Should we can seat belt laws?

[The Straight Story]

they are discussing it on local radio station and wanted to get the views of people here on it.

Your body, your life, your choice?
OR
It may cost me money somewhere in healthcare, so your life is now partially mine and your choices should be limited?

Discuss.

[MisterP]

1. I've composed a new noun for this debate:

it's "spatterage"

[wuushew]

2. No, roads are federal and state propery

the right to not wear a seat belt or helmet only applies to privately owned land.

[barb162]

8. helmets were required in my state and then the law got thrown out

you see people without helmets on major roads around here.

[dogday]

70. I don't like my Government trying to save me from myself

I wear seat belts, however I decide without my Government's help if I want to or not and they should not get money from me for not protecting myself. That is ridiculous....

[PurityOfEssence]

74. News flash: there are other people in the world

You are an individual, but if you're going to enjoy the MANY advantages of being part of a super-organism like civilization, you're not an island. If someone hits you, and you're not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt and YOU DIE OR ARE MAIMED, it affects that person greatly. If that person's a decent sort, it will haunt him/her for life. It will also cause undo hubbub with insurance, legal costs, survivorship, keening loved-ones for both parties and untold repercussions. That's a huge price to be paid by everyone else for one person's desire to not conform.

The creed of "individualism" is at the soul of this nation, and much as much of it's good, much of it's assholism plain and simple. The government is the expression of the will of the people, and we DO have the right to tell you what to do. Drawing the line is the tricky thing, but the libertarian approach is infantile and against the very soul of civilization. Somehow we, as a nation, keep salaaming at the great virtue of selfishness and fucking of everyone else. Even Sparta seems enlightened and nurturing in comparison to our current values system.

[dogday]

75. I think I said I wear my seatbelt....

So if a person hits me and I am wearing my seatbelt, but I lose my leg, should the person that hit me feel better cause I had my seatbelt on? What type of logic is that. Accidents are accidents and will happen and hurt regardless if seatbelt is on or off. I still say government should not prosper off the fees but maybe put it in like a accident/victims fund to be used by people who are affected.

[PurityOfEssence]

80. but you didn't think we have the right to make you do it

Seat belts reduce damage to people in vehicles. If you lose your leg rather than your life, it's a hell of a lot better for the other party. It's better for society. It's part of the dues for being in a fairly well-run club.

I'd rather these fees get directed toward a fund like you say, too.

Accidents aren't all the same, and equating them is a dismissal of physics and biology. Using restraints to keep a body from continuing on to spatter against the first hard object is just good sense; since such sense isn't "common", we have laws to protect people from themselves and each other. More than anything, though, it's not just YOUR life. It's the stark and unforgettable image seen by the three year-old in the passing car that should be borne in mind. It's the blood on the pavement that should be brought into question. It's one's own life when it doesn't affect anyone else, but collisions affect lives.

It's about joining the group. It's about manners, ethics and decency.

Yes, you say that you abide by the laws out of choice, but you still claim the right to splatter your remains on the innocent and let them live forever with the memory.

[dogday]

82. It's about manners, ethics and decency

It is about road safety. You sure have read alot into a little post.

[PurityOfEssence]

84. Little things say very big things sometimes

You're not the enemy, and I'm being a bit rough on you; for this I apologize. We all have to realize that there are very few true conversations in this world; most interaction is between people who are shadow-boxing with their pasts. Far too often we vent the frustration against certain forces or individuals when dealing with a different person who merely reminds us of that person. Unresolved issues plague all who have hearts and convictions, and lead us to unwarranted escalation.

Having said all that, though, I seethe with the ongoing experience of the selfishizing of this already rather selfish country. Those of us us came of age in the 70s and had our hopes dashed by the 1980 election tend to see the glorification of selfishness to be not only pervasive but worsening with each day. Libertarianism is a classic example of this, as is Objectivism: they're adolescent simplicities by those who glory in the self. It's a "Catcher in the Rye" world now, and everyone else is a phoney, thus justifying us to do as we damn well please with impunity.

I read a lot.

I read a lot into a lot.

I'm wrong a lot.

This, though, is INCREDIBLY important, because it strikes at the heart of the concept of civilization: the willingness to bend to the desires of others and the need to pick up after oneself. Road kill can't pick up (or mop up) after itself. It's not nice to hold others ransom for our "freedom"; one can't "unsee" something, and the true lie of individualism in a complex society is that whatever we do doesn't affect anyone. It does. It really does.

