Darwin at work or going out on your own terms?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Below is an anti-seatbelt law editorial from a University of Nebraska student:



hxxp://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/09/17/414a5a030e91d?in_archive=1 (http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/09/17/414a5a030e91d?in_archive=1)

DEREK KIEPER: Individual rights buckle under seat belt laws


September 17, 2004

Editor's Note: The Daily Nebraskan is no longer accepting feedback to this column.

I’m from the school of thought where everyone should have the right to do as they please as long as they are not infringing on the rights of other people. This comes from the political philosophy that inspired our founders and freedoms.

The duty of government is nothing more than to make sure everyone’s rights are protected and not infringed upon. Uncle Sam is not here to regulate every facet of life no matter the consequences.

No law, or set of laws, has made the government more intrusive and ridiculous than seat belt legislation. Nothing is a bigger affront to the ideas of freedom, liberty, yada, yada, yada. Whether you are a pinko liberal or a right-wing whack job, there are plenty of reasons for just saying to hell with seat belt laws.

Democrats and Republicans alike should stand together to stop these laws that are incongruous with the ideals of both parties.

For Republicans, seat belt laws represent an enormous cost to the federal government. Perhaps the amount of money we spend on safety belts pails in comparison to our defense budget, but it still seems to be a ton of money to make a choice for a person.

The government budgets $13.4 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration through the U.S. Department of Transportation for educating the public about safety belt laws.

Remember the “Click It or Ticket” commercials you saw on TV this summer during the tourist season? Well, the government wasted millions on those ads to make sure you knew officer Joe Friendly was going to be pulling you over for not wearing your seat belt.

The government also dispenses $25 million in grants to local law enforcement to increase the usage rate of seat belts. Even the Lincoln Police Department got a grant to help enforce the safety belt laws – lucky us.

Most ridiculous, though, is the $100 million doled out to states that have primary seat belt laws – these are the laws that say you can be pulled over for simply not wearing your seat belt.

If one is doing the math, that is more than $138 million spent on seat belt laws. But the kicker is this: It is estimated, by researchers for Congress, that only 6,100 lives are saved per year because of new seat belt wearers. Moreover, the increase in the percentage of those who wear seat belts has leveled off.

As laws become increasingly strict for seat belts, fewer people will respond positively by buckling up in response to the laws. There seems to be a die-hard group of non-wearers out there who simply do not wish to buckle up no matter what the government does. I belong to this group.

For the states’ righters of the right, this legislation represents another attempt by the federal government to step on the toes of the states. Not only does the federal government currently fund grants to increase usage, but bills are being debated that would punish those states that did not have seat belt laws, by withholding funding – usurping the right of the state to decide its own safety laws.

What frightens me more about safety belt laws is the intrusion they represent to Americans. Democrats should take notice. Choice is an important aspect of freedom – choice to do as I see fit with my body and being.

Yet, the government has decided that I do not have the choice to drive around without my seat belt. It is my choice what type of safety precautions I take. It is ridiculous to legislate actions that have no immediate effect on other individuals.

Telling me to wear my seat belt is the same as making sure I have some sort of proper education before diving into a swimming pool. If I want to dive in without knowing how to swim, that is my right. And if I want to be the jerk that flirts with death and rides around with my seat belt off, I should be able to do that, too.

If we regulate decisions that are personal and deal with safety, we very soon may be confronted with a slippery slope of legislation. What is next? Helmet laws for walkers? Kneepad regulations for office government interns? Or perhaps some sort of mandate for protective headgear for golfers will hit the law books in the future.

What should be most scary for those who love freedom and privacy is the government’s consideration of a bill to punish all states that do not have primary seat belt laws.

Officers have enough reasons to pull us over in the first place. This just allows them to pull people over and give us citizens a good shakedown whenever we want. Does anyone else see a problem?

I’m sure college students would love to be pulled over and asked by the cops why they were not wearing their safety belt, and then maybe the police can catch a whiff of something – that may or may not be there – and searching ensues.

I can see now officers not being able to see your buckled belt as they pass you at night – because it is dark – so they pull you over to make sure. Simple enough, police do not need another reason to pull anyone over; they do it enough as it is.

All those who want the choice not to click have a few options. One is exempt with a doctor’s note, or if pregnant. Or you can move to New Hampshire, the only state without a seat belt law. New Hampshire might be my bastion of choice some day, but for now I am stuck in Nebraska.

I just wish we could keep the government out of our pocketbooks and out of our personal decisions.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an article reporting the activists death as a result of being ejected from a vehicle in an accident on the highway:

hxxp://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/01/04/local/doc41db350078259784029686.txt
(http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/09/17/414a5a030e91d?in_archive=1)


I-80 crash claims UNL student's life
BY BUTCH MABIN / Lincoln Journal Star



Derek Kieper was a smart, funny, intense young man who relished a good debate and would do anything for his friends. <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD class=cutline></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Kieper, a 21-year-old senior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, died early Tuesday morning when the Ford Explorer he was a passenger in travelled off an icy section of Interstate 80 and rolled several times in a ditch. Kieper, who was riding in the back seat of the Explorer, was ejected from the vehicle.

Two others in the vehicle, including the driver, Luke Havermann of Ogallala, and the front-seat passenger, Nick Uphoff of Randolph Air Force Base in Texas, sustained non-life threatening injuries. Havermann and Uphoff, both 21, were being treated at BryanLGH Medical Center West.

The three men, members of the same UNL fraternity, were returning to Lincoln from San Antonio, Texas at the time of the accident, reported to authorities by a truck driver around 3 a.m. "At this point in time, I'm in shock," Kieper's father, Paul Kieper, said in an interview Tuesday.

"He was a bright young boy, a 4.0," Paul Kieper said. "He loved to be silly. He loved to debate."

Paul Kieper said his son graduated from North Platte High School in 2002. When Derek Kieper came to Lincoln for college, the elder Kieper moved here, too.

Derek Kieper played on the defensive line for the North Platte High School football team, his father said. At UNL, Derek took on five majors — history, psychology, economics, sociology and political science — and had plans to attend law school.

Last year, Derek attended a summer program in economics at Oxford University in England.

"He loved it," Paul Kieper said. "It was his first time with travel abroad."

Kade Pittman, a friend of Derek since seventh grade, said Derek was a true friend.

"He'd do anything for anybody," he said. "He was really funny, extremely intelligent. He'd tutor me in classes he didn't even take."

