Darwin at work or going out on your own terms?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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]

Originally Posted by lurker

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]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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]

Originally Posted by 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."

Are you serious? (Sorry, can't detect sarcasm so well online)

SI

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

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]

Originally Posted by lurker

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]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

??? 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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

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]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

??? 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]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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 ), 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.