Why are we legally bound to wear seat belts?

[Raza]

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

I'm safer nigh mummified in bubble wrap and wearing a football helmet too.  Seems like every person who is murdered or who has died of natural causes was not wearing bubble wrap and a football helmet. 

[280Z Turbo]

I'm safer nigh mummified in bubble wrap and wearing a football helmet too.  Seems like every person who is murdered or who has died of natural causes was not wearing bubble wrap and a football helmet. 

Wearing bubble wrap and football helmets is inconvenient and impractical. Wearing a seatbelt is not.

[JWC]

I've been wearing a seat belt since 1974.  Even when friends laughed and said..what, you a race car driver?...I wore a seat belt.

I believe Cougs, it does become a burden for the state.   I believe what others said also...only not that it can lead to the state regulating what we eat...but has already.  Welcome to the ban on transfats and possibly salt.

One point Cougs did miss though.  If it is true that the state has to respond and investigate accidents, which results in higher cost for the state and everyone else, do we ban bicycles from roadways?  

Helmet laws for adults are a direct result of the success of seat belt laws.   Unfortunately, no helmet is designed to save your life against a 2 ton vehicle..or any vehicle for that matter except maybe another bicycle.   Lower bicycle fatalities are attributed to helmets, but no one has investigated if riders, riding more safely and wearing higher visibility clothing is partially responsible.

It was pointed out the auto fatality rates have dropped since the 1980/90's and the introduction of seat belts requirements.  What is left out is how much safer automobiles became in the 1980s/90s.  I don't believe you can point to one item as making drivers/riders safer, while simultaneously initiating other safety factors at the same time, such as crumple zones and air bags.

I see seat belt laws as another way for the state to collect revenue, not just from the citizens, but from the federal government as well.  A state's success rate with compliance is related to how much money they receive from the federal government's highway funds.   In NC, state troopers and city police do seat belt check points several times per year, just like DUI check points.  Vehicles are stopped along secondary roadways just to check for seat belt compliance.  The number of cars are counted and the "success" rate is posted at the city limits.

Myself and others, who are or were cycling advocates, think it would be a wise move to require bicycle helmets for motor vehicle drivers.  Head injuries in a vehicle accident are the leading cause of death or catastrophic injury, requiring months or years of rehab.   Those type of helmets do not restrict visibility and tend to light weight and comfortable.  

[Raza]

Wearing bubble wrap and football helmets is inconvenient and impractical. Wearing a seatbelt is not.

It's neither inconvenient nor impractical.  Nor does it matter.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I shouldn't be legally required to wear a seatbelt when I'm crawling up an empty, washed put dirt road, getting in and out of my truck every 100 feet; but many if these dirt roads are public, and if I run into a cop out here, then he could give me a ticket for that, and probably another one for spinning my tires/exhibition of speed, failure to signal, blocking the road, crossing the center line, and running oversized tires.

[Byteme]

Myself and others, who are or were cycling advocates, think it would be a wise move to require bicycle helmets for motor vehicle drivers.  Head injuries in a vehicle accident are the leading cause of death or catastrophic injury, requiring months or years of rehab.   Those type of helmets do not restrict visibility and tend to light weight and comfortable.  

Assuming you are serious (which I don't think you really are) I would guess many, if not most, cars don't have enough headroom for one of those plastic and styrofoam caps to be perched on top of one's head while driving. 

The most common injuries relating to automobiles are caused by closing the vehicles door(s). Perhaps we should ban doors on vehicles.
74,000 people are injured each year by falling vehicles or vehicle parts.
80,000 peorple a year are injured from overexertion either loading or unoploading vehicles or puching disabled vehicles.

Hell, maybe we should just ban vehicles completely.   

[JWC]

NO, we've been quite serious.  There are several times more head injuries in car accidents than when cycling.   The principle is the same.  If the excuse for forcing helmets on cyclists is because of the "it costs everyone" due to stupidity, then helmets should be required for auto drivers also.