Pittman said he last saw Derek shortly before Derek headed off to Texas for Christmas break.

"It's really tragic," Pittman said. "He's really going to be missed."

Capt. Joe Lefler of the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office said Havermann was driving the Explorer east on the interstate near Northwest 48th Street when the vehicle went out of control on the ice-covered road. He said the vehicle travelled into the south ditch and rolled several times.

A truck driver headed in the same direction witnessed the accident and called 911, Lefler said. He said alcohol did not play a role in the accident, but he declined to discuss how fast the Explorer was travelling.

Derek, who was thrown from the vehicle, was not wearing a seat belt, Lefler said. He said Havermann and Uphoff were wearing seat belts at the time.

In a column written for the Daily Nebraskan in September, Derek attacked seat belt laws as intrusions on individual liberties and expensive to enforce.

"It is my choice what type of safety precautions I take," he wrote.

"There seems to be a die-hard group of non-wearers out there who simply do not wish to buckle up no matter what the government does. I belong to this group."

Erica Rogers, opinion page editor at the Daily Nebraskan, said Derek's brains and intensity would be missed. Kieper and Rogers had lively political debates, she said.

"He had a Republican focus on economic issues," she said. "He was aggressive. He was really intense.

"He was a very engaging student. I'm sure UNL will be at a loss."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oops. Well, at least he went out on his own terms.

[albionmoonlight]

What I don't get is you can beleive that the government has no right to mandate that you wear a seatbelt, but still beleive that it is a good idea and do it.

[Fritz]

What I don't get is you can beleive that the government has no right to mandate that you wear a seatbelt, but still beleive that it is a good idea and do it.

huh?

[hhiipp]

I was confused when I clicked on the links, then realized you have them switched.

[Cuckoo]

What I don't get is you can beleive that the government has no right to mandate that you wear a seatbelt, but still beleive that it is a good idea and do it.

I agree (and I understood it, Fritz :) ). Although I don't wear my seatbelt near as much as I should.

[sabotai]

What I don't get is you can beleive that the government has no right to mandate that you wear a seatbelt, but still beleive that it is a good idea and do it.

Like with what Chris Rock says about women who say they can raise a child without a father.

"Just because you can do it doesn't mean it's to be done. You can drive a car with your feet, that doesn't mean it's a good idea."

[albionmoonlight]

huh?
Meaning that the two following ideas are not mutually exclusive:

1.) The government should not mandate seatbelt use.

2.) Wearing a seatbelt is a good idea, and I make the personal choice to do it.

Just because he beleives #1, I don't see why he also did not beleive #2.

[BrianD]

Apparently the protest was more important than personal safety.

[Ksyrup]

I find myself going back and forth on issues like this, because I have a hard time deciding what is a "victimless" crime. Ultimately, I guess we as a society have to decide how far to stretch that definition in deciding what we want the government to take a stand against and/or outright prohibit.

For example (under the assumption that no seatbelt = greater chance of death in an accident), I think it is in society's interest to preserve the family unit. And parents who drive without a seatbelt are increasing the chances that their kids will be left without one or both parents. That is irresponsible, and that affects society - in some ways it's easy to see; in others, it's less obvious.

That's why I'm also generally against legalizing drugs, because people do things in an altered state that affect others. For every story about the single guy who falls off a bridge and drowns while tripping, there's also the story about the guy who ran out in front of traffic and caused a family of 4 to wreck.

It's a fuzzy line to draw, and I'm not generally for governmental interference, but I also find it difficult to view each event in a vaccuum without considering the real-world effect. And in general, I think it's in a society's best interest to keep its citizens as safe as possible. Even if you have to force them to do something they otherwise don't have sense enough to do for themselves. The problem, of course, is where to draw the line.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I was confused when I clicked on the links, then realized you have them switched.
Oops. Fixed that.

[sachmo71]

Keeping medical costs down is protecting society, isn't it?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Basically, as I understand it, seatbelt laws are designed to keep medical costs down which, in turn, (in theory) lower insurance rates and costs. There is a lot more to it than infringing on one's personal decision whether to wear a seatbelt.

[BrianD]

I suppose you could make an argument that seat belt laws protect more than just the lives of people while in cars. Can a person sue for wrongful death if a family member died because of illegally not wearing a seat belt? Is it better for society to have to wear a seat belt and reduce the chances of being stuck on a highway that is closed while they scrape up body parts? If we had a less litigious society, I think we could handle less laws trying to protect us from ourselves.

[QuikSand]

Basically, as I understand it, seatbelt laws are designed to keep medical costs down which, in turn, (in theory) lower insurance rates and costs. There is a lot more to it than infringing on one's personal decision whether to wear a seatbelt.

I, too, am of two minds on this matter.

How far should this logic go, then? Should we arrest people who don't go to the dentist every six months? Their behavior, we know, leads to greater and costlier problems down the road -- which cause insurance rates to go up as well. Is there a compelling societal interest in every facet of pre-emptive medical care, on these same grounds?

I recognize it's a fairly absurd argument... but if the logic of the issue at hand leads you to an absurd conclusion, then there's a flaw in the logic.

[HomerJSimpson]

I, too, am of two minds on this matter.

How far should this logic go, then? Should we arrest people who don't go to the dentist every six months? Their behavior, we know, leads to greater and costlier problems down the road -- which cause insurance rates to go up as well. Is there a compelling societal interest in every facet of pre-emptive medical care, on these same grounds?

I recognize it's a fairly absurd argument... but if the logic of the issue at hand leads you to an absurd conclusion, then there's a flaw in the logic.


(Arguing "logic" for a moment) But isn't there a sense of degrees and context in logic? I mean, because (per your argument), someone could say that a "seat-belt" law argument could lead to more restrictive laws (your example, or even more intrusive, like dietary laws), does that mean that we must totally through out the argument? Should reasonable people see a difference in levels of intrusion versus good?

Just asking because I assume QS has some background in the study of logic and reason.

[WSUCougar]

A little too ironic...I really do think.

[JeeberD]

Old, old news...

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showpost.php?p=681162&postcount=9

[Klinglerware]

A little too ironic...I really do think.

This certainly isn't rain on your wedding day...

[Honolulu_Blue]

I, too, am of two minds on this matter.

How far should this logic go, then? Should we arrest people who don't go to the dentist every six months? Their behavior, we know, leads to greater and costlier problems down the road -- which cause insurance rates to go up as well. Is there a compelling societal interest in every facet of pre-emptive medical care, on these same grounds?

