Car Safety Belt Laws

[Danoff]

So what do you think about car safety belt laws?


Here's my take on the situation. Its the government protecting you from your own actions. This is a free society, right? Shouldn't you be allowed to decide whether you want to put on your seat belt when you get in your car? Motorcyclists don't have anything close to a seatbelt, yet riding a motorcycle is still legal.

Why should the government mandate that you cannot take risks like not wearing your safety belt? What other risks will that regulate next? Smoking? Sky Diving? Bungee Jumping? I could come up with more, but you get the point.

Peronsonally, I think that one should not be required to wear seat belts and that automobile manufacturers should not even be required to put them in cars. I do think, though, that if you have children, they should be required to wear seatbelts (better buy a car that has seat belts if not all manufacturers made cars with them).

I personally always wear my seat belt. It would be idiodic not to.

 

[1X83Z]

Well, clearly (in the US) it goes much further than seat belts - dual airbags, for instance. In some states (Penn. & Va are two) you need to pass a rigorous vehicle expection bi-yearly (yearly?) to check for safety features.

Look - seat belts save lives. Why NOT mandate them? Why let a human die when their life can be so easily saved?

 

[Danoff]

We could save many lives by outlawing racing as well. What do you think about that? How about outlawing guns? Or smoking? How about the number of lives that would be saved by outlawing driving altogether?


Restricting personal rights is bad. People should have the right to act wrecklessly if the only person they endanger is themselves.

 

[Danoff]

I should also mention that mandating car safety belts means that tax dollars are spent while police look for the infringement and enforce it. Why should we spend tax dollars saving people from themeselves, when they want to take the risk?

 

[rjensen11]

I think that seatbelts should be enforced, and if somebody doesn't use a seatbelt, the government is exempt from any and all medical expenses related to the incident. It also should be exempt from any funeral expenses or anything along the lines.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by danoff
I should also mention that mandating car safety belts means that tax dollars are spent while police look for the infringement and enforce it. Why should we spend tax dollars saving people from themeselves, when they want to take the risk?

So, what about the expenses of police, paramedics, hospitals and morgues dealing with people unnecessarily injured and killed because they weren't wearing seatbelts? Whose taxes pay for those?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by danoff
We could save many lives by outlawing racing as well. What do you think about that? How about outlawing guns? Or smoking? How about the number of lives that would be saved by outlawing driving altogether?

Racing is entertaining - not wearing a seat belt isn't, really. Guns are self-defencive. Seat belts aren't really used in self-defence. Smoking probably should be outlawed.

 

[sn00pie]

Originally posted by M5Power
Guns are self-defencive. [/B]

Only 7% of the time, though.

Smoking probably should be outlawed.

Way to hurt John Bergin's feelings!

 

[miata13B]

Natural selection folks, if your dumb enough to not wear it and die, so be it. If you wear it and die so be it. It should be more of a form of population control then anything. This sounds sick and sadistical, but come on. . . you wanna be dumb, be dumb!

 

[DGB454]

I agree Miata. It's some peoples God given right to be an idiot.Weed out the stupid. The human races gene pool will be alot better off without their genes intermingling with ours.

 

[rjensen11]

Originally posted by DGB454
I agree Miata. It's some peoples God given right to be an idiot.Weed out the stupid. The human races gene pool will be alot better off without their genes intermingling with ours.

Are you saying we should kill off all of the ugly people too?

 

[Blazing20]

Should it be enforced? Yes. Why? Because if it was not for the safety belt, me, my mom, aunt, and numerous other family members could've died in an automobile accident on different occasions if we did not wear our safety belt. I think it's just stupid for a person not to. That's practically like playing tackle football without pads and a helment.

Now about the racing issue. That is a sport. The racers are under contract and understand that they could potentially loose their lives or be injured for life. Take the late Dale Earnhardt. I was so distraught when he died...but at the same time I realized that this is what he-and many other racers- are paid to do. And Jeremy Nadue...God please help him. He's currently in critical condition (but his vital signs are improving) from a wreck on Friday. It's their choice. They're strapped in. They're wearing protective gear. They're going around steep turns at a 180+ MPH. But they know the risks. Just because they're buckled in doesn't garauntee they won't die....same goes for the road. Safety belts simply better your chances.

That's why I think it should be enforced.

 

[rjensen11]

Originally posted by Blazing20
That's practically like playing tackle football without pads and a helment.

... or like playing tacke football w/out a cup

 

[Danoff]

Should it be enforced? Yes. Why? Because if it was not for the safety belt, me, my mom, aunt, and numerous other family members could've died in an automobile accident on different occasions if we did not wear our safety belt.

You're telling me that you, your aunt, your mom, and numerous other family members would not have worn your seatbelt if there weren't a law enforcing it?

 

[Danoff]

vat_man:

So, what about the expenses of police, paramedics, hospitals and morgues dealing with people unnecessarily injured and killed because they weren't wearing seatbelts? Whose taxes pay for those

You brought up a good argument for enforcing seatbelt laws. This is totally a valid argument and it probably would cost the taxpayers more overall if seatbelt laws weren't enforced. That's because a lot of people just wouldn't wear them if they weren't enforced. What does that say about our society?