OSHA already recommends back supports and training for lifting and most companies require such devices.   Making the requirement a law, would benefit everyone. 

Car doors can be made safer so that hands and fingers are not injured when doors are closed.  Such a requirement can be made law by the federal government just like seat belts and 5mph bumpers.

Wearing a helmet will help prevent most injuries from falling car parts. 

[Raza]

NO, we've been quite serious.  There are several times more head injuries in car accidents than when cycling.   The principle is the same.  If the excuse for forcing helmets on cyclists is because of the "it costs everyone" due to stupidity, then helmets should be required for auto drivers also.

OSHA already recommends back supports and training for lifting and most companies require such devices.   Making the requirement a law, would benefit everyone. 

Car doors can be made safer so that hands and fingers are not injured when doors are closed.  Such a requirement can be made law by the federal government just like seat belts and 5mph bumpers.

Wearing a helmet will help prevent most injuries from falling car parts. 

Fuck that.  I spend a lot of time on my hair. 

[SVT_Power]

all that prep for your buzz cut eh

[JWC]

Fuck that.  I spend a lot of time on my hair. 

Basically the same excuse women used in protest of seat belt requirements, only their concern was the seat belt wrinkling their clothes and increasing their dry cleaning bills.

[Byteme]

Wearing a helmet will help prevent most injuries from falling car parts. 

Assuming most falling car parts hit people on the head.  I'd guess hands, legs and feet and the most likely injury targets.

[GoCougs]

I've been wearing a seat belt since 1974.  Even when friends laughed and said..what, you a race car driver?...I wore a seat belt.

I believe Cougs, it does become a burden for the state.   I believe what others said also...only not that it can lead to the state regulating what we eat...but has already.  Welcome to the ban on transfats and possibly salt.

One point Cougs did miss though.  If it is true that the state has to respond and investigate accidents, which results in higher cost for the state and everyone else, do we ban bicycles from roadways? 

Helmet laws for adults are a direct result of the success of seat belt laws.   Unfortunately, no helmet is designed to save your life against a 2 ton vehicle..or any vehicle for that matter except maybe another bicycle.   Lower bicycle fatalities are attributed to helmets, but no one has investigated if riders, riding more safely and wearing higher visibility clothing is partially responsible.

It was pointed out the auto fatality rates have dropped since the 1980/90's and the introduction of seat belts requirements.  What is left out is how much safer automobiles became in the 1980s/90s.  I don't believe you can point to one item as making drivers/riders safer, while simultaneously initiating other safety factors at the same time, such as crumple zones and air bags.

I see seat belt laws as another way for the state to collect revenue, not just from the citizens, but from the federal government as well.  A state's success rate with compliance is related to how much money they receive from the federal government's highway funds.   In NC, state troopers and city police do seat belt check points several times per year, just like DUI check points.  Vehicles are stopped along secondary roadways just to check for seat belt compliance.  The number of cars are counted and the "success" rate is posted at the city limits.

Myself and others, who are or were cycling advocates, think it would be a wise move to require bicycle helmets for motor vehicle drivers.  Head injuries in a vehicle accident are the leading cause of death or catastrophic injury, requiring months or years of rehab.   Those type of helmets do not restrict visibility and tend to light weight and comfortable. 

The state has a moral duty for police and emergency response and issues of death, ergo, accidents and seat belt laws. The state does not have a moral duty for health care and welfare, ergo chronic disease and eating laws. IMO we can only blame free lunch mentality for (coming) eating regulations.

Actually, I think it is warranted that bicycles be banned on certain roads - around where I live, they're banned from portions of the freeways and highways. I also believe the ban should extend to roads in suburban/urban areas not explicitly built to accommodate bicycles.

The issue with requiring helmets for car drivers is unlike seat belts there are significant detriments to using a helmet in a car, most notably, vision and field of view. To be effective helmets would have to be the full-face style; the open face bicycle style are virtually worthless.

That's the first I've heard of seat belt check points. That's not the fault of the law itself but the system used (abused) to implement such a ridiculous thing. The electorate needs to keep on its toes but sadly it is not - the green lighting of the escalation of the welfare state can only lead to a ever escalating intrusive state even if its in the realm of proper law.

[JWC]

Assuming most falling car parts hit people on the head.  I'd guess hands, legs and feet and the most likely injury targets.

We can stretch anything to meet our viewpoint, but I honestly believe that my examples were closer to the point of seat belt laws and the reasoning behind them.  The precedent is already on the book, helmet laws and seat belt laws.   I could bring up old people falling and can't get up and a federal law requiring everyone over 55 getting a Life Alert system, but I don't think that comparison applies.   

But, using the falling car part thing, I was thinking you meant people traveling in their car and a part falling off of a vehicle in front of them.  My belief was based on a friend in her Opel GT and a rear diff assembly fell off a salvage truck and hit the roof just above her windshield.    Mufflers, bolts, etc, will come through a windshield and your head is likely the primary target.

[hotrodalex]

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.

Exactly. Wearing your seatbelt affects others.

What if you hit someone by accident and they died from not having a seatbelt? You just killed a human being, it was your fault. But yet they could have been saved had they worn the seatbelt. How would you feel then, knowing that the law could have saved their life and you wouldn't have their death hanging over your head? Betcha you would be all for the law then.

I've struggled over my position on seatbelt laws. I always wear mine (actually one of the only times I haven't worn it, the person driving got pulled over and got a ticket for not wearing seatbelts) I'm a huge proponent in personal freedoms. Yet I've come to realize that it doesn't just affect you. There comes a time when it's time to stop being selfish and just wear the safety equipment. It's a dumb choice not to and it's just going to hurt people (maybe not physically, but in other ways)

Over spring break some local highschool girls were down in Alabama. About 6 or 7 of them. At the end of the week, they started to come home. They're teenage girls, so they were having a good time in the car (Honda Pilot, I believe) Supposedly they were playing cards in the back and not wearing seatbelts. I forget exactly what happened, but changing lanes and a semi had something to do with it. Anyway, the girl driving overcorrected and the car flipped and rolled. Except for the two in the front who were wearing seatbelts, all the girls were ejected. One died immediately. One broke almost 40 bones. One had severe head trauma and I believe is still in a coma. This crash affected the entire community. The school that they went to was in major shock. Everyone mourned for weeks. It affected the lives of not only those girls in the car, but thousands of people at home who knew them. I know a teacher at the highschool nearest to me that taught these girls before transferring. He was devastated, as his best friend died in college and another student of his died a while back. The driver of the car was the twin sister to the girl in the coma. How do you think she feels? She was/is on the suicide watchlist.

If they had just worn their seatbelts, none of this would have happened.

[thewizard16]

I'm safer nigh mummified in bubble wrap and wearing a football helmet too.  Seems like every person who is murdered or who has died of natural causes was not wearing bubble wrap and a football helmet.  

I love specious reasoning, and we do use it to justify some interesting things. I think there was a Simpsons episode a long time ago where they hired a bear patrol with helicopters, patrol vans, etc. and claimed it was keeping bears away, despite there having only ever been one bear that wandered into town anyway. (Most politicians excel at making somewhat believable claims based off this same reasoning.)

That said, I'm for seatbelts. No one rides in my car without one, or they get out and ride with someone else. I'm not going to have someones preventable death on my conscience. If I have the good sense to wear one and you cross over the center line and hit me head on, I don't want you coming at me through my windshield. It's every bit as justifiable as any safety rule, OSHA regulation, or law requiring you to drive on the proper side of the street. I'm not saying you couldn't be safe without any of those things, but they do have a statistical impact on overall safety, which reduces healthcare costs and danger to others. I'll be the first to admit I have some libertarian tendencies which would normally have me with the "the government shouldn't force you to do anything" crowd, but I think this one is largely common sense. It only became a primary ticketing offense here recently, used to be they only ticketed you for not wearing a seat belt if you were pulled over for something else.