Seemingly small though they are, these are not small issues. For many people, the worst events in their lives are traffic accidents. As a result, it's to all our best interests to keep the damage contained. To not want to wear a helmet out of cool, manly/womanly style is as shitty, vapid and self-indulgent as not wanting to wear a seatbelt so it won't muss up the crease in one's clothing or cause one to have to deal with doing something that takes virtually no effort. Far too much of this comes down to style, and if individuals want to flout convention in order to draw attention to themselves, they're silly and sociopathic; narcissism is rooted in a dismissal of others.

Little things? No, these are big things.

[dogday]

88. It's Kewl, You made some points with me.....

[j_sunne]

3. No, It drains social security

Think about it, although we don't have national health yet, it makes sense to legistlate where you can to prevent greater costs to society. The same with helmet laws. As far as I'm concerned, if my tax dollars go to uninsured non-seatbelted or helmeted head trauma victims, they can either opt out of societal support to be free of legistlation, or they can protect themselves and if the worst takes place, be taken care of for free if need be.

[newyawker99]

53. Hi j_sunne!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[barb162]

4. let there be choice

they let motorcyclists drive without helmets and they make convertibles which have no head area protection in the case of rollovers, so why do they make people buckle up?

[enlightenment]

5. No. Sorry if I sound like someone's mom (I am, btw), but

seat belts save lives.
I've seen toddlers decapitated when their heads go through the windshield -- 'but she got so whiny when we made her sit in the car seat.'
Teens crushed by their own cars after they flew out in roll-overs -- 'seat belts are lame, dude.'
Young mothers dead from closed head trauma, with their baby screaming in the backseat -- 'it was only one more errand before I picked up Timmy from soccer practice; I was in a hurry.'
Middle-aged men, elderly people. It doesn't matter. In a contest between a human body and a couple of tons of metal, the metal wins. Airbags help, but they can't replace restraints.

And while I'm on the topic -- same goes for motorcycle helmets and proper gear.

I agree with you, as well. Why should someone's family, and ultimately, society, have to pay so that someone can spout my life, my body, my choice. Fine. Just make sure you die and not stick around as a gorp for the next 20 years.

[barb162]

9. you can see what I wrote right about,at the same time I agree with

you. Thing is, I would like to see helmeted or NO cyclists, no convertibles and everyone buckling up. Motorcyclists have a very high death rate if they ever get in an accident.

[Redstone]

59. No convertibles? All the new ones have rollover-protection

systems, reinforced windshield frames, rollbars, etc.

If you're wearing a seatbelt, you're not going to get crushed in a rollover in a newer convertible.

Redstone

[barb162]

77. didn't know that about the newer convertibles

[marions ghost]

54. I agree with the strictest enforcement of these laws

Seatbelts have prevented serious injury or death for me twice. One from a rear-ending by a hungover driver, and the other was when I hit a large stray dog and ended up slamming into a ditch. In both cases I would have hit or gone through the windshield, so I KNOW that seatbelts save lives. I don't have to see the latest statistics.

You know the people who are against these kinds of life-saving laws never think how it connects to the bigger picture. Are we about community protection, or are we about everyone for themselves? When you get in a moving vehicle, it is a community activity. People get this seatbelt/helmet thing all mixed up with truly invasive laws, and often they are not seeing the big picture at all. This is a consequence of our times, where people let their "us vs them" attitudes extend into every nook and cranny. I understand the paranoia about where our government is currently leading us (ie. to hell), but selt belt laws are to our benefit, and an example of where government should be protecting citizens.

[enlightenment]

55. I agree with your assessment on our general tendency

to view any government interference in our lives as bad, without consideration of what is entailed in that interference.
These last five (six? 100? seems like a lifetime) years have made us all understandably paranoid and reactionary -- we just need to slow down a bit and take a deep breath before we leap, lemming-like, to the conclusion that "government = bad."
Where would we be without the 1910 Food Act? Granted, the FDA today is spending way too much time trying to peek up folks' knickers and not enough on the protection end -- but I do feel relatively secure (not completely, mind) that my "all-beef" hot-dog doesn't contain rat parts.
And if one of you knows differently -- please break it to me gently . . .
Bottom line is exactly as you put it. Some laws are to our benefit, collectively, even if they restrict our freedom. Civilization comes with a price tag.


B-)

[punpirate]

6. Well, admittedly...

... insurance companies were big supporters of seatbelt laws, because it saved them money--actuarial data is pretty clear--the death and injury rate goes up inversely to seatbelt use. What that means, if you don't want to wear one, is that my rates (for auto insurance and health insurance and car registration, some of which pays for state police in most states) also go up, because the insurance companies spread that risk around.

