Why are we legally bound to wear seat belts?

[SVT_Power]

I realize it's a good idea if you don't want to die, but why are we LEGALLY bound to wear it? I mean if I decide to take my head and smash it into this desk I'm sitting at, there's no law stopping me from doing that.

[Rupert]

Same reason motorcyclists are legally bound to wear helmets in many states. It reduces the number of fatalities.

[S204STi]

A lot of people don't have the common sense to do it on their own, so for those idiots we have laws.

[MX793]

Who pays for your care should you be crippled in an accident and you do not have enough money to afford the necessary care yourself?

[Raza]

I realize it's a good idea if you don't want to die, but why are we LEGALLY bound to wear it? I mean if I decide to take my head and smash it into this desk I'm sitting at, there's no law stopping me from doing that.

We shouldn't be. 

[Tave]

Who pays for your care should you be crippled in an accident and you do not have enough money to afford the necessary care yourself?

How far do you take that rationale?

Same reason motorcyclists are legally bound to wear helmets in many states. It reduces the number of fatalities.

And those are bad laws too.

[Cookie Monster]

How far do you take that rationale?

And those are bad laws too.

Well, it's not like a hospital won't treat you if you're about to die, and if they find you have no insurance, then other people ultimately end up paying the tab.

[Tave]

Well, it's not like a hospital won't treat you if you're about to die, and if they find you have no insurance, then other people ultimately end up paying the tab.

You just missed the point entirely.


There are a million bad decisions people can make that will put them in the hospital on the taxpayer's dime. Obesity/heart disease comes immediately to mind.


The rules of the road should be solely for the benefit of other drivers.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Laws like this should be illegal.

[Cookie Monster]

You just missed the point entirely.


There are a million bad decisions people can make that will put them in the hospital on the taxpayer's dime. Obesity/heart disease comes immediately to mind.


The rules of the road should be solely for the benefit of other drivers.

Oh, good point. I wasn't thinking of it that way.

[ifcar]

You just missed the point entirely.


There are a million bad decisions people can make that will put them in the hospital on the taxpayer's dime. Obesity/heart disease comes immediately to mind.


The rules of the road should be solely for the benefit of other drivers.

A seatbelt rule does benefit another driver. If that driver is at fault in an accident that turns out to be fatal because the other motorist wasn't wearing a seatbelt, they're in much more trouble that they arguably don't deserve. Or even in a case when they're not legally responsible, they have someone's death on their conscience. There's no reason someone deserves the freedom to not wear a seatbelt.

Motorcycle helmets, I can understand why someone would hate to wear one. But seatbelts are not obtrusive. It takes minimal effort to wear one, with huge benefit. And if people need a law to get them to put it on, then there should be a law.

[Eye of the Tiger]

A seatbelt rule does benefit another driver. If that driver is at fault in an accident that turns out to be fatal because the other motorist wasn't wearing a seatbelt, they're in much more trouble that they arguably don't deserve. Or even in a case when they're not legally responsible, they have someone's death on their conscience. There's no reason someone deserves the freedom to not wear a seatbelt.

Motorcycle helmets, I can understand why someone would hate to wear one. But seatbelts are not obtrusive. It takes minimal effort to wear one, with huge benefit. And if people need a law to get them to put it on, then there should be a law.

You're a communist.

[ifcar]

You're a communist.

Damn, I was sure you were the person ignoring me. Now I'm curious.

[280Z Turbo]

Because it's okay to swindle money from stupid people.

They should raise the seatbelt ticket to $200 from $65 to pay for road maintenance.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Because it's okay to swindle money from stupid people.

They should raise the seatbelt ticket to $200 from $65 to pay for road maintenance.

If the drop "speeding" fines, I could go along with that, but I am still against laws.

[GoCougs]

I realize it's a good idea if you don't want to die, but why are we LEGALLY bound to wear it? I mean if I decide to take my head and smash it into this desk I'm sitting at, there's no law stopping me from doing that.

I think you and a few others are making the mistake that the law exists solely for the seat belt wearer. Behind closed doors I think you'll plainly find lawmakers' reasons are a little more selfish than keeping un-belted drivers alive despite the fact that that is the primary way the law is sold to the public.

Moral law has its foundation in private property and physical force. Seat belt law tickles each facet in great measure. In addition to some of the related points above...

1. The state and society in general incurs significant cost when there is a traffic fatality. The state has to respond to the accident (diverts police and emergency response resources), perform the accident investigation (diverts police and infrastructure resources) and deal with the legal hassles of when a person dies (death cert, probate, autopsy, etc.). Society gets to suffer for having the roadway shut down for many hours.

2. An un-belted person is an explicit danger to other people. To others in the car for an un-belted person becomes a deadly projectile in the event of an accident. To others on the roadway an un-belted person who is often ejected from the vehicle causes the worst of distractions.

3. An un-belted person can lead to or contribute to accidents. Being un-belted a person simply moves around more in the seat and is thus that much less likely to maintain control of the vehicle in situations that can lead to an accident or regain control to minimize the consequences or avoid an accident as it is happening.