I recognize it's a fairly absurd argument... but if the logic of the issue at hand leads you to an absurd conclusion, then there's a flaw in the logic.
I've never been a fan of the "slippery slope" type of argument. Usually, as acknowledged, the arguments made are fairly absurd and have very little ground in reality.

The thing people tend to forget is that driving on public roads is not a right, it's a privilege that is granted by the state. If you have a stretch of property you can drive around drunk and seatbeltless all you want on your property. But if you are going to exert your state-granted privilege and drive on publically funded roads then you have to abide by any restrictions the state imposes on this privilege: being of a certain age, driving within posted speed limits, not being impaired, wearing a seatbelt, etc.

It is perfectly reasonable, and likely desirable, for a state to desire to find ways to reduce insurance costs and medical costs for its citizens. It would be absurd for the state to institute Quik's "dental plan" (LISA NEEDS BRACES!) because the foundation for such a law would be quite tenuous (much more so than, say, smoking ban laws which I wont go into here). However, if the state finds a way to achieve its goal of reducing insurance/medical costs to a restriction on a state-granted privilege it is pretty logical. In fact, it's almost Vulcan like.

[QuikSand]

But isn't there a sense of degrees and context in logic?

Of course, there has to be. And the most common argument along these lines is that the societal costs of unbelted drivers are substantially more direct and substantive than those of untended teeth and gums, therefore one law is acceptable and the other is absurd. (Personally, I buy "direct" more so than "substantive" but that's a separate argument, I suspect)

Essentially, this is countering the "slippery slope" argument by saying -- "nope, we went down the slope some ways, and we stopped right here. Not slippery at all."


The thing people tend to forget is that driving on public roads is not a right, it's a privilege that is granted by the state. If you have a stretch of property you can drive around drunk and seatbeltless all you want on your property. But if you are going to exert your state-granted privilege and drive on publically funded roads then you have to abide by any restrictions the state imposes on this privilege: being of a certain age, driving within posted speed limits, not being impaired, wearing a seatbelt, etc.

This argument, on the other hand, I find to be pretty compelling. But it seems to me that it leaves open the door for some very intrusionary control into the lives of people who receive any of a wide range of "privileges" from the public, again most notably and troubling, medical care.

[judicial clerk]

But if you are going to exert your state-granted privilege and drive on publically funded roads then you have to abide by any restrictions the state imposes on this privilege: being of a certain age, driving within posted speed limits, not being impaired, wearing a seatbelt, etc.


I was thinking the same thing as QS and wondering if the Government would force me to exercise three times a week because I am overweight. But I do really like and agree with the above-quoted analysis.

as a side note, I am beating "the man" to the punch. I am overweight but I exercise more than three times per week and I eat an atkins-inspired diet. I started last Halloween and the pounds have been melting off.

[revrew]

I simply found it ironic that he said, "Only 6100 lives are saved per year because of this." Oh, yeah. Only.

We have laws and regulations that cost tons of money to save fewer people (or fewer animals) than that. There's only like, what, 39 California condors left in the world. How much are we spending to save them? Millions of dollars of building codes and mandatory compliance to regulate electricians saves, what, 200 people a year from electrocution? I find it funny that he uses as one of HIS arguments that 138 million "only" saves 6100 lives per year. If I were in debate club, I'd turn that one over on him so quick he'd be silenced in 2 minutes flat. "Here's a sword to decapitate me with: only 6100 lives per year."

Obviously, my sense of humor is a little off today...

[lurker]

But if you are going to exert your state-granted privilege and drive on publically funded roads then you have to abide by any restrictions the state imposes on this privilege: being of a certain age, driving within posted speed limits, not being impaired, wearing a seatbelt, etc.

The problem is every one of those other things you mentioned actually affect the other drivers on the road. I could buy your argument that it's a state-granted privilege, but I don't think it is in the same category as the others. Driving without a seatbelt only affects others if we consider insurance costs. Having it be illegal for that reason doesn't make sense when you consider all the things that are legal to do (smoking, drinking) that are harmful to your health.

[rkmsuf]

Here's my take on this whole thing: I can see the arguments being made that laws like this can be construed as intrusive and setting a troubling precedent. However, in this particular instance I think this intrusion makes sense. What pursuasively logical argument is there for not wearing your seat belt? What freedoms are being trod upon?

The "slippery slope" argument is often used as a scare tactic in discussions like these. However, I think this situation is somewhat unique - there's no good argument for not wearing your seat belt, and it seems likely that the savings gained in terms of medical and insurance costs, not to mention actual lives saved and injuries reduced, far outweighs the cost the federal government spends in promoting the enforcement of these laws. I'm not aware of any slippery slope laws that have followed a similar logic of the seat-belt laws, but it seems to me that any time legislation is introduced, that legislation is debated on its own merits, and not simply that "we did A, and B follows similar logic as A, so B should ergo become law as well".

So why isn't smoking illegal?

[dawgfan]

Here's my take on this whole thing: I can see the arguments being made that laws like this can be construed as intrusive and setting a troubling precedent. However, in this particular instance I think this intrusion makes sense. What pursuasively logical argument is there for not wearing your seat belt? What freedoms are being trod upon?

The "slippery slope" argument is often used as a scare tactic in discussions like these. However, I think this situation is somewhat unique - there's no good argument for not wearing your seat belt, and it seems likely that the savings gained in terms of medical and insurance costs, not to mention actual lives saved and injuries reduced, far outweighs the cost the federal government spends in promoting the enforcement of these laws. I'm not aware of any slippery slope laws that have followed a similar logic of the seat-belt laws, but it seems to me that any time legislation is introduced, that legislation is debated on its own merits, and not simply that "we did A, and B follows similar logic as A, so B should ergo become law as well".

[Honolulu_Blue]

Here's my take on this whole thing: I can see the arguments being made that laws like this can be construed as intrusive and setting a troubling precedent. However, in this particular instance I think this intrusion makes sense. What pursuasively logical argument is there for not wearing your seat belt? What freedoms are being trod upon?

The "slippery slope" argument is often used as a scare tactic in discussions like these. However, I think this situation is somewhat unique - there's no good argument for not wearing your seat belt, and it seems likely that the savings gained in terms of medical and insurance costs, not to mention actual lives saved and injuries reduced, far outweighs the cost the federal government spends in promoting the enforcement of these laws. I'm not aware of any slippery slope laws that have followed a similar logic of the seat-belt laws, but it seems to me that any time legislation is introduced, that legislation is debated on its own merits, and not simply that "we did A, and B follows similar logic as A, so B should ergo become law as well".
I think this is exactly right. It's sort of a cost benefit analysis in a way.

