CodyD

Seatbelt Laws

17 posts in this topic

Kansas is going crazy with their click it or ticket commercials. You can now get a citation if you are in the front seats(driver OR passenger) without a seatbelt. This whole thing is rationally wrong-laws are meant to protect you from others, not from yourself. If you are going to be foolish, be foolish by all means, just don't hurt me. Them being seriously wounded by not wearing their seatbelts does not hurt me.

Is there a constitutional basis for the repealing of this law? Philosophically, yes, the law isn't meant to do that, but under our constitution, can this law stand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kansas is going crazy with their click it or ticket commercials.  You can now get a citation if you are in the front seats(driver OR passenger) without a seatbelt.  This whole thing is rationally wrong-laws are meant to protect you from others, not from yourself.  If you are going to be foolish, be foolish by all means, just don't hurt me.  Them being seriously wounded by not wearing their seatbelts does not hurt me.

If a driver who is not wearing a seatbelt hits his head during an accident and becomes unconscious, there is no one in control the car in the aftermath of the accident. The car becomes a lethal weapon of destruction against innocent bystanders and motorists until the car is finally brought to a stop. If the driver was wearing a seat belt he may have been shaken or injured, but as long as he was still conscious he can attempt to control and/or stop the car before further damage is done. So, a driver not wearing a seat belt can hurt you. Likewise, when a car is sufficiently impacted, an unbelted passenger can be catapulted out of the vehicle, thereby endangering others, not just himself.

In lieu of private ownership of the roads, the government is currently the custodian and thereby incurs the responsibility for establishing traffic laws and regulations for the proper safety of the citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a constitutional basis for the repealing of this law?  Philosophically, yes, the law isn't meant to do that, but under our constitution, can this law stand?
I would think there is, though Kansas law may be radically different. I expect that his law was created by the state legislature, and that there are constitutional provisions for repealing the law. Usually you just get a majority in the two houses, and the governor has to sign or at least not veto. Some states have an initiative procedure for directly voting on laws -- dunno if Kansas does. OTOH if you're asking, is the law unconstitutional, I think it probably is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kansas is going crazy with their click it or ticket commercials.  You can now get a citation if you are in the front seats(driver OR passenger) without a seatbelt.  This whole thing is rationally wrong-laws are meant to protect you from others, not from yourself.

I have two questions:

(1) What do you mean by "rationally wrong"?

(2) If you were to rank all the destructive, nonobjective laws in the U. S., from most destructive at the top of the list to least destructive at the bottom, where would you place the Kansas seat-belt law? When I say "destructive," I am referring to the actual effects on peaceful and honest individuals' lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida is currently running an ad campaign titled 'click it or ticket.' There are many reasons why you ought to wear a seatbelt. In the vast majority of cases you would be irrational if you do not wear one. But the commercial itself has a very heavy paternalistic tone to it, which absolutely digusts me. On the rank of destructive laws this does rank near the bottom. But that doesnt mean that the premises behind the law aren't the same ones which rank towards the top when it comes to destructive premises (assuming the premises in the commercial are the same ones behind the law.)

That being said, I would rather invest my time fighting more destructive laws and the premises behind the seatbelt laws in general. Once roads are privately owned the seatbelt issue can be dealt with very easily :)

Marcus Lange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're blamed for a traffic accident and someone dies, you can be held legally responsible for the person's death. Without the contractual provisions private roads would likely provide with respect to responsibility in such matters, the government has to patch it up with more regulations that (surprise) extort more money from you and/or take away your personal choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Click it or Ticket" is a campaign of the federal government.

If a state were to repeal its seatbelt laws or even revise them to something other than the federal government's liking, then that state would lose federal funding for its highways. Based on a conversation I had with friends this week, I learned that every state now requires that all passengers be buckled up. Previously, some states did not require that adult passenegers in the back seat be buckled up, but the federal government used this threat to get them to change their state laws. For a state to defy the federal government and assert its independence by repealing its seat belt laws is, I am afraid to say, a long way off.

I also agree that while these laws are annoying and condescending, they are also on the lowest end of the scale of destuctiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree that while these laws are annoying and condescending, they are also on the lowest end of the scale of destuctiveness.

Not to mention it saves lives! Seriously, how much emotional trauma does putting on a seat-belt cause, versus the immeasurable value of saving your own life in the event of an accident? People need to get over themselves and just buckle-up.

