Governmental Involvement of Seat Belt Usage

[MarkOfEternity]

I was just wondering what you all thought of something as simple as the government (for example, the state of Illinois) passings laws that require motorists to use a seat belt or get a ticket. I don't expect you all to agree, obviously, that is why this is posted as a debate. Please explain why you think the way you do, and I will do my best to support my decision. Who knows, maybe you'll change my perspective.

 

It just seems wrong to me that a government official can tell me that I have to wear a seat belt. If even one case exists where a person could have been better off in a car accident had he not been wearing a seat belt, that should be a choice that the driver gets to make. I have heard stories of people who didn't wear a seat belt being thrown from a burning wreck. I have heard stories that support seat belt laws, and stories that suggest a seat belt may have killed someone. If there is even a 1:1,000,000 chance that not wearing a seat belt could save your life, isn't that your choice to make?

 

Let me know what you think.

[m3l3ana]

It has been a law in NZ for as long as I can remember, that no matter where you sit you HAVE to wear your seatbelt. If you are under the age of 14 and are caught not wearing your seatbelt the fine (of $150) goes to the driver of the car. If you are over the age of 14 then the fine (again of $150) goes to you!

 

I full agree that everyone should wear their seatbelts, no matter if you are going near or far (do you know the McDonalds ad?) I have heard stories of people not wearing their seatbelts and surviving an accident, and people saying that if they were wearing their seatbelt they would have died, but I have heard more stories of people who haven't worn their seatbelts and die in an accident and more stories that if they had of been wearing their seatbelts they would have survived!!!

 

I know that sometimes it is a pain in the backside, and sometimes I don't want to wear mine either, but generally they inforce the law for our own good :yes:

[MarkOfEternity]

But why do other people know what is best for us? Should the driver know what is best for the driver? What if there is a medical condition that doesn't allow the driver to wear a safety belt the right way. Then it wouldn't be safe, let alone safer than not wearing one. I think the government oversteps its boundaries when we are told we HAVE to wear a seat belt. Of course, I've said that before, but I still want to emphasize it. For those of you who believe in premonitions, what if you had a dream that revealed to you that your life would be saved by not wearing a seat belt. Wouldn't you worry every time you were required by law to put one on? Shouldn't it really be your own choice?

[m3l3ana]

Most people who have medical conditions that would not allow them to wear their seatbelt properly, would be able to get a seatbelt custom made for them?

 

If you don't want the Government to look out for your safety, then why don't you at all the other laws out there that are their to protect you? All the Government are trying to do is protect you from harm, they have found a way to do that (and yes there is sometimes a SLIGHT chance that you will be better off not wearing your seatbelt) but would you rather have a 95% chance of living and 5% chance of dying or the other way round? (don't quote me on those percentages, I have to do some research)

[MarkOfEternity]

A custom made seatbelt would cost money. Money that most people who live where I live would not be able to afford. And honestly, there are quite a few laws I disagree with, but I thought I would pick one that seemed benign. However, if automobile distributors offered seat-restraints with a 5-point harness, or free customization of restraints, I might reconsider my position on it being a bad idea to be forced to buckle up. One of my main problems is, seat belts cannot be easily customized to fit any individual -- at least not here. The basic driver shoulder belt is designed for a 6 foot male driver. If you're not, then you are not wearing the belt properly and are at risk.

[m3l3ana]

Yes and if you walk out your front door you are at risk of being shoot, or if you cross the street you are at risk of being hit by a car, if get on a plane you are at risk of dying due to a plane crash!! You are always at risk of something, but you have a higher percentage of living if you wear your safetybelt than if you don't, so isn't that a good thing?

[MarkOfEternity]

It is not a good thing to be forced to do something that you are not inclined to do, under the false assumption that it is safer. After all, there may be one time that it is not safer to wear a seat belt. Therefore, the logic is flawed. If the government will make you wear a seat belt because it is safer, then wearing a seat belt should ALWAYS be safer. Otherwise, the government shouldn't dictate that I must wear a seat belt, on the chance that it MIGHT be safer.

[m3l3ana]

So what if they reword it and say "The Law is you MUST wear your seatbelt, cause it COULD save your life." We wouldn't be having this debate? If that is the case then this is a pointless topic?

 

The Government can not protect you 100% of the time, and if they did we would all probably be locked in bubbles for the rest of our lives. The Government is trying to help protect you, they don't always get it 100% right, but then who does? If you are ungrateful that they are trying then don't wear your safetybelt and refuse to pay the infringements. Take a stand!

[MarkOfEternity]

The problem with saying "you must wear a seatbelt because it could save your life," is that there is also the implication that it could take your life.

 

I've written to my Congress-person, don't worry. I've followed the "rules" when it comes to complaining about government involvement. Bureaucracy doesn't work, but without a following, there is little one person can do except start debates on message boards and hope to incite many people to mass action.

