Posted on 02/17/2005 10:28:42 AM PST by freepatriot32
The seat belt law is a law premised on protecting the safety of the user. Now you seem to want to argue the validity of the law based on the rationale of protecting third parties. Despite the fact that you may have seen one instance of a person losing control of a vehicle because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, you have not presented any evidence whatsoever that this is a significant public safety issue and, in fact, have admitted that the "significance" of the threat can be debated. In the absence of any such evidence, you cannot justify the restraint on personal freedom that the law imposes. Drunk driving, excessive speed, driving with your lights off at night, I can easily find evidence of the danger to third parties of these activities. I challenge you to find such evidence supporting a seat belt law to protect the safety of third parties .
In fact there is evidence to the contrary. Economists such as Christopher Garbacz suggest that greater safety can make drivers more comfortable with dangerous driving, which puts the lives of more innocents—like pedestrians, cyclists and other passengers—in jeopardy. Sam Peltzman did a similar study back in the early 1970s. Empicical evidence confirms this. The imposition of the seatbelt law in the UK was accompanied by increases in deaths to pedestrians. Until you can prove that your "driverless car" problem outweighs any risk posed to pedestrians by more agressive driving, you can't justify the law.
""In the absence of any such evidence, you cannot justify the restraint on personal freedom that the law imposes.""
And what evidence have you presented that your personal freedoms have been imposed on ( with a seat belt law )? What is it that a seat belt law keeps you from doing? Driving where you like, no. Driving the type of vehicle you like, no. Screaming at the top of your lungs while you drive, no. I don`t see your point on this.
""Until you can prove that your "driverless car" problem outweighs any risk posed to pedestrians by more agressive driving, you can't justify the law."
Aggressive driving is legal?
I think the argument here is that seat belt laws promote aggressive behavior. That evidence is debatable. It could also be applied to smoother roads, raised speed limits , better handling suspensions , air bags , anti-lock brakes ,
"safer" built cars in general etc....
Certain types of vehicles also promote aggressive driving.There is evidence SUV`s promote aggressive driving practices. Should we ban certain types of vehicles because some of the people who drive them act like idiots, of course not. This issue as more to do with personal behavior.
I have been stating that the debate on state mandated seat belt useage needs to take this one issue into consideration. Being properly restrained behind the wheel of your vehicle not only protects you, but also other drivers( and pedestrians )on the road because of the possibility that you may be jarred from behind the wheel in a minor accident , thereby losing control of your vehicle, threatening the safety of others. It has/does happen , and I am not the only one to have witnessed such an event. So I am sure somewhere out there statistics on this exist. I will let those elected officials in the state house work that out.
We could argue this issue for years ( which as been done anyway ). But in the end, the people of the state will decide what is right for them. You don`t like the seat belt law in your state , move. You have that right.
Uh, the seatbelt law prohibits you from driving without a seatbelt.
You haven't given me one solid argument other than one instance you witnessed. Find the statistics if they exist. The internet is at your fingertips.
You don`t like the seat belt law in your state, move. You have that right.
That's a ridiculous statement to throw into a political discussion. You have the right to move to Ireland if you are pro-life. It doesn't make the law any less wrong in America.
Because they are mandatory.
"You haven't given me one solid argument other than one instance you witnessed. Find the statistics if they exist. The internet is at your fingertips."
I am not here to prove anything. I am expressing my opinion on the issue. That is all.
You are the one who is demanding evidence. Well, copy and pasting quotes off the internet , and relying on snippets from questionable/debatable sources , is not what I call evidence. So what have you proven? What evidence have you presented?
I think we have a difference of opinion on the definition of freedom. You feel seat belt laws infringe upon your freedom, and I don`t see how it does.
We don`t have "complete" freedom in this country, and never have. Like it or not, the majority rules. Each state ( and the people of that state ), will decide what laws they feel are correct to govern their state. As long as those laws do not infringe upon your Constitutional Rights, there is not much you can do about them. Except work to change them ( via electing officials that represent your views), or by leaving that state you feel is so oppressive. What is so ridiculous about that?
"Uh, the seatbelt law prohibits you from driving without a seatbelt."
No it does not. You can choose not to wear a seat belt, and still drive your vehicle. You would be breaking the law and could face a fine, but it does not "prohibit" you from not wearing one.
In some states, if your car did not come equipped from the factory with seat belts, you don`t have to wear one. So buy a car without factory equipped seat belts. Anything pre-1965 model could apply there. Some types of trucks do not fall under the seat belt law as well.