Also the goal of the restriction is pretty reasonably tied/related to the restriction itself. The state wants to reduce insurance/medical costs. X% of these costs occur due to traffic accidents (probably a decent amount). Forcing people to wear seatbelts reduces the severity of injury and therefore reduces the costs. It's all pretty much inter-related

While forcing folks to exercise or such would achieve a similar goal (to some extent) it really has nothing to do with driving and would likely be shot down by a court pretty quickly if legislators were ever dumb enough to come up with such a thing (which they certainly capable of). At least we would hope.

Also, I do agree with the point lurker raises about how most, if not all, of the other restrictions on driving effect others on the road, whereas seatbelt laws pretty much protect only "you". I guess the only situation where the seatbelt restrict would protect others was if someone was ejected from their car and into another person or car. That's an odd fact pattern and not worth discussion.

A good friend of mine actually argues that people who wear seatbelts drive less safe than those who do not wear seatbelts, because seatbelt wearers feel "invulnerable", drawing the analogy between hockey players wearing cages (more reckless with the stick) than those who don't. It's a stupid argument and I have told him so repeatedly. He does not listen.

[Honolulu_Blue]

So why isn't smoking illegal?
We're getting there!! :D

[sabotai]

We're getting there!! :D

How about making alcohol illegal too while you're at it. Oh wait, we've tried that one already. :)

[lurker]

A good friend of mine actually argues that people who wear seatbelts drive less safe than those who do not wear seatbelts, because seatbelt wearers feel "invulnerable", drawing the analogy between hockey players wearing cages (more reckless with the stick) than those who don't. It's a stupid argument and I have told him so repeatedly. He does not listen.

There was study in my econ book that proved that the number of fatalities due to accidents didn't change after the seatbelt laws for this very reason, so your friend might be right. I think the number of accidents with no injuries might have increased, though.

Huh, that's the second time in one week that I referenced that book here, and I haven't thought about it in years.

[Honolulu_Blue]

How about making alcohol illegal too while you're at it. Oh wait, we've tried that one already. :)
Yeah. That one didn't work all that well, did it? Made for some good movies though and gave us some famous mafia guys. In any event, I'm glad it's back! In fact, I will have a beer tonight in honor of the prohibition so many years ago. I don't I've properly celebrated it yet.

[Axxon]

Here's my take on this whole thing: I can see the arguments being made that laws like this can be construed as intrusive and setting a troubling precedent. However, in this particular instance I think this intrusion makes sense. What pursuasively logical argument is there for not wearing your seat belt? What freedoms are being trod upon?

The "slippery slope" argument is often used as a scare tactic in discussions like these. However, I think this situation is somewhat unique - there's no good argument for not wearing your seat belt, and it seems likely that the savings gained in terms of medical and insurance costs, not to mention actual lives saved and injuries reduced, far outweighs the cost the federal government spends in promoting the enforcement of these laws. I'm not aware of any slippery slope laws that have followed a similar logic of the seat-belt laws, but it seems to me that any time legislation is introduced, that legislation is debated on its own merits, and not simply that "we did A, and B follows similar logic as A, so B should ergo become law as well".

Lots of thoughts on this and I'm using your post as my jumping off point. :)

I too believe there is no explainable reason not to wear your safety belt. None. I've worked in an er and I believe this more than I ever did.

Wear your safety belt. It's the only logical thing to do.

That being said, I don't believe the role of government is to mandate the logical thing to do. I have no problem with them spending money to encourage the proper behavior. I like the ads and commercials, etc as they are a way to educate and I don't have a problem with the government actively taking on an educational function.

I am against what I call "protecting the stupid" laws. We don't have time for that. Darwin has pointed out that it's a self defeating attempt at best and it's an unwise decision as well. If someone hasn't the cognitive ability to realize the benefit of very basic survival techniques, our protective measures are only going to harm society because God only knows what other skills our little moron lacks and all of those can't be legislated.

I'm more or less of the sink or swim school when it comes to the most glaringly obvious choices in life. Do we really need to make it illegal to bite into a plugged in electric cord in the bathtub? Is society served by this?

The biggest problem I have, however is the way we easily give up our freedoms to the "insurance and legal" issues. That's what really sticks in my craw. Insurance is one of the most hideous concepts ever MANDATED IMHO. It's a good idea but when we decided to have our society revolve around the industry, as we have, it becomes plain out scary.

Insurance is a mandatory evil now and we make laws to try and tame the hydra rather than kill the hydra. We need seat belt laws to keep insurance costs down? The problem is with the insurance companies not the non seat belted but it's easier to go after the more shallow pockets. That scares me.

Ditto the legal industry. We have become so litigious that everything just screams lawsuit. Hey, know what? Idiot didn't wear a seat belt, his spawn have no reason/right to sue. Period. Easy answer.

Never happen. Theres money in lawsuits, big money and that is the ultimate answer.

Finally I'd like to say that we should consider this. Where is the true problem? Is it with the people who make bad personal decisions or with the people who accept bad social policies? I know which one is easier to combat but fighting the wrong fight only strengthens the real enemy.

That's all I'm saying.

I may have said it a bit harshly but .... ;)

[Axxon]

A good friend of mine actually argues that people who wear seatbelts drive less safe than those who do not wear seatbelts, because seatbelt wearers feel "invulnerable", drawing the analogy between hockey players wearing cages (more reckless with the stick) than those who don't. It's a stupid argument and I have told him so repeatedly. He does not listen.

I agree it's a stupid argument but since the most common element in the universe isn't hydrogen, it's stupidity ( thanks Frank Zappa for the line ) then he may well be right.

I sure hope not though.

[Axxon]

Dola -

I do consider the mans death to be a tragedy. It was one that he accepted though by the way he chose to live his life.

I wish he had made a different choice because I think I would have enjoyed reading his thoughts on the world and frankly, I liked the way he presented his ideas. I'll miss that now that I have read him.

:(

[dawgfan]

Axxon, I respect your arguments. I'll pick one thing you discussed though and work from that: Freedom.

