Seatbelts: life-saver or death-trap?
The answer to this question depends on a lot of factors and is not as open and shut as the government and media has led us to believe. The fact of the matter is that while wearing a seatbelt in an accident is good for most people most of the time, there are certain situations in which that does not hold and certain people for whom it’s almost always a bad thing. Nevertheless, more and more states are enacting laws that allow police to pull you over and cite you for failing to wear a seatbelt, as if it’s any of their business.
Seatbelt Law proponents will tell you that there are lots of good reasons for the laws. They’ll point to the odds: it’s true that in the majority of cases seatbelts save lives. They’ll claim that innocent people should not have to live with “causing” the death of another person who failed to wear his/her seatbelt in an accident. They’ll insist that it would save the government and everyone else money if everyone wore a seatbelt. While these things may be true, they only address one aspect of the debate: that the ubiquitous use of seatbelts will positively benefit our society as a whole. It leaves out entirely, however, that laws requiring the use of seatbelts are violations of our individual liberties, plain and simple.
For the sake of not creating a huge hypotheticals-based argument, we’re going to ignore the fact that for most people seatbelts can be good or bad depending on the accident. Because nobody really knows what kind of accident they’ll be getting into, it’s a moot point. Besides, if you knew you were going to get into an accident, would you even leave the house?
Let’s consider, however, the class of person for whom wearing a seatbelt is, on average, a dangerous proposition. People too far below the average height and/or weight can find themselves sustaining more injuries (even fatal injuries) as a result of the seatbelt than they’d have endured in a seatbelt-less accident. Think about a situation in which such a person was saved by NOT wearing a seatbelt. This individual could then be subject to citations and prosecution for failing to die in the accident.
You might concede the point in the previous paragraph and just suggest that a clause exempting such people from the law be added. While this would mitigate the losses, you’d still not be addressing the issue of freedom.
Pretend that congress just passed a new law saying that individuals may only consume X pounds of red-meat per week. It’s no secret that while red-meat can be healthy, excessive quantities of it can be bad for you… sounds like a good plan, right? Or maybe chocolate should be banned… after all, sugar and caffeine can be hazardous to some people’s health. Or maybe federal law should demand that each person get AT LEAST 4 hours of sleep per night. Maybe government mandated exercise is more your speed? All of these sound like great and noble laws, don’t they? No, they don’t. Why? Because whose business is it how much meat or chocolate you eat, how much you sleep, or how much exercise you get? Nobody’s but your own.
The same is true for medical advice, the government does not mandate that you do as your doctor says… it’s your own decision. Why? Because people should be free to exercise as much (or as little) care in personal health decisions as they see fit. To that end, however, others should not be punished for your failure to be intelligent. You shouldn’t be able to sue for injuries if you’re not wearing a seatbelt and there’s evidence that it would’ve saved you regardless of whose fault the accident was.
The fact is that I always wear my seatbelt in the car. I think it’s a good idea. I intend to call my children ‘little idiots’ and beat them with wooden spoons if they don’t wear theirs. It is, by all definitions, the government’s job to protect individuals from other people. It is not, and should not, be the job of the government to protect us from ourselves.
About
SEC Football
- Tommy Tuberville Is Still Definitely 'Not Tolerating' Dirty Blocks
- Auburn Fan Outlook Is Bleak for the Iron Bowl
- Auburn RB Brad Lester Predicts Two Wins at Amen Corner by 'A Good Number of Points'
- 'Bama Doesn't Know They Can't Win Out
- Will Fulmer's Departure Force Auburn's Hand?
November 28th, 2003 at 6:30 pm
Interesting that I actually just had this discussion yesterday evening with a friend who was explaining to me that the fine for not wearing a seatbelt in Arizona is $5. While I personally agree with you that personal liberties are violated in mandating seatbelt use, as long my tax dollars are going to fund medical care for people sustaining injuries they would not have suffered had they worn those seatbelts, I think it does become a matter of societal concern. I am willing to go along with your proposal if we are willing to forego providing medical care (state-funded) to people who exercise their personal liberties by choosing to not wear seatbelts. As for the people who are at more of a risk-level wearing seat belts, I\’m not sure I buy it, but I do think your solution of providing them an exemption is a fine idea.
