1

An alternatate solution may be to allow insurance companies to refuse payment of medical benefits to drivers who are not wearing their seat belt - that would allow for true individual choice, however, this would not necessarily restrain costs.

There are a number of ripple effects - those who could not pay would force government or health care providers to pick up the tab, increasing their costs, which in turn ae passed onto us.

Also, litigation would certainly follow in regard to "unintentional seat belt release" increasing costs once again on us.

The solution for the community at large seems to be to make sure that we restrain costs by making the most people wear their belts - tickets may actually be the most "cost effective" way to do it - I can't say.

2

I'm ambivalent about seat-belt laws, but I sure resent municipalities passing laws regarding the use of cell phones in cars. Maybe it's a matter of degree, or maybe because seat-belt use for me is so automatic I don't think about it.

But make me shut off my cell phone while driving, and you'll have a fight on your hands.

3

Joe

I am not sure your counters really work in this case. I will take them in order:
1. Private Property--usually when the state imposes restrictions on use of private property it is because the actions restricted have a direct impact on others. For example operating a strip club out of my house would have direct, measurable impacts on my neighbors, as would burying drums of toxic waste in my backyard. Choosing not to were a seatbelt, OTOH does not directly impact anybody but the driver/passenger and his family. In addition, while it increases my risk of serious injury or death in a car accident, not wearing a seatbelt does not increase my risk of getting into an accident. Also, while I agree that the state does have some interest in curtailing harmful behavior, how far do we want to take that? Using your argument, the government could move to restrict the use of radios, eating, or talking to passengers while driving, as these behaviors have been shown to increase the possibility of having an accident, which is more of a direct impact to others.

2. Regarding insurance, everywhere I have lived (Maryland, Florida, and Texas), auto insurance also had to have some level of personal injury coverage (for insured) or bodily injury protection (for others). This probably minimizes the state's level of exposure in all but the most severe accidents. Also, you did mention that the state does pick up the tab for other injuries that could be considered self inflicted (i.e. smoking, overeating, extreme sports, etc.) I am not sure that not wearing seatbelts is worthy of special treatment. Something that should be noted is that in some rare cases, wearing a seatbelt may actually cause an injury. Should the state assume responsibility for these cases? Another problem I have with the "click it or ticket" laws is that it implies that there is no better use of police than running around making sure that everyone is wearing a seatbelt.

3. You are making an assertion without citing any evidence. You say that without seatbelt laws, auto insurance would be much higher, I personally have been driving for over 20 years and I have not noticed any significant changes in my insurance rates since mandatory seatbelt laws have been inacted. The big drops I noticed were when I turned 25, and when I got married, neither of which had anything to do with wearing a seatbelt. I think the reason for this is that bodily injury coverage is only a small part of total auto insurance coverage (in my case it is about a third). While I am willing to concede that a small portion of my auto insurance premium is due to unseatbelted drivers, I imagine it is probably on the order of dollars, possibly 10's of dollars per year, not much more.

4

Your argument that the state can use its "property right" to control your behavior runs afoul of every notion of private property rights and privacy we have. Taken to the logical conclusion, the state could assume total control over everything in your car because its "property rights" would supercede yours over everything in your car. It could for instance say that you could not put a gun in your car, regardless of the 2nd amendment, because as owner of the roads, the state gets to control anything in your car.

There are consequences to abandoning philosophical consistency, and conservatives are being forced to slowly realize that with the gay marriage debate that is only possible today because of state intervention into one our holiest institutions. If you open up this can of worms Joe, say good bye to even more of your personal property rights.

If the government really serves us, then the government's "rights" are always subordinate to ours when ours don't clearly conflict with the rights of the general public. The greater good is only served when freedom is maximized for the majority, not when freedom is restricted. A simple, utilitarian look at your argument would clearly indicate that in the long run your suggestion would greatly empower the state first to the detriment of a minority, then by wave after wave of chipping away at small freedoms, to the detriment of the "greater public."

5

RE: Point #3

Dear UCFENGR,

I'm a little fuzzy on the timeframes and such here, but...

About 15 years ago, Massachusetts adopted a mandatory seatbelt law.

Auto insurance rates went down (5% - 10%, if I recall).

Then Jerry Williams, a libertarian radio talk show host in Boston, sparked a movement to get the government out of our front seats. Eventually, a referendum passed and the mandatory seatbelt law was repealed.

The next year, the state insurance commission permitted rates to return to their prior levels. Williams was outraged, charging that this was payback by the powers-that-were in retaliation against his people's campaign.

I just shook my head.

6

Rod--In your post it is not clear whether the drop in car insurance rates was due to lower costs that the insurance companies experienced due to the passing of the seat belt law or perhaps was part of a deal made to get the law passed (or something else). In any case I am not sure that it refutes my point, I did concede that perhaps some of my auto insurance premium was due to costs imposed by unbelted motorists, but that it was insignificant compared to the loss of freedom. Even using the 10% figure, my insurance would go down less than $10 per month (assuming that the entire rate drop was due to the seat belt law, which I do not concede). For me (and everybody I know), $10 gets lost in the noise of my family budget.