How much freedom do we really have in our society? How much freedom is really preferable? In many ways, this is the core foundation of what legislation is all about, deciding what freedoms we hold on to and what ones we're willing to compromise or sacrifice for some greater good.

In a nutshell, I guess I feel like the freedom to not do something stupid like not wear my seatbelt when in a car, is something I'm willing to sacrifice. That doesn't mean I'm going to sacrifice other freedoms - it simply means that the right to not wear a seatbelt is a freedom I'm willing to give up.

I'm no fan of insurance companies, and I can understand why the whole concept is deemed by some to be a scam, but I'm not sure I agree with that assessment and I'm not ready to support legislation to outlaw it. Given that, if seatbelt laws result in reduced insurance costs (not to mention the less tangible benefits of people not dying unnecessarily) then I have no problem with seatbelt usage being a lawful requirement.

Interesting to see it disputed that seat belt laws have saved lives - I'd be curious to see the studies. I'm having a hard time believing this is true - I simply can't imagine that people drive more recklessly because they're wearing seat belts. If traffic fatality rates haven't dropped commensurate with the implementation of seat belt laws, I wonder if there aren't additional factors at work - in the same time frame as seat belt laws have been implemented, safety additions like airbags and side-impact bags and the like have started to become commonplace. Could it be that these safety additions have persuaded drivers that it's OK to take more risks when driving because the consequences aren't as severe?

[Ksyrup]

So why isn't smoking illegal?
Too much money to be made by selling it, lobbying for those who sell it, suing those who sell it, and defending those who sell it. Oh, and it also serves as an easy target for public officials with bigger aspirations who enjoy publicity.

[rkmsuf]

Too much money to be made by selling it, lobbying for those who sell it, suing those who sell it, and defending those who sell it. Oh, and it also serves as an easy target for public officials with bigger aspirations who enjoy publicity.


I know why but that was more a foil to the "if it's good for people why wouldn't it be a law" type arguement.

[dawgfan]

I know why but that was more a foil to the "if it's good for people why wouldn't it be a law" type arguement.

Except that cigarettes are a drug, and smoking them is a pleasurable activity. Taking away that freedom is a much bigger intrusion into personal liberties than seat belt laws are.

I think the most analagous activity to wearing a seat belt is wearing a helmet when on a motorcycle, though I'd argue that wearing a helmet is more uncomfortable than wearing a seat belt.

[Desnudo]

Here's my take on this whole thing: I can see the arguments being made that laws like this can be construed as intrusive and setting a troubling precedent. However, in this particular instance I think this intrusion makes sense. What pursuasively logical argument is there for not wearing your seat belt? What freedoms are being trod upon?

The "slippery slope" argument is often used as a scare tactic in discussions like these. However, I think this situation is somewhat unique - there's no good argument for not wearing your seat belt, and it seems likely that the savings gained in terms of medical and insurance costs, not to mention actual lives saved and injuries reduced, far outweighs the cost the federal government spends in promoting the enforcement of these laws. I'm not aware of any slippery slope laws that have followed a similar logic of the seat-belt laws, but it seems to me that any time legislation is introduced, that legislation is debated on its own merits, and not simply that "we did A, and B follows similar logic as A, so B should ergo become law as well".

The freedom being trod upon is individual choice. It's also a question of whether the federal government is supposed to be responsible for that kind of law making. I'll grant that it's a small one and I always wore my seat belt before it was the law, but I think most people's frustration with it is that it is unnecessary and didn't need federal regulation.

I would argue that the economic benefit from medical and insurance costs assumes that more people actually wear seat belts now that it is a federal law. In reality, it's far more likely that people, the large majority of the population, that were already wearing seat belts before it became a law continued to wear them while people who didn't still don't. Since the only enforcement usually comes when someone is pulled over for another traffic offense, and then only if the person is too stupid to buckle up before the cop gets to the window, it's really not an effective law.

And the slippery slope argument could be looked at like: A gets enacted, B gets enacted (seperately) and totals up to C, which no one wanted or expected from A + B.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The freedom being trod upon is individual choice. It's also a question of whether the federal government is supposed to be responsible for that kind of law making. I'll grant that it's a small one and I always wore my seat belt before it was the law, but I think most people's frustration with it is that it is unnecessary and didn't need federal regulation.

I would argue that the economic benefit from medical and insurance costs assumes that more people actually wear seat belts now that it is a federal law. In reality, it's far more likely that people, the large majority of the population, that were already wearing seat belts before it became a law continued to wear them while people who didn't still don't. Since the only enforcement usually comes when someone is pulled over for another traffic offense, and then only if the person is too stupid to buckle up before the cop gets to the window, it's really not an effective law.

And the slippery slope argument could be looked at like: A gets enacted, B gets enacted (seperately) and totals up to C, which no one wanted or expected from A + B.
Laws by their very nature tred upon individual choice. The freedom whether to wear a seatbelt well driving sounds like quite a minor freedom when compared to other freedoms (paying for sex, for example) certain laws restrict.

[lurker]

Interesting to see it disputed that seat belt laws have saved lives - I'd be curious to see the studies. I'm having a hard time believing this is true - I simply can't imagine that people drive more recklessly because they're wearing seat belts. If traffic fatality rates haven't dropped commensurate with the implementation of seat belt laws, I wonder if there aren't additional factors at work - in the same time frame as seat belt laws have been implemented, safety additions like airbags and side-impact bags and the like have started to become commonplace. Could it be that these safety additions have persuaded drivers that it's OK to take more risks when driving because the consequences aren't as severe?

I don't have the study here on me, but it was in a book called "Price Theory and its Applications" or something like that by Landsburg.

And yes, if I recall correctly, the other safety additions like airbags were lumped in with seatbelts as causes for lax driving.

[EagleFan]

Seat belt laws should not exist, with one exception. They should exist for minors only. They are unde the care of someone else and should be protected.

Adults who chose not to wear their seatbelts do so at their own risk. Government is not here to protect us from ourselves. Let Darwinism do it's thing.

As for the reduces insurance costs arguement, show me the numbers. Insurance prices have risen since seatbelt laws have been established.

Putting driving without a seatbelt in the same sentence as driving drunk is completely absurd. Driving drunk risks the lives of OTHERS while driving without a seatbelt risks only your life.

Seatbelt laws have saved lives?!? Except for my condition of only with minors, who cares. All it has done is slowed Darwinism.


For the record: I wear my seatbelt every time, but that's my choice.