To satisfy my sense of justice in this, I would suggest that anyone who wants to see the law overturned and intends not to wear seatbelts (or gets caught not doing so) gets put into a separate high-risk pool, the rates for which are determined only by the people in that pool, and that their increased risk cannot be applied to the rates of more sensible people in the general population. In that case, let `em have at and take their chances.

[blondeatlast]

46. Sensible idea--same for motorcyclists who won't wear helmets.

Their insurance rates would skyrocket, I imagine, which would be enough to change some minds.

Honestly, those who won't do something sensible and easy to protect their lives should not be in the same risk pool as the rest of us--just like paying more for life ins. if you smoke.

If you get ticketed for not wearing a sb/helmet, you are automatically put into that risk pool. Pay for play, so to speak.

[cestpaspossible]

7. No, I'm in favor of seat belt laws, but only if

it is not allowed as the primary reason for getting pulled over. IOW, if you get pulled over for something else, and you are not wearing your seat belt, you get a ticket, but they can't just pull you over for the sole reason that it looks like you don't have your seat belt on. That's how the new seat belt law we just passed in Montana works.

[pnb]

43. That condition is a joke though anyway

because it is so easy to get around. That's the way the law used to be in NY. The cops would just pull you over for "speeding" or something, then tell you that they were going to let you go on the speeding but had to at least give a seatbelt ticket.

[cestpaspossible]

56. Well under the law here they can't do that.

You guys need to be more careful when you write those statutes.

[anonymous44]

10. it should be a choice

like you said

your body, your choice

[LeftyMom]

11. Failing to buckle up endangers others

The Human Collision

Did you know...
In the one-tenth of a second average it takes for a car to stop after colliding with an object, at the moment of impact, unbelted occupants are still travelling at the vehicle's original speed. Just after the vehicle comes to a complete stop, these unbelted occupants will slam into the steering wheel, the windshield, or some other part of the vehicle interior.

Unbelted occupants colliding with each other also cause many serious injuries. In a crash, occupants tend to move toward the point of impact, not away from it. People in the front seat are often struck by unbelted rear-seat passengers who have become high-speed projectiles. And even after the occupant's body comes to a complete stop, the internal organs are still moving forward. These organs hit other organs or the skeletal system often causing serious or fatal injuries.

http://www.ahip.org/links/NHTSA_Site/occupant.html


Each year six out of ten children who die in motor vehicle crashes are not belted. About half of them would be alive today had they been buckled up. Research shows that if a driver is buckled 87% of the time, children are buckled; but if the driver is unbuckled, child restraint use drops to only 24%. This statistic comes from the National Safety Council's Air Bag and Safety Belt Campaign.

http://www.wa.gov/wtsc/seat_belts_faq.html

I'm all for seat belt laws, I think they should be primary (maning you can be pulled over just for lack of seat belt) and better enforced.

[Somawas]

12. Seatbelt use laws are pretty

much nanny state stuff. There are other ways to deal with this.

[wuushew]

13. such as?

n/t

[Somawas]

26. Such as

making the failure to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets a contributory fault that can be used to bar recovery in contributory negligence states, or to reduce recovery substantially in comparative fault states.

[Roland99]

28. What about the increase in medical costs?

Who's going to pay for the extended hospital stay for the person ejected because they were an idiot for not wearing a seat belt?

[Somawas]

87. He will

or his health carrier, if he has one. Don't know of anyone who says that health insurance companies should be let off the hook if their insureds engage in risky activity like smoking, drinking to excess, doing street drugs or failing to wear seat belts.

[Bouncy Ball]

14. I used to think "hey to each his own, you want to splatter your

brains all over the road, your business."

But the seat belt laws caused my parents to start using them, and they made my brother and I use them, so I became an adult who is in the habit of using them.

And twice now, a seat belt has quite literally saved my life. In one of those instances the passenger in the other vehicle was not wearing a seat belt and was killed on impact (I wasn't driving and it wasn't our vehicle's fault). That person was a child. The driver wasn't buckled either and was taken away in an ambulance so covered in blood I couldn't see her face.

The seat belt grabbed me so hard and held me back against so much pressure that it knocked the wind out of me and bruised me from the right side of my neck all the way across my chest in a perfect diagonal line.

But without it, I would have gone flying through a windshield in a 50 mph t-bone collision one hot summer day a couple of years ago.

My daughter was in the car, too, and buckled. I say thank goodness for seat belt laws. It created a habit that saved my life. Twice.

[barb162]

16. does motorcycling "bother" you?

