Why are we legally bound to wear seat belts?

[Tave]

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.

All the legal consequences are the same. A lot of the other costs you mentioned will incur during a bad traffic accident whether or not a person dies because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt.

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.

But what does this have anything to do with a man choosing not to wear his seatbelt whilst driving his own car by himself?

[GoCougs]

All the legal consequences are the same. A lot of the other costs you mentioned will incur during a bad traffic accident whether or not a person dies.

Not at all - a death from chronic lifestyle issues probably won't warrant an autopsy, traffic study, legal documentation as it pertains to traffic issues.

Again, the operative point (lower frequency of deaths) there is virtually zero down side in preventing it (i.e., using a seat belt).

But what does this have anything to do with a man driving his own car by himself?

Nothing, but do all people drive by themselves?

[Tave]

Just to clarify to the other readers, I am not anti-seatbelt. I think wearing your seatbelt is very important. I try to always wear mine. I would probably not be alive right now if I didn't wear my seatbelt (bad accident when I was a child). Two of my close friends died in separate accidents when they were ejected. Coincidently, a kid I knew from my hometown just Facebook friended me the other day. He suffers from some pretty acute brain damage due to an accident that he was involved in during the 10th grade. I know how real the consequences of not wearing your seatbelt can be.

My problem is with prescriptive laws aimed at what is essentially a personal choice. The better route, IMO, is education, which I think has proven itself in this department. Seatbelt laws are a relatively new invention, while traffic fatalities due to seatbelt use had dropped significantly well before then due to education and awareness. I'm part of a generation that grew up being taught to wear our seatbelts, and that had a profound effect on society long before lawmakers decided to throw their hat into the fray.

[Tave]

Nothing, but do all people drive by themselves?

The vast majority do. And 100% of those being ticketed for not wearing their seatbelt while driving by themselves do.

[GoCougs]

Just to clarify to the other readers, I am not anti-seatbelt. I think wearing your seatbelt is very important. I try to always wear mine. I would probably not be alive right now if I didn't wear my seatbelt (bad accident when I was a child). Two of my close friends died in separate accidents when they were ejected. Coincidently, a kid I knew from my hometown just Facebook friended me the other day. He suffers from some pretty acute brain damage due to an accident that he was involved in during the 10th grade. I know how real the consequences of not wearing your seatbelt can be.

My problem is with prescriptive laws aimed at what is essentially a personal choice. The better route, IMO, is education, which I think has proven itself in this department. Seatbelt laws are a relatively new invention, while traffic fatalities due to seatbelt use had dropped significantly well before then due to education and awareness. I'm part of a generation that grew up being taught to wear our seatbelts, and that had a profound effect on society long before lawmakers decided to throw their hat into the fray.

If your "personal choice" doesn't directly affect others by all means, be my guest. However, that is not the case with not using your seat belt.

The sign posts of moral law that are property and physical force apply in myriad ways to seat belt law.

The vast majority do. And 100% of those being ticketed for not wearing their seatbelt while driving by themselves do.

Sure, but injuring others in the car is but one of only many issues with not wearing a seat belt.

[Raza]

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.

Laws should be to protect people from one another, not themselves.  Laws like seatbelts and helmets are the same as trans fats or drugs; laws for your own health and safety may be common sense or wonderful in intention, but they take away a bit of freedom that should not be taken away.  If they repeal the seatbelt law tomorrow, do you really think everyone would unclick and drive with reckless abandon? 

A lot of things take minimal effort, but that doesn't mean they should be law. 

[Byteme]

Laws should be to protect people from one another, not themselves.  Laws like seatbelts and helmets are the same as trans fats or drugs; laws for your own health and safety may be common sense or wonderful in intention, but they take away a bit of freedom that should not be taken away.  If they repeal the seatbelt law tomorrow, do you really think everyone would unclick and drive with reckless abandon? 

A lot of things take minimal effort, but that doesn't mean they should be law. 

One could argue that in certain circumstances a person not wearing a seatbelt will not be able to control a car as effectively as one wearing a seatbelt.  Picture someone sliding out of their seat and not being able to control a skid.  In that instance that person's decsion not to wear a seatbelt can affect others.

[Raza]

One could argue that in certain circumstances a person not wearing a seatbelt will not be able to control a car as effectively as one wearing a seatbelt.  Picture someone sliding out of their seat and not being able to control a skid.  In that instance that person's decsion not to wear a seatbelt can affect others.

Perhaps...but I think that case is rare enough that it should be dismissed.  I mean, it's also possible that a cap from a bottle of soda could pop off, hit you directly in the eye, and blind you, yet we haven't mandated goggles for soda opening yet.  I mean, I always wear mine, but I don't expect anyone else to. 

[Submariner]

There's no reason someone deserves the freedom to not wear a seatbelt.

Yeah there is.

It's called personal freedom.

