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…

[Technoman]

The question I have for Gary Richards, the Roadshow man --beside if there isn't any nanny law he doesn't like--is whether we rather our police bust seatbelt violators all day or focus on real road hazards.

Having a license to drive means signing a contract to follow the rules of the road.

True, we sign a contract with the state to drive a motor vehicle. But who is the state? Bingo! You and me--the tax payers who pay those in law enforcement--who have signed a contract with us to keep our roads safe.

The California Highway Patrol recently received a 1.5 million grant, which was used to promote their Click-it campaign, which included billboard advertising and radio and cable television commercials in English and Spanish. Encouraging drivers to buckle up, they claim many lives were saved.

But I argue: what were the cause of most of those accidents? If the money instead was used to target the unsafe drivers who caused those accidents, more lives would be saved. But the California Highway Patrol insists on enforcing this ridiculous law to keep the flow of federal grant money coming in.

Those of you who believe in personal responsibility without "nannys", would like the Highway Patrols to begin to fulfilling their contract with us, write your legislator today! Demand that these silly seatbelt laws are removed from the books so our law enforcement--that we pay for--can once again move their scares resources to make our roads safe from traffic scofflaws. In California, you can click here.

You can write to Mr. Roadshow, Gary Richards, here.

[muawiyah]

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.

[dcwusmc]

Seat belts can help in an accident, true enough. HOWEVER, the point is that using them is a PERSONAL CHOICE and NOT one that should be made by legislators or enforced by police officers. ESPECIALLY when there are many, many better uses for scarce dollars, like removing red light runners from this world. But I notice that there is virtually NO nanny-state law you don't like. Why is that?

[Fzob]

I have the answer to seat belt law. This will make them completed useless as well as airbags and speed limits.

All cars should have 10 large spikes installed in the baseboard. People will drive very carefully with those staring you in the face.

[BenLurkin]

Old Ben has to review numerous traffic collision reports in the course of his work. I also have to review the photos if any were taken. And driving as I do about three hours each day on L.A. freeways, I've also personally seen a number mild, moderate, and severe traffic collisions.

People underestimate the energies involved in auto accidents. We don't sense how much velocity we have in our vehicles until they spin, roll over or come to a sudden stop.

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.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Let's get rid of collapsible steering columns while we're at it. Bring back harpooning!

[Judge Roy]

If seat belts or so good why arn't they put in school busses.

[southernnorthcarolina]

Some people refuse to wear seatbelts because they are "too confining."

Not as confining as one of these, however:

[gorush]

Seat belt laws are cleary 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.

[Servant of the 9]

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…

They may be family, but they sure aren't your friends.
Friends support you in your choices.

SO9

[agitator]

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm

[Publius6961]

I am not signing up with any stupid newspaper to see the rest of this loser article. I can already see where it is headed; it is not necessary to read more.

… Having a license to drive means signing a contract to follow the rules of the road.
It does not mean following stupid rules of the road. The only lawful rules are those aimed at protecting others from my lapses in judgement.

Wearing your seat belt is one of them.
A stupid rule? definitely.

... 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…
This goes to the heart of the matter. So what?
There are lots of things that family and friends might not approve of: joining the marines; skydiving; spelunking, scuba diving; sky diving, rock climbing; bungee-jumping; becoming an astronaut...
The world is replete with risky choices none of which are the nanny state's business, and all of which most normal families suck up.

Go back in your cave and come up with a more cogent argument. Having a drivers license is quite close to the age where no one else has (or should have)control over your life activities. Just ask the perverts.

One last thought: when seat belts were being "argued", we were reassured repeatedly that they would forever be voluntary. Read the Congressional speeches and news reports of the time, you bleepin' idiot!

[TexasTransplant]

>>>"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"<<<

Make you a deal, you post all the pictures of people that did/didn't wear seatbelts, I will post pictures of Partial Birth Abortions, One is a Choice and the other is against the Law, one has a near 100% fatality rate (Very rare that there is a surviving fetus, but it does happen) and the other is just slightly safer than not wearing seatbelts.

Click-it or Ticket is a Stealth Tax pure and simple, it is and an invasion of your privacy among other things. Bow to the Police State but just remember even if the Law is repealed, unless a law is passed to remove all seatbelts from all vehicles, you can still smugly buckle up any time you want.

TT

[Publius6961]

A specious argument. If all those macabre images cause you to use seat belt religiously, you get a gold star and also will live forever.

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

[BenLurkin]

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

[longtermmemmory]

Not smoking is better for you but we have not outlawed it yet.

If children don't play baseball they will never be hit in the head by an errant baseball.

Don't eat red meat scream the vegitarians.


There is a difference between EDUCATING people to do "good" and forcing via legislation because "YOU" (figurativly) want people to do some percieved good.

Why not make community service hours part of income tax? Make it THE LAW that 100% of all residents must do 20 hours of community service per year.

If cars are so dangerous that we have to be regulated INSIDE our vehicles, how long before the Nany-nazis just demand private vehicles be outlawed.

[sfimom]

Good point.

[longtermmemmory]

helmets are not part of the vehicle, helmets are attire to be worn.

Legally speaking a seperate set of legal dynamics.

IF that is the case, per NHTSA there are more head injuries in automobiles. Along the nanny-nazi reasoning, people in automobiles must wear helmets too.

[dalereed]

I won't wear one and they can't ticket me either!

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

[Hardastarboard]

This is about the insurance companies' profits, like most of the laws that have been passed in the last fifty years. Whether or not seat belts reduce death rates, they definitely reduce injuries, which saves the insurance companies money. And that, my friend, is more important that any delusions you may have about freedom.

On another note, my mechanic refuses to ever wear a seat belt, and law enforcement be damned. He got trapped in a burning car once, and couldn't get out because the seat belt jammed. Kind of hard to argue with him about that.