[JWC]

Actually, I think it is warranted that bicycles be banned on certain roads - around where I live, they're banned from portions of the freeways and highways. I also believe the ban should extend to roads in suburban/urban areas not explicitly built to accommodate bicycles.

The issue with requiring helmets for car drivers is unlike seat belts there are significant detriments to using a helmet in a car, most notably, vision and field of view. To be effective helmets would have to be the full-face style; the open face bicycle style are virtually worthless.

That's the first I've heard of seat belt check points. That's not the fault of the law itself but the system used (abused) to implement such a ridiculous thing. The electorate needs to keep on its toes but sadly it is not - the green lighting of the escalation of the welfare state can only lead to a ever escalating intrusive state even if its in the realm of proper law.

Cycling helmets are designed not to restrict vision or interfere with your ability to hear.  They are the perfect helmet for car drivers. 

I believe, and others believe, that not only should certain roads be off-limits to bicycles, but that corresponding roads should be built only for bicycles.  It would encourage more cycling and improve the health of the nation, thus accomplishing two goals.  Safer cycling through less motor vehicle vs bicycle accidents and encourage cycling which leads to a heart healthy U.S.   Health care cost would go down and we would use less oil and gasoline.

[hotrodalex]

It only became a primary ticketing offense here recently, used to be they only ticketed you for not wearing a seat belt if you were pulled over for something else.

I think it should go back to that. Especially since I drive around in cars with only lap belts and don't want to get harassed for not wearing one when I actually am.

[JWC]

When I lived in California, a seat belt violation only came with being pulled over for something else.  I was shocked to find NC pulled you over for no seat belt only.   

In 1993, the "click it or ticket it" program began.

From an Asheville Citizen article:

The annual statewide initiative began in 1993 and includes high-visibility law enforcement seat belt checkpoints and patrols aimed at ensuring that drivers and passengers buckle up and use safety seats for small children.

During the 2009 campaign, more than 13,000 seatbelt tickets were issued statewide. Seatbelt citations now cost $126, including the fine and court costs.

[GoCougs]

Cycling helmets are designed not to restrict vision or interfere with your ability to hear.  They are the perfect helmet for car drivers.  

I believe, and others believe, that not only should certain roads be off-limits to bicycles, but that corresponding roads should be built only for bicycles.  It would encourage more cycling and improve the health of the nation, thus accomplishing two goals.  Safer cycling through less motor vehicle vs bicycle accidents and encourage cycling which leads to a heart healthy U.S.   Health care cost would go down and we would use less oil and gasoline.

Bicycle helmets, at least the current design, are designed for relatively low energy/speed collisions. They're not designed for higher energy collisions like that in the average car accident. Requiring ineffective helmets would only leave helmet makers open to major liability creating another set of problems.

A good happy medium is for bicycle-only roads is converting old railroads to bike/jogging lanes ("rail trail"). In the Seattle area there are a number of such trails. I would not advocate brand new roads simply because bicycling year around in much of the country is unrealistic, and modern life in suburban and urban America does not lend itself to bike riding for the vast majority of people.

[JWC]

Bicycle helmets, at least the current design, are designed for relatively low energy/speed collisions. They're not designed for higher energy collisions like that in the average car accident. Requiring ineffective helmets would only leave helmet makers open to major liability creating another set of problems.

A good happy medium is for bicycle-only roads is converting old railroads to bike/jogging lanes ("rail trail"). In the Seattle area there are a number of such trails. I would not advocate brand new roads simply because bicycling year around in much of the country is unrealistic, and modern life in suburban and urban America does not lend itself to bike riding for the vast majority of people.

No kidding.

