Seat Belt Laws

Wow, i started this thread with the intent of getting a little friday intellectual conversation, and now its monday and we are still on it. . . SWEET.

Quote:

---

The statement above is not entirely true. Someone cited an advert involving a passenger in the back seat not wearing his seatbelt and killing the person in front of them. So you see, you can be directly responsible for someone's injury or (quite probably) death simply by not wearing a seatbelt.

---

Yes this was brought up, but the laws where I live, except for the kids 9 and under who have to be buckled period, only apply to front seat passengers. So if you are 10+ and in the back seat it is not the law to buckle up. I am not sure but i think they didn't include the back seat since one of the major injuries, at least i think, is caused by you colliding with the airbag, which is not as bad with seatbelt.

Quote:

---

it all breaks down to common sense, and if you don't have it, then stay off of the roads........

---

I would just like to point out that common sense is somewhat of an oxymoron, if it was "common" sense then a large majority of people would have it and at least in my observations of people in general during my relatively short lief thus far most people do not have common sense.

Quote:

---

I would just like to point out that common sense is somewhat of an oxymoron

---

I think you can take "common sense" as an everyday term and assume that the person who used it was not trying to imply that the majority of people are sensible.

Quote:

---

Yes this was brought up, but the laws where I live, except for the kids 9 and under who have to be buckled period, only apply to front seat passengers

---

That's fair enough, but the real argument here is whether or not the laws are a breach of your civil liberties or not, not whether having certain seat belt laws in a certain place annoy you. In order to debate this, we have to think about things such as whether or not you affect others by your decision (I'm not talking about you in particular) not to wear a seatbelt - and perhaps take into account the fact that not everyone agrees that you should be allowed to choose to endanger yourself (not my opinion).

Another point would be where the responsibility lies to ensure that people in a vehicle are wearing their seatbelts. Is it with the individual, or is it with the operator of that vehicle (i.e. the driver)? You could argue that by a driver not forcing everyone in a car to wear their seatbelt, they are endangering their passengers and thus harming others. But I guess that that's another argument entirely.

OT: AFAIK, the issue about not having young children in the front seat, even in a child seat, is because of the fact that babies have been killed before by the airbag colliding with them.

ac

Quote:

---

That's fair enough, but the real argument here is whether or not the laws are a breach of your civil liberties or not, not whether having certain seat belt laws in a certain place annoy you.

---

True, but i guess that is a big part of the reason i see this as a civil liberties issue. Now again this is all conjecture, but if the main reason the govnt was making it illegal to not wear a seat belt was safety, then why do they only make the law applicable to passengers in the front seat. The very fact that back seat passengers do not have to buckle up if they are over a certain age seems to send the message that at that age cut off you are old enough to realise the risks and make a decision to be safe or not on your own. So basically i feel that if the gocnt's motives were solely the safety of the populus, or even just making claims and what not cheeper for tax reasons, then they should have made the laws for everyone in the car period. Since they do not expand to cover all, it is a double standard. I would actually think that injuries from the back seat would be more severe than the front since there is a general lack of air bag in the back of a car.

Quote:

---

What is it with you guys down there in the US of A, if the gov't at the state level decides to revoke your license for good, what are you going to do about it

---

Well actually the funny thing about this is once you get your liscense in one state you can legally drive in all states. Which makes it seem like the drivers liscense facilities are somehow relate from state to state. But if one state revokes or suspends your liscense, whether it is the state it was issued in or not, then you can still drive legally in all other states. This actually happened to my older brother. He got a bunch of tickets in Wisconson and they suspended his liscense but he can still drive fine in any other state, and once the statute of limitations runs out up there then he can drive in Wisconson once again.

Quote:

---

then why do they only make the law applicable to passengers in the front seat.

---

Lets take this further.....why aren't school buses for little children equipped with some sort of restraint, a lot of injuries and fatalities to children on school buses are because they are free to roam, I don't like this sites use of the term funny video, but you can see the effect of what happens with a busload of kids who are not restrained some how.

http://www.killsometime.com/Video/video.asp?ID=312

I've seen others, yet what is being done about this problem, is it the ostrich head in the sand problem, will it get fixed after a schoolbus is totaled with all of the kids on board, why is it everything related to health and safety has a "reactive solution"(something is done after the fact) why can't we be "proactive" espescially when it involves the children????

If enough people maintain a negative attitude towards these sort of things, then yes as far as I am concerned it is "foot dragging" it's the "it will never happen to me syndrome"......

Quote:

---

This actually happened to my older brother. He got a bunch of tickets in Wisconson and they suspended his liscense but he can still drive fine in any other state, and once the statute of limitations runs out up there then he can drive in Wisconson once again.

---

So that's like he has 49 other get out of jail free passes right?

Quote:

---

why aren't school buses for little children equipped with some sort of restraint,

---

I assume by the very fact that you brought this up that the busses you took to school didn't have seatbelts? I didn't look at the vid you linked too but i have seen similar vids if not that exact one. Now all the buses i took from grade school through highschool came with seat belts, well they did when new most were taken off by trouble makers. . . . and i may have a few. Now you brought up a really good point here, since the laws state that in a car, van, suv, whatever that kids X age and under must be wearing one period, i am VERY curious why that doesn't translate over to school transportation as well. I am going to go do a little looking around to see if i can find out why school buses don't always have them. The only thing i can think of off the top of my head is the date of making. It may be something like emmisions testing, cars built before the law went into affect don't have to pass emissions. Maybe the non seat belt equipped buses were built before it became law. Even if this is true i would think that the schools or bus companies would scrap the old ones for safer buses, or at least refit the older ones with seat belts.

