Seatbelt Laws

[Dr. Shane]

[:"blue"] May 24, 2006

by Walter E. Williams

Virginia's secretary of transportation sent out a letter announcing the state's annual "Click It or Ticket" campaign May 22 through June 4. I responded to the secretary of transportation with my own letter that in part reads:

"Mr. Secretary: This is an example of the disgusting abuse of state power. Each of us owns himself, and it follows that we should have the liberty to take risks with our own lives but not that of others. That means it's a legitimate use of state power to mandate that cars have working brakes because if my car has poorly functioning brakes, I risk the lives of others and I have no right to do so. If I don't wear a seatbelt I risk my own life, which is well within my rights. As to your statement 'Lack of safety belt use is a growing public health issue that . . . also costs us all billions of dollars every year,' that's not a problem of liberty. It's a problem of socialism. No human should be coerced by the state to bear the medical expense, or any other expense, for his fellow man. In other words, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is morally offensive."

My letter went on to tell the secretary that I personally wear a seatbelt each time I drive; it's a good idea. However, because something is a good idea doesn't necessarily make a case for state compulsion. The justifications used for "Click It or Ticket" easily provide the template and soften us up for other forms of government control over our lives.

For example, my weekly exercise routine consists of three days' weight training and three days' aerobic training. I think it's a good idea. Like seatbelt use, regular exercise extends lives and reduces health care costs. Here's my question to government officials and others who sanction the "Click It or Ticket" campaign: Should the government mandate daily exercise for the same reasons they cite to support mandatory seatbelt use, namely, that to do so would save lives and save billions of health care dollars?

...Government officials, if given power to control us, soon become zealots. Last year, Maryland state troopers were equipped with night vision goggles, similar to those used by our servicemen in Iraq, to catch night riders not wearing seatbelts. Maryland state troopers boasted that they bagged 44 drivers traveling unbuckled under the cover of darkness.[/]

[Nan]

Seat belts have been compulsory in this country for many years - over 30 for front seat passengers, at least for the rear seat. I cannot recall anyone here getting het up about loss of liberty, and the road toll dropped dramatically with the widespread wearing of the belts.

[cricket]

Shane, if you don't wear your seat belt, you risk not only your life, but the lives of anyone else involved in an accident. If you are driving on the roads, you have an obligation to do all that you can to be responsible. A driver's license is not a right--it is a privilege. As another driver, I expect you to drive responsibly and to wear a seat belt. The life you save may not only be your own, but mine as well.

[Dr. Shane]

I always wear my seatbelt and did before it was the law. I continue to wear it when traveling in countries where it is not the law.

The issue here is personal liberty and "big brother" government. Walter William's point is well founded. The only reason the government cares is because the government is paying so many medical bills. If everyone paid their own medical bills, they could choose for themselves if they wanted to wear their seatbelt or not.

So what about nations with socialized medicine. If the government pays your medical bills does it have a right to tell you what kind of food to eat and how much excercise to get? Afterall, if everyone ate right and got plenty of excersize it would decrease healthcare costs and save the nation money.

[Nan]

The government's money is my money - I would prefer it to be spent wisely, not needlessly. Yes the original article is about 'big brother government' using seatbelts as an example. Do you think it is big brother government when we are allowed to drive our cars on only one side of the road, have to stop at red traffic lights etc? I do not see the wearing of seat belts as any different.

[Dr. Shane]

The difference is that when I do not wear a seatbelt I place my life in danger, only in rare circumstances would my lack of a seatbelt cause death or injury to another. If I drive on the wrong side of the road or fail to stop at a stoplight I place the lives of others in danger.

So, if we favor the good use of tax dollars, should we ban sodas with HFCS? Should we ban fatty cuts of meat? Should people overweight have to pay more taxes since they require more healthcare dollars?

[there buster]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Do you think it is big brother government when we are allowed to drive our cars on only one side of the road, have to stop at red traffic lights etc? I do not see the wearing of seat belts as any different

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Driving on one side of the road, stop lights, etc., have to do with the regulation of traffic-- where cares go and when they go. They also have something to do with the ability to drive-- not impaired by alcohol, etc.

Seatbelts have zero to do with traffic fegulation or safe driving. So they are quite different.

This is but another example of government forcing us to do what someone has determined is good for us.

Once again, why not force us to keep Saturday or Sunday? All it takes is enough people believing it is good for us. That's the ultimate danger in socialism. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Socialism purports to provide for our needs. Well, sooner or later, it will become apparent to social scientists that worship is one of our needs-- or is not-- and decides government should take care of that, too. Anyone who fears the union of church and state should beware socialism and the welfare state. In those systems, the state becomes the god that provides for us.

As far as the government's money being "yours." Does that mean you get to spend it?

Under those rules, I don't need any money at all. Just the prerogative to spend someone else's money. That's the way to go!

[Nan]

I find the whole argument an interesting contrast between Australian and American cultures. We are very vocal here when we see some perceived infringement on our rights. The attempt to introduce a national ID card some years ago was howled out of contention. This one seems commonsense. Especially for children who have no choice in whether they get hurled out of the car with dreadful injuries, if they are unrestrained during a collision.

[Dr. Shane]

Child carseat and seatbelt laws are a different issue than adult seatbelt laws. Smoking, for example, is illegal for children but not for adults.

[cricket]

...because adults have a "right" to act irresponsibly--children do not.

Shane, you mentioned that it is a very rare instance in which not-wearing a seatbelt would harm another individual. I challenge you on that notion.

If you are wearing a seatbelt, you are more likely to be unharmed in an accident. Assuming you are unharmed, you would then be able to help anyone else involved in the accident. "Anyone else" includes your children and your spouse--as well as all others.

Seatbelts do affect traffic regulation and safe driving. The longer it takes for one accident to clear up. the more likely it is that other accidents will happen.

I understand your concern over the "Big Brother" issue, but this is one issue that shouldn't be questioned. Wearing seatbelts should be mandatory. Anyone found not to be wearing a seatbelt while driving should have their license revoked for endangering the lives of others.

[Michelle]

While I think the whole argument is silly, I would disagree with Cricket's assessment that someone wearing a seatbelt would be more able to help someone else in an accident. Both my parents have been in major accidents, one life-threatening, the other very serious and potentially life-threatening. Both of my parents were severaly injured while wearing seatbelts--in fact, my father's injuries were mainly from the seatbelt he had been wearing. Neither were able to get out of the car unaided (my father had to be cut out the rear passenger door). I'm not arguing that they should not have been wearing belts--I will always (well, almost always--I won't wear a lap belt without a shoulder belt) wear a belt--but I think you are overstating your point. Smoking, alcohol, traffic rules--all these affect others. Belts--they affect you, yourself. I would say it's silly to expect the other driver in an accident to come and help you if he/she was wearing a belt and to blame him/her for your injuries because he/she wasn't wearing a belt.

M

[Nan]

Again, I find it fascinating that this is a nonissue this side of the Pacific and such a problem for some in your country. Not that everyone wears belts, but there is no debate whether the wearing thereof should be compulsory.

Now if we were talking gun laws.......

[Beryl]

Ooooops, Nan!!!! I guess the difference is that not wearing a seat belt may result in the death of the non-wearer (their own fault), but guns??????? Well, that's another story! I am glad that we have laws. Not that it fails to stop SOME killings, but I would hate to have no laws! <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/soapbox.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The issue here is personal liberty and "big brother" government. Walter William's point is well founded. The only reason the government cares is because the government is paying so many medical bills. If everyone paid their own medical bills, they could choose for themselves if they wanted to wear their seatbelt or not.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Hmmmmmm......"Big Brother and personal liberty".....To me, this concept of big brother and personal liberty, at least in this area, is just so non-practical, smacks of closed minded mentality, and lends creadence that the goverment is gonna control your every movement....That is just soooo foreign to me...

First off, you don't have a right to drive on the nations highways. It is a privilege that can be given up volentarily or by court order. [The arguement of health does NOT have it's foundations in privilege, but rather of necessity...different arguements]. Society deems which citizens get to drive, not the individuals.

Society has deemed that if there is a collision, for the safety of the individual, that person needs to have a seatbelt. The data is overwhelming, seatbelts save FAR MORE LIVES than without them. Granted, there are injurys caused by seatbelts, even deaths, but given the same accident sans the seatbelt, death would be a given.

A SANE Society tends to protect it's own...An non-sane society would not care. The above arguement regarding personal freedom and big brother is an arguement for a society that does not care and is paranoid and is based upon fear. The seatbelt laws are based upon common sense, and love.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

you don't have a right to drive on the nations highways.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This is another debate in itself. Currently driving is a previledge, not a right, because the law makes it a previldge, not a right. That could change tomorrow with a change in the law. So it is not a previledge due to some act of God.

The issue of driving was not addressed in the Constitution for a couple of reasons. First is that there were no automobiles and second is that many of the roads were privately owned. It really wasn't until President Lincoln that a lot of money started getting poured into public works projects like canals, bridges, railroads and roads.

