[Technoman]

The question I have for Gary Richards, the Roadshow man --beside if there isn't any nanny law he doesn't like--is whether we rather our police bust seatbelt violators all day or focus on real road hazards.

Having a license to drive means signing a contract to follow the rules of the road.

True, we sign a contract with the state to drive a motor vehicle. But who is the state? Bingo! You and me--the tax payers who pay those in law enforcement--who have signed a contract with us to keep our roads safe.

The California Highway Patrol recently received a 1.5 million grant, which was used to promote their Click-it campaign, which included billboard advertising and radio and cable television commercials in English and Spanish. Encouraging drivers to buckle up, they claim many lives were saved.

But I argue: what were the cause of most of those accidents? If the money instead was used to target the unsafe drivers who caused those accidents, more lives would be saved. But the California Highway Patrol insists on enforcing this ridiculous law to keep the flow of federal grant money coming in.

Those of you who believe in personal responsibility without "nannys", would like the Highway Patrols to begin to fulfilling their contract with us, write your legislator today! Demand that these silly seatbelt laws are removed from the books so our law enforcement--that we pay for--can once again move their scares resources to make our roads safe from traffic scofflaws. In California, you can click here.

You can write to Mr. Roadshow, Gary Richards, here.

[muawiyah]

No doubt the fundamental problem with seat-belts is they are a gol-darned new-fangled gadget that no responsible driver ever needs.

It's time to roll time back to the happy days of the 1950s where we can once again experience the thrill of launching ourselves out through the windshield of a Studebaker!

Neat scar tissue helps a fellow get the neatest dates.

[BenLurkin]

Old Ben has to review numerous traffic collision reports in the course of his work. I also have to review the photos if any were taken. And driving as I do about three hours each day on L.A. freeways, I've also personally seen a number mild, moderate, and severe traffic collisions.

People underestimate the energies involved in auto accidents. We don't sense how much velocity we have in our vehicles until they spin, roll over or come to a sudden stop.

There are too many pictures of the dead and horribly injured drivers and passengers who are ejected during an accident. Death and injury will always accompany collisions, but seatbelts do indeed save lives.

[southernnorthcarolina]

Some people refuse to wear seatbelts because they are "too confining."

Not as confining as one of these, however:

[gorush]

Seat belt laws are cleary unconstitutional. The word "liberty" must be expunged from the federal and state constitutions. The fact that the public pays for injuries to the unbelted is a problem with socialism, not liberty...and our government is socialist, more's the pity.

[Servant of the 9]

If you die because you stubbornly don't buckle up, your death will affect family and friends. I doubt if they are OK with that…

They may be family, but they sure aren't your friends.
Friends support you in your choices.

SO9

[agitator]

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm

[Publius6961]

I am not signing up with any stupid newspaper to see the rest of this loser article. I can already see where it is headed; it is not necessary to read more.

… Having a license to drive means signing a contract to follow the rules of the road.
It does not mean following stupid rules of the road. The only lawful rules are those aimed at protecting others from my lapses in judgement.

Wearing your seat belt is one of them.
A stupid rule? definitely.

... If you die because you stubbornly don't buckle up, your death will affect family and friends. I doubt if they are OK with that…
This goes to the heart of the matter. So what?
There are lots of things that family and friends might not approve of: joining the marines; skydiving; spelunking, scuba diving; sky diving, rock climbing; bungee-jumping; becoming an astronaut...
The world is replete with risky choices none of which are the nanny state's business, and all of which most normal families suck up.

Go back in your cave and come up with a more cogent argument. Having a drivers license is quite close to the age where no one else has (or should have)control over your life activities. Just ask the perverts.

One last thought: when seat belts were being "argued", we were reassured repeatedly that they would forever be voluntary. Read the Congressional speeches and news reports of the time, you bleepin' idiot!

[Hardastarboard]

This is about the insurance companies' profits, like most of the laws that have been passed in the last fifty years. Whether or not seat belts reduce death rates, they definitely reduce injuries, which saves the insurance companies money. And that, my friend, is more important that any delusions you may have about freedom.

On another note, my mechanic refuses to ever wear a seat belt, and law enforcement be damned. He got trapped in a burning car once, and couldn't get out because the seat belt jammed. Kind of hard to argue with him about that.