That's at least in the short run. I dissagree with the principle of the law, but I think it is actually saving us money (despite what it might have looked like I thought from earlier posts).

In the long run, however, I think that people would see the statistics and more people would actually wear their seatbelts than do now. If it were voluntary, people would be less likely to rebell against the law. There's something in human nature that makes us want what we're told we can't have.

In the long run I think it would save money to not have a safety belt law and there would be more freedom in the country (even if just a little bit). I think that if it were voluntary people would begin to look at seatbelts differently and we'd probably see a lot more different kinds of expensive harnessing devices. As it is now, the seatbelts are regulated and car manufacturer's creativity with safety belts is limited by the federal regulations stating that they have to comply with restraining mechanisms that are decades old.

I'm sure you dissagree with some of that. What part bothers you?

 

[Blazing20]

Originally posted by danoff
You're telling me that you, your aunt, your mom, and numerous other family members would not have worn your seatbelt if there weren't a law enforcing it?

Whoaaa...no no no. We all wear our seat belts by complete choice. Even if it wasn't enforced we'd still wear our seat belts. Sorry for the missunderstanding.

 

[miata13B]

Originally posted by rjensen11
Are you saying we should kill off all of the ugly people too?

I don't know about DGB, but I am not saying that anyone should be killied off, I am stated that those not fit to survive whether they are smart, ugly, dumb, beautiful, hair, clean, dirty, etc. should let nature run its course. If you are too 'cool' to wear a seatbelt or obey laws, and you get hurt or killed, deal with it, it was your own fault because you had to go outside the box. I am not Discriminating against anyone or any type of person here, I am saying that the fit should survive and the weak need to go . . .

 

[rjensen11]

Originally posted by miata13B
I don't know about DGB, but I am not saying that anyone should be killied off, I am stated that those not fit to survive whether they are smart, ugly, dumb, beautiful, hair, clean, dirty, etc. should let nature run its course. If you are too 'cool' to wear a seatbelt or obey laws, and you get hurt or killed, deal with it, it was your own fault because you had to go outside the box. I am not Discriminating against anyone or any type of person here, I am saying that the fit should survive and the weak need to go . . .

Ahh, Darwinism, I can see how that could benefit society... I think that, well I don't know....

I'm surprised that most of our society has made it this far....

 

[Gil]

Originally posted by danoff
I should also mention that mandating car safety belts means that tax dollars are spent while police look for the infringement and enforce it. Why should we spend tax dollars saving people from themeselves, when they want to take the risk?

Actually, the police aren't looking for folks not wearing their seatbelts. It isn't a "stand-alone" violation. You have to be stopped for some other reason and it would be "added-on".
With people wearing safety belts because they "have to" it is cutting down on deaths and injuries that would take more money and man-hours to deal with.
I know that there are people out there that know someone that survived an accident because they WEREN'T wearing a safety-belt. But if you poll your friends that have been in serious accidents you will find a higher survival rate with positive outcomes among the safety belt users.
As for the remark r/t helmet laws: There are two types of people who ride without helmets. The STUPID and the ORGAN DONORS. And the Stupid will eventually end up in the second category.
If you MUST ride without a helmet, please take care of yourself otherwise and fill our your ORGAN DONATION card that comes on the back of your driver's license. That way if you are mortally wounded doing what you love you can give the gift of sight, a cancer cure, or life to some other poor soul.
For the effects of surviving an accident without your safety belt, hit your local rehabilitation hospital. For an up close and eye-opening look, do some volunteer work there. What you see will cause you to wear a safety belt every time you start your vehicle.

I'm a rehab nurse, and most of the folks that come to me after a Motor Vehicle Accident (MVA) with no safety belt worn have Closed head injuries, from impacting the windshield or some other thing, and taking care of them is very similar to taking care of a stroke patient. Some may have little 'physical' injury but mentally, and psychologically they are never quite right again. The "lucky" ones do regain most of their mental faculties and go on to successful careers in fast food and environmental services (janitorial duties).
Most of the folks that end up on my unit after an MVA that were wearing safety belts may have broken an extremity or had their pelvis broken. But they've had their mental faculties intact. On the face of it I'd rather take six weeks to six months to heal my body physically, than to take a lifetime with mental and cognitve deficits.
Danoff,
I know you were playing devil's advocate, but you knew there'd be at least one "ranter" on this topic.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Gil
Actually, the police aren't looking for folks not wearing their seatbelts. It isn't a "stand-alone" violation.

I was pulled over in Georgia when I was on a road trip during graduate school at the University of Florida for not wearing a seat belt in my Cressida. Your statement is true for every state I've ever lived in but I know of at least two states (GA & FL because no seat belt is an easy way to get drug traffickers) that have it as a primary.