I can't stand even driving near them...I am always afraid they will fall off and get under my wheels. I always find a way to get away from them. They have no seatbelts and often no helmets and they are allowed to drive down the road that way.

[Bouncy Ball]

20. I feel the same way.

In fact, while I was driving south through Denver last June, there was a guy on a motorcycle who got too close to the barrier on the right shoulder and he lost control. He corrected, then lost control again but overcorrected. He went under the wheels of the box truck behind him.

My friend in the passenger seat threw up in a plastic grocery sack and just said "DRIVE, DRIVE, JUST KEEP LOOKING AHEAD AND GET OUT OF HERE."

I did. Fortunately my daughter didn't see it, but I wish I could get it out of my head.

Then recently a guy on a motorcycle was behind me doing a "wheelie" on a Japanese motorcycle. He was GOING DOWN THE interstate that way, on one wheel, no helmet. I was so pissed, I actively worked to get as far away from him as I COULD.

Damn.

[barb162]

60. "I wish I could get it out of my head"

you saw what I always fear I am going to see when a cyclist drives near me.

[BiggJawn]

39. What good would a seatbelt do on a motorcycle?

Really, tell me what GOOD it would do for me to be strapped to a 900-pound hunk of machinery bouncing down the pavement?

You wear seatbelts in a cage, because it has been proven that it's safer for you to be held insode that cage where you are protected.

and if you think it'd be safer for you to be "thrown clear", think of this:
Most people who are ejected from their vehicles in a wreck wind up UNDER that same vehicle or wrapped around a pole.

when I was a motorcyclist, I was always scared of cage drivers, because people don't use their turnsignals or even fucking LOOK before they change lanes, thus putting me at risk of getting under their wheels.

We don't "fall off and get under my wheels", you people RUN OVER us.
And with loud pipes, and the Power of The Sun burning on the front of the bike, you tell the fuzz "But Orificer, I DIN'T SEE the murder-sickle!"

[barb162]

64. a seatbelt on a cycle would do absolutely zero.

What I am talking about is the irony of a seatbelt requirement for people in vehicles surrounded by some amount of metal but a cyclist doesn't have the same requirement. Same thing with the head restraints in a standard car...no head restraints required for cyclists. A cyclist can go down the road with zero physical protection. To me our laws are saying person A in a car on this road has to buckle up and person B on a cycle can go down that road with absolutely no protection of any kind. It makes no sense.

[BiggJawn]

79. What can I say....

While the Cage Jockeys were concerning themselves with such burning issues as "Who Shot JR????", the bikers were buttonholing their lawmakers, lobbying Congress, and either got helmet laws repealed, or defeated proposed laws being lobbied for by the Insurance Industry.

Cage Drivers didn't do a damn thing but entertain themselves until they LOST their right, then all of a sudden it's "Wah! Why do WE hafta wear seat belts, but those greasy bikers don't hafta wear HELMETS????"

Because WE did our homework, and WE FOUGHT for our Freedom, that's why. That's why it "makes no sense", because bikers aren't supposed to be SMART enough to organize and do things like that...

And that included the freedom TO wear a helmet, like I did.

[Warpy]

15. Not quite your body, your life, your choice

People who are too fastidious to wrinkle their clothing with a seat belt have a nasty habit of cracking their heads through the windshield, resulting in injuries like skull fractures or broken necks.

Both those conditions are survivable, but the prognosis is not good. Health insurance (if you have it) is capped, and once that cap is reached, you're going to be maintained in a higher tech long term care facility on OUR nickel.

This is not to mention what such a severe injury does to families. Just look at what it did to the Schiavos and Schindlers after a few years. Do you really want your parents/your spouse/your children to go through that?

I worked in a trauma stepdown unit. If instant death were a guarantee in a non restrained driver auto crash, you might have a selfish point. HOwever, since the result is usually long term, severe disability and a need for a lifetime of skilled nursing, you don't.

[U4ikLefty]

17. Alcohol related deaths are high

so why not make alcohol illegal...oops we tried that!!!

What about smoking??? It causes billions of dollars in health care costs every year.

Fast food anyone???

[barb162]

18. Actually I could go for a Big Mac and a large fry right now

[U4ikLefty]

19. Wanna supersize it???

;)

[The Straight Story]

21. Might as well

You only live once, and then you die. Have some fun while you're here with a supersize, cause when you're dead you won't be eating anything :)

[NuttyFluffers]

24. i don't care if you kill yourself...

but i care if you kill or maime others. 100~200 lbs. of flesh flying at a high velocity is dangerous, and with seatbelts, wholly preventable. that's criminal negligence. and considering shared roads are public lands you have to obey the laws of the land, the agred upon laws of the state. so no, you do not have a right to be criminally negligent in publicly shared areas.

same reason that applies alcohol and driving, you are criminally negligent. you can drink yourself to death at home, you cannot drink yourself into stupor and operate heavy machinery in public places without civic wrath coming down.

the argument is null even before it began.