7

I myself hold to a slight gloss on the Mill-ian principle that "you can do what you like if you don't harm other people":

"Your future self is another person".

Ie, as far as possible you should not inflict irreparable harm (death or disability) on yourself. So the law can take steps to discourage suicide, use of psychotic or addictive drugs, or Jackass-style idiotic stunts. I do not say that criminal laws are always the best way to "discourage" these activities.

Of course, all of our activities can "harm" us in the sense of closing off future options. Selecting the "wrong" university course at 18 may leave you at 35 with a huge student debt and stuck in an unhappy, low-paying job. So the principle has to be used sparingly. But I think it's a necessary corollary of the logic of liberalism, if not libertarianism -- that the govt usually doesn't know what's right for you, so you need to experiment to find out the best life for yourself. Something that is certain or virtually certain to leave you dead or crippled cannot possibly be said to have any value for this purpose.

8

What's often missed in these discussions, and is addressed somewhat in this thread (specifically this comment), is the relatively small burden placed upon individuals by requiring seat belt use. It doesn't cost a person any extra to wear a seat belt, as all cars have come with them since time immemorial (or the 1970's). The investment of time to "click it" is negiligible.

9

Another consideration is that our government is multiplying these laws, making minor things criminal behavior. Seatbelt laws give the police another opportunity to stop someone, and municipalities an opportunity to collect additional taxes. ARe they really performing their duty to protect society by stopping seat-belt violators? How many more cops does it take to police all these minor infractions? If people were really responsible for themselves and not government, then the government would have no cost for a person who injured themselves. Insurance companies can write this into their policies as already mentioned, and there is no coercian by the force of government involved. We have lived so long in a free society that we are unable to consider the consequences of minor laws that would give a corrupt official an opportunity or a tyrannical government a multitude of ways to turn any citizen into a criminal. We no longer know how to think as a free people, nor do we have a healthy fear of government which our forefathers definitely had.
Franklin said it well when he said that people who want both security and freedom will have neither.
(in full disclosure, I was stopped today for not wearing my seatbelt, and received a $120 fine.)

10

Suppose I'm drinking a cup of coffee, spill some on my lap. In so doing, I run a red sign and hit a car that has just come into the intersection. My speed was, say, 25 miles per hour.

The driver of the other car was not wearing a seat belt, and so was very grievously injured, or killed, when otherwise it would have been just a banged-up door and front panel.

So: the inevitable lawsuits ensue. Can I not argue that I, too, was injured by the other driver's failure to wear a seat belt? It was clearly an accident, though my fault. Should I be liable for a serious injury, when it almost certainly would not have resulted absent the other driver's failure to buckle up?

I don't have an axe to grind here, I'm just wondering.

11

Another reason that comes to my mind to favor the seat belt laws, is for the protection of children. If just Jane Doe were involved here, I might be more inclined to say, "It is her decision to wear a seatbelt or not", (although I think that you have brought up some good points, Joe.) But what about Jane Doe's two little girls? They might not have been given the choice of life or death if their mother didn't buckle them up or teach them to buckle up. Should their fate be left uncertain in order to protect their mother's liberty in this area?

12

Kevin:

I've got a better one than that, and a real one, even. A man was driving drunk and hit a woman on the side of the road. The woman was a Jehovah's witness, and refused a blood transfusion, and died from her injuries. The driver was charged with murder, but is that fair, given that the woman would almost certainly have made a full recovery had she received a transfusion?

13

I rode a Blackhawk once. The flight chief did not ask me to buckle up, he told me to and then checked to see if I did. No if ands or buts. Get on an airplane and you are required to buckle up. In neither case did someone stand up and shout "I have my rights! I don't need to buckle a seat belt!" And yet, in advent of a crash of either vehicle, most likely no one would have survived. But, when we get in a car the seatbelt will save your life in advent of a crash.
On the other hand, we now live in a world of everybody is a busy body and we will tell you how to live. And I don't wonder---we have so many self-destructive behaviors that I kinda think that some people decided enough! let's do something about it! Now a nanny state has started because of our own actions. I do not believe that anything you do does not affect no one. Everything you do does affect many, around you now, and those of the future. People are two short sighted and we demonstrate too many times that we are not our best judge of what to do.

14

The main problem I have with "nanny" laws, like "click it or ticket" is that it is an example of how much of our hard fought freedom we have ceded to government busybodies. There are a whole lot of things that we could do to make ourselves healthier and safer, exercising regularly, eating right, not smoking, etc.; should we make those things mandatory too? In Montgomery County, Maryland (near where I live) there are communities that are trying to ban cigarette smoking in private homes. Is that where we want to go? First we could have the police running around making sure our seatbelts are fastened, then maybe we could assign a couple of officers to patrol the supermarkets to make sure we aren't buying to many fatty foods and not enough fruits and vegatables. If you are already overweight perhaps the state could order you to undergo a mandatory P.T. program, similiar to what happens in the military. Then we could station cops at the borders to make sure you aren't trying to smuggle in any tobacco products. You may argue that this is an extreme scenario that is unlikely to happen, but I imagine if in the 1970's, when smoking was banned on flights within the US, that 15-20 years later smoking would be banned in all buildings open to the public, you would have called me extreme, but here we are.