[lsee]

There are many nanny laws I don't like and with which I disagree, but in the absence of good universal judgement, I think there is a balance to be found between law and choice. Looking at it another way...if I turn out to be one of those reckless drivers and I cause an accident, the personal losses to ME, both financially and emotionally, will be much less if the other driver's life is saved by their seatbelt. I might still get sued, but it won't be for causing a death.

1.5 million grant in the State of California? A drop in the budget bucket, really...much less than is wasted every year to other political causes. For example, the current immigration and environmental laws might actually be much more ridiculous...and expensive.

[Paleo Conservative]

Seat belts have saved my father's life twice. First back in the 1966, and more recently two and a half weeks ago. Unfortunately back in 1966 his Olsmobile only had lap belts so he ate some plastic from the steering wheel. He's needed lots of dental work due to molars that were cracked.

His more recent accident which was caused by the other driver running a red light, caused extensive damage to the front end of his SUV. The airbags did not deploy, because he swerved to avoid hitting the passenger compartment of the pickup that had acclerated through the red light. If he had not swerved, he would have hit the pickup straight on and deployed the airbags but would have killed the other driver's mother.

[CindyDawg]

It's just another pocket. I wear mine but it should be my choice and I shouldn't get ticketed if I forget. Make a law that no one can get pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt and only a free educated warning can be given with other violations.

[Plant7Pugsley]

I am perfectly fine with you not wearing a helmet or a seat belt, but I think if you get in an accident an you are not wearing a seat belt, you waive all liability. Ie you cannot sue the other car (even if they are at fault) you cannot sue the automaker, .... if you are not wearing you safety protection whose to say you wouldn't have been hurt. Its your right not to wear one, but you have to bear the complete responsibility of not wearing it.

[Lx]

When our state, California first started with the seatbelt law, they swore the would NEVER stop a vehicle just for a seatbelt violation. They would only issue a ticket if it happened during a normal traffic stop.

Kind of like a temporary tax...

[festus]

>You might die if you don't wear it

Yup and without it I'll die too......

>Yah but it will cost society more

Nope not unless we are making the government pay for my healthcare.

Besides are our lives supposed to be lived so as to serve the state and the greater good or do we still believe in a principle called personal freedom. The freedom to take risks and live with the consequences.

[You Dirty Rats]

People that don't wear seat belts are total morons. I think parents should be held criminally liable if they don't fasten the kids in or put them in a secure seat if too young to wear a belt. If morons want to not wear seat belts and imitate a missile when they go through the windshield, that's their fault. Frankly, though, I don't have a problem with mandatory seat belt laws. Seat belts save lives -- only someone at the OJ jury level of refusal to see the evidence would dispute that.

Surely you can find a more egregious and pointless intrusion on personal liberty than this!

[L98Fiero]

Tricky one.

I think people should wear seat belts for their own safety but I am against laws requiring people to do so. It's the stuff of a nanny-state, IMO.

[IronJack]

To the people arguing that wearing seat belts saves lives:

Nobody is disagreeing with that. The bone of contention against mandatory belt laws is that the GOVERNMENT is usurping the right to decide how safely we live. That is a decision best left to the individual, not to a (theoretically) well-intentioned behemoth.

[Celtman]

Good post.

      But there are two separate questions being discussed already.  I believe your post poses the question,

1. Should the state use its police power to force those is moving vehicles to wear seatbelts?

      And lurking in the penumbra is an emotionally related but logically separate question:

2. Should those is moving vehicles wear seatbelts?

      Question 1 is political.  IMO, conservatives, who believe in individual responsibility, should quickly answer, NO.  Liberals, who believe in ?, will answer, yes. 
      And then there are the fuzzy thinkers, who apparently believe that answering the second question answers the first.

Down with fuzzy thinking!

Up with indiviual responsibility!

Down with the nanny state!

[claptrap]

These same government types are all for "personal choice"
when it comes to exterminating an unwanted fetus.
But you better be buckled into that killer SUV or you are
breaking the Law. Which is worse in your book?

[Tax Government]

The government is very negligent in its most basic obligations -- maintaining a sound currency and borders, for example. Government fritters away its time and credibility, playing mother-in-law by enforcing seat-belt laws.

I would like all legislators in California to be required to wear a full-face motorcycle helmet when in session. The face shield should be reflective and in the down position, of course. Those soft heads need protection, and we in turn need protection from them.