[Straight Shooter]

22. I am for seat belt restraints being enforced by law.

Bouncy Ball's posts really got to me. I don't ever want to be in a wreck and see somebody's dead body through their windshield or splattered on a pavement because they didn't wear their seat belt.

Has anyone seen the movie "Crash"? It features a collison wherein the occupant of one vehicle had such a forceful expulsion that he actually went through the windshield of the other car in the head-on collision. I turned to a friend and said, "That can't happen!"

He just looked at me and said, "Oh, yeah. Believe it. It can happen."

Gawd in heaven, I can't even begin to imagine being in a head-on and having the driver of the other car coming through my windshield.

Now, I admit that's an extreme example. But AFAIC, all crash fatalities are extreme. Why tempt fate? Life on the road is dangerous enough as it is.

About motorcycles, though: most motorcyclist fatalities are caused not by the cyclist, but by passenger vehicles who either don't see them or don't respect their right to be on the road.

edit to change a word

[seabeyond]

23. i am for indiivdual choice

and i oppose this law.

[VTMechEngr]

66. I'd agree only if the family had to pay all medical and autopsy costs!

[Jose Diablo]

25. Oh no.

"Should we can seat belt laws"

It saves money for the insurance companies. The police MUST enforce the laws, like needing insurance to drive and wearing a seat belt. The insurance companies have learned that if the discussion can be framed as saving lives, well they can get the people to go along with anything.

The insurance companies will not allow people to drive without insurance and they must wear seat belts. It's the law you know. And the police will enforce the insurance companies mandates. Thats why we have police you know, to protect the interests of the corporations. When the police claim they are there to "protect and serve", did you think they mean you are the one they are there to protect and serve?
:rofl:

[Hugin]

27. I remember hearing a State Trooper who said...

"I've never unbuckled a dead person."

That's enough for me.

[LizW]

29. First, I'll need to understand

why some people don't want to wear seatbelts.

What is the reasoning?

[Dervill Crow]

31. Stubbornness, maybe?

Before Oregon's seatbelt law went into effect, my dad thought it was an insult to his driving if anyone in his car buckled up. He was a good driver, but I remember one time shortly after I learned to read when he made a left turn where there was a "no left turn" sign posted. When I told him that was wrong, he said, "No, that's just for people who don't know how to drive." He really thought he was smarter than anyone else and just plain hated to be told what to do.

[LizW]

61. LOL!

That's funny!

My husband is like that. He gets totally bent if I mention ANYTHING about his driving.

Of course, so do I. Fifteen years ago, I pulled over on the side of the Interstate and yelled, "Okay! YOU drive, then!" And I got out and got back in on the passenger side and I've NEVER driven again when he was in the car.

:blush:

[Mizmoon]

33. Someone once told me that if their car went into the water

they wouldn't be able to get out if they were seatbelted in. :eyes:


I knew a girl in high school who wasn't wearing her seatbelt and got into a minor accident. Her teeth hit the steering wheel and she lost them. I shudder to even think of it!

[smbolisnch]

36. My good friend refuses to wear hers.

She and her fiance were in a terrible accident and he was wearing his...she was not, he drowned in the vehicle and she survived.

[LizW]

63. Yikes.

I guess I'd give a person who has been through something like that a "psych exemption" from the law. But statistically, that sort of thing is rare. Way more often, it's the unbelted person who dies.

[VTMechEngr]

68. In most cases, you are less likely to drown with belt on.

The accident knocks many unbelted passengers unconscious, or injures them so much they cannot swim out.

[Hugin]

38. I don't think the opposition's dislike is the seatbelts themselves....

It has to do with "Autonomy Issues".

The argument is that seatbelt laws are an excuse
to pull people over with a questionable cause.

Similar to a "burned out license illumination light."

I can see this argument... and I don't think not wearing
a seatbelt should be enough reason for a pull over.

But, seatbelts should be required.

Yes, I have an inner conflict.

[VTMechEngr]

71. I've been pulled for the burned license plate bulb. And it wasn't out.

Dirty tricks would be there anyway.

