While I agree that seat belts save lives in certain instances, it is a violation of our Constitutional Rights to have to wear one. Look it up, I didn't believe it either but I have a friend who got out of a ticket because he provided proof that it is a violation of our rights. A lot of things they are doing now are a violation of our Constitutional Rights. The government will keep getting away with it, because we do nothing about it.
We don't need laws that protect us from ourselves, period. I still use the motorcycle/car comparison. If I can ride a motorcycle, I should be able to drive a car without a seat belt.
I'd still wear a helmet and I'd still wear a seat belt even if they weren't required but it would be my CHOICE. A choice I wouldn't need to be penalized for by law if I chose not to.
Hey Peter -- does that include children and infants who's parents are too stupid to buckle them in? Should we let them die, too?
Thing is, most unbuckled people don't die -- they just get seriously injured and everyone ends up paying for their health care. States that have seat belt laws enacted have seen lower auto insurance premiums as a result.
Hmmm, we better get rid of every bar on the corner and every liquor store, too. You could possibly drink yourself to death. While we're at it, lets get rid of swimming pools. For a child, they're far more dangerous than the shotgun leaning in the corner. Lets put a GPS speed monitoring device in every vehicle that just automatically sends you a ticket when you go over the speed limit. Lets outlaw bicycles and motorcycles. You could die riding them. Lets outlaw sledding in the winter. Lets outlaw sun exposure. Lets outlaw push lawnmowers. Lets outlaw horseback riding and the demolition derby. Lets outlaw gym class, gymnastics and sports. You could die doing those! Lets make walking around with your shoes untied a ticketable offense. Lets outlaw extension ladders. My favorite, lets outlaw people of WalMart. http://www.peopleofwalmart.com
Get a clue, seat belt laws are just an easy money grab, nothing less.
I see it as well-intentioned people going to too far. There's an element of people who think the state should protect us from ourselves.
Libertarians call it the "nanny state."
Doug, I think your list of other things that could be outlawed to protect us from ourselves shows the hypocrisy of picking on certain pet issues to regulate.
It's hard for me to fathom how passively people just accept government interference in private lives.
Posted by Dennis Jay on November 24, 2009 - 12:21pm
>> "We don't need laws to keep the stupid alive."
Hey Peter -- does that include children and infants who's parents are too stupid to buckle them in? Should we let them die, too?
Thing is, most unbuckled people don't die -- they just get seriously injured and everyone ends up paying for their health care. States that have seat belt laws enacted have seen lower auto insurance premiums as a result.
------------------------
Children and infants don't have the "same" rights as adults do. If you think they do, you better check again. Once you're an adult, this thing called responsibility kicks in.
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. Of course it's insane to not wear a seat belt or a helmet but it should be your choice. It's insane to skydive but I loved it. You shouldn't be able to be fined $100 for not wearing them.
Amen, Howard, Amen. I still see the money grab, though. It's one of the reasons for the stepped up enforcement as of late. The state needs the revenue.
When people who choose not to wear seatbelts drive up the insurance premiums for everyone else in a state the conversation about individual liberties comes to an end.
Choosing to ride a snowmobile or a horse (as has been mentioned here) does not affect other people in the slightest.
I'm not saying that seatbelt tickets aren't a revenue stream for the state, but it isn't simply a money grab.
Chris is right. I could care less if you choose to risk death in a fender-bender but, I have a problem if your “freedom” causes my insurance rates to go up.
I dont thin there should be a law, except children. some parents are not the best of parents and children are still to young to know. Also i think if more people saw car accidents where people were not wearing their belts, i think more people would.
It isn't the governments job to enforce wearing seat belts or to keep insurance rates down. This is so elementary it shouldn't even be a topic of discussion.
People who own and ride snowmobiles also have insurance. And sometimes they get in accidents and are uninsured and so their health care costs become a burden to everybody. Let's ban snowmobiling!
We have very strict laws against drinking and driving and people still drink and drive, getting in accidents -- driving up our insurance costs! Clearly, we should just prohibit alcohol consumption!
Cigarettes are a terrible burden on society, driving up health care costs for all of us. Let's ban cigarettes!
Heck, getting old costs us a lot of money! Let's ban getting old! Bring on the "death panels!"
Is it really the government's place to regulate me so that your insurance can be lower?
And it's not like not wearing a seat belt actually CAUSES accidents the way, say, speeding does.
I always wear a seat belt, not that that's anybody's business but my own.
There are laws in place governing the use of snowmobiles. These laws provide for the safety of the users and act as a deterrent to misuse.
There are very strict laws in place governing the use of alcohol and operating a motor vehicle. The steep penalties for DUI/DWI act as a deterrent to people who would drink and drive and put other citizens in danger were there no laws in place. Once again, the safety of citizens is being protected.
Cigarettes in NYS have been subject to steep taxes to offset the increased healthcare costs for smokers in an attempt to relieve the burden on non-smokers.
We have arrived at the most base argument for and against certain taxation methods and laws. You see, everything costs money. If the government stays out of your life with regard to certain issues like DWI, seatbelts and cigarettes, then you will have to make up the costs elsewhere. In this case the cost would be higher insurance premiums. Since everyone in this thread seems to agree that you should wear your seatbelt and everyone here is also benefitting from lower insurance costs due to seatbelt laws, then we should logically conclude that our personal freedoms have not truly been infringed upon and that we are, in fact, better off fiscally and safety wise because the government took a simple and easy approach to providing for the basic safety of citizens.