 

Unfortunately, most of the people I talk to who agree with me are simply to apathetic to do anything about it.

[m3l3ana]

So all you want is the rewording of the law? You don't mind if the law still exists as long as it is reworded so that it doesn't say it will always save your life??

[MarkOfEternity]

Well, no. That's not entirely true. I hate the idea of the law that violates, what I feel to be, a person right to choose not to wear a seat belt. As an adult, I feel I have the right to choose to wear a seat belt, if I like, and to not, if I feel for some reason I might be safer not to.

[m3l3ana]

But that is what most laws do. They either take away your right to do something or make you do something, but they are generally there to either protect you or to protect someone else!

[MarkOfEternity]

Then again, and I may have mentioned this before, why should the government be allowed to protect us from ourselves? If I want to drive without a seatbelt, who does it hurt other than me? In any case, it is getting late, so I'm going to leave this debate for someone else to take over. I just hope that my words of wisdom are not lost on deaf ears.

[Guest jamieleigh]

I believe that wearing a seatbelt should be your choice. Yes, wearing your seatbelt could save your life, but I personally know of instances involving friends of mine who's lives were saved because they were NOT wearing seatbelts.

 

When ever I get into a car, I buckle my seatbelt, weather my mom's giving me a ride to school or I'm going to the mall with some friends, but that's my choice. I would wear a seatbelt even if it wasn't the law. However, I'm certain that law enforcement officials can be doing things that better serve the community than fining people for not doing something that could possible save their lives. (Getting more drunk drivers off of the street, perhaps?)

 

Police officers don't randomly come around to see if people wash their hands regularly, or to check and make sure that they're eating healthy, or to ensure that they lock their doors at night. Even though all of these things have the potential to save our lives, they are our responsibility. They're things you just learn to do, not because it's the law, but because they help ensure your health and safety. Shouldn't seatbelts be treated the same way? If you want to risk your life by riding in a car without a seatbelt, that should be your right.

[Ithil]

In Belgium, it's in the law also : everybody in a car must have his seatbelt, no matter if the travel is short or long.

I lock it, everytime, it's a reflex and I don't think about it. And I think this is a good law because there are far more lifes that were saved thanks a seatbelt than the opposite. I have found some ciffers about that: seatbelt lower from 40% the deads, and lower from 17 to 25% the serious injuries. And the ciffers are far more higher when concerning the children involved in accidents (50% and 30% respectively).

What will happens if you have an accident and the children in the cars were not secured? It's really really dangerous for passengers, especially small children, without seatbelt.

About people who can't because medical condition, they can ask a medical certificate, I know it's possible for pregant women.

 

Like Mariane said, there is no life with no risk, we can't live in bubbles. Of course, it's your choice. If you don't want to lock your seatbelt, as if you prefer cross a big road outside the pedestrian crossings. -_-

But I think the law don't step the boundaries of your private life. It can reminder people to take their responsibilities, and save their lives and the lives of their children.

[spunky_munky_gal]

Then again, and I may have mentioned this before, why should the government be allowed to protect us from ourselves? If I want to drive without a seatbelt, who does it hurt other than me? In any case, it is getting late, so I'm going to leave this debate for someone else to take over. I just hope that my words of wisdom are not lost on deaf ears.

 

To some extent I agree with you in regards to civil liberties, but it won't always be the case that you aren't endangering someone else's life or infringing on their rights. I've hit a pedestrian (a suicidal one) at low speed, and he very nearly came through my windscreen. A full-grown adult hurtling in a high-speed accident could be lethal to other occupants of the vehicle. That's why you can get safety harnesses for dogs now - they're just as dangerous in accidents.

 

Besides, the government legislates because they're footing the clean up cost. Emergency services are the ones who get to clean up after people who choose to ignore the law. Not so much fun for them either.

[Patch]

just looking at the constitutional side of this argument. the main constitutional arguments would be (i am using the Us constitution as my base) does this violate the first amendment, and or is this a federal right or a state right. on the first amendment issue the government would be allowed to intact this law because of the greater good and or inherent danger. two limiting factor of free speech. just thought that i would be nerdy and bring in the legality of this issue :nerd:

[MarkOfEternity]

Besides, the government legislates because they're footing the clean up cost. Emergency services are the ones who get to clean up after people who choose to ignore the law. Not so much fun for them either.

 

I do see where you're coming from, I just don't agree with it. To my knowledge, they use taxes to pay for emergency services, which I pay. Where I'm from, the county even has a quota on how many seat belt tickets MUST be given out by each officer. You don't think if an officer is near the end of the month and hasn't made his quota yet, he might start stopping people and saying "you just put that seatbelt on?"

 

It happened to me. But that's beside the point. We have an imperfect system that is trying to pretend it's perfect. It tells people to buckle up, because it will save lives, even though it always won't. My main argument is that of choice. Call me crazy... call me unintelligent. If I had a dream that I would be thrown from a burning car after an accident, shouldn't I have the right to interpret that dream as some omnipotent force telling me I shouldn't wear my seatbelt today?