[dawgfan]

As for the reduces insurance costs arguement, show me the numbers. Insurance prices have risen since seatbelt laws have been established.

How do you know that insurance prices wouldn't have gone up even more had seat belt laws not been in place? There are multiple factors at work here.

Putting driving without a seatbelt in the same sentence as driving drunk is completely absurd. Driving drunk risks the lives of OTHERS while driving without a seatbelt risks only your life.

FWIW, I've never put the two in the same sentance. And it's worth noting that the punishments for each are radically different - driving without a seat belt carries (usually) a small fine, while DUI convictions are serious matters, with drivers losing their license to drive, getting jail time, paying major fines, etc.

[EagleFan]

FWIW, I've never put the two in the same sentance. And it's worth noting that the punishments for each are radically different - driving without a seat belt carries (usually) a small fine, while DUI convictions are serious matters, with drivers losing their license to drive, getting jail time, paying major fines, etc.

Never said you did. Here is the sentence that I am erfering to from this thread (not one of yours).

If you have a stretch of property you can drive around drunk and seatbeltless all you want on your property.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Putting driving without a seatbelt in the same sentence as driving drunk is completely absurd. Driving drunk risks the lives of OTHERS while driving without a seatbelt risks only your life.
While your point is true, saying putting them in the same sentence is absurd, is well, absurd. Both are state enforced restrictions on driving. Here is a sample sentence. If you are driving a car on a public road you must abide by many laws, including, among other things: you must be 16, you must not be drunk, you must have a valid drivers license, the car must be insured, you must wear your seatbelt. Does that sentence seem absurd?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Never said you did. Here is the sentence that I am erfering to from this thread (not one of yours).How is that sentence absurd? It was simply an example of how driving on public, tax-funded roads is a state-granted privilege on which the state can grant restrictions (including not allowing people to drive drunk, forcing you to wear a seatbelt, forcing your car to be within specs, forcing you to be 16, etc.), whereas driving on private property is not a state-granted privilege and therefore the state cannot restrict. If you want to drive around on your private property you can be drunk, 12, and driving an unisured '67 Chevy that's kicking out toxic fumes that doesn't even have a seatbelt.

I never said that the two restrictions were at all alike, had similar policy goals, or were anything other than state imposed restrictions to driving on public roads. That's it.

You're taking the sentence way out of context.

[Mac Howard]

No one seems to have mentioned the impact on those others involved in a car crash, those who have to clear up the mess or on family and friends when someone is killed or severely injured when talking about this "victimless" crime:

1) were I driving a car which was involved in someone else's death then, no matter how blame-free I might consider myself, I would carry a mental scar for the rest of my life.

2) my wife is a theatre nurse. I can tell the moment she comes home if accident victims have been brought into theatre following a car crash. The death (after hours of desperate medical activity) of a 19 year old student delivering christmas cards in his beat-up old Ford to help pay his college tuition fees some years ago sticks with her even today. The impact on those that have to clean up the mess is enormous.

3) I cannot imagine how I would feel if my 9 year daughter were killed because she wasn't wearing a seat belt, particularly if it were in a car I was driving.

It is nonsense to say that the only impact a death will have is on the insurance or medical costs. When a person dies or is severely injured the impact is far from being restricted to that person.

On the other hand there is statistical evidence of drivers' performance dropping because of seat belts. When the UK introduced compulsory seat belts they triumphantly declared the drop in in-car deaths that resulted. What they were less open about was the INCREASE in pedestrian and cyclist deaths and accidents that occurred that was later put down to an increase in careless driving. The overall result was a net drop in deaths but it isn't all good news.

[tanglewood]

You can actually kill someone in your car if you're not wearing a seatbelt, even if the other person is. Especially if you are sitting in the back seat.

[Buccaneer]

I've never been a fan of the "slippery slope" type of argument. Usually, as acknowledged, the arguments made are fairly absurd and have very little ground in reality.

The thing people tend to forget is that driving on public roads is not a right, it's a privilege that is granted by the state. If you have a stretch of property you can drive around drunk and seatbeltless all you want on your property. But if you are going to exert your state-granted privilege and drive on publically funded roads then you have to abide by any restrictions the state imposes on this privilege: being of a certain age, driving within posted speed limits, not being impaired, wearing a seatbelt, etc.

It is perfectly reasonable, and likely desirable, for a state to desire to find ways to reduce insurance costs and medical costs for its citizens. It would be absurd for the state to institute Quik's "dental plan" (LISA NEEDS BRACES!) because the foundation for such a law would be quite tenuous (much more so than, say, smoking ban laws which I wont go into here). However, if the state finds a way to achieve its goal of reducing insurance/medical costs to a restriction on a state-granted privilege it is pretty logical. In fact, it's almost Vulcan like.
Then why is the federal govt budgeting $100+m?

[kcchief19]

I, too, am of two minds on this matter.

How far should this logic go, then? Should we arrest people who don't go to the dentist every six months? Their behavior, we know, leads to greater and costlier problems down the road -- which cause insurance rates to go up as well. Is there a compelling societal interest in every facet of pre-emptive medical care, on these same grounds?

I recognize it's a fairly absurd argument... but if the logic of the issue at hand leads you to an absurd conclusion, then there's a flaw in the logic. I think that boils down to the reason for a seatbelt law to the too-simplistic reason of purely preventive care. I would say there are multiple arguments for a seatbelt law. If all of those arguments also matched the need for preventive dental care, then you could extend the logic. But the fact that two disparate preventive actions share a similar benefit does not make them equal.

I think a big difference is that there is an indirect correlation between preventive health care and insurace rates but there is no correlation between not wearing a seatbelt and insurance rates. If you don't go to the dentist or are overweight or any other risk factor that affects your future potential health costs, you will pay more for insurance than someone who does not. If you do not wear your seatbelt, it doesn't matter -- your insurance rates won't change.

The individual rights streak in me supports the idea of leaving the issue to personal responsibility. If insurance companies want, I would support them selling insurance policies that do not cover injuries that occurred when the individual was not wearing a seatbelt. If you're injured and are not wearing a seatbelt, then you'll need to pay for it yourself. Of course, this will eventually mean that these people will end up on Medicaid and the rest of us will foot the bill anyway. I would also support the idea of insurance companies selling no-seatbelt insurance. If you don't want to wear a seatbelt, you can buy insurance to protect yourself. But I wouldn't want to see the rates for that.