[Endangered Specie]

47. Ill list the reasons Ive heard (and my responses when I hear them):

- lame (teenagers) (your brains all over the road is even less cool)
- wrinkles your clothing. (beats blood stained clothes)
- uncomfortable/doesnt fit. (get it adjusted to fit you properly, poor fitting seatbelts dont work as well)
- time consuming (dying is the most time consuming act of all)

the last reason has to do with people (correctly) hearing of incidents where people who dont wear a seatbelt and survive, and had they been wearing one they would have died (or because they did wear one they died).

These may be true, but looking at the bigger picture, these are 1 in a 1000000 flukes.

[VTMechEngr]

72. The last one is rare. My father survived one of those.

He rolled a corvair (ironic, yeah I know) down the side of a large hill after he snagged part of a guard rail coming off the Philly turnpike. He was only going 25, but once he lost the road, he flipped twice sideways, then twice end over end. In most cases, an individual is thrown from the vehicle and crushed but my father managed to lay across the bench seat and avoided the roof crushing onto him.

That didn't stop my father from teaching me to always wear a seatbelt and in his later years, he drove a Volvo 240. And he always wore his seat belt.

[VTMechEngr]

73. But glass and dashboards taste so Good!

[beevul]

76. Its not a matter of want...

Being in a rollover accident at 22 years old that would have killed me if I HAD ben wearing my seatbelt...will cement an opinion pretty well.

Well, and opposing them on general principal.

Its NOONES business whether someone wears their seatbelts or not.
Personal, private, and the automobile is an extension of the home, IMO.

I have worn a seatbelt not more than a few times in almost 15 years, and even then only to satisfy someone else who is driving. When someone is that adamant about it, I just opt to stay put, or drive myself - unless I have NO choice (a position I admit I don't allow myself to get into much).


On top of all that, I have no tolerance for mandates, especially the kind that make insurance companies rich, make for effective fundraisers and convenient means of "snooping" for the gov, and pass little to none of the "savings" on to the consumer.

Seatbelts. Should they be worn? Maybe.

Should the state have any business mandating them, or helmets for that matter?

NO WAY.

[sweetheart]

30. Why should we preserve "choice"?

What makes us human beings, is that we have free will. This free will
can manifest in many forms. Sometimes it is free will to wear a
seat belt. Sometimes, it might not be. I respect everyone's right
to have free choice in their lives. If you want to smoke, drink, eat
crap, and all sorts of "choices", i respect your right to choose, even
your choice of treatments with your doctor and your choice to abort a
fetus.

It seems y'all's democratic party is a repressive heard party, that
chooses for us, and it is wrong. It violates our free will, no matter
how well intentioned, and is no different than censoring speech; not
the speech of fire in a crowded theatre, but the speech of dissent.

I would hope that more poeple come to champion the sovereignty of the
human spirit, human choice enshrined in absolute free will to choose our
own destiny in life. By empowering free will, we empower intelligent
citizenship that can make its own choices, and will very likely choose
freely to wear a seatbelt. However in letting the citizen choose for
themselves we preserve something far more sacred than individual life,
our freedom.

[Redstone]

62. Oh, that's just ridiculous. Not wearing a seatbelt is not a "precious

freedom," any more not wearing glasses when you drive (if you need them) is.

It's not a "precious freedom" to be able to drive around with bald tires or inoperative brakes, either.

Come on.

Redstone

[sweetheart]

85. Thats false, and you know it

Glasses do indeed affect your driving, whereas a seatbelt does not.

There are times, when i don't wear one, and i don't feel the least
bit guilty about it. The laws have gone to far and are criminalizing
people for making choices.... stupid.

and what is ridiculous is how you demean liberty and choice.. that
is the serious danger here.

[Vinca]

32. No. Heads going through windshields raise the cost of health care.

Few can pay for long term care when that same windshield causes them to drool on themselves for 50 years and I'm in no position to foot the bill.

[smbolisnch]

34. Two scenarios:

Two car accidents. My sister was not wearing a seatbelt, she did not survive. My friend was wearing his seat belt, he didn't survive either.
I never get in the car without mine, personally. I don't know, I think your odds are better with the laws in place, I suppose. :shrug:

[Danmel]

35. Not only do I think you should have to wear a seatbelt

But if you have a minor in the car and they are injured in an accident in which they were unrestrained, I think you should have to pay an additional fine. It is child endangerment.

My stupid sister-in-law didn't restrain her four year old and they were in an accident and his got thrown into the door and suffered a pretty good concussion. He needed a CAT scan, was hospitalized overnight. Her very small 7 year old was not in a booster seat either. She told me " oh he doesn't like it, it makes him feel too little" well you idiot, he is little. I had my son in a booster seat till he reached the recommended height and weight- he was 8 when he got out of it. And you know what? I don't care if he doesn't like it. It is the safest thing to do.