 

I think that is the best way I can explain my argument.

[Xepha]

I had an car accident. I didn't wear the seatbelt because we were going 3 corners away. I'm alive because the boyfriend of my mom put his arm between his seat and mom's seat so I wouldn't go through the glass and be ejected of the car. It's now really important for me to wear a seatbelt all the time!

 

Yes, it can also hurt you if you crash and wear a seatbelt... I remember that my mom had bruises for a very long time because she was wearing a belt. But hey, she is alive... and I could not be.

 

I know it can be annoying to realise that other people know better what is good for you. It doesn't seem so logical, but under certain circonstances it is better to listen to what was turned into a law.

 

Even with all laws and security recommendations, people are dying everyday. Is it because they didn't listen or because accident can still happen and we can't control our environment at 100%?

[MarkOfEternity]

That is a beautiful story. Now all we have to do it turn it around and feel heartfelt for the other person. He says something like this:

 

"I was in a car accident 2 years ago. My wife and I were in the car. She had a seatbelt on, and I didn't. I'm with you today, because I was thrown from the wreckage. As I pulled myself up to get back to my wife and help her, I watched the car explode into flames. I thank God that I had that dream that me and my wife would be thrown from a flaming wreckage... I only wish she would have listened to me. I am now devoting my life to teaching people how to listen to God."

[antiaircraft]

From a purely scientific standpoint, wearing a seatbelt is a good idea. Every safety mechanism ever implemented has a risk of backfiring somehow. Airbags have been known to injure or suffocate some unfortunate occupants. You've probably accidentally locked yourself out of your house or car at some point in time. The real point of safety mechanisms, speaking scientifically, is that they reduce the chance of a negative outcome. So, there's really no way to be sure that a seat belt won't end up killing you instead of saving you, but you do know that it means that you're less likely to die if you have a car accident.

 

Now onto my opinion: there's no real point in enforcing a seat belt law. Whether or not to wear a seat belt should be the choice of each individual. There are simply too many possibilities where seat belts would be impractical, for example medical conditions (which I believe have been mentioned earlier). Most people aren't stupid - I always wear a seat belt because it's a sensible thing to do, not because there's some law that says I have to do it.

[spunky_munky_gal]

Articulate and persuasive sky shadow. There's only one flaw in your argument: 'most people aren't stupid'. I'm afraid the world is full of stupid people, that's why they have the stupid-people population control measure celebrated by the Darwin awards. :laughingsmiley:

[antiaircraft]

Yes, there are far too many stupid people in the world, but they are still a minority - there's simply no way you'll win an argument with a stupid/ignorant person, even through solid logic (this is from my personal experience). Forcing them to do something through the law will just cause resentment and have little overall effect (many people I know just refuse to wear seat belts out of laziness, even on long/hazardous trips - they only put them on when passing police checkpoints).

 

We have to be responsible for our own actions - sometimes it's logical not to wear a seat belt, in which case nobody can blame you. On the other hand, if you die because you neglected your seat belt without a good reason, well that's your mistake.

[MarkOfEternity]

I actually agree with Sky Shadow on this one. Wearing a seat belt... should be circumstantial. If circumstances tell you that you should wear one, and you die... well, you picked the wrong circumstance. In either case... it shouldn't be a law.

 

Actually, I'm kind of jealous. He made my argument a lot better than I did.

[m3l3ana]

If you haven't figured it out already Mark, AA (Sky Shadow) is our resident genuis, I mean literally!! He is 14 and already studying at University. I guess you could call him a child prodidgy!! But he is also very annoying, he corrects my grammar all the time :P

 

Now anyway... I had a point I was going to make that was on-topic...

 

You need to look at the figures. The Government has done test etc that make it logical for them to make it a law for you to wear your seatbelt. They have found (amoung other people) that you are safer in a vehicle wearing a seatbelt than not and therefore they have made the law that you along with everyone else in your Country and mine have to wear their seatbelts. Xepha's story is common, you hear them all the time (well similar), but your story well to be honest that was the first time I had ever heard anything like it. I have heard the odd story of if Joe Blogs hadn't been wearing his safety belt then he would have survived the accident etc and then the whole Country gets into an uproar about why the law exists etc but in the end nothing happens and the law stays the same, because in the end it is safer for you to wear your safety belt than it is for you to drive without it.

 

Plus what would you do for children if the law didn't exist? Would you leave up to the driver of the car (like it is now) or would you leave it up to them? In the end their parent is responsible for their safety and most of the time we would buckle our kids up cause that is just the right thing to do, but I know people who do it because they have to, not because they want to. So if you get rid of the law, they will just put their kids in the car and not buckle them up. That is not the childs fault that is the parents fault, but if their is an accident ultimately the childs life will pay for it, so who is to decide?