I don`t know of a single person who has had their driving privilages revoked because they refused to wear their seat belt ( at least in my state ).
Alright, I can see what I'm dealing with and it's not worth it to reason with someone who makes statements like that, refers to driving as a "privilege", or can't back up their opinions with logic and/or facts.
We need MORE republicans so the RINOs can be marginalized out of the system.
Seatbelt use IS included in mitigation during jury trials. Those nifty black boxes which data record accidents in automobiles DO record seatbelt use.
The issue is back passengers not front passengers. There is also the issue of seats without sholder straps. Lap belts cause paralysis spinal injuries because the person is literally folded in half suddenly.
What insurance does not cover SHALL be picked up by taxpayers regardless if no other coverage exists.
If you want, just serve on a jury and deny any money for the poor shlub who was minding his own business.
Education not legislation is the best key.
"Alright, I can see what I'm dealing with and it's not worth it to reason with someone who makes statements like that, refers to driving as a "privilege", or can't back up their opinions with logic and/or facts."
Yes, I feel the same way. I am still waiting for your logic and your facts. You have only presented debatable information, just as I have. Maybe that is why this issue has been debated on for years ! There are no definitive answers.
Oh, and driving is a privilege my friend, not a right ( or even a personal freedom as some would argue). If you drive in an irresponsible manner all the time ( or sometimes just once ), you will lose that privilege/freedom. That is a "fact". It happens in our courts of law everyday.
Thank you for teaching me what goes on in our courts, and about logic. Although I am a trial lawyer, I had no idea about either. Your wisdom is infinite.
Not necessarily. Many states have added to their seatbelt laws provisions making its use or nonuse inadmissible in any civil action. Other states have allowed it to be used in mitigation, but limited it to a small percentage (e.g. Iowa limits the reduction in the non-seatbelt wearer's recovery to 5%, only a 1% maximum reduction in Missouri). In states with no applicable statutes, courts have split over whether seatbelt use can be considered in mitigation because it differs from traditional mitigation in that it is a precaution to be taken before the injury, instead of after.
...Wyss said legislators should focus on public safety, not personal rights.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK!
After all, we wouldn't want anyone giving consideration to personal rights would we? I mean, that's why we have the Bill of Safeties, isn't it? Oh, wait a minute...
Why don't they just outlaw cars? That would solve this whole safety issue completly.
They can't enforce the seatbelt law anyway. I wear mine if I'm driving in conditions where I think I might need it, but I don't wear it when I go to my local rural country store. If I see a cop, I just reach over and pull the belt across my shoulder. When he gets out of sight, I let it go. Pee on them. They can't make me wear a seatbelt.
Condescension : a tactic right out of the "liberal elite" playbook.
That doesn't prove it's not a right. Most rights come with limits beyond which you cannot exercise them (your right to swing your arm around is limited by the location of the other guy's nose, etc.). If it were a "priveliege", it would be moral for the government to dispense it based on criteria unrelated to the actual proximate results of letting you drive. For example, they could decide you must vote or you don't get a driver's licence, etc. Before you start, I'm aware they already do this (high school grades, child support payments, etc). My position is that they got into that mode because of their mistaken belief that driving is a privelige, when in fact it should be viewed as a right subject only to limitations derived directly from one's DRIVING ability or behavior (reckless driving, drunken driving, poor eyesight, etc.).
A privilege is basically another word for a right, maybe it can be viewed as a special right. But if you look at it as a special right, it can also be viewed as a privilege ( they are basically the same , IMO ). A drivers license is a grant from the state ( or the people of that state ) to an individual. But not all people can attain it (as you stated , blind people for instance ). So if not all people can attain it, is it a right?
I view a "right" as something concrete or absolute, something that cannot be revoked. Privileges can be revoked, so I see it as a better term to use.
If it was a right, you wouldn`t need to demostrate anything, it would be granted freely.
If your response was to refute my definition or opinion on how drivers licenses are viewed, then we just disagree.
But I am not one who favors policies that limit someones ability to attain a drivers license because of a failure to pay child support , or a student getting bad grades. We can mostly blame our liberal friends and activist judges for that.
But this thread was about seat belt laws. Which seems to be a very touchy subject. Like smoking threads, JFK assasination threads , threads on raising kids.... I am begining to think some threads you just need to turn away from and just watch from the sidelines. It is more fun.
It ain't going to lower premiums so forgetaboutit!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.