As an aside, I started wearing my seatbelt all the time more than twenty years ago when someone I went to college with was killed when he was ejected from his car and was run over by it. He was only 22.
That was enough for me then and it still is now.

[AP]

37. It is a neglible impingement on liberty with huge positive ramifications.

People who fight it have incredibly misguided priorities.

[Telly Savalas]

40. Wow. Two short sentences say it all.

[ianrs]

45. thank you

perfectly put.

In the UK we've had to wear them for years, and guess what? The sky hasn't fallen in. What a weird discussion...

[Endangered Specie]

41. No...

I bet once you make it legal to not have seatbelts...car companies might stop including them. (I also happen to think airbags should be required) Not to mention that people not wearing seatbelts will eventually cause even higher car insurance costs.

Very rarely in life are people offered the opprotunity to potentially save their life in exchange for about 6 seconds of their time.

As far as the "my body my choice" argument... when you do not wear a seatbelt you affect OTHER people's lives too, especially your passangers, if you dont make them buckle up.

[morgan2]

42. seat belt laws are a good thing in their effect

but untirely the antithesis of a free society. Yes its a small thing, and personally I don't care either way, the idea of a the law is wrong. If people care about the healthcare costs, make it so social security or whatever wont pay healthcare costs for accidents where one wasnt wearing a seatbelt. There are other ways of doing things, which make a person resonsible for himself.

on edit.
Should we make a law requiring people to brush their teeth? Everyone should brush their teeth.. People who don't have higher dental costs and raise your dental premium. Its a ridiculous idea to legally force people to be safe with themselves. I could possibly see doing it for people under 18 or something, because it is acceptable to legislate safety with children, but adults have the right to make their own choices.

[Endangered Specie]

49. There is a difference...

your teeth are yours (privately owned), the roads are not (publicly owned). I imagine that people who have very poor hygene get charged more for medical insurance, and if you get a ticket for no seatbelt the auto insurance company will charge you more

something more important than money... also consider that people who dont wear seatbelts can and do kill OTHER people either indirectly (a driver not wearing one results in passengers being less likely to wear one, especially children), or directly (someone flying out a window at 50mph can impact someone else and kill them, or a backseat passengar can slam into and kill someone in the front seat, along with themselves).

[noonwitch]

44. No, I hated the laws at first, but recognize that they are for my own good

I grew up never wearing seat belts. My dad cut them out of our cars, he thought they were dangerous. It took me a while to get used to wearing them when the law first took effect, but I do now.

I'd be curious as to statistics about accident fatalities, and whether seat belt use really makes a dent in them.

I'm also very sick of motorcyclists who think that helmet laws infringe upon their civil rights. The Patriot Act infringes on your civil rights, idiot, not the government requiring you to at least try to prevent head injuries.

[Endangered Specie]

50. heres some interesting reading

http://www.actsinc.org/ note the seatbelt clock
and
http://www.actsinc.org/safetybelts.cfm


http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/seatbelt.asp#acts snopes debunking and stats at the end

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt

edit to add: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/seatbelt.htm

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

48. Okay...

1) Driving is a privelege, not a right.
2) When you are exercising that privelege on roads funded by the public, you should be held accountable to the standards that have been laid out by the public through their government.
3) Not wearing a seatbelt makes you a menace to yourself and others on the road as there are situations (like very quick stops from speed) where lack of a seatbelt may cause you to lose control of your car, become a projectile, and generally make a nuisance of yourself and your dead or dying corpse.

For anyone who doesn't like wearing seatbelts, I have the following advice:

Please don't drive. :)

[The Straight Story]

52. do motorcycles have seat belts?

Don't own one myself but don't recall seeing a motorcycle with one. People could really go flying off them...

[MadHound]

51. Yes, quite frankly we should get rid of both laws

And yes, I wear my belt regularly, and when I rode a motorcycle, I wore a helmet.

Sorry, but the increase in medical costs for all arguement doesn't fly with me. First off, living increases medical costs. Almost everybody engages in some activity that raises medical costs. Smoking, drinking, overeating, riding a bike, doing drugs, bungee jumping, rock climbing, skiing, skateboarding, etc. etc., the list is nearly endless. Are we also going to ban all of these activities also?