Quote:

---

So that's like he has 49 other get out of jail free passes right?

---

Well lets see, 50 actual states plus DC and Peurto Rico is 52. Hawaii and PR arent connected, and if he gets it suspended in all states hes screwed. . . . so yeah 48 more get out of jail free passes.

as far as im concerned the government has no right to make me wear a seatbelt. that said:

the seat belt laws were enacted purely because of the lobbying efforts of the insurance companys. their argument against free choice was that those getting into accidents and not wearing seatbelts were costing everyone else billions of dollars because of the severity of the injuries they received. the increased insurance rates and government support for hospitals and disability were unnecessarily high. makeing seatbelts manditory would not only save lives but also save everyone money.

well the laws were enacted, the death and injury severity rates dropped dramatically but my insurance rates continue to climb and the government just went out and looked for more people to give the money to. it hasn't saved anyone any money only made more for the insurance companys and put the government deeper into my life.

Quote:

---

well the laws were enacted, the death and injury severity rates dropped dramatically but my insurance rates continue to climb and the government just went out and looked for more people to give the money to. it hasn't saved anyone any money only made more for the insurance companys and put the government deeper into my life.

---

Possibly at first, but with today's vehicles and deductables being what they are, I believe what is driving (no pun) up the rates are, sad sack investments (Enron, etc), the insurance companies take your premiums and try to play the stock market, well a couple of big losses later and the agencies are trying to recoup their losses by raising the premiums. It's a real sore point here in Canada right now because they just enacted a stupid "Soft Injury" claim here in Nova Scotia $2500.00 is the maximum claim for a fender bender, you can't go after the other drivers Insurance company.

The premiums in some cases doubled even tripled, and it was only the threat by the Provincial Governement of making Auto Insurance a Government run operation that they sort of backed down, only after arm twisting the politicians into downplaying the amounts people could sue for.

Then when the dust settled after the first quarter earnings for this year were released, the insurance industry ended up with egg on their face because they raked in Billions, and they claimed that the year before when they were reporting losses due to payouts they would have to increas the premiums, well they have since sucked back and the premiums are leveling off a bit better now, still way to high IMO.

I think it's come sort of full circle, with all of the frivolous claims and fraudelant claims over the years, the Insurance Companies are pushing this stuff through the Members of Councils or in the US case the State Reps, there is some big money involved, also the car manufacturers are involved, have you seen some of these accident appraisals that get sent in, I mean the front bumper on some models will cost you a couple of thousand, so the repair bills are way out of line in most cases. So I can agree that lobbying by Insurance Agencies for enacting Laws that interfere with civil liberties can seem like Gov't interference, but I think overall with,as you said the injuries and deaths are way down, must be a good thing right :p

Quote:

---

but I think overall with,as you said the injuries and deaths are way down, must be a good thing right

---

True, but is there that big of a corrilation? I mean honestly do you really think that between all of the safety advances in the last decade or so that seatbelts are really responsible for that many save? I would say that ABS, front and side impact air bags, new tire technology allowing better traction in adverse weather conditions, more advanced lights to allow betteer sight at night, those lights that turn with your car to allow you to see around a bend all have a much more prfound impact on driver and passenger safety. I am sure that there are plenty of lives saved or injuries lessend due to seat belt useage, but i would say overall seat belts account for a very small fraction of averted disasters.

Sfter doing some goole on seat belt laws i found some interesting exceptions to the laws in various states:

In georgia they got this

Quote:

---

Every driver who transports a child under six years of age in a passenger automobile, van, or pickup truck, other than a taxicab as defined by Code Section 33-34-5.1 or a public transit vehicle as defined by Code Section 16-5-20, shall, while such motor vehicle is in motion and operated on a public road, street, or highway of this state, provide for the proper restraint of such child in a child passenger restraining system

---

So your 5 year old MUST buckle up . . . unless your taking a cab or a "public" transportation. Thats just stupid.

or in New York we get this

Quote:

---

New York State's school bus seat belt law requires all school buses manufactured after July 1, 1987 to be equipped with seat belts.

---

Which is a point i had brought up earlier about manufacture date.

But then N.Y. also says this

Quote:

---

New York State does not currently mandate seat belt use on school buses, but rather, leaves the a decision to each school district.

---

So all new buses must have em, but you dont need to wear them legally. And keep in mind even if the school says do it its still not illegal to not.

N.Y. also has this

Quote:

---

School bus drivers are required to wear their seat belts

---

so the driver legally needs to but not the passengers?????

Now i know i only touched on a few states, but after more lookin these types of incomplete laws were there in every state. This is why i have such an issue with the law. No matter how many people tell me that the govnt is doing it for our safety, i just can't believe that. If that was thier only motive, or even just the main one, then these sort of incomplete laws would not have been passed, and they would have just required everyone to wear it all the time. I could honestly say that if the govnt repealed current seat belt laws and just said everyone must wear it always period or that person, not the driver if its a passenger, WILL be ticketed when caught then i would have no problems. Until that happens i still feel that these are an infringement on our civil liberties.