Even the strictest libertarian (lower-case just for you Howard) understands that the basic tenets of their philosophy regarding personal freedoms are constrained when those freedoms begin to affect the personal freedoms of their neighbor.
Howard, nobody has a right to a driver’s license. There are many rules involved with obtaining the privilege to drive. You can’t drink, you have to be a certain age, and your eye sight has to be acceptable. You can’t talk on the phone or text, you have to have insurance and you have to wear a seat belt.
I’m sure there is a bunch of other “rules” as well. This is the price for living in a society with rules and requesting the ability to share the road with other people. If you don’t like the rules, take the bus, I don't want you on the road with me. Life behind the wheel isn’t like a Mad Max movie.
Charlie, my wearing a seat belt or not has nothing to do with you.
I got an idea -- there were like 200,000 slips and falls resulting in injuries in the shower last year. Let's have the cops be able to go into people's homes to make sure they're using a bath mat!
The economic argument for seat belts just doesn't wash -- I don't want intrusive government. Period. Charlie, you're the one who harps all the time "get the government off my back," but it seems anytime there is a discussion about actually getting it off our back, you take the pro-big-government position.
Howard, you're guilty of a logical fallacy here. You drive your car on public roads and are therefore subject to the laws that govern safe operation of a motor vehicle. What you slip and fall on in your own house is your problem.
OK. Let's get rid of seat belt laws because they interfere with personal freedom.
Also, let's chuck building codes, speed limits, drug laws and all restrictions on abortion -- because they all interfere with someone's personal freedom.
I actually have never harped about getting government off my back. I only complain about services, I don’t want to pay for. I like society and contribute to it but, that doesn't mean I should pay for other people’s stupidity with high insurance rates.
Driving is NOT a right, it is a privilege. When it comes to driving our insurance rates and mutual safety are tied together. If you chose to not follow the rules of driving and get into an accident and that causes my insurance to go up, just how are you exercising your liberty? I don’t want anyone doing something stupid and risky at my expense. If you want to exercise your liberty behind the wheel of a vehicle don’t do it on a public road and make sure you have a big check book because, I don’t want to contribute by rising health insurance rates either.
What we all need to understand here is that your 'personal freedoms' end as soon as they adversely affect the safety and security of other citizens. At that point you are subject to the rules and laws governing your poor choice of behavior.
I actually am baffled by where you think I ever came off as someone who thinks government has no place. Was it my affection for the public health option or my loyal support of Obama that convinced you of that stand?
Government provides services; those services should be provided at fair market rates. That statement has absolutely nothing to do with my desire to see government safeguard society. Government has an obligation to act for the mutual good. That includes rules and regulations on a host of things ranging from public safety, building codes to banking regulations. I’m far from a libertarian.
chris how does the fact if i wear a seat belt determine the quality of my driving. in no way, shape or form does a seat belt make me a better driver. there are many variables that will cause an accident and a seat belt or lack there of is not one of them. yes the seat belt might keep me protected during an accident but there is also a possibility (however small it may be) that it may keep me in danger.
how many school and public buses make all of the passenger wear a seat belt. 0. as a matter of fact most public buses have areas for standing.
howard makes a great point if the government thinks they are protecting us with seat belt laws why isnt everything else that is dangerous illegal.
>> howard makes a great point if the government thinks they are protecting us with seat belt laws why isnt everything else that is dangerous illegal.
Everything else that's dangerous doesn't kill 26,000 Americans every year (with the exception of smoking perhaps) and maim even more.
Driving may not be a right, but it's a necessity in our society, and a minor infringement of requiring seat belt use is a small price to pay for saving so many lives.
Howard,
Don't kid about bath mats.
The Feds are already telling you what kind of light blubs you can buy, how much water your toilet can use and they want to tell you what kind of washing machine you can buy.
It will not be long before mats in you tub will be mandatory.
Driving up insurance rates???? They're even bigger crooks...you better not be late on a payment to a creditor-you're nice insurance company WILL pull your credit report -they see something negative or too much credit-guess what-THEY WILL JACK YOUR RATES UP EVEN IF YOU PAY THEM ON TIME!!!!!! My homeowners just went up 30%-I dread to see what they'll do to my car insurance when it comes up in Jan........
>>Everything else that's dangerous doesn't kill 26,000 Americans every year (with the exception of smoking perhaps) and maim even more.
alchohol is linked to 75000 deaths a year
Fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death for children ages 1 to 14 years (CDC 2005)
In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.(CDC 2006)
The CDC estimates that in the US more than 100,000 people are hospitalized and more than 20,000 people die from the flu and its complications every year. ( thats weird why dont people who dont get a flu shot get ticketed and fined)
13.6% of all accidental deaths are caused by falling ( i guess everybody better stop running and be more careful unless you want a ticket
Approximately 280,000 adult deaths in the United States each year are attributable to obesity.9 (Source: excerpt from NIDDK _ Statistics Related to Overweight and Obesity: NIDDK) ((better have a cop outside every fast food restaurant handing out ticket ::except dunkin donuts, gotta think about some of our law enforcment::
hey dennis if my math is correct i think that adds up to just a little bit more then 26000 but hey that minor infringement is a small price to pay
What Charlie said previously does bring up a good point. The Department of Motor Vehicles are state-government organizations that licenses people to drive and keeps track of individuals licensed to drive in the U.S.., individually operated by state, with different laws and regulations.
If state-governments are going to license people to drive, they do not get to control what people do or cannot do, within limit, while they drive. If the DMV is going to be run like a business, the government should not be in control.
