthy nanny-state liberal his curiosity, just what is it that twitches y'all so hard about things like this? I am honestly baffled by people's insistence on not regulating things like this. Explain if you want, I won't take it personally if you'd rather not.

A man's car is his castle.

Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth there will be when robotic cars catch on and the antique cars driven by humans are down to 15% but causing 90% of accidents (and most of the other accidents caused by livestock on the roads).

"But I'm a perfectly good driver! Even better than I was in 2014! It's my RIGHT to drive, because I haven't done anything wrong!" they will complain.

"You can't network, your reflexes suck, and you're taking up ten times the space on the road that our cars do because we have to stay away from you to be safe" we'll reply. And kick them off the road, like we kicked horses off the freeway.

[Twilight Imperium]

How have you managed, this far into the thread, managed to ignore every other reason of why we have seat belts to settle with "protecting people from themselves"?

Because "are seat belts a good idea?" isn't the question. It's "should seat belts be mandatory?". That's a fairly crucial distinction, and while we come down on the same side of it, let's be honest about it.

[Keyboard Warriors]

How have you managed, this far into the thread, managed to ignore every other reason of why we have seat belts to settle with "protecting people from themselves"?

Because "are seat belts a good idea?" isn't the question. It's "should seat belts be mandatory?". That's a fairly crucial distinction, and while we come down on the same side of it, let's be honest about it.

What makes you think what I said reflected the former and not the latter? Protecting people from themselves is not why seat belts are mandatory, protecting people from other people, directly or indirectly, is.