Skeptics on seat-belt laws dig their heels in for free choice

San Jose Mercury News ^ | July 16, 2005 | Gary Richards

[Technoman]

… Having a license to drive means signing a contract to follow the rules of the road. Wearing your seat belt is one of them. If you die because you stubbornly don't buckle up, your death will affect family and friends. I doubt if they are OK with that…

[Publius6961]

The arguments for justifying the nanny state just get sillier and sillier...

By the way, cigarettes have been effectively outlawed. Remember the old line about "...the power to tax is the power to destroy"? Well, we are seeing a textbook example. The only reason it has not been officially killed is the income they keep getting from the diehard smokers (or the stupid ones who fail to discover how to "deal" with the taxes).

[TexasTransplant]

>>>"I'm guessing you don't favor the helmet law either"<<<

Nope, we need Organ Donors and we need to keep the Gene Pool naturally weeded.

I don't like any "nanny" law

[lsee]

There are many nanny laws I don't like and with which I disagree, but in the absence of good universal judgement, I think there is a balance to be found between law and choice. Looking at it another way...if I turn out to be one of those reckless drivers and I cause an accident, the personal losses to ME, both financially and emotionally, will be much less if the other driver's life is saved by their seatbelt. I might still get sued, but it won't be for causing a death.

1.5 million grant in the State of California? A drop in the budget bucket, really...much less than is wasted every year to other political causes. For example, the current immigration and environmental laws might actually be much more ridiculous...and expensive.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

It's time to roll time back to the happy days of the 1950s where we can once again experience the thrill of launching ourselves out through the windshield of a Studebaker!

I appreciate the irony here, which has a lot to do with my take on the smoking issue. In that, as in the seatbelt issue, two separate arguments are involved, namely, (1) whether the activity is good for you; and (2) whether the state ought to be involved in the regulation of said activity. It's not only possible, but logical, to take different sides of each question.

[BenLurkin]

Or passnger vans:

[Publius6961]

I drive a 65 Chev PU and they weren't even an option when we bought them and i'm exempt!

You're lucky. I drive a '65 TR-4 and seat belts were standard equipment.

My newest cars have explosives staring me in the face constantly. Now that makes me constantly nervous!

[AntiBurr]

"No doubt the fundamental problem with seat-belts is they are a gol-darned new-fangled gadget that no responsible driver ever needs.

It's time to roll time back to the happy days of the 1950s where we can once again experience the thrill of launching ourselves out through the windshield of a Studebaker! "

My parents owned a 1956 Ford which came equipped with seat belts. Lap belt only, but still was more than prior vehicles. These were available on the '55 for (I think) the first time; they were an extra cost option. Ford dropped the option for a few years because so few were willing to pay the extra dollars for the belts. I bought and installed them on my own '50 two door in '58.
So, I don't think that I have a lot of resistance to using them.

On the other hand, I definitely have a problem with the omnipotent government decreeing what I shall do for my own good. "It's for your own good" is what they told the Tom Cat just before his operation.

[Bigh4u2]

I always found it facinating that you are required to wear a seat belt on an airplane, but not on a bus.

Although I understand 'turbulence' on a plane is a problem,how about 'turbulence'(road hazard) on a bus?

[Paleo Conservative]

Seat belts have saved my father's life twice. First back in the 1966, and more recently two and a half weeks ago. Unfortunately back in 1966 his Olsmobile only had lap belts so he ate some plastic from the steering wheel. He's needed lots of dental work due to molars that were cracked.

His more recent accident which was caused by the other driver running a red light, caused extensive damage to the front end of his SUV. The airbags did not deploy, because he swerved to avoid hitting the passenger compartment of the pickup that had acclerated through the red light. If he had not swerved, he would have hit the pickup straight on and deployed the airbags but would have killed the other driver's mother.

[flixxx]

Nice post. Not a fan of 'nanny laws' but there is a balance that needs to be struck. As a post above noted....I hope those who do not wear seat belts or helmets on motorcycles at least sign their organ donor cards.
If interested, here are some stats from the NHTSA



Abstract



The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated in 1984 that manual 3-point safety belts reduce the fatality risk of front-seat occupants of passenger cars by 45 percent relative to the unrestrained occupant. The agency still relies on that estimate. Shortly after 1985, the prime analysis technique for Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data, double-pair comparison, began producing inflated, unreliable results. This report develops an empirical tool to adjust double-pair comparison analyses of 1986-99 FARS data. It validates the adjustments by comparing the belt use of fatally injured people in certain types of crashes to belt use observed on the road in State and national surveys. These methods reconfirm the agency=s earlier estimates of fatality reduction by manual 3-point belts: 45 percent in passenger cars and 60 percent in light trucks. Furthermore, they open the abundant 1986-99 FARS data to additional analyses, permitting point-estimation of belt effectiveness by crash type, occupant age and gender, belt type, vehicle type, etc:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.ceb14f2494cdd3dd304a4c4446108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a_viewID=detail_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID=da63fd08cccaff00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard

[Utilizer]

Interesting you choose to sidestep the point. Mandatory seatbelt laws are illegal -but I gather you have no problem with that. You do, instead, seem quite pleased with the prospect of forcing others to do what you feel is best for them. Speaking of helmets and the wearing thererof; I notice with no little amusement that whether or not anyone chooses to wear a helmet, I have yet to see any seatbelts installed in any make or model of motorcycles manufactured, past or present. So, motoring about in a cage surrounded by glass and steel is so dangereous that everyone should be forced at gunpoint to wear a seatbelt -but no helmet- to save them from harm, but riding My scoot with only the clothes I freely choose to wear is so much safer that I should be forced at gunpoint for My own protection to wear a brainbucket (helmet) -but no seatbelt. Quite sensible, yes.

Incidentally, I rode a bicycle for over thirty-five years without a helmet of any kind (unlike the feel-good laws of today), and I am still alive. Although I gather from the likes of you that since I did so I am now deceased.

Not Bloody Likely.

[Vaquero]

"Seat belt laws are clearly unconstitutional. The word "liberty" must be expunged from the federal and state constitutions. The fact that the public pays for injuries to the unbelted is a problem with socialism, not liberty...and our government is socialist, more's the pity. " Agreed. though I wear the darn things to protect my own ass, I do believe the law is unconstitutional as are helmet laws for motorcycle riders. We are fast becoming a 'State as Nanny' country.

[CindyDawg]

It's just another pocket. I wear mine but it should be my choice and I shouldn't get ticketed if I forget. Make a law that no one can get pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt and only a free educated warning can be given with other violations.

[Publius6961]

The best safety device ever is a competent, aware and alert defensive driver. Period.

No number of laws aimed at the least common denominator will ever be as effective.

[BenLurkin]

Don't give them any ideas . . . I've seen bio-kinetic reports where the cause of death or injury was the impact of the heads of two occupants striking each other.


On a related note:

"Unbelted riders can turn into deadly bullets"

"Hundreds of Americans are killed and thousands injured each year because unbelted back-seat passengers become human projectiles in frontal collisions, a study by the University of Buffalo and the Center for Transportation Injury Research says.

"An unbelted passenger seated behind the driver turns into a "backseat bullet" that increases death risks for the driver and passenger, Dietrich Jehle, an emergency medicine professor at the university and a researcher for the study says.

"The odds of death were almost three times higher for the unbelted passenger and two times higher for the driver under those circumstances," Jehle said.

"The study concludes that more than 800 lives could be saved annually and 65,000 injuries prevented if 95 percent of rear-seat occupants used belts.


"In analyzing 300,000 fatal crashes from seven years, researchers found that 33 percent of rear-seat occupants older than 16 and 62 percent younger than 16 were belted.


"Crash tests conducted with instrumented dummies at the center’s Buffalo, N.Y., research facility showed that, when a frontal crash propels an unbelted rear passenger into the driver, the forces on the driver’s head and chest increase four times.


"Our hope is to get all people to wear seat belts in the rear seat," Jehle said. "If people start to get a mind-set that the unbelted person behind me is trying to kill me, they would have a different perspective."


"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says 79 percent of front-seat occupants buckle up, but the agency does not measure rear-seat restraint use among all motorists, only in fatal accidents.


"NHTSA data from 2002 show that 63 percent of rear-seat passengers killed in cars were unbelted, versus 47 percent of front-seat occupants, indicating fewer rear-seat occupants use belts.

"NHTSA is pushing states to adopt strong seat-belt laws that cover all occupants, but Washington is the only one that requires everyone be belted regardless of age or where they’re seated."

http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=23117

[flashbunny]

I don't like seatbelt laws, however, I like having my tax dollars and insurance dollars pay for idiots who refuse to wear seatbelts.

Pass a law that says insurance companies can refuse to pay for injuries caused by not wearing a seatbelt, and that the government will not pick up the medical bills of those injured due to not wearing seatbelts, then it solves several problems at once.

[Bigh4u2]

How do you 'strike a balance' on seat belt laws when the largest of the commercial carriers does not require them?

School buses,Commerical transportation buses,Trains,AND commerical trucking.

You can apply a law haphazardly and expect people to be happy about it.

Personal choice is just that.

My NOT wearing a seatbelt has no direct effect on you wearing yours.

[TexasTransplant]

Nice post but show me where it states that you can't wear a seatbelt if the Seatbelt law is chunked?

TT

[BenLurkin]

Actually I haven't weighed in yet with my pro or con opinion of the laws.

You are jumping the gun.

But whether I favor such laws or not, I am curious about your assertion that the laws are 'illegal'. I'd be interested in more detail on that.

[CindyDawg]

If you do that are you going to excempt them from paying for other high risk activities? Biking, boating, working on the house, crossing a street, running, walking...