I'm all about minimizing the depth and breadth of the state but the above-mentioned standard bearers of moral law (the "benefit of other drivers" doctrine) certainly apply to seat belt laws confirmed by the fact there is virtually zero down side to wearing a seat belt.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I know someone that is alive today only because he didn't wear his seatbelt.
It's a personal choice, like sometimes I wear a belt to keep my pants up, and sometimes I don't.

[ifcar]

I know someone that is alive today only because he didn't wear his seatbelt.
It's a personal choice, like sometimes I wear a belt to keep my pants up, and sometimes I don't.

You can make the personal choice to ignore a seatbelt law just as you would a speed limit law.

[Eye of the Tiger]

You can make the personal choice to ignore a seatbelt law just as you would a speed limit law.

You can make the personal choice to mind your own business and stop promoting laws that do nothing but control people's personal choices.

[280Z Turbo]

You can make the personal choice to mind your own business and stop promoting laws that do nothing but control people's personal choices.

I don't care. Seat belts save lives. If you don't wear one, you are dumber than shit.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I don't care. Seat belts save lives. If you don't wear one, you are dumber than shit.

Why do you want to save the dumb people?

[280Z Turbo]

Why do you want to save the dumb people?

Somebody has to greet you at Wal-Mart.

[ifcar]

Somebody has to greet you at Wal-Mart.

You're thinking of OLD people, not necessarily dumb people.

[280Z Turbo]

You're thinking of OLD people, not necessarily dumb people.

Well, somebody has to mop the floors when the trailer trash's bastard inbred kid throws up in the cereal isle.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Somebody has to greet you at Wal-Mart.

The no seatbelt fine is more than a week's paycheck fir a typical Walmart greeter. They'd be better off dead, than filing backruptcy and becoming an even greater drag on our economy.

[280Z Turbo]

The no seatbelt fine is more than a week's paycheck fir a typical Walmart greeter. They'd be better off dead, than filing backruptcy and becoming an even greater drag on our economy.

They make less than $65 a week? Oh dear.

[Tave]

1. The state and society in general incurs significant cost when there is a traffic fatality. The state has to respond to the accident (diverts police and emergency response resources), perform the accident investigation (diverts police and infrastructure resources) and deal with the legal hassles of when a person dies (death cert, probate, autopsy, etc.). Society gets to suffer for having the roadway shut down for many hours.

Deaths in general are very expensive. Like I said, there are a million stupid decisions someone can make to injure/maim/kill oneself.

2. An un-belted person is an explicit danger to other people. To others in the car for an un-belted person becomes a deadly projectile in the event of an accident.

You can't be serious.




You have to really streeeeeeeeetch rational thought to come up with these impossible scenarios where a guy wearing a seatbelt is going to save some other guy's life. 99.9999999% of the drive and "legitimacy" of seatbelt laws are aimed at preventing the death/injury of the driver, not those sharing the road with him.

[GoCougs]

Deaths in general are very expensive. Like I said, there are a million stupid decisions someone can make to injure/maim/kill oneself.

One can make the case that wearing a helmet would similarly decrease injury and death but there are moderate to significant downsides spanning from comfort to decrease field of view. But there is zero downside to wearing a seat belt.

You can't be serious.

You have to really streeeeeeeeetch rational thought to come up with these impossible scenarios where a guy wearing a seatbelt is going to save some other guy's life. 99.9999999% of the drive and "legitimacy" of seatbelt laws are aimed at preventing the death/injury of the driver, not those sharing the road with him.

Not at all a stretch - that was some very solid Innertubing. It doesn't happen in every un-belted driving scenario or accident but people flying around in or out of cars happens frequently because of not wearing a seat belt; when this happens it is very unsafe for anyone in the vicinity.

[Tave]

One can make the case that wearing a helmet would similarly decrease injury and death but there are moderate to significant downsides spanning from comfort to decrease field of view. But there is zero downside to wearing a seat belt.

And there's zero downside to eating healthy, not smoking or drinking, looking both ways before you cross the street, and not climbing trees.

Not at all a stretch - that was some very solid Innertubing. It doesn't happen in every un-belted driving scenario or accident but people flying around in or out of cars happens frequently because of not wearing a seat belt; when this happens it is very unsafe for anyone in the vicinity.

No, this is simply an absurd scenario.


"Did you hear what happened to Johnny? He was hit by a flying person."

[GoCougs]

And there's zero downside to eating healthy, not smoking or drinking, looking both ways before you cross the street, and not climbing trees.

Please recheck your premise - the state's responsibility in the event of a traffic death is profoundly greater than if a person dies from obesity or falling out of the tree.

No, this is simply an absurd scenario.

"Did you hear what happened to Johnny? He was hit by a flying person."

False. I specifically mentioned this as someone close to me was injured in exactly this fashion. She was riding shotgun (with a seat belt on) when an accident occurred and the person in the back (not wearing a seatbelt) came forward and their heads collided front to back. ~20 years later this person still suffers someone what from the neck trauma. Any rational person can see this as a very possible scenario with an unbelted passenger in the event of an accident.