Should a taxpayer have a right to use what his or her tax dollars pay for or should it be a privelidge for the taxpayer to use what he or she pays for? I am inclined to support it as being a right that can be restricted. The right to bear arms is a right but restrictions are allowed. The right to public education is a right that is restricted. Even the right to vote has restrictions placed on it.

[cricket]

Michelle,

As a mother, do you not think that wearing a seatbelt could help you to save your children if you are in an accident?

I just don't see why you don't think this could help. A saved life (your's) could prevent the loss of another (a child's).

What about the accidents that aren't as serious as the one's you've mentioned?

As for placing blame on another...I wouldn't do that, but I would blame myself for not wearing one if I could have saved another by wearing one.

Chrys

[Dr. Shane]

No one is arguing that seatbelts are not a good idea. The debate is if the government is abusing its power by mandating we use them so the it (the government) can save money on healthcare.

[Nan]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Ooooops, Nan!!!! I guess the difference is that not wearing a seat belt may result in the death of the non-wearer (their own fault), but guns??????? Well, that's another story! I am glad that we have laws. Not that it fails to stop SOME killings, but I would hate to have no laws! <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/soapbox.gif" alt="" />

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

My point in mentioning gun laws was that, in general, the American attitude seems quite different from that prevailing in Australia. I am not advocating one side or the other, but I think the attitude to the private ownership of guns is more conservative, and ownership more regulated, here.

If there was any debate here over the compulsory wearing of seatbelts, it effectively ended at least 20 years ago, now we watch the progress in another country.

Where else is the wearing of seatbelts compulsory? New Zealand, and possibly Singapore, in my experience - is it only those places with a British heritage?

Are such the inhabitants of such countries more restricted in their personal liberties than the Americans? Are they more aware of the hovering of Big Brother?

Sometimes it is worthwhile comparing what we consider normal with the conditions under which others live.

[lazarus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

So what about nations with socialized medicine. If the government pays your medical bills

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/129933-offtopic2.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/soapbox.gif" alt="" />

The government does not just "pay my medical bills" I pay taxes and that is how medicine in paid for. I subsidise the medical care of the poor and needy. Whats up with the general negativity surrounding government run medical care?

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/focus.gif" alt="" />

[cricket]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The debate is if the government is abusing its power by mandating we use them so the it (the government) can save money on healthcare.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

the government = you and I

Mandating the wearing of seatbelts sounds like a good idea to me. That way, instead of using our hard-earned money to pay for people who don't wear seatbelts, the money can be spent on finding cures for disease.

[there buster]

What you're missing is the principle.

If government can force us to do one thing that's good for us, because it's good for us, why can't they force us to do anything that a majority of legislators decide is good for us?

There's a direct path from "wearing seat belts is good for you, so you have to do it," and "worshiping Baal is good for you, so you have to do it."

In fact, the worship of Caesar was put forward on just that basis. It was good for the individual, and good for society as a whole..

As far seat belts and traffic regulation, I believe you'll find no evidence that how quickly accidents are cleaned up has anything at all to do with seat belts.

[whbae]

Ed Dickerson,

I disagree with you regarding the seat belt has any thing to do with accident. Past 2 weeks, there was a SUV rolled over on a hwy six times. The driver survived with a few scratches. There was another car rolled over on a hwy. Both parents who did not wear seat belts were killed, while two kids who wore seat belts survived. You decide if this death has nothing to do with seat belts.

Won

[cricket]

Oh, I'm not missing the principle. I see it.

We have a government to help us. They build roads, schools, hospitals. They provide police protection, judges and juries. They offer assistance in natural disasters, and protection from unnatural forces.

Without a governing body, we would have chaos.

And yet, each and every law that is made takes from us some of our freedom of choice. In a democracy, however, we have choices as to whom will govern and how they will govern.

As a democratic voice, we can choose if wearing seatbelts should be mandatory; likewise, we can choose if worshiping Baal should be mandatory.

I happen to think that the mandation of seatbelt wearing is a good choice. I would vote for it.

I happen to think that worshiping Baal is a bad choice. I would vote against such mandation.

As for supplying evidence to show that accidents are cleaned up more quickly in incidents where seatbelts are worn, you're right, I'd have a difficult time. My EMT friends, however, would easily tell you how much quicker an accident is "cleaned up" when seatbelts are worn.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I happen to think that the mandation of seatbelt wearing is a good choice. I would vote for it.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I am not aware of a state where it was a ballot measure. And the law wasn't even passed because big brother was looking out for us. It was passed to save money. It is all about $$$. It is one thing to sacrifice some liberty for security but it is another to sacrifice liberty so the state can balance its books.

[cricket]

It is a ballot measure every time you vote for a representative. We the People vote on who represents us. As long as we continue voting, we have a voice.