15

You're right, TG, that is a better example. Not exactly one concerning seat belts, but I'll remember it so I can use it later. Without attribution, of course.

16

I started using a seat belt when I was in the Army. The Colonel said, "From now on, we will all wear seat belts." Of course, I was subject to his orders because I had volunteered. I'm less clear on how the state gets the authority to regulate this. Because it's their road? Would it be within their authority to ban tobacco use while driving? Is there any limit to what the state could require of drivers?

17

Hey Tom,

Is there any limit to what the state could require of drivers?

Your question brings up a point that a lot of people who have commented are missing -- we are the "state".

Seat belt laws were not handed down by a degree of a dictator or monarch. They were enacted by duly elected state legislatures that we put in office to make those types of decisions for us. The limits on what can be allowed are the limits we put on the legislatures.

If anyone thinks the law is too intrusive then they can simply lobby their state representative to change it.

18

I started wearing a seat belt consistently when I owned a Jeep; when I drove with the doors off it was the only thing that kept my behind on the vinyl seat. My seatbelt habit got seriously reinforced when my wife, daughter & I had a run-in with a 900lb hieffer on a highway one late September evening. If we weren't buckled in... So I don't need any outside enforcement to get me to buckle up when I get in a vehicle.

ucfengr brought up the point I was thinking of when I started reading this thread; if the state can dictate seatbelt use because it's good for me and saves the populace healthcare money, what else can they dictate? What I eat? That's getting a little too far to the Left for my taste. Joe's argument is good, but I don't care for some of the laws that get passed by our duly elected officials, and who knows what they might come up with to "improve society".

So in the end, the Libertarian in me wins out. The less I have dictated to me, the better. But for those poor unfortunate fools who aren't as smart as me... ;o)

19

Dave:
if the state can dictate seatbelt use because it's good for me and saves the populace healthcare money, what else can they dictate? What I eat? That's getting a little too far to the Left for my taste.

That's a slippery slope argument that I'm not sure applies here. You have to weigh the benefits against the degree of imposition. A seat belt requirement is fairly benign.

And to a large extent, the government already does control what you eat. The FDA has very strict rules concerning what may and may not be sold as food.

20

"Click it or ticket" and helmet laws are both immoral intrusions on our autonomy, AND, at least as far as the former goes, has come about through a bypass of the Constitution.

I'll deal with the bypass aspect first, because it serves to refute the "we are the people" argument offered by Joe.

Most seat belt laws have been passed by state legislator's under threat of losing Federal funding. Assuredly, it was never the intent of the Founders for the Federal gov't to blackmail the states.

As for the intrusions upon our autonomy:

As noted, the justifications used to trump our autonomy in this issue can be used to trump it in ANY issue. Since clearly nobody here is willing to accept the consequences of such a regime, let's examine the points:

1) State Property rights - this only applies if the state can demonstrate that the behavior in question IS harmful to the property, or to others. Wearing, or not wearing, a seatbelt simply isn't a sufficient harm risk to others, and presents NO appreciable risk to the road itself. Also, unlike private property rights, state property rights are not exclusive. In short, it IS my road also.

2) Protection of State Resources: the problem with this argument is it goes back to #1. They are also MY resources. Additionally, there is the matter of since when did it become the state's RESPONSIBILITY? Emergency services, once they move beyond the realm of GENERAL WELFARE, (putting out the fire so the neighborhood doesn't burn down), are merely another form of social welfare. Relieving individuals of responsibility for the consequences of their actions amounts to infantalizing them, the epitomy of the nanny state.

3) Harm to Others: Doesn't fly. Restricting MY freedom in order to reduce YOUR insurance rates? Insurance companies should simply be permitted to deny settlement to individuals who are at fault and not buckled. You can't, however, allow them to deny settlement to victims who weren't buckled.

"So: the inevitable lawsuits ensue. Can I not argue that I, too, was injured by the other driver's failure to wear a seat belt? It was clearly an accident, though my fault. Should I be liable for a serious injury, when it almost certainly would not have resulted absent the other driver's failure to buckle up?" Your argument is that, due to the other driver's choices, the costs of your irresponsibility has gone up, and hence you should be able to collect the difference, right? Try arguing that the guy who bought the Mercedes you creamed is responsible for you having to replace a totalled Mercedes, rather than a totalled Kia. :D

I trust my example illustrates the absurdity of this one... not that some folks (not posting here) might not try it.

Now, for full disclosure: I've never been ticketed for no seatbelt, although I had to bail out a buddy last week who got taken to the pokey for driving on a suspended license, the result of a "clicket" stop. He had no idea his license was suspended, AND the stop literally took place in his DRIVEWAY.

Also, I DO wear a seatbelt, AND I DO wear a motorcycle helmet.