 

[SaleenASL]

At the heart of this debate is a fundamental disagreement over the proper level of involvement the government should have in people's daily lives. Some feel the government should take an active role in peoples lives, by making regulations with citizen's safety and best interest in mind. Others believe the government should stay out of people's lives whenever possible, allowing people to have the maximum amount of freedom over their actions. With more freedom comes the added responsibility over your and other's safety.

As far as the specific example of Safety Belts, I support the current regulations. As it stands (in my state, at least) wearing safety belts is required by law, but you cannot be pulled over for not wearing a safety belt. However, if you are pulled over for another traffic violation, you may be cited for not wearing it.

Flat out, safety belts save lives. My seat belt goes on before the key is put in the ignition. I disagree with the coment that more people would wear seatbelts if it weren't required by law, because "There's something in human nature that makes us want what we're told we can't have."

 

[Gil]

Originally posted by M5Power
I was pulled over in Georgia when I was on a road trip during graduate school at the University of Florida for not wearing a seat belt in my Cressida. Your statement is true for every state I've ever lived in but I know of at least two states (GA & FL because no seat belt is an easy way to get drug traffickers) that have it as a primary.

I know in Kansas they get you for no safety belt when they catch you speeding. But I haven't heard of anyone being stopped for belt violation alone.

So they thought you were "trafficking" in your Cressida?
I thought drug dealers drove inconspicuous cars like Vipers, Porshces, and Ferraris.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Gil


So they thought you were "trafficking" in your Cressida?
I thought drug dealers drove inconspicuous cars like Vipers, Porshces, and Ferraris.

I had plates from a county in northern Florida where I lived, so it's understandable. Dealers can't afford Ferraris.

 

[Danoff]

Can anyone on this message board think of someone they know how only WEARS their seatbelt (every time) because of the law?I'm not talking about people you know who don't wear their seatbelt in spite of the law, or those who wear their seatbelt religiously.


Like I said before (and many others on this thread) I wear my seatbelt every time. Without fail. I don't even think about it.

If the law were gone tomorrow how many people do you know who would change their seatbelt habbits?

 

[SaleenASL]

Originally posted by danoff

If the law were gone tomorrow how many people do you know who would change their seatbelt habbits?

I highly doubt someone would change their seatbelt-wearing habbits, if the law was taken off the books. Most people who wear their seatbelt do so because it may save their life. In most states, you can't be pulled over simply for not wearing your seatbelt. The fine for not wearing your seat belt is minimal. In fact, some police officers have been known to cite a speeder only for not wearing their seatbelt, as a way of letting them off the hook of the speeding fine.

Since the consequence for not wearing your seatbelt (in terms of fines and penalties) is so minuscule, people who don't want to wear the seatbelt, don't. I doubt there are very many people who wear a seatbelt for the sole purpose of avoiding trouble with the law.

 

[DGB454]

Originally posted by rjensen11
Are you saying we should kill off all of the ugly people too?

I'm not saying to kill off anyone. Just as Miata said, Let nature run it's course. Stop forcing the stupid to do smart things if they don't want to. I'm not talking about the mentaly challenged. I'm talking about the people who are able to make good decisions but for some reason never seem to.

 

[Der Alta]

I'd say that Vat_man and Gil hit hte mark on why there is a seatbelt law. It's not to save the persons life, but to reduce the cost of the consequences of not wearing a seat belt.

Here in Massachusetts you can get pulled over for not having your seatbelt on.

My father is an example of wearing a seatbelt to avoid trouble with the law. Only when required will he wear it.

Gil has noted the costs of treating people who didn't fully survive an accident. Those costs usually land at the insurance companies feet. This drives up the cost of your insurance.

An Insurance company lobbies to get the law enacted, thereby decreasing their actual costs. But then state "Due to the people that still flaunt the law, we must expect to cover the costs." so they make more money.

Just my thoughts.

AO

 

[Red Eye Racer]

My insurance rate have the potential to go up every time someone is seriously injured because they didnt wear a seat belt,.... I think it should be law, but I dont think a cop should be able to pull you over for it (like they can here in Mich ) If he pulls you over for something legitimate, and your not wearing it, you deserve a fine.

 

[Duke]

I agree on the fiscal aspect of seatbelt/helmet laws. In the best of all possible worlds, seatbelts and helmets would be totally voluntary, with the proviso that being injured in an accident without one would render you ineligible for any kind of publicly-funded Medicaid/Medicare/Disability coverage. It would also be grounds for your insurance company to deny the claim for injury compensation (just like they can deny you for having your briefcase stolen from your unlocked car). That way - you pays your money and you takes your chances.

However, the real world doesn't work that way. A law denying Medicare/Medicaid to anybody would pretty much get stricken as unconstitutional, provided you could even scrape up any politicians willing to touch that political third rail (touch it and die) and get it passed.

In Delaware, seatbelt/helmet laws became a primary offence last year, meaning they can pull you over for no reason. Prior to that, only child safety seats were a primary offence (and one that I called 911 to report on several occasions).

 

[Danoff]

I want to live in Neon's "best of all possible worlds".