While I disagree with the "talking while driving" or "texting while driving" law, it can put another person's life in danger. Personally, it should be something you can only get charged with if you do indeed get into an accident while doing one of the above. Not wearing your seatbelt will only put yourself in danger and no one else. As such, it should be a personal choice, not a law.
That's where the "it's a money grab" comment is coming from, I think.
The only way any legislation becomes a money grab is when you conciously choose to disobey it. I know this is not a scientific analysis but I have always worn my seatbelt and consequently the seatbelt law has not generated one dime of revenue from me.
Again, I don't think it's a money grab. First, I think the people who enforce do so mainly because they are told to do it and are obligated to enforce all laws (properly so). I think law enforcement should enforce the laws, even those I or individual cops disagree with (and I bet a lot of cops, who tend to be freedom-loving types) disagree with this law.
Further, I think the people that wrote the law were well intentioned, just misguided.
And that to me is far more offensive than a "money grab."
I always wear my seat belt, but I object to the idea that the government thinks it has the right to tell me how to live my life.
Charlie, you say it's an insurance issue -- the mandatory seat belt law has been in force for how many decades? How's that working out for you? Last I checked, my rates keep going up. I just think it's a specious argument. If it is an insurance issue, let the insurance companies enforce it -- get an accident, no seat belt = not covered. If you want to not wear a seat belt, find an insurance company without that requirement in its policy. Why get the government involved?
Just because driving is a so-called privilege doesn't mean the government should have the power to intrude on a personal choice in a vehicle that is my own PRIVATE property. If the government wants to determine whether I wear a seat belt, buy me my car. What's next, mandating that I can only listen to classical music lest I get in accident because I'm playing air drums along with Keith Moon? Where does the government intrusion stop? Keep making excuses for government intrusion and it won't.
Dennis, thanks. I'm curious if I had phrased the poll question differently, if the vote might be different. I wonder if somebody thought they weren't saying "yes people should wear seat belts" -- something we can all agree on. Normally, our polls favor the less government answer.
I mean, what if I had asked -- "Do you think people should get tickets for not wearing seat belts?" "Do you think people should be required by law to wear seat belts?" Whether that would be clear about it being a question of liberty vs. control.
Posted by Chris Charvella on November 24, 2009 - 1:16pm
When people who choose not to wear seatbelts drive up the insurance premiums for everyone else in a state the conversation about individual liberties comes to an end.
Choosing to ride a snowmobile or a horse (as has been mentioned here) does not affect other people in the slightest.
------------------------------
Part of this couldn't be farther from the truth. Certain groups comprise the highest risk and are charged accordingly. Young drivers and drivers who have many points on their license statistically have much higher accident/claim rates, seat belted or not. Not wearing your seat belt is moot.
I'm not sure if you're aware or not but people who ride motorcycles or snowmobiles also pay for registrations and insurance. Horseback riding also carries a liability risk for homeowners insurance rates.
I'm still not seeing any good arguments why wearing seat belts should be enforced by law.
If you die in a car crash, your hospital bills are what? LOW! If you wear a seat belt, get hurt severely and your hospital stay is several months or longer, your costs to insurance are astronomical. The arguments for wearing a seat belt as a means of keeping insurance costs lower are ridiculous.
Doug, as has been mentioned in this thread previously, states with no seatbelt laws have higher CAR insurance premiums across the board. I don't need to explain myself any further.
I loved your idea that it is somehow cheaper to die in a car accident than head to the emergency room...
While <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=9&ved=0CCkQFjAI&url… PDF from an insurance industry study</a> concludes there is a marginal reduction in insurance rates, if you actually look at the chart and consider the other factors, it's a dubious conclusion. Increases and decreases are all over the board.
Also, Chris, only one state, New Hampshire, doesn't have a seat belt law of some kind.
The rates vary because of states laws, and how many people in the state live in small towns or cities. Big difference between New York and New Hampshire.
Also, based on the 2008 population numbers, New Hampshire had a .000096 auto fatality rate per capita where New York had a rate of .000074. Seatbelts anyone?
The difference can be explained simply by the fact that almost all of NH residence live in rural areas, where NY is dominated by NYC. There are more fatalities per capita on rural roads.
We know nothing about what percentage of NH drivers where seat belts. Since it's a quite common sense thing to do, it's safe to assume the percentage of seat belt wearers is no different than New York.
Howard, are you are fighting seat belt use just because society and government tells you it’s a good thing to do? Are you prepared to accept the fact that you are championing the cause might put someone’s life in jeopardy one day?
Laws, rules and even religious commandments were created for the purpose of helping people who lack common sense. Not wearing your seatbelt is dangerous and therefore against the law if you want to drive on a public road. This isn’t about freedom, you have the freedom to walk or take the bus if you don’t want to follow the rules for driving on a public road.
How about the stat that says if you don’t wear a seatbelt your face hits the windshield and you die…
Charlie, I wear a seat belt. If you don't want to wear a seat belt, that's your choice. If died in an accident because one time you got in a car without a seat belt, I'd be sad at losing a friend and I would even think how stupid of you were not to wear a seat belt, but I wouldn't ask for new laws or stricter enforcement. You made a choice -- the wrong choice -- and you paid the price. But that's your choice, not mine. And since it's not mine, it's not the government's either. I have no right to TELL you to wear a seat belt, and you have no right to TELL me to wear a seat belt (except, of course, if I'm a passenger in your car). So how does the government have that right?
You imply that I'm advocating not wearing seat belts, and I've been quite explicit in saying people should wear seat belts.
The seat belt is only symbolic -- symbolic of unwarranted, increasing government intrusion into purely private decisions. I actually care very little about the seat belt law. I care a great deal about individual freedom.
It's not my role -- nor the government's role -- to stop people from doing stupid things, even if it kills them.
What's ironic is we have a government that has no remorse at sending people to fight and die in foreign countries that we have no business going into or staying in, yet the government thinks it's doing us a favor by intruding on the privacy of our own property in the name of protecting us from ourselves. And supposedly the reason we go to war is to protect our freedom.
Howard, I’m not into symbolic statements against government or for individual freedom when it involves cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This is the real problem with the libertarian argument. These were the people who grew up and wrote scientific papers telling us that eating vegetables is not good for you because mommy made them finish their broccoli. This has more to do with a need to rebel than it does with freedom. Living in society comes with rules. People have the “freedom” to check out of society and go live in a cave in Montana. If you want to live among us you better obey the rules. You are right, this argument has nothing to do with seatbelts.
I’m going to my mother-in Laws for turkey dinner. I will take my shoes off at the door, say grace and eat my pasta before the turkey. Those are her rules. Our society, religions and even families have rules. Driving has its own set of rules. You don’t have to drive and I don’t have to eat at my mother-in-laws house either.
The government should NOT be telling us what to do, even if its for our own well-being. Period. It's our (well, should be) own choice whether or not to wear a seatbelt. The same thing applies to a great many number of things, but those are discussions for another time and place.
Go watch the movie 'V for Vendetta', a comic book adaptation by the Wachowski Brothers. It shows what happens when the government starts telling, forcing, and choosing what its citizens do.
Charlie, I'm hardly a rebel these days. You haven't made a compelling argument that there is any societal/governmental interest in mandatory seat belt laws. Like Chris, the position you are taking is purely ideological. "I want a seat belt law because I believe it means lower insurance rates for me." Not because there is any actual or real logic or proof behind it.
My argument isn't with rules in general, as you imply. I believe a civil society requires rules and laws and that people obey them. I'm not a complete anarchist. What I'm against are rules made by a government that has no business making rules that intrude on personal choice.
Adults and children should always have their seatbelt on in a moving vehicle. Law or not its the thing to do. Its very simple really, it saves lifes, and prevents serious injury. "Click it, or Ticket" Drive Safe Ya'll and Happy Thanksgiving!! We(ALL)have so much to be thankful for!!
Sorry Howard. You are the one that didn’t make your case. Your freedom argument doesn’t work when you are attempting to participate. Society has rules and that applies to those who want to use public roads. Click it or ticket as Karen would say.
Charlie, your response is a circular argument. If a law is unjustified by facts and logic, then to say "society has rules" as the basis of justifying the law is illogical.
The only thing that justifies a law is that there is a need for it. As has been amply demonstrated, there is no need for this law.
It's an argument that leads to tyranny. It can be used to justify any government action.
Your argument would justify requiring us all to drive white cars or cars with no radios or that we all must wear propeller-head beanies. Any of those laws would be as justified as the seat belt law, and could be supported with the argument "Society has rules and that applies to those who want to use public roads."
Chris, my ideal government is one that is a reflection of society, so I tend to buy into government requires as being something that reflects societal norms. However, there is an important point that government increasingly moves away from reflecting societal norms toward one that self-referentially becomes government for government sake. I think we covered this before when discussing governmentality. And the seat belt law is certainly a by product of governmentality.
Howard- I get and appreciate your point. There are so many laws and regulations that are borderline babysitting, it's pathetic. I feel common sense should still dictate our lives on a daily basis, not the government.
Chris government is the mechanism for setting norms or the rules for our society. Society was created by people who decided to work together for the common good. I understand perfectly. Laws are enacted do to pressure from people.
I also understand that Howard and I could talk about this for months and never agree. It’s just too silly of a conversation to continue. Howard lost because; no government is going to ever lessen restrictions on seat belt usage. The public would not stand for it. In fact, society is demanding our government increase restrictions on driving. That’s why governments are passing laws against texting while driving.
While I agree that seat belts
While I agree that seat belts save lives in certain instances, it is a violation of our Constitutional Rights to have to wear one. Look it up, I didn't believe it either but I have a friend who got out of a ticket because he provided proof that it is a violation of our rights. A lot of things they are doing now are a violation of our Constitutional Rights. The government will keep getting away with it, because we do nothing about it.
We don't need laws to keep
We don't need laws to keep the stupid alive.
We don't need laws that
We don't need laws that protect us from ourselves, period. I still use the motorcycle/car comparison. If I can ride a motorcycle, I should be able to drive a car without a seat belt.
I'd still wear a helmet and I'd still wear a seat belt even if they weren't required but it would be my CHOICE. A choice I wouldn't need to be penalized for by law if I chose not to.
>> "We don't need laws to
>> "We don't need laws to keep the stupid alive."
Hey Peter -- does that include children and infants who's parents are too stupid to buckle them in? Should we let them die, too?
Thing is, most unbuckled people don't die -- they just get seriously injured and everyone ends up paying for their health care. States that have seat belt laws enacted have seen lower auto insurance premiums as a result.