[Craptacular]

You can actually kill someone in your car if you're not wearing a seatbelt, even if the other person is. Especially if you are sitting in the back seat.
Or if you get ejected from the car and become a projectile, hitting someone else in another car.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Then why is the federal govt budgeting $100+m?
Not sure why or how this matters, Buc.

But let me explain how it works. It's pretty simple really.

Driving is a privilege granted by the states. States set speed limits, blood alochol rates, seatbelt laws, legal driving age, etc.

That said, the Federal government often "influences" states decisions because, as you mention, the Fed has a lot of money that budgets out to the states. However whether a state receives this money is often contingent upon a state performing some task or passing some law that is reasonably related to the money available.

A good example of this was the drinking age. Back in the day the Federal government told the states "States. We have a lot of money for new highways and highway repair. If you want to see any of this money, you have to increase the legal drinking age to 21." Some states complained, went to court, and the court held that the Federal government can make monies it gives to states contingent upon reasonably related laws. In that case the legal drinking age and new highways were related enough, because rising the drinking age was supposed to lead to safer roads (fewer drunks youngin's on the streets).

So, the fact that the Federal government is budgeting money for something that the states have control over is not unique or odd in any way.

Though, as a Libertarian like yourself, I can see why you aint fan of this type of thing one bit.

[dawgfan]

What strikes me about this thread is that while I've seen plenty of objections to these seatbelt laws on principle, I've yet to see any objection to these laws in practice, with the caveat that some object to Federal funds being spent on promoting the enforcement of them.

Basically, I see a lot of arguments saying "I think it's a good idea to wear a seat belt, but I don't like the idea of the government telling me I have to", or "While wearing a seatbelt is a good idea, creating laws enforcing this behavior sets a bad precedent that could lead down a slippery slope path".

I guess my point is, can anyone make a reasonable argument about why one wouldn't wear a seat belt? And if no such reasonable arguments can be made, then why the fuss over giving up this particular freedom? As has been noted previously in this thread, while we live in what we call a "free" society, in truth we have sacrificed many freedoms for the greater good. Obviously we don't all agree on all of these infringements on our freedoms - witness the calls for repealing laws restricting marijuana use, to point out one obvious example - but we do live in a society that restricts certain freedoms. Why not this one?

[cuervo72]

Didn't we have a thread on this kid already?

[Buccaneer]

HB. not one bit at all. I have no qualms about seat belt laws (or lack thereof) - it is up to the State to decide since that is where privilieges and rules come from. The Feds shouldn't use this (or any other laws) to enforce rules or to blackmail states on issues that is up to the State or municipailities. The same goes for Education and a few other big one-size-fits-all bureaucracies. One can argue that the feds can enforce their rules on the federal highway but since there are no (or can be) federal highway patrols, the State obviously has to do it. That's why the 10th Amendment is still on the books.

[Marc Vaughan]

I actually saw a very good program on road safety a while back - to summarise:

* The more safety devices which are deployed the more recklessly people drive to offset it, people enjoy risk and if things get safer they do stupider and stupider things ...

(which I have to say I agree with to a certain extent)

[BrianD]

I actually saw a very good program on road safety a while back - to summarise:

* The more safety devices which are deployed the more recklessly people drive to offset it, people enjoy risk and if things get safer they do stupider and stupider things ...

(which I have to say I agree with to a certain extent)

Is this really true? Seems like quite an expensive piece of equipment to be reckless with.

[Ksyrup]

Before airbags and seatbeat laws, I used to stop at the blinking lights for trains. Now, I can't tell you how many times I've driven up to those same blinking lights and said, "Fuck it, I'm protected."

[lurker]

Is this really true? Seems like quite an expensive piece of equipment to be reckless with.

Dammit, do people have me on ignore or something? This is like the tenth time in a row I've talked about something that people later only react to when someone else brings it up.

Anyway, isn't it possible that we all drive a little less carefully now, without even being aware of it? I'm not saying it's a good thing, but think about how fast we drive now compared to 75 years ago and try to imagine going 80 miles an hour before seatbelts. I'm sure increased safety has increased speeds and carelessness to some degree.

[BrianD]

Dammit, do people have me on ignore or something? This is like the tenth time in a row I've talked about something that people later only react to when someone else brings it up.

Anyway, isn't it possible that we all drive a little less carefully now, without even being aware of it? I'm not saying it's a good thing, but think about how fast we drive now compared to 75 years ago and try to imagine going 80 miles an hour before seatbelts. I'm sure increased safety has increased speeds and carelessness to some degree.

I had thought about asking this question earlier, but by the time I read your statement, it was already buried in the middle of other topic shifts.

I'm sure people drive faster now without really thinking about it. If I drive to the corner gas station without a seat belt, I feel very exposed. I certainly feel much safer with the belt on. I just wonder how many people really are more careless because of the safety measures. I have always thought that getting in a car accident would totally suck. While death would be worse, the accident itself would still totally suck.

Of course, I've always believed that I am a poor indicator of society as a whole, so what do I know?

[HomerJSimpson]

I had thought about asking this question earlier, but by the time I read your statement, it was already buried in the middle of other topic shifts.

I'm sure people drive faster now without really thinking about it. If I drive to the corner gas station without a seat belt, I feel very exposed. I certainly feel much safer with the belt on. I just wonder how many people really are more careless because of the safety measures. I have always thought that getting in a car accident would totally suck. While death would be worse, the accident itself would still totally suck.

Of course, I've always believed that I am a poor indicator of society as a whole, so what do I know?


I would say the biggest factor on people driving more reckless has nothing to do with safety-devices, but much more to do with the ease newer vehicles can handle faster speeds. My car handles the road much better than my 1971 Mercury Montego. It was a more powerful car, but it handled like bagged cat. I can drive much faster, and feel much more in control, in my new car.

[sterlingice]

Before airbags and seatbeat laws, I used to stop at the blinking lights for trains. Now, I can't tell you how many times I've driven up to those same blinking lights and said, "Fuck it, I'm protected."
Are you serious? (Sorry, can't detect sarcasm so well online)

SI

[dawgfan]

I would say the biggest factor on people driving more reckless has nothing to do with safety-devices, but much more to do with the ease newer vehicles can handle faster speeds. My car handles the road much better than my 1971 Mercury Montego. It was a more powerful car, but it handled like bagged cat. I can drive much faster, and feel much more in control, in my new car.

Bingo. I think this makes far more sense as a factor in more reckless driving than an increase in the effectiveness of safety devices. Compare a typical car you'd buy new today with one from the 80's or earlier, and there's a definite difference in their handling.