Secondly, I have a huge problem with enacting laws like this whose aim is mainly at preserving corporate profits. If the corporation wants to offer discounts on insurance, or some other monetary risk/reward system for people who buckle up, great, go for it. But enacting laws to force people into protecting corporate America's bottom line is wrong, plain and simple. It isn't like these corporations aren't making money hand over fist, they are. It isn't like they don't have enough control over our lives anyway, they do. If anything, we need to enact laws that gets corporate America out of the lives of Americans.

Third, and this may sound cold and cruel, but gee, I look at people who don't take safety precautions as evolution in action. There's a car wreck, one party is wearing belts, they live. The other party isn't wearing belts, they die. The gene pool just got a little smarter. Cold, cruel, sure, I don't deny it. But quite frankly it is reality.

Today it is mandatory wearing of belts and helmets in order to protect corporate profits, tommorrow riding a bike is outlawed for the same reason, or outlawing skiing. When do you say enough is enough? The best way to prevent such abuse of laws is before we go down the slippery slope.

[shanti]

57. NO!!!

as a person who was involved in a head on collision back in 1974 (before mandatory laws) as a new, young driver, i say no. if i'd had my seatbelt on, i wouldn't have hit the windshield.

and, although it's faded considerably, i've never see anyone with a scar like mine since. this law has saved many lives.

[Redstone]

58. There is (or was) a law in some European country, that said:

Go ahead, don't wear a seatbelt if you don't want to. We're not going to tell you what to do. But if you're injusred in an accident, and you weren't wearing a seat belt, you're on your own to pay for medical treatment because the government's (universal) healthcare system won't pay for it.

I think that's eminently fair. You want to be stupid? Pay for it.

NOBODY rides in my car without wearing a seatbelt. Period.

Redstone

Edited for a type the spellchecker doesn't catch.

[Baclava]

67. Nobody rides with me without a seatbelt on either...

I teach a Pre-Hospital Trauma Life Support class...and have been an EMT in an ambulance service for 15 years. One of the first things you look at in an MVA is - "Was the victim was wearing a seatbelt?"...

Fools! Shades of the dark ages! Why is this even an issue?

I guess every generation has to learn the truth the hard way...
that's why 40,000 people continue to die every year...

[VTMechEngr]

65. No. Its a selfish choice that costs taxpayers.

Crime scene photos
Medical Emergency care or/
Morgue and autopsy.

[Abelman]

69. Keep 'em

All the arguments for it have already been posted. The only argument against that could possibly hold any water was "freedom of choice," which has been pretty well argued against, I think, since your choice affects more people than just you.

[x-g.o.p.er]

78. Get rid of them

Institute no speed limit on interstates (except for 18 wheelers), and raise the driving age to 18.

Germany has no speed limits on their autobahn and it is one of the safest highway sytems in the world.

[amazona]

81. it isn't going to happen

Seat belt laws are about revenue raising and with states in the deep-doo-doo of the Chimperor economy they are not going to give up this source of cash.

For a time our local small newspaper used to tell whether or not the traffic fatalities were wearing seatbelts. They stopped and I strongly suspect it's because too many people were wearing seatbelts when they died. The old Ann Landers chestnut that a state trooper never cut a dead man out of a seatbelt was quickly proved to be a lie, at least in our relatively well-to-do area where everyone wears seatbelts and dies anyway. If it really helps, great, but I don't expect too much of seatbelts. They are a product designed to make money like all others.

Edit--I don't get the "it hurts your family financially if you don't wear a seat belt" argument. That is plain silly. If you are more likely to survive with severe handicaps because you were wearing a seatbelt, instead of being killed instantly, then clearly your family would have been better off financially if you had not been wearing the seatbelt. And some of us would not want to survive with severe handicaps affecting mobility. So it is not so clear-cut that "seat belts are good because you will live" -- 1) I'm satisfied that plenty still die wearing seat belts if my small town is any indication, and 2) you wouldn't want to survive certain situations if your goal is to avoid being a nuisance to friends, family, and society.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[geniph]

83. It was the insurance companies that pushed for 'em in the first place

Good luck getting rid of anything the insurance lobby really wants. It always strikes me as ironic that the pro-corporate libertarian types are always the ones railing against the imposition of "nanny state" laws like this, when in fact, it's the corporations pushing so hard for these laws in the first place.

I'm all for people not wearing their seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, and bike helmets - IF we don't have to then treat their subsequent injuries in an emergency room without proof of private funds to pay for the treatment. Get in a wreck and bust your head open - too bad. You're the one who chose not to protect it as best as you could. You must not value it very much.

[jayfish]

86. I'm All For Seat-Belt laws.

What I am not for is allowing LEOs to pull-over driver for violating them. It's just an excuse to go on a fishing expedition.

Jay