Hmmm, we better get rid of
Hmmm, we better get rid of every bar on the corner and every liquor store, too. You could possibly drink yourself to death. While we're at it, lets get rid of swimming pools. For a child, they're far more dangerous than the shotgun leaning in the corner. Lets put a GPS speed monitoring device in every vehicle that just automatically sends you a ticket when you go over the speed limit. Lets outlaw bicycles and motorcycles. You could die riding them. Lets outlaw sledding in the winter. Lets outlaw sun exposure. Lets outlaw push lawnmowers. Lets outlaw horseback riding and the demolition derby. Lets outlaw gym class, gymnastics and sports. You could die doing those! Lets make walking around with your shoes untied a ticketable offense. Lets outlaw extension ladders. My favorite, lets outlaw people of WalMart. http://www.peopleofwalmart.com
Get a clue, seat belt laws are just an easy money grab, nothing less.
I don't see seat belt laws
I don't see seat belt laws and a money grab.
I see it as well-intentioned people going to too far. There's an element of people who think the state should protect us from ourselves.
Libertarians call it the "nanny state."
Doug, I think your list of other things that could be outlawed to protect us from ourselves shows the hypocrisy of picking on certain pet issues to regulate.
It's hard for me to fathom how passively people just accept government interference in private lives.
Posted by Dennis Jay on
Posted by Dennis Jay on November 24, 2009 - 12:21pm
>> "We don't need laws to keep the stupid alive."
Hey Peter -- does that include children and infants who's parents are too stupid to buckle them in? Should we let them die, too?
Thing is, most unbuckled people don't die -- they just get seriously injured and everyone ends up paying for their health care. States that have seat belt laws enacted have seen lower auto insurance premiums as a result.
------------------------
Children and infants don't have the "same" rights as adults do. If you think they do, you better check again. Once you're an adult, this thing called responsibility kicks in.
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. Of course it's insane to not wear a seat belt or a helmet but it should be your choice. It's insane to skydive but I loved it. You shouldn't be able to be fined $100 for not wearing them.
You'd never know we live in
You'd never know we live in America, the home of the free.
Amen, Howard, Amen. I still
Amen, Howard, Amen. I still see the money grab, though. It's one of the reasons for the stepped up enforcement as of late. The state needs the revenue.
When people who choose not to
When people who choose not to wear seatbelts drive up the insurance premiums for everyone else in a state the conversation about individual liberties comes to an end.
Choosing to ride a snowmobile or a horse (as has been mentioned here) does not affect other people in the slightest.
I'm not saying that seatbelt tickets aren't a revenue stream for the state, but it isn't simply a money grab.
Chris is right. I could care
Chris is right. I could care less if you choose to risk death in a fender-bender but, I have a problem if your “freedom” causes my insurance rates to go up.
I dont thin there should be a
I dont thin there should be a law, except children. some parents are not the best of parents and children are still to young to know. Also i think if more people saw car accidents where people were not wearing their belts, i think more people would.
It isn't the governments job
It isn't the governments job to enforce wearing seat belts or to keep insurance rates down. This is so elementary it shouldn't even be a topic of discussion.
People who own and ride
People who own and ride snowmobiles also have insurance. And sometimes they get in accidents and are uninsured and so their health care costs become a burden to everybody. Let's ban snowmobiling!
We have very strict laws against drinking and driving and people still drink and drive, getting in accidents -- driving up our insurance costs! Clearly, we should just prohibit alcohol consumption!
Cigarettes are a terrible burden on society, driving up health care costs for all of us. Let's ban cigarettes!
Heck, getting old costs us a lot of money! Let's ban getting old! Bring on the "death panels!"
Is it really the government's place to regulate me so that your insurance can be lower?
And it's not like not wearing a seat belt actually CAUSES accidents the way, say, speeding does.
I always wear a seat belt, not that that's anybody's business but my own.
There are laws in place
There are laws in place governing the use of snowmobiles. These laws provide for the safety of the users and act as a deterrent to misuse.
There are very strict laws in place governing the use of alcohol and operating a motor vehicle. The steep penalties for DUI/DWI act as a deterrent to people who would drink and drive and put other citizens in danger were there no laws in place. Once again, the safety of citizens is being protected.
Cigarettes in NYS have been subject to steep taxes to offset the increased healthcare costs for smokers in an attempt to relieve the burden on non-smokers.
We have arrived at the most base argument for and against certain taxation methods and laws. You see, everything costs money. If the government stays out of your life with regard to certain issues like DWI, seatbelts and cigarettes, then you will have to make up the costs elsewhere. In this case the cost would be higher insurance premiums. Since everyone in this thread seems to agree that you should wear your seatbelt and everyone here is also benefitting from lower insurance costs due to seatbelt laws, then we should logically conclude that our personal freedoms have not truly been infringed upon and that we are, in fact, better off fiscally and safety wise because the government took a simple and easy approach to providing for the basic safety of citizens.
Even the strictest libertarian (lower-case just for you Howard) understands that the basic tenets of their philosophy regarding personal freedoms are constrained when those freedoms begin to affect the personal freedoms of their neighbor.
Howard, nobody has a right to
Howard, nobody has a right to a driver’s license. There are many rules involved with obtaining the privilege to drive. You can’t drink, you have to be a certain age, and your eye sight has to be acceptable. You can’t talk on the phone or text, you have to have insurance and you have to wear a seat belt.
I’m sure there is a bunch of other “rules” as well. This is the price for living in a society with rules and requesting the ability to share the road with other people. If you don’t like the rules, take the bus, I don't want you on the road with me. Life behind the wheel isn’t like a Mad Max movie.
Charlie, my wearing a seat
Charlie, my wearing a seat belt or not has nothing to do with you.
I got an idea -- there were like 200,000 slips and falls resulting in injuries in the shower last year. Let's have the cops be able to go into people's homes to make sure they're using a bath mat!
The economic argument for seat belts just doesn't wash -- I don't want intrusive government. Period. Charlie, you're the one who harps all the time "get the government off my back," but it seems anytime there is a discussion about actually getting it off our back, you take the pro-big-government position.
Howard, you're guilty of a
Howard, you're guilty of a logical fallacy here. You drive your car on public roads and are therefore subject to the laws that govern safe operation of a motor vehicle. What you slip and fall on in your own house is your problem.
OK. Let's get rid of seat
OK. Let's get rid of seat belt laws because they interfere with personal freedom.
Also, let's chuck building codes, speed limits, drug laws and all restrictions on abortion -- because they all interfere with someone's personal freedom.
I actually have never harped
I actually have never harped about getting government off my back. I only complain about services, I don’t want to pay for. I like society and contribute to it but, that doesn't mean I should pay for other people’s stupidity with high insurance rates.
Driving is NOT a right, it is a privilege. When it comes to driving our insurance rates and mutual safety are tied together. If you chose to not follow the rules of driving and get into an accident and that causes my insurance to go up, just how are you exercising your liberty? I don’t want anyone doing something stupid and risky at my expense. If you want to exercise your liberty behind the wheel of a vehicle don’t do it on a public road and make sure you have a big check book because, I don’t want to contribute by rising health insurance rates either.
What we all need to
What we all need to understand here is that your 'personal freedoms' end as soon as they adversely affect the safety and security of other citizens. At that point you are subject to the rules and laws governing your poor choice of behavior.
I actually am baffled by
I actually am baffled by where you think I ever came off as someone who thinks government has no place. Was it my affection for the public health option or my loyal support of Obama that convinced you of that stand?
Government provides services; those services should be provided at fair market rates. That statement has absolutely nothing to do with my desire to see government safeguard society. Government has an obligation to act for the mutual good. That includes rules and regulations on a host of things ranging from public safety, building codes to banking regulations. I’m far from a libertarian.
chris how does the fact if i
chris how does the fact if i wear a seat belt determine the quality of my driving. in no way, shape or form does a seat belt make me a better driver. there are many variables that will cause an accident and a seat belt or lack there of is not one of them. yes the seat belt might keep me protected during an accident but there is also a possibility (however small it may be) that it may keep me in danger.
how many school and public buses make all of the passenger wear a seat belt. 0. as a matter of fact most public buses have areas for standing.
howard makes a great point if the government thinks they are protecting us with seat belt laws why isnt everything else that is dangerous illegal.
>> howard makes a great point
>> howard makes a great point if the government thinks they are protecting us with seat belt laws why isnt everything else that is dangerous illegal.
Everything else that's dangerous doesn't kill 26,000 Americans every year (with the exception of smoking perhaps) and maim even more.
Driving may not be a right, but it's a necessity in our society, and a minor infringement of requiring seat belt use is a small price to pay for saving so many lives.
.
.
Howard, Don't kid about bath
Howard,
Don't kid about bath mats.
The Feds are already telling you what kind of light blubs you can buy, how much water your toilet can use and they want to tell you what kind of washing machine you can buy.
It will not be long before mats in you tub will be mandatory.
Driving up insurance
Driving up insurance rates???? They're even bigger crooks...you better not be late on a payment to a creditor-you're nice insurance company WILL pull your credit report -they see something negative or too much credit-guess what-THEY WILL JACK YOUR RATES UP EVEN IF YOU PAY THEM ON TIME!!!!!! My homeowners just went up 30%-I dread to see what they'll do to my car insurance when it comes up in Jan........
>>Everything else that's
>>Everything else that's dangerous doesn't kill 26,000 Americans every year (with the exception of smoking perhaps) and maim even more.
alchohol is linked to 75000 deaths a year
Fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death for children ages 1 to 14 years (CDC 2005)
In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.(CDC 2006)
The CDC estimates that in the US more than 100,000 people are hospitalized and more than 20,000 people die from the flu and its complications every year. ( thats weird why dont people who dont get a flu shot get ticketed and fined)
13.6% of all accidental deaths are caused by falling ( i guess everybody better stop running and be more careful unless you want a ticket
Approximately 280,000 adult deaths in the United States each year are attributable to obesity.9 (Source: excerpt from NIDDK _ Statistics Related to Overweight and Obesity: NIDDK) ((better have a cop outside every fast food restaurant handing out ticket ::except dunkin donuts, gotta think about some of our law enforcment::
hey dennis if my math is correct i think that adds up to just a little bit more then 26000 but hey that minor infringement is a small price to pay
Oh yeah- it is a money
Oh yeah- it is a money grab-just like the plates were....the state is grasping at straws trying to figure out where to get money from.....
What Charlie said previously
What Charlie said previously does bring up a good point. The Department of Motor Vehicles are state-government organizations that licenses people to drive and keeps track of individuals licensed to drive in the U.S.., individually operated by state, with different laws and regulations.
If state-governments are going to license people to drive, they do not get to control what people do or cannot do, within limit, while they drive. If the DMV is going to be run like a business, the government should not be in control.
While I disagree with the "talking while driving" or "texting while driving" law, it can put another person's life in danger. Personally, it should be something you can only get charged with if you do indeed get into an accident while doing one of the above. Not wearing your seatbelt will only put yourself in danger and no one else. As such, it should be a personal choice, not a law.
That's where the "it's a money grab" comment is coming from, I think.
On a different topic, I think
On a different topic, I think people are misunderstanding the poll.
What really is really about is "should the government have this kind of control to tell us what to do?"
Just because there isn't a law doesn't mean you can't wear a seatbelt. You just have the choice not to.
The only way any legislation
The only way any legislation becomes a money grab is when you conciously choose to disobey it. I know this is not a scientific analysis but I have always worn my seatbelt and consequently the seatbelt law has not generated one dime of revenue from me.
Again, I don't think it's a
Again, I don't think it's a money grab. First, I think the people who enforce do so mainly because they are told to do it and are obligated to enforce all laws (properly so). I think law enforcement should enforce the laws, even those I or individual cops disagree with (and I bet a lot of cops, who tend to be freedom-loving types) disagree with this law.
Further, I think the people that wrote the law were well intentioned, just misguided.
And that to me is far more offensive than a "money grab."
I always wear my seat belt, but I object to the idea that the government thinks it has the right to tell me how to live my life.
Charlie, you say it's an insurance issue -- the mandatory seat belt law has been in force for how many decades? How's that working out for you? Last I checked, my rates keep going up. I just think it's a specious argument. If it is an insurance issue, let the insurance companies enforce it -- get an accident, no seat belt = not covered. If you want to not wear a seat belt, find an insurance company without that requirement in its policy. Why get the government involved?
Just because driving is a so-called privilege doesn't mean the government should have the power to intrude on a personal choice in a vehicle that is my own PRIVATE property. If the government wants to determine whether I wear a seat belt, buy me my car. What's next, mandating that I can only listen to classical music lest I get in accident because I'm playing air drums along with Keith Moon? Where does the government intrusion stop? Keep making excuses for government intrusion and it won't.
Howard - Good poll question
Howard -
Good poll question and good dialogue. You're providing a good public service here.
I'll make one final observation: I think it's interesting even in conservative Batavia that 65% voted in favor of seat belt laws.
Dennis, thanks. I'm curious
Dennis, thanks. I'm curious if I had phrased the poll question differently, if the vote might be different. I wonder if somebody thought they weren't saying "yes people should wear seat belts" -- something we can all agree on. Normally, our polls favor the less government answer.
I mean, what if I had asked -- "Do you think people should get tickets for not wearing seat belts?" "Do you think people should be required by law to wear seat belts?" Whether that would be clear about it being a question of liberty vs. control.
Posted by Chris Charvella on
Posted by Chris Charvella on November 24, 2009 - 1:16pm
When people who choose not to wear seatbelts drive up the insurance premiums for everyone else in a state the conversation about individual liberties comes to an end.
Choosing to ride a snowmobile or a horse (as has been mentioned here) does not affect other people in the slightest.
------------------------------
Part of this couldn't be farther from the truth. Certain groups comprise the highest risk and are charged accordingly. Young drivers and drivers who have many points on their license statistically have much higher accident/claim rates, seat belted or not. Not wearing your seat belt is moot.
I'm not sure if you're aware or not but people who ride motorcycles or snowmobiles also pay for registrations and insurance. Horseback riding also carries a liability risk for homeowners insurance rates.
I'm still not seeing any good arguments why wearing seat belts should be enforced by law.
If you die in a car crash,
If you die in a car crash, your hospital bills are what? LOW! If you wear a seat belt, get hurt severely and your hospital stay is several months or longer, your costs to insurance are astronomical. The arguments for wearing a seat belt as a means of keeping insurance costs lower are ridiculous.
Doug, as has been mentioned
Doug, as has been mentioned in this thread previously, states with no seatbelt laws have higher CAR insurance premiums across the board. I don't need to explain myself any further.
I loved your idea that it is somehow cheaper to die in a car accident than head to the emergency room...
Here's something interesting:
Here's something interesting: <a herf="http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-fraud-of-seat-belt-laws/">… Fraud of Seat Belt Laws</a>.
<a href="http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=550">Here's another article</a>
While <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=9&ved=0CCkQFjAI&url… PDF from an insurance industry study</a> concludes there is a marginal reduction in insurance rates, if you actually look at the chart and consider the other factors, it's a dubious conclusion. Increases and decreases are all over the board.
Also, Chris, only one state, New Hampshire, doesn't have a seat belt law of some kind.
"The average auto insurance premium for residents in New Hampshire is $1,635 in 2009; the national average is $1,780." (<a href="http://www.carinsurance.com/state/New-Hampshire-car-insurance.aspx">Sou…;)
New Hampshire's State motto: "Live free or die"
New York's average premium is $2,428. (<a href="https://www.carinsurance.com/state/New-York-car-insurance.aspx">Source<…;).
The rates vary because of
The rates vary because of states laws, and how many people in the state live in small towns or cities. Big difference between New York and New Hampshire.
Also, based on the 2008 population numbers, New Hampshire had a .000096 auto fatality rate per capita where New York had a rate of .000074. Seatbelts anyone?
The difference can be
The difference can be explained simply by the fact that almost all of NH residence live in rural areas, where NY is dominated by NYC. There are more fatalities per capita on rural roads.
We know nothing about what percentage of NH drivers where seat belts. Since it's a quite common sense thing to do, it's safe to assume the percentage of seat belt wearers is no different than New York.
Howard, are you are fighting
Howard, are you are fighting seat belt use just because society and government tells you it’s a good thing to do? Are you prepared to accept the fact that you are championing the cause might put someone’s life in jeopardy one day?
Laws, rules and even religious commandments were created for the purpose of helping people who lack common sense. Not wearing your seatbelt is dangerous and therefore against the law if you want to drive on a public road. This isn’t about freedom, you have the freedom to walk or take the bus if you don’t want to follow the rules for driving on a public road.