[Mac Howard]

Dammit, do people have me on ignore or something? This is like the tenth time in a row I've talked about something that people later only react to when someone else brings it up.

Anyway, isn't it possible that we all drive a little less carefully now, without even being aware of it?

I'm begiining to feel the same, lurker :) Let me repeat what I said earlier which has also been ignored:

there is statistical evidence following the introduction of laws making it compulsary to wear seatbelts in the UK that, while deaths to drivers and passengers reduced, deaths and injuries to pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists from accidents with cars (and by extension with drivers wearing seatbelts) increased significantly and that investigations into this concluded that it was due to an invulnerability mentality causing drivers to drive with less care. This also took place some years ago (I can't remember exactly when now) when cars were not as powerful or well designed as today and also took place in the immediate years subsequent to the law change - indicating that there was little difference between cars used in the before/after comparison.

I don't think there's any doubt that seatbelts cause complacency.

[HomerJSimpson]

I'm begiining to feel the same, lurker :) Let me repeat what I said earlier which has also been ignored:

there is statistical evidence following the introduction of laws making it compulsary to wear seatbelts in the UK that, while deaths to drivers and passengers reduced, deaths and injuries to pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists from accidents with cars (and by extension with drivers wearing seatbelts) increased significantly and that investigations into this concluded that it was due to an invulnerability mentality causing drivers to drive with less care. This also took place some years ago (I can't remember exactly when now) when cars were not as powerful or well designed as today and also took place in the immediate years subsequent to the law change - indicating that there was little difference between cars used in the before/after comparison.

I don't think there's any doubt that seatbelts cause complacency.


I didn't ignore it, but questioned its accuracy. The study you are talking about, I believe, was done in the 70's and has been called into question by a number of other studies.

[Mac Howard]

I recall the report but never heard the questioning. What was the sudden increase in out-of-car deaths and accidents that coincided with the introduction of the new laws put down to?

[HomerJSimpson]

I recall the report but never heard the questioning. What was the sudden increase in out-of-car deaths and accidents that coincided with the introduction of the new laws put down to?


I looked it up, and there are two studies. One suggesting seat-belts alone cause the increase, and one later that says it is more due to safefty standards on cars as a whole (just as we were saying earlier. Not just seat-belts, but better handling cars, cars that can better handle impacts, etc.). Notice, both of these studies were done 30 years ago. Many studies since have yet to return the same conclusions, but these two are used as "gospel" to the anit-seatbelt law crowd.

[Mac Howard]

Not just seat-belts, but better handling cars, cars that can better handle impacts, etc.). Notice, both of these studies were done 30 years ago. Many studies since have yet to return the same conclusions, but these two are used as "gospel" to the anit-seatbelt law crowd.

I wonder if we're not arguing at cross purposes here, Homer. The decrease in in-car and increase in out-of-car deaths and accidents occured immediately after the introduction of the seatbelt laws. There was no worthwhile change in car design between the cars prior to the new laws and those immediately after as I mentioned above.

The definitive evidence is in the accident records immediately following the introduction of the laws. There is no question that there is a significant change in both counts coinciding with the introduction of the laws - a quite distinct leap down/up in both. I suspect various people have an agenda in "questioning" these figures.

[Tekneek]

What I don't get is you can beleive that the government has no right to mandate that you wear a seatbelt, but still beleive that it is a good idea and do it.

??? I don't believe the government should force adults to wear seatbelts. I do wear mine, but of my own free will. I was wearing seatbelts when it was not required by the government. I will wear them when/if it is no longer required by the government. You can be against government force, even if it is for something you would do anyway. What does not make sense about that?

[Tekneek]

Obviously we don't all agree on all of these infringements on our freedoms - witness the calls for repealing laws restricting marijuana use, to point out one obvious example - but we do live in a society that restricts certain freedoms. Why not this one?

Once an intrusion on privacy or the rights of individuals becomes normal and expected, it is almost always used for additional invasions and restrictions. Next time you read about some controversial proposal for a new one, you will find references to the invasions/restrictions that we already accept as an excuse to accept another one. People already forget that we have not always had income tax, and for an even shorter time have had payroll-withholdings. Once people get used to it, they are more likely to accept another encroachment.

I am against the use of government force in a matter like seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. An adult should be able to make up their own mind about whether they want that protection or not. When it comes to minors, though, I feel much different. I can see a reason to compel them to be safe by using seatbelts until they are an adult (18 years of age, or more likely 21 according to our laws), but then give them the freedom to determine for themselves. I don't have a problem with letting adults be free as long as they are not depriving someone else of their liberty.

[Marc Vaughan]

I would say the biggest factor on people driving more reckless has nothing to do with safety-devices, but much more to do with the ease newer vehicles can handle faster speeds. My car handles the road much better than my 1971 Mercury Montego. It was a more powerful car, but it handled like bagged cat. I can drive much faster, and feel much more in control, in my new car.
Same thing imho - a car handling better is a 'safety device' like it or not ;)

[albionmoonlight]

??? I don't believe the government should force adults to wear seatbelts. I do wear mine, but of my own free will. I was wearing seatbelts when it was not required by the government. I will wear them when/if it is no longer required by the government. You can be against government force, even if it is for something you would do anyway. What does not make sense about that?
I really wish I had rephrased my earlier quote.

I meant that "What I don't get [about what that guy did is that he ignored the fact that] . . ."

In other words, I agree with the position that I espoused earlier in the thread.

[Mac Howard]

Same thing imho - a car handling better is a 'safety device' like it or not ;)

That's probably true though the increase in speed and acceleration may not be an unalloyed aid to safety.

What has happened over the years are considerable improvements in crash/driver proofing - regulation of bumper heights, collapsable front ends, improved side-crash protection, monocoque body construction, anti-lock brakes (originally banned as unsafe :rolleyes: ), rollover bars, air bags etc and not forgetting improved road design and construction.. These have clearly all affected both injury and crash rates.

But when it comes to the affectiveness of seatbelts, which is surely most relevant to this thread, then it's important to eliminate these other influences from the equation and that's why the initial figures that were collected before these changes are the best indicator. I stress this because, for the non-lawyers amongst us (which I sometimes suspect is a minority ;) ), the choice is between a distaste for government interference in our everyday actions and a suspicion that, in this case, they're actually right that their law may save our life one day.