That's the same argument we use about how stupid bicycle helmets are...they are only designed for a six foot fall, about twelve miles per hour.  But, doctors swear they save lives.  

They would make more sense actually in a automobile, where speed is decreased by braking, crumple zones, and airbags deploy.  With all those safety features and a helmet, you're much safer than someone wearing a helmet on a bicycle.

Local cyclists have bee shot down three or four times on being able to convert former rail routes into intercity cycling routes.  Once a railroad is abandoned, it reverts to the adjacent landowner.  Landowners do not want bicyclists on their property or near their property.   Another option for off-road biking were creek side paths that are used by the state and county to control the waterways.  Farmers and landowners would not agree to allow cyclists to use the pathways.

[thewizard16]

I think it should go back to that. Especially since I drive around in cars with only lap belts and don't want to get harassed for not wearing one when I actually am.

I hate lap belts, I remember one of the suburbans had those. I agree though, it being a primary offense seems excessive since they can arguably pull you over for no real reason and claim it's because they thought you weren't wearing a seatbelt.

[Raza]

Basically the same excuse women used in protest of seat belt requirements, only their concern was the seat belt wrinkling their clothes and increasing their dry cleaning bills.

Well, mine was half a joke. 

[Raza]

I love specious reasoning, and we do use it to justify some interesting things. I think there was a Simpsons episode a long time ago where they hired a bear patrol with helicopters, patrol vans, etc. and claimed it was keeping bears away, despite there having only ever been one bear that wandered into town anyway. (Most politicians excel at making somewhat believable claims based off this same reasoning.)

That said, I'm for seatbelts. No one rides in my car without one, or they get out and ride with someone else. I'm not going to have someones preventable death on my conscience. If I have the good sense to wear one and you cross over the center line and hit me head on, I don't want you coming at me through my windshield. It's every bit as justifiable as any safety rule, OSHA regulation, or law requiring you to drive on the proper side of the street. I'm not saying you couldn't be safe without any of those things, but they do have a statistical impact on overall safety, which reduces healthcare costs and danger to others. I'll be the first to admit I have some libertarian tendencies which would normally have me with the "the government shouldn't force you to do anything" crowd, but I think this one is largely common sense. It only became a primary ticketing offense here recently, used to be they only ticketed you for not wearing a seat belt if you were pulled over for something else.

Oh, I love seatbelts.  I wouldn't drive without one.  My car doesn't move unless each passenger is belted.  But someone else not wearing one doesn't violate my rights, and therefore should be legal.

[GoCougs]

No kidding.

That's the same argument we use about how stupid bicycle helmets are...they are only designed for a six foot fall, about twelve miles per hour.  But, doctors swear they save lives. 

They would make more sense actually in a automobile, where speed is decreased by braking, crumple zones, and airbags deploy.  With all those safety features and a helmet, you're much safer than someone wearing a helmet on a bicycle.

At least for mountain biking, I've seen helmets save a person from grievous harm a number of times. It takes relatively little, especially in the temple area, to cause a head injury. Personally, I believe the doctors and helmet makers are correct. The average bike helmet won't protect against everything but it protects against a lot.

Wearing a (proper) helmet in a car IMO is mostly worthless without the restraint of the upper body as is done in the average race car (i.e., owing to the Dale Earnhardt effect). That of course would bring its own set of issues too, beyond the vision issues.

[Byteme]

No kidding.

That's the same argument we use about how stupid bicycle helmets are...they are only designed for a six foot fall, about twelve miles per hour.  But, doctors swear they save lives.  

They would make more sense actually in a automobile, where speed is decreased by braking, crumple zones, and airbags deploy.  With all those safety features and a helmet, you're much safer than someone wearing a helmet on a bicycle.