However, I will say this: there should be special permits that certain people can obtain, that is pertinent to their line of work.

Case in point: My father has workers that on a daily basis must drive and check our oil-wells for a variety of important reasons, and often times to traverse from one Oil-lease to the other it is only literally about a 1/4 mile down the highway from one gate to another, and they are making these mini-drives down the highway nearly half-a-hundred times a day, having to buckle and un-buckle only to drive 400 yards at 40mph on a not very busy highway in a rural area.

Cases like that, or farmers for example, I can understand not having to buckle up.

But then again, apparently not all highway laws need to make sense: for example, when my brother was still too young to legally drive a car, it was still perfectly legal for him to drive the gigantic tractor we just bought through a city and down a highway on a 6 hour trip! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention it saves lives! Seriously, how much emotional trauma does putting on a seat-belt cause, versus the immeasurable value of saving your own life in the event of an accident? People need to get over themselves and just buckle-up.

I certainly don't dispute that these laws have saved lives. It is largely because of these laws that I automatized the practice of wearing a seat belt before I even learned to drive. And it is because of that habit that I didn't die one November morning in Austin, TX at the ripe old age of 25.

I should have referred not to the laws per se, but to this campaign, as annoying and condescending. I have not encountered anybody so daft as to refuse to wear a seat belt either out of laziness or in defiance of seat belt laws in decades. I don't have the statistics handy, but I'd be willing to bet that deaths in traffic accidents due to not wearing seat belts is down significantly since people started wearing seat belts in traffic -- partially to obey the law but also because they knew it made sense to do so.

I see this campaign as just another government effort that achieved something worthwhile; but wasn't willing to admit victory, retire the colors, and send the troops back home. I mean really, do I need the federal government to tell me not to drink cyanide?

Lastly, what does it mean to "get over oneself"? I have heard that expression many times, but I have never heard it defined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're blamed for a traffic accident and someone dies, you can be held legally responsible for the person's death.

Nebraska Revised Statute 28-306(1) reads as follows: "A person who causes the death of another unintentionally while engaged in the operation of a motor vehicle in violation of the law of the State of Nebraska or in violation of any city or village ordinance commits motor vehicle homicide."

A couple things on this for consideration. Note that liability under this statute only comes if you were driving in violation of the law. Note also that the statute requires that you cause the death. I imagine that causation is an element of the crime that the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. A plausible argument that the victim would not have died were he wearing a seatbelt would probably create reasonable doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I now think it is very wise to wear a seatbelt and do (not primarily because of the government though), I did not use to wear one. I have been in many accidents while driving and not driving (none of them were my fault, really), and have never been severely injured. The first 3 accidents that I was in I was not even the driver of the vehicle.

As a matter of fact the first accident that I was in happened on my way to Drivers Education when I was 16 years of age. I was not driving the car and was a passenger in the front seat at the time of the accident. Just the day before we had learned how to respond and correct the car if you happen to go off on to the shoulder. The problem was that there was no shoulder just a 12 inch drop from the newly paved concrete to the begining of a ditch. When the driver allowed his car to go over the edge of the pavement both the tires on the passenger side of his new Ford Mustang blew and sent us in to an uncontrolled ride into three ditches while also going across the road two times. We finally ended up flying out of the last ditch toward some trees, hitting them and then flipping into a corn field. The engine and front end of the car was almost sitting in my lap, the driver was unconscious and there was smoke coming from the engine. The windshield was also shattered but still in place. I woke up the driver and told him that we needed to get out of the car and we did very quickly. By the time I made it to the road I started to feel something dripping from my head and asked my friend if I was bleeding. Holy ____!, was his reply, so I gathered that I was bleeding.

The first car that my friend tried to wave down took one look as us and sped off without hesitation. We decided to start walking to the hospital while waiting for another car to come by. This was of course long before cellular phones. About 15 minutes later (this was a country road), another car came by and the guy gave us a ride. Twenty stitches later on the left side of my head and I left the hospital. My friend did not have any injuries at all. Besides the scar on my head you would never know that I was in an accident if I did not just tell you.