[Submariner]

Not at all - a death from chronic lifestyle issues probably won't warrant an autopsy, traffic study, legal documentation as it pertains to traffic issues.

Again, the operative point (lower frequency of deaths) there is virtually zero down side in preventing it (i.e., using a seat belt).

Nothing, but do all people drive by themselves?

How many billions of dollars have been spend on studying heart disease, lung cancer, obesity, etc?

If the free market cares about fixing such issues, they will devote the appropriate amount of funds to them.  If they feel fat people should die, then they wont.  

If someone wants to stuff themselves with Twinkies to the point of morbid obesity, that's their problem.  If someone wants to drive without a seatbelt, they face the same consequences.  

It doesn't matter what kind of cost/benefit ratio can be applied to freedom.  I don't need a gun, but I choose to own one because it's what I want to do.  I'll agree 100% than not wearing a seat belt is stupid, and when anyone steps in my vehicle, they wear a seat belt or I don't drive anywhere.  That's my choice, though.  

You're always rallying against the nanny state - how is it different in this case?  

[ChrisV]

An article that i think I posted before that touches on it (an opinion piece on the killing off of Hummer, by Penn Jillette):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510004575186243922694492.html

Lack of freedom can be measured directly by lack of stupid. Freedom means freedom to be stupid. We never need freedom to do the smart thing. You don't need any freedom to go with majority opinion. There was no freedom required to drive a Prius before the recall. We don't need freedom to recycle, reuse and reduce. We don't need freedom to listen to classic rock, classic classical, classic anything or Terry Gross. We exercise our freedom to its fullest when we are at our stupidest.

We're all making bad choices all the time, and most of mine are way stupider than driving a Hummer. I love my freedom of stupid. I bumped into Adrien one time and had a great talk with him, we got along great. I know Carrot Top well enough to call him "Scott." I know that they're both a lot thinner than me. They're both in a lot better shape. They eat better than me, and they can do a lot more push-ups and sit-ups. They can run farther and faster than me. So, in the near future, with us all being involved in each other's health care, Adrien and Scott might make up for their wasted gas mileage paying for my high-blood-pressure meds. If we're all getting together to stop the stupidity of driving a Hummer, will we have to stop the stupidity of eating Krispy Kreme doughnuts and pie? Freedom is freedom to be stupid.

They came first for the Hummers.

Then they came for the pie.

[VTEC_Inside]

It was never a question of whether or not to put on my seat belt as I grew up. I don't even think about it, its just one of the first things I do when I get in the car.

The exception is if I'm sitting in a back seat. Perhaps its because that isn't very often.

As far as I'm concerned, putting on a seat belt is part of proper operation of a vehicle. You wear a hardhat on a construction site because shit could fall on your head. You wear a seat belt in a car because there is a very real potential for you to be thrown about the vehicle. I also like the fact that its holding me in the seat when I drive aggressively.

Forget the fact that there is a law for the morons. For once it actually makes sense to "obey" this law.

[Raza]

It was never a question of whether or not to put on my seat belt as I grew up. I don't even think about it, its just one of the first things I do when I get in the car.

The exception is if I'm sitting in a back seat. Perhaps its because that isn't very often.

As far as I'm concerned, putting on a seat belt is part of proper operation of a vehicle. You wear a hardhat on a construction site because shit could fall on your head. You wear a seat belt in a car because there is a very real potential for you to be thrown about the vehicle. I also like the fact that its holding me in the seat when I drive aggressively.

Forget the fact that there is a law for the morons. For once it actually makes sense to "obey" this law.

If you make enough laws for morons, humanity ceases to evolve. 

[bing_oh]

Why do you want to save the dumb people?

Seat belts aren't for dumb people, though. Generally, dumb people are much more durable than average. That's the foundation of my Cockroach Theory.

[VTEC_Inside]

If you make enough laws for morons, humanity ceases to evolve. 

Total agreement. Just saying that if you want to argue a law, why not go after one that really doesn't make sense.

[Raza]

Total agreement. Just saying that if you want to argue a law, why not go after one that really doesn't make sense.

Because regardless of intention or usefulness, this law doesn't make sense either. 

[Raza]

Seat belts aren't for dumb people, though. Generally, dumb people are much more durable than average. That's the foundation of my Cockroach Theory.

And they reproduce like crazy...this theory of yours may have great validity. 

[Tave]

If your "personal choice" doesn't directly affect others by all means, be my guest. However, that is not the case with not using your seat belt.

Of course it is. You know as well as I do that seatbelt use is primarily personal, and all these contingencies you continue to drum up are too attenuated to reach the real issue.

Eaarlier, you dismissed the heat disease example, because, in your words, an individual heart attack is not expensive as an individual traffic fatality. Perhaps you're right (I still maintain that the costs are closer than you claim), but in the end it doesn't matter, because there are exponentially more heart attacks each year, placing a much bigger burden on society's resources. Yet it would be abhorrent to legislate eating habits.


And like I said, education was extremely effective at teaching people to wear seatbelts. When you can reach the same result by not making a law that you can by making one, then not making a law is always preferred.

[Raza]

When you can reach the same result by not making a law that you can by making one, then not making a law is always preferred.

I'd have to do some research, but I don't believe truer words have ever been spoken. 

[GoCougs]

How many billions of dollars have been spend on studying heart disease, lung cancer, obesity, etc?

If the free market cares about fixing such issues, they will devote the appropriate amount of funds to them.  If they feel fat people should die, then they wont. 

If someone wants to stuff themselves with Twinkies to the point of morbid obesity, that's their problem.  If someone wants to drive without a seatbelt, they face the same consequences. 

It doesn't matter what kind of cost/benefit ratio can be applied to freedom.  I don't need a gun, but I choose to own one because it's what I want to do.  I'll agree 100% than not wearing a seat belt is stupid, and when anyone steps in my vehicle, they wear a seat belt or I don't drive anywhere.  That's my choice, though. 

You're always rallying against the nanny state - how is it different in this case? 

Like I said, not wearing a seat belt tickles the two sign posts of the foundations of moral law; primarily property and to a lesser extent physical force. You can be as free as you want, as long as you don't violate the property and apply unwanted force to others.

The only objective argument against such a law is that it is virtually impossible to enforce save for after the fact.

[Tave]

All those things he just mentioned "tickle" the property rights of tax payers in the exact same fashion as seatbelt use, only moreso.

[GoCougs]

Of course it is. You know as well as I do that seatbelt use is primarily personal, and all these contingencies you continue to drum up are too attenuated to reach the real issue.

True, it is primarily personal but not always personal - and at least one scenario, moving around at the wheel which can contribute to or exacerbate an accident, is independent of that.

Eaarlier, you dismissed the heat disease example, because, in your words, an individual heart attack is not expensive as an individual traffic fatality. Perhaps you're right (I still maintain that the costs are closer than you claim), but in the end it doesn't matter, because there are exponentially more heart attacks each year, placing a much bigger burden on society's resources. Yet it would be abhorrent to legislate eating habits.

You're confusing me with someone else I think.

And like I said, education was extremely effective at teaching people to wear seatbelts. When you can reach the same result by not making a law that you can by making one, then not making a law is always preferred.

How do you know? The only way to arrive at this conclusion is with an exhaustive unbiased study of a rather large population.

The state's obligation is to make moral law not to educate.

[Byteme]

I would agree that seat belt laws should be repealed under only one condition:   If it were possible to ensure, with 100% certainty, that an individual who was injured in a car while not wearing his or her seatbelt could in no way receive treatment at public expense.  Otherwise my tax dollars are potentially going to mitigate someone else's stupitity and in that case I want to lessen the financial impact of their poor decision.

[Tave]

How do you know? The only way to arrive at this conclusion is with an exhaustive unbiased study of a rather large population.

Which there has been. The reduction of traffic fatalities due to seatbelt use in the 1980s and 1990s and the nationwide education campaign to encourage use is a well-documented event.

I think your apprehension to that assertion is probably a product of generation and experience. As I'm sure our younger members can attest to, we were bombarded with seatbelt messages throughout our public education--literally preached to about the benefits and dangers. I cannot count the numbers of private speakers, LEOs, firemen, EMTs, doctors, et. al. who volunteered to come to my K-12 schooling to talk about this issue. You grew up in a different era.

[GoCougs]

I would agree that seat belt laws should be repealed under only one condition:   If it were possible to ensure, with 100% certainty, that an individual who was injured in a car while not wearing his or her seatbelt could in no way receive treatment at public expense.  Otherwise my tax dollars are potentially going to mitigate someone else's stupitity and in that case I want to lessen the financial impact of their poor decision.

I'd gladly bet that the financial fall-out from moral state action (from accident investigation to autopsy to probate) would be much higher than immoral state action (socializing medical costs) resulting from an un-belted driver accident.

One should not be able to agree to indemnity from moral state action to be able circumvent moral law.

[2o6]

You guys are some freaking hippies.

[Eye of the Tiger]

You guys are some freaking hippies.

I'm a Republican hippie.

[rohan]

You're required to wear them because a)they do save lives  b) they do reduce injuries  c) a + b = insurance savings for the rest of us long term.  I've witnessed first hand many times what happens when people are involved in crashes that are more than mere fender benders without their belts on- it usually aint pretty.

[280Z Turbo]

You're required to wear them because a)they do save lives  b) they do reduce injuries  c) a + b = insurance savings for the rest of us long term.  I've witnessed first hand many times what happens when people are involved in crashes that are more than mere fender benders without their belts on- it usually aint pretty.

It seems like 90% of the time, whenever you hear about a fatal car accident these days, someone wasn't wearing their seatbelt.

[rohan]

Exactly.  Sure people die wearing them- shit happens.  But you're safer wearing one tha not wearing one.