Local cyclists have bee shot down three or four times on being able to convert former rail routes into intercity cycling routes.  Once a railroad is abandoned, it reverts to the adjacent landowner.  Landowners do not want bicyclists on their property or near their property.   Another option for off-road biking were creek side paths that are used by the state and county to control the waterways.  Farmers and landowners would not agree to allow cyclists to use the pathways.

A poteitial downside to requiring helmets in cars is the probability of increased whiplash injuries.  Requiring a helmet to be worn would increase the mass carried by the neck.  Sudden decelleration would be even less of a friend to your neck.  As with most "cures" there is yet an new problem to overcome.

[JWC]

Point? I've seen several mtb riders who have had serious injury wearing a helmet.  Then there are the guys who have lost eyes when their sunglasses broke in a crash...though the most common injury is a severely slashed face.   Helmets with visors were considered safer than riding without a helmet, but caused hundreds of neck injuries from the visor digging in during a crash.  Then they came up with break-away visors.   You cannot completely eliminate injuries or accidents...all the federal government can do is try to reduce the severity and likelihood of an injury or death.

Dale's helmet had nothing to do with his death, as you probably know.  What you're telling me is that a vehicle car seat should be designed to limit head and upper body movement in a wreck, but airbags, something car 3 didn't have, already help to do that.

I believe that if the federal government required every motor vehicle to have a drop down/over restraint system, similar to that on an amusement ride, we could save thousands of live per year.   By requiring it for all cars and trucks, we could lower the cost per vehicle making the cost to the consumer minimal.   

(That actually started as a tongue-in-cheek statement, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense).

[Cookie Monster]

How about the government require drivers license testing to be much more extensive and not so easy to get so we don't have so many idiots getting into crashes, instead of bubble wrapping cars?

[JWC]

How about the government require drivers license testing to be much more extensive and not so easy to get so we don't have so many idiots getting into crashes, instead of bubble wrapping cars?

Taken at face value, that would make sense, but, stricter testing has the potential of discriminating against those with poor reading comprehensive.  Government mandated safety devices do not discriminate.

[Cookie Monster]

Taken at face value, that would make sense, but, stricter testing has the potential of discriminating against those with poor reading comprehensive.  Government mandated safety devices do not discriminate.

So you're saying you'd rather have an easier test for people who can't pass a harder test, and put those people in cars on the roads where everyone else can get affected?

Sorry, but that sounds ridiculous. Better driving requirements would be much more beneficial to all, especially for bicyclists (I have almost been hit way too many times to remember due to people not being able to drive their cars).

[GoCougs]

Point? I've seen several mtb riders who have had serious injury wearing a helmet.  Then there are the guys who have lost eyes when their sunglasses broke in a crash...though the most common injury is a severely slashed face.   Helmets with visors were considered safer than riding without a helmet, but caused hundreds of neck injuries from the visor digging in during a crash.  Then they came up with break-away visors.   You cannot completely eliminate injuries or accidents...all the federal government can do is try to reduce the severity and likelihood of an injury or death.

I guess my point is that bicycle helmets, though far from perfect, have been proven to be a profound factor in reducing head injury.

Dale's helmet had nothing to do with his death, as you probably know.  What you're telling me is that a vehicle car seat should be designed to limit head and upper body movement in a wreck, but airbags, something car 3 didn't have, already help to do that.

Yes, I know - the issue was his noggin was swinging around with that big heavy helmet on it, causing the major whiplash that snapped his neck; meaning, it was an example as to likely have any material affect a helmet requirement inside a car would also require upper body restraint such as that implemented by NASCAR after the Earnhardt death.

I believe that if the federal government required every motor vehicle to have a drop down/over restraint system, similar to that on an amusement ride, we could save thousands of live per year.   By requiring it for all cars and trucks, we could lower the cost per vehicle making the cost to the consumer minimal.  

(That actually started as a tongue-in-cheek statement, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense).

The problem is, the government is absolutely abominable when it comes to technology - the government has no idea how to make a car safer. The only option is to deregulate and let the market decide how much safety it wants to pay for.