November 28th, 2003 at 7:00 pm
The fact that tax dollars go to something should not mean that our rights become null and void, that\’s an argument that tends toward a slippery slope.
When it comes to health care, your tax dollars go to fund people who are injured for any reason… ANYTHING can cause the injuries that are paid for by consumers… consider the legislation of meat and sugar that I referenced by example. In general, people who eat poorly find themselves to be in poor health. You pay for this. Should healthy eating be legislated too?
November 28th, 2003 at 8:34 pm
I never said that anything should be legislated. I happen to agree with you that mandatory seatbelt laws are as absurd as compulsary exercise or legislated dietary restrictions. In reference to your example about people eating poorly…maybe we SHOULD consider whether these people would be eligible for government benefits if engaging in behavior that made them more of a health risk. I completely agree with you that it is not the role of government to protect us from ourselves, but excercising your personal liberties should not be done at the expense (monetary) of the rest of society.
November 28th, 2003 at 8:41 pm
The problem is not the excercise of personal liberty, the problem is with taking something that you cannot afford to pay for (health care).
Would this even be a debatable topic if everyone had health insurance? It makes me wonder what kinds of changes would have to be made if the government mandated health insurance the way state governments do car insurance. That\’s a much better parallel since it\’s not the injuries that cause the cost to the rest of society, it\’s the injuries to people who can\’t afford to pay for them.
If Bill Gates gets in a car accident, I sincerely doubt ANY of his bills are paid by you or I.
November 30th, 2003 at 8:36 pm
Interesting note about the health insurance (mandating everyone have health insurance, like auto insurance is mandated). First off, even though auto insurance is mandated, people don\’t do it, and if they are caught, they are fined. I think this has to do with the fact that driving is a privlige in that everyone does not have to drive. If you do not drive, you cause no danger to others in regards to driving, thus you don\’t need auto insurance. However we all live and suffer situations that require medical treatment, but, I think it would be completely unjust to require everyone to have health insurance. If you can\’t afford car insurance, you are not allowed to drive. If you can\’t afford health insurance, you are not allowed to live? Makes no sense. Thus, government-run hospitals and such. By the way Pete, I would be interested in seeing what you have to say about the world of medical insurance (topic for a future column maybe??)
As far as seat belt laws, I do think it is an issue of personal liberty, in that if you want to not wear them, since you are harming no one but yourself, then you should not be forced to wear one. Louisiana has just recently put in a no-holes-barred seat belt law (a single violation is 25 bucks) and it has a lot of these same arguments. Also, recently, Louisiana erased a law mandating helmet use for motorcycleists. So now, you don\’t have to wear a helmet when on a motorcycle, whereas before you had to. A lot of the same arguments come into play in that issue also.
I think no matter what the \”cause\” (be it an accident, smoking, whatever) some of our tax money is going to go to treat these things. You can\’t outlaw everything. But it is an interesting issue for debate.
November 30th, 2003 at 9:03 pm
Re: Mandatory healt insurance
Living is certainly a right, whether health care is or not, however, is another story. If health care *IS* a right, it should be the government\’s job to provide it at \”no cost\” (as if the government does ANYTHING at no cost), if it\’s NOT a right, then everyone has to take their own steps to get it.
This is all well and good except that trips to the hospital are insanely expensive to make up for people who go and can\’t pay. It\’s the worst kind of socialism. The solutions are mandatory health insurance or refusal to treat patients with out insurance who have outstanding balances.
The latter of the options seems a little harsh, even for me… so it seems like we\’re left with the former, otherwise we\’re all just relegated to one form of socialism (government run health care / health insurance) or another (the socialism of credit on demand).
December 1st, 2003 at 2:40 am
You know, it\’s quite likely that I\’ll call your children \”little idiots\” and beat them with wooden spoons, as well. Why should you have all the fun?
March 7th, 2005 at 9:38 am
i dont like seat belts
April 6th, 2005 at 11:39 am
I hate seatbelts and i think whoever invented them needs to go hide in a hole and die!!!!!!!!