How about the stat that says if you don’t wear a seatbelt your face hits the windshield and you die…
I give up. I'll never
I give up. I'll never understand why people hate a law that saves lives, saves money and doesn't cost you a dime unless you break it.
There must a reason why idiot and ideologue sound so much the same.
Charlie, I wear a seat belt.
Charlie, I wear a seat belt. If you don't want to wear a seat belt, that's your choice. If died in an accident because one time you got in a car without a seat belt, I'd be sad at losing a friend and I would even think how stupid of you were not to wear a seat belt, but I wouldn't ask for new laws or stricter enforcement. You made a choice -- the wrong choice -- and you paid the price. But that's your choice, not mine. And since it's not mine, it's not the government's either. I have no right to TELL you to wear a seat belt, and you have no right to TELL me to wear a seat belt (except, of course, if I'm a passenger in your car). So how does the government have that right?
You imply that I'm advocating not wearing seat belts, and I've been quite explicit in saying people should wear seat belts.
The seat belt is only symbolic -- symbolic of unwarranted, increasing government intrusion into purely private decisions. I actually care very little about the seat belt law. I care a great deal about individual freedom.
It's not my role -- nor the government's role -- to stop people from doing stupid things, even if it kills them.
What's ironic is we have a government that has no remorse at sending people to fight and die in foreign countries that we have no business going into or staying in, yet the government thinks it's doing us a favor by intruding on the privacy of our own property in the name of protecting us from ourselves. And supposedly the reason we go to war is to protect our freedom.
Howard, I’m not into symbolic
Howard, I’m not into symbolic statements against government or for individual freedom when it involves cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This is the real problem with the libertarian argument. These were the people who grew up and wrote scientific papers telling us that eating vegetables is not good for you because mommy made them finish their broccoli. This has more to do with a need to rebel than it does with freedom. Living in society comes with rules. People have the “freedom” to check out of society and go live in a cave in Montana. If you want to live among us you better obey the rules. You are right, this argument has nothing to do with seatbelts.
I’m going to my mother-in Laws for turkey dinner. I will take my shoes off at the door, say grace and eat my pasta before the turkey. Those are her rules. Our society, religions and even families have rules. Driving has its own set of rules. You don’t have to drive and I don’t have to eat at my mother-in-laws house either.
Charlie, Chris. The
Charlie, Chris.
The government should NOT be telling us what to do, even if its for our own well-being. Period. It's our (well, should be) own choice whether or not to wear a seatbelt. The same thing applies to a great many number of things, but those are discussions for another time and place.
Go watch the movie 'V for Vendetta', a comic book adaptation by the Wachowski Brothers. It shows what happens when the government starts telling, forcing, and choosing what its citizens do.
Chris, A Clockwork Orange or
Chris, A Clockwork Orange or 1984.
Charlie, I'm hardly a rebel these days. You haven't made a compelling argument that there is any societal/governmental interest in mandatory seat belt laws. Like Chris, the position you are taking is purely ideological. "I want a seat belt law because I believe it means lower insurance rates for me." Not because there is any actual or real logic or proof behind it.
My argument isn't with rules in general, as you imply. I believe a civil society requires rules and laws and that people obey them. I'm not a complete anarchist. What I'm against are rules made by a government that has no business making rules that intrude on personal choice.
(No subject)
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iOh2Gro9yo]
Adults and children should
Adults and children should always have their seatbelt on in a moving vehicle. Law or not its the thing to do. Its very simple really, it saves lifes, and prevents serious injury. "Click it, or Ticket" Drive Safe Ya'll and Happy Thanksgiving!! We(ALL)have so much to be thankful for!!
Sorry Howard. You are the one
Sorry Howard. You are the one that didn’t make your case. Your freedom argument doesn’t work when you are attempting to participate. Society has rules and that applies to those who want to use public roads. Click it or ticket as Karen would say.
Not society, Charlie. The
Not society, Charlie. The government. That's what this all about. I don't think you grasp just exactly where Howard is coming from.
Charlie, your response is a
Charlie, your response is a circular argument. If a law is unjustified by facts and logic, then to say "society has rules" as the basis of justifying the law is illogical.
The only thing that justifies a law is that there is a need for it. As has been amply demonstrated, there is no need for this law.
It's an argument that leads to tyranny. It can be used to justify any government action.
Your argument would justify requiring us all to drive white cars or cars with no radios or that we all must wear propeller-head beanies. Any of those laws would be as justified as the seat belt law, and could be supported with the argument "Society has rules and that applies to those who want to use public roads."
Chris, my ideal government is
Chris, my ideal government is one that is a reflection of society, so I tend to buy into government requires as being something that reflects societal norms. However, there is an important point that government increasingly moves away from reflecting societal norms toward one that self-referentially becomes government for government sake. I think we covered this before when discussing governmentality. And the seat belt law is certainly a by product of governmentality.
Howard- I get and appreciate
Howard- I get and appreciate your point. There are so many laws and regulations that are borderline babysitting, it's pathetic. I feel common sense should still dictate our lives on a daily basis, not the government.
Chris government is the
Chris government is the mechanism for setting norms or the rules for our society. Society was created by people who decided to work together for the common good. I understand perfectly. Laws are enacted do to pressure from people.
I also understand that Howard and I could talk about this for months and never agree. It’s just too silly of a conversation to continue. Howard lost because; no government is going to ever lessen restrictions on seat belt usage. The public would not stand for it. In fact, society is demanding our government increase restrictions on driving. That’s why governments are passing laws against texting while driving.
Worst case, there's always
Worst case, there's always New Hampshire.