Seatbelt bill hits bump in the road

[Scarletprayers]

If you think that's insulting ask me what we refer to parents who don't put their children in car seats and I'll PM you that response.

Me too!

[INLJ]

Buckle up! wear a helmet! Always! That`s it! Done! It`s been proven a lot of times...

[buckthesystem]

Well I'll add my 2c worth in here, even though this is "US News", but the fundamental principles of this idea are universal.

We have had a "compulsory wearing of seat belts" law here for some time, it was quite a while ago that it was imposed on people but I don't remember exactly when.

Likewise with "compulsory helmet wearing" on motorbikes. I do remember when that law was imposed though.

I can see the logic in wearing a helmet on a bike because I have seen too many results of too many head injuries to argue about it. However, it is the compulsion thing that I have a big problem with.

It is also the compulsion with regard to wearing seatbelts in cars that I don't like even one bit!

A lot of years ago, when we were teenagers, my friend's brother died when he "failed to take the corner" on a steep road and the car ended up down the bank. We were travelling behind him and scrambled down the bank to see what we could do along with an ambulance driver who just happened to be passing and stopped for us. When we got to the car the brother was halfway out of the car but ......... in the words of the passing ambulance officer ...... "had been strangled by his seatbelt". We figured if he wasn't wearing a seatbelt and had been thrown out of the car he might have lived.

Anyway that is not really the point. I don't like compulsion, and when it involves something that is sold to us as "for your own good" it is nothing but extremely insulting. I really believe, 100% in fact, that "the powers that be" who made the decision to impose such a ridiculous "requirement" don't care even slightly about "saving lives" as they claim, but only care about all the money that they can make in "fining" people for "not complying". Maybe they have shares in a company that makes seatbelts for cars.

I am left wondering when politicians are going to start making noises about making it compulsory to wear a scarf on a windy day (they could go on about how "it is for your own safety" or "think of the money it costs in medical billls and lost days off work if you get pneumonia).

I never wear my seatbelt at all (fortunately I have not been "caught" yet, it seems that it is seen as akin to "fining" someone for not having their radio on) simply because I don't like to be restrained, it makes me feel uncomfortable. And if I am in an accident (big if) only affects me, nobody else. So what business is that of the state?

[Guest The Chief]

"You guys are missing the point. Why have seatbelt and helmet laws at all? For that matter, why have carseat laws? They don't make people better drivers. Aren't laws supposed to protect me from you? These laws are at best insulting to us who know better, and at worst are creating a generation of mindless robots who now don't have to think or take responsibility for themselves. Plus, those dopey bike helmets are now creating the new craze of 'helmet boxing!'"

In working with Emergency Medical Services for fifteen years, I have "attended" literally hundreds of automobile crashes, many of them involving fatalities. Of these, how many of these fatalities do you think I had to cut the seatbelt to remove the deceased from the car?

THREE

That's right, only three, in fifteen years, and these accidents were considered "nonsurvivable" (car torn apart, car head-on into tractor-trailer at high speed). Why? Because North and South Carolina have seatbelt laws in effect, and most people USE their seatbelts (greater than 94% by some reports).

"We figured if he wasn't wearing a seatbelt and had been thrown out of the car he might have lived."

The vast majority of accidents I have attended involving ejections were invariably fatal ones, reason being, the person either (a) strikes a solid object (trees, cars, culverts, the ground itself, etc), or (b) is rolled over by the 2,500+ pound car following him or her.

"I don't like to be restrained, it makes me feel uncomfortable."

Being restrained to a wheelchair as a quadra- or parapelegic for the remainder of your life is no fun, either.

You can choose not to use seatbelts, and figure that the result would be on your own head if you were in an accident, Sorry to disagree, but your "choice" affects society as a whole, in increased life and health insurance, increased hospitalization costs, suffering of the families left behind, and the innocent persons affected by your poor choice. It is the government's job to provide for the safety of the public, and when the perceived "rights" of the individual interfere with the public at-large's "right" to safety and security, then the individual is out of line.

"And if I am in an accident (big if) only affects me, nobody else. So what business is that of the state?

See my comments above.

Perhaps some research into numbers of fatalities versus miles driven both with and without seatbelt laws would be in order?

[Marnie]

Perhaps some research into numbers of fatalities versus miles driven both with and without seatbelt laws would be in order?

I don't have to do that, Chief. Only an idiot would drive without a seatbelt in today's world (nothing personal Buck). My point is why make it a law? Here's some research for you: why did they come up with a seatbelt law in the first place? I know why, because it's my business to know. But, I'll give you a hint: It's the same reason why it is against the law in one state to play a flute and drive your car at the same time. No kidding. Check it out.

[Guest The Chief]

To encourage compliance, Marnie, bottom line. Do you suppose that the 94% usage I mentioned above would be the same if seatbelt use was not mandated by law? I seriously doubt it, as (a) young people are immortal, and (b) older people are set in their ways.

I don't need to research to see the why, I see the end results, both positive and negative. I know the trends since mandatory compliance have been steadily declining fatalities on the highways, even as we have more drivers logging more miles.

In this case, the positive far outweighs the negative. Buckling up is a small price to pay for a longer (and healthier) life, even for those who feel the government is encroaching on their "rights" in this area.

[Marnie]

To encourage compliance, Marnie, bottom line. Do you suppose that the 94% usage I mentioned above would be the same if seatbelt use was not mandated by law? I seriously doubt it, as (a) young people are immortal, and (b) older people are set in their ways.

I don't need to research to see the why, I see the end results, both positive and negative. I know the trends since mandatory compliance have been steadily declining fatalities on the highways, even as we have more drivers logging more miles.

In this case, the positive far outweighs the negative. Buckling up is a small price to pay for a longer (and healthier) life, even for those who feel the government is encroaching on their "rights" in this area.

My bottom line: Who cares? What I mean is this: Is my health and wellbeing my business or somebody else's? Without regard to my relationship to Christ, is my body my own personal property or isn't it? If it is my personal property, then it's my business to care for it. Look, Chief, using your logic, the government should pass laws mandating healthy eating and mandatory exercise! Not to mention laws telling us when to go to bed and when to get up. You say, Marnie, that's crazy talk. And to that I reply, Thomas Jefferson would think that seatbelt laws are an infringement on personal liberty.

Have Americans forgotten what civil liberties are all about??

In a free society, if a person is injured or killed in a traffic accident because he/she freely choose to use or not to use a seat belt, that is a personal tragedy, as it is with all other kinds of freely chosen risks in life. That is freedom working.

We do not allow doctors to send the police over to our homes to check to see if we are following the doctors' health care orders and, if not, to issue a ticket as a punishment, so why do we allow politicians to send the police over to our cars, vans, and trucks to see if we are following the politicians' health care orders, that is, using a seat belt and, if not, to issue a ticket as a punishment?

As it is with all other kinds of individual personal health care recommendations in life, there is nothing wrong with voluntary seat belt use; however, there is a great deal wrong with all state mandatory seat belt harness laws.

[buckthesystem]

"You guys are missing the point. Why have seatbelt and helmet laws at all? For that matter, why have carseat laws? They don't make people better drivers. Aren't laws supposed to protect me from you? These laws are at best insulting to us who know better, and at worst are creating a generation of mindless robots who now don't have to think or take responsibility for themselves. Plus, those dopey bike helmets are now creating the new craze of 'helmet boxing!'"

In working with Emergency Medical Services for fifteen years, I have "attended" literally hundreds of automobile crashes, many of them involving fatalities. Of these, how many of these fatalities do you think I had to cut the seatbelt to remove the deceased from the car?

THREE

That's right, only three, in fifteen years, and these accidents were considered "nonsurvivable" (car torn apart, car head-on into tractor-trailer at high speed). Why? Because North and South Carolina have seatbelt laws in effect, and most people USE their seatbelts (greater than 94% by some reports).

"We figured if he wasn't wearing a seatbelt and had been thrown out of the car he might have lived."

The vast majority of accidents I have attended involving ejections were invariably fatal ones, reason being, the person either (a) strikes a solid object (trees, cars, culverts, the ground itself, etc), or (b) is rolled over by the 2,500+ pound car following him or her.

"I don't like to be restrained, it makes me feel uncomfortable."

Being restrained to a wheelchair as a quadra- or parapelegic for the remainder of your life is no fun, either.

You can choose not to use seatbelts, and figure that the result would be on your own head if you were in an accident, Sorry to disagree, but your "choice" affects society as a whole, in increased life and health insurance, increased hospitalization costs, suffering of the families left behind, and the innocent persons affected by your poor choice. It is the government's job to provide for the safety of the public, and when the perceived "rights" of the individual interfere with the public at-large's "right" to safety and security, then the individual is out of line.

"And if I am in an accident (big if) only affects me, nobody else. So what business is that of the state?

See my comments above.

Perhaps some research into numbers of fatalities versus miles driven both with and without seatbelt laws would be in order?

Quote: "The vast majority of accidents I have attended involving ejections were invariably fatal ones, reason being, the person either (a) strikes a solid object (trees, cars, culverts, the ground itself, etc), or (b) is rolled over by the 2,500+ pound car following him or her.

So how does that give the state a right to FORCE seatbelts on people? Are you saying that the average driver is too stupid to know "what is good for him" and needs "nanny state" to treat him like a little child?

Quote: "Being restrained to a wheelchair as a quadra- or parapelegic for the remainder of your life is no fun, either.

You can choose not to use seatbelts, and figure that the result would be on your own head if you were in an accident, Sorry to disagree, but your "choice" affects society as a whole, in increased life and health insurance, increased hospitalization costs, suffering of the families left behind, and the innocent persons affected by your poor choice. It is the government's job to provide for the safety of the public, and when the perceived "rights" of the individual interfere with the public at-large's "right" to safety and security, then the individual is out of line."

What about my analogy of "a law making it compulsory to wear a scarf on windy days to "protect against pneumonia"? Now "your choice not to wear a scarf affects society as a whole" also - if you get pneumonia that is (as much a consequence of going out in the wind without a scarf as driving without a seatbelt) and this also goes for your other "reasons" to make seat belt wearing compulsory, so that the state benefits either way: The state get their power fix if you wear your seatbelt/scarf, or they get money - fines - if you don't.

You could also be "out of line" if you refused to wear a scarf on windy days. In fact you could be "out of line" as well if you refused to:

1. Wear a hard hat while walking anywhere - because you could get hit by a meteorite or something falling from a high building or something that might fall off an aeroplane, or something (these things have been know to happen).

2. Wear steel capped boots at all times because you could stub your toe on a rock or if you are in the city something could fall on your toes, thereby creating a lot of hospital costs for pain medication if it is bad enough, and grief for your family who may have to take the dog for a walk because you might be unable too.

3. Wear a raincoat at all times and have an open umbrella in case it rains suddenly (the weather is really unpredictable these days) and if you get wet that could lead to pneumonia for you and untold grief for your family and endless hospital costs.

But seriously, do you think that the state has shares in companies who make seat belts?

We must never make the mistake of thinking that the state (any state that is) does anything for alltruistic reasons. There are really ever only two reasons that the state does anything:

Reason 1 - to gain power for themselves.

Reason 2 - to gain money for themselves.

It is as simple as that really.

[Marnie]

this is interesting, too. Consider these points:

The insidious nature of seat belt laws is shown in the April 2001 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which foolishly ruled that it is legal for a police officer to arrest, handcuff and jail a woman for not using a seat belt in the Atwater/Lago Vista case, including impounding her vehicle.

There is a body of law that states a person has the right to refuse any personal health care device, drug treatment, or surgery, even if such refusal might result in an earlier death or an increase in medical expenses. All seat belt laws violate that right, that is, to freely choose to use or not to use a "health care" seat belt. Any medical professional attempting to do the same would be prosecuted, yet politicians claim they can ignore the law while demanding strict compliance from the private sector.

Your vehicle can be stopped anytime, day or night, by the police merely under suspicion a seat belt is not being used. And even if mistaken, once the vehicle is stopped the officer can begin routine interrogation and testing; force occupants to exit; visually check out the contents of the inside of the vehicle looking for any kind of a violation of the law, all without the right of legal counsel; all under the pretense of not using a seat belt.

Primary enforcement is an easy way to enhance state revenue through fines. Also, additional income comes from the federal government in the form of grants (bribes) to pay the police to enforce the seat belt law. Such grants are used by the police as overtime pay while enforcing the seat belt law, which is why the police support primary enforcement laws. Such lucrative overtime pay helps relieve pressure for a police salary increase. And in some areas where job performance standards include a citation quota, seat belt violations offers easy compliance.

Some insurance companies target seat belt law violations as an excuse to increase rates even for drivers without an accident or moving violation record. In fact, even if you habitually use a seat belt but forget just once, that might be the time an officer stops your vehicle, thus your driving record is unjustly marred.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a federal agency, in a 1995 study, "Safety Belt Use Law; An Evaluation of Primary Enforcement and Other Provisions," stated "The analysis suggests that belt use among fatally injured occupants was at least 15 percent higher in states with primary enforcement laws."

Bad law?? You think??

You can Google a ton of stuff like this. Good resources: The Radical Academy; Seat Belt Choice; Seat Belt Legislation

[kat8585]

In a free society, if a person is injured or killed in a traffic accident because he/she freely choose to use or not to use a seat belt, that is a personal tragedy, as it is with all other kinds of freely chosen risks in life. That is freedom working.

I agree, but liberals will never stand for this. We can't let people take any consequences for ther own actions. We have to come in with a government program, funded by us, to save them, to help defray any costs to them.