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…

[Bigh4u2]

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

Should have been a question mark at the end of that sentence.

Sorry!

[redheadtoo]

It does not give you the right to force me to care behind the force of law

As a conservative I dislike nanny state laws. But choosing not to wear a seat belt, as an expression of your freedom of choice, is just plain stupid.

[Plant7Pugsley]

I am perfectly fine with you not wearing a helmet or a seat belt, but I think if you get in an accident an you are not wearing a seat belt, you waive all liability. Ie you cannot sue the other car (even if they are at fault) you cannot sue the automaker, .... if you are not wearing you safety protection whose to say you wouldn't have been hurt. Its your right not to wear one, but you have to bear the complete responsibility of not wearing it.

[flashbunny]

as long as it's in the contract, it's not a problem.

Insruance companies should be able to practice not paying out for dumbass behavior so the other people that think about what they do don't have to pay for the morons.

[TexasTransplant]

Shouldn't need to pass that law, Insurance Companies own enough politicians already, no telling what kinda riders would be attached to a law that would simply return our Rights.

We shouldn't have to negotiate our Freedom.

[Lx]

When our state, California first started with the seatbelt law, they swore the would NEVER stop a vehicle just for a seatbelt violation. They would only issue a ticket if it happened during a normal traffic stop.

Kind of like a temporary tax...

[festus]

>You might die if you don't wear it

Yup and without it I'll die too......

>Yah but it will cost society more

Nope not unless we are making the government pay for my healthcare.

Besides are our lives supposed to be lived so as to serve the state and the greater good or do we still believe in a principle called personal freedom. The freedom to take risks and live with the consequences.

[TexasTransplant]

Great Tag!

[You Dirty Rats]

People that don't wear seat belts are total morons. I think parents should be held criminally liable if they don't fasten the kids in or put them in a secure seat if too young to wear a belt. If morons want to not wear seat belts and imitate a missile when they go through the windshield, that's their fault. Frankly, though, I don't have a problem with mandatory seat belt laws. Seat belts save lives -- only someone at the OJ jury level of refusal to see the evidence would dispute that.

Surely you can find a more egregious and pointless intrusion on personal liberty than this!

[Politicalmom]

"Nice post"?

You think it is acceptable to force others to do something to protect YOURSELF if you are negligent?

[Wonder Warthog]

"There are too many pictures of the dead and horribly injured drivers and passengers who are ejected during an accident. Death and injury will always accompany collisions, but seatbelts do indeed save lives."

Which in no way whatsoever validates the notion of using the coercive force of government to REQUIRE their use. Such use should be VOLUNTARY---likewise with motorcycle and bicycle helmets.

As Pournelle and Niven put it: "Think of it as EVOLUTION IN ACTION."

[Bigh4u2]

"but I think if you get in an accident an you are not wearing a seat belt, you waive all liability. Ie you cannot sue the other car (even if they are at fault) you cannot sue the automaker"

Nope! You are wrong.

Just because you decide not to wear a seatbelt does not excuse the other driver from culpability.
Because your injuries would be a direct RESULT of the accident, not an incidental happening because you don't wear a seatbelt.

[Syntyr]

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

I have actually been on a flight from Cleveland to Dallas that dropped about 500 feet due summer heating and thin air pockets. Talk about a wild ride. I always keep my seatbelt on so I was okay and luckliy was not working on my laptop. Talk about choas. There were drinks all over the place laptops, papers, kids, adults. No one seriously hurt but there were plenty of bumps and bruises.

[L98Fiero]

Tricky one.

I think people should wear seat belts for their own safety but I am against laws requiring people to do so. It's the stuff of a nanny-state, IMO.

[IronJack]

To the people arguing that wearing seat belts saves lives:

Nobody is disagreeing with that. The bone of contention against mandatory belt laws is that the GOVERNMENT is usurping the right to decide how safely we live. That is a decision best left to the individual, not to a (theoretically) well-intentioned behemoth.

[nightdriver]

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

Correctomundo, chief!

Seat belts, helmets, hot balloons that go off in your face may or may not be a good idea, but, they are terrible law!

[Bigh4u2]

And I can understand using seat belts on an airplane for just the reasons you stated.

However. Seat belts are not 'mandated' by the goverment on airplanes, but are 'required' by the company, mainly out of insurance considerations.
Although the FAA may also require the companies adhere to using them.

[dcwusmc]

Make that a law that says the government will not pick up ANY medical bills (outside of service personnel and veterans), PERIOD, and you got MY support.

[Celtman]

Good post.

      But there are two separate questions being discussed already.  I believe your post poses the question,

1. Should the state use its police power to force those is moving vehicles to wear seatbelts?

      And lurking in the penumbra is an emotionally related but logically separate question:

2. Should those is moving vehicles wear seatbelts?

      Question 1 is political.  IMO, conservatives, who believe in individual responsibility, should quickly answer, NO.  Liberals, who believe in ?, will answer, yes. 
      And then there are the fuzzy thinkers, who apparently believe that answering the second question answers the first.

Down with fuzzy thinking!

Up with indiviual responsibility!

Down with the nanny state!

[calex59]

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! Neat scar tissue helps a fellow get the neatest dates.

I don't think the guy is advocating that we do away with seat belts. If you want to wear one please do. If you don't, the law has no business telling you that you MUST wear a seat belt. Require all cars to have them but do not require motorists to wear them.

Tell me, what is the difference in a law requiring you to wear a seat belt and one that says you must take certain vitamins daily to ward off illnesses that may kill you? They are both equally offensive and go against the right to decide for ones self what is proper for you and what is not.

Nanny state laws have no place in the US.