This was a time before seatbelt laws became law as it was just a recommendation to wear one. I did not take their recommendation, but as you can see I lived. I would recommend now that it would be very wise to wear one in almost all situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the rank of destructive laws ... I would rather invest my time fighting more destructive laws

What do you mean by "destructive laws" in this case. Do you disagree with what I said in a prior post, that in lieu of private ownership of the roads, the government is currently the custodian and thereby incurs the responsibility for establishing traffic laws and regulations for the proper safety of the citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "destructive laws" in this case. Do you disagree with what I said in a prior post, that in lieu of private ownership of the roads, the government is currently the custodian and thereby incurs the responsibility for establishing traffic laws and regulations for the proper safety of the citizens.

By destructive laws I mean laws which violate individuals rights. I meant that I would rather write my congressman about keeping the state income tax out of FL, than repealing the seatbelt laws. And yes I do agree with the government being responsible for traffic laws, since most roads are currently not privately owned. My primary gripe with this advertisement campaign is the condescending tone. The "We're going to save lives for your own good, because you are too helpless to do it yourself" bs. Whenever I hear that on tv or the radio, I think to myself 'go to hell you paternalistic bastards' :)

Marcus Lange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "destructive laws" in this case. Do you disagree with what I said in a prior post, that in lieu of private ownership of the roads, the government is currently the custodian and thereby incurs the responsibility for establishing traffic laws and regulations for the proper safety of the citizens.

I don't disagree, but it certainly ignores the definition of a beauraucrat and the power of the lobbyists for the insurance industry [only those not familiar with this industry wouldn't stop to think that they haven't had a somewhat immoral hand in the manipulating the system to assess and reduce their risk].

Between 1994 and 2004 the drop in fatalities was a whopping 1,999. What I haven't been able to find is how much the *clickit or ticket campaign* has cost taxpayers, which, in my opinion, is where the destruction has occurred.

Brin Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--------

Between 1994 and 2004 the drop in fatalities was a whopping 1,999. What I haven't been able to find is how much the *clickit or ticket campaign* has cost taxpayers, which, in my opinion, is where the destruction has occurred.

Brin Hendrix

Statistics on seat belt laws are really useless in my opinion. Cars manufactured today are generally safer than cars from years ago. Many cars are designed to absorb the energy of imact during a crash. Counteracting this is the fact that when people believe they are safer, they will take on more risk, such as driving at higher speeds, taking turns at higher speeds, etc.

The basic reason for wearing seat belts is that it is rational to do so. When a one to two ton vehicle is travelling at a speed greater than 20 or 30 mph and suddenly stops due to an accident, the momentum on the human body if not restrained will almost always result in severe injury or death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "destructive laws" in this case. Do you disagree with what I said in a prior post, that in lieu of private ownership of the roads, the government is currently the custodian and thereby incurs the responsibility for establishing traffic laws and regulations for the proper safety of the citizens.

By destructive laws I mean laws which violate individuals rights. I meant that I would rather write my congressman about keeping the state income tax out of FL, than repealing the seatbelt laws. And yes I do agree with the government being responsible for traffic laws, since most roads are currently not privately owned.

But if you agree that, considering the circumstances, the government is in fact responsible for such laws, then why is this a "destructive law?" By enacting this law your rights are not being violated over and above the actual violation of having the government build and maintain the roads in the first place. Granted the situation, the law is enacting a reasonable and responsible restraint on actions.

My primary gripe with this advertisement campaign is the condescending tone. The "We're going to save lives for your own good, because you are too helpless to do it yourself" bs. Whenever I hear that on tv or the radio, I think to myself 'go to hell you paternalistic bastards' :)

Oh, sure, a paternal State is atrocious in a multitude of ways. But, in this case there is at least an objective basis for requiring seat belt use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you agree that, considering the circumstances, the government is in fact responsible for such laws, then why is this a "destructive law?" By enacting this law your rights are not being violated over and above the actual violation of having the government build and maintain the roads in the first place. Granted the situation, the law is enacting a reasonable and responsible restraint on actions.

Oh, sure, a paternal State is atrocious in a multitude of ways. But, in this case there is at least an objective basis for requiring seat belt use.

Yes you have a point there. :) I was grouping all laws which are not designed primarily to protect ones rights as destructive. In this case the law itself is not destructive, but instead the lack of private ownership of the roads (which ends up requiring the government to make these regulations/laws.) The advertisement campaign about this law just gets me angry because the campaign is so explicit about protecting me from making bad decisions.

Marcus Lange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites