Seatbelt laws

[ParadigmShifter]

Libertarians are selfish? Should I hold the front page for that headline???

 

[Truronian]

Another major reason is, as someone whose studies and eventually profession is going to be dealing with RTCs, is that it's bloody selfish, since one of us is gonna have to scrape you off the tarmac.

RTCs are probably the most horrific and traumatising criminal incidents that exists, and the clean up is usually measured in how many pieces have to be scooped into plastic bags for sorting out back at the office.
It's actually a lot gorier than terrorist incidents and bombs, and I tell you, morons without seat belts spread out over the road isn't a particularly nice way to spend your time.

Factor in the civvies that get invovled in these too, which aren't being paid for it, and you're just being a selfish twunt if you don't wear your belt, and fully expect to not even receive an open casket funeral.

Yeah, I don't envy you there.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's also irrelevant within America, as ideologically speaking you could simply desire all states to individually make seatbeat laws.

True enough. There seems to be a certain strain of thought in the US that attributes (approvingly or disapprovingly) an innately minarchistic character to all sub-national government, which doesn't really make much sense.

 

[Zelig]

From what I understand, these countries, China for instance, do not have a higher proportion of road deaths. But I think its more due to the harsher penalties that force people to be careful.

China has a higher number of road deaths per person (16.5 vs. 12.3) than the US, and that doesn't even take into account that there are far more cars per person, and that the average car is driven far more, in the US.

Another major reason is, as someone whose studies and eventually profession is going to be dealing with RTCs, is that it's bloody selfish, since one of us is gonna have to scrape you off the tarmac.

RTCs are probably the most horrific and traumatising criminal incidents that exists, and the clean up is usually measured in how many pieces have to be scooped into plastic bags for sorting out back at the office.
It's actually a lot gorier than terrorist incidents and bombs, and I tell you, morons without seat belts spread out over the road isn't a particularly nice way to spend your time.

Factor in the civvies that get invovled in these too, which aren't being paid for it, and you're just being a selfish twunt if you don't wear your belt, and fully expect to not even receive an open casket funeral.

I support hosing the parts off the road and letting the family pick them up on their own time.

 

[PeteAtoms]

So what should the punishment be for law-breakers freebeltin' it? The current fine? Or something else?

 

[Cutlass]

I don't think that wearing seatbelts should be mandatory. What's the gain? By that, I mean how many people wear seatbelts purely because the law requires them to, as a percentage of all drivers? How strictly is the law enforced, and how do you justify putting police resources to that use when they could be better used elsewhere? If you aren't going to enforce the law, why bother having it as a law in the first place?

Would seatbelt utilization rates drop substantially if there were not mandatory seatbelt laws?

I rarely put on my seat belt when getting on the road until seeing a cop reminds me. I'm old enough so that we didn't do belts when learning to drive. Didn't even put one on for my driving test. So if it wasn't for the drive to change behaviors, I likely wouldn't now. For enforcement, the same roadside checks for other illegal activity can check for belts. You typically cannot see if someone is wearing a belt if their car is approaching you. But a cop standing on a corner can see it pretty well.

 

[nonconformist]

I support hosing the parts off the road and letting the family pick them up on their own time.

Oh that'd be fine...if the distance a severed bodypart flew wasn't an integral part of calculating the speed of a car at the time of collision

 

[Zelig]

So what should the punishment be for law-breakers freebeltin' it? The current fine? Or something else?

Impound their car and sell it at a police auction.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I don't think that wearing seatbelts should be mandatory. What's the gain? By that, I mean how many people wear seatbelts purely because the law requires them to, as a percentage of all drivers? How strictly is the law enforced, and how do you justify putting police resources to that use when they could be better used elsewhere? If you aren't going to enforce the law, why bother having it as a law in the first place?

Would seatbelt utilization rates drop substantially if there were not mandatory seatbelt laws?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010702024_webseatbelt05m.html

In Washington it seems like 15% more drivers buckle up if they can be pulled over just for not wearing a seatbelt than before when the seatbelt was merely an additional fine they could give you if they pulled you over for something else.

Washington state continues to have one of the highest rates of seat belt use in the country with 96.4 percent of the state drivers buckling up, according to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission.

That is a slight dip from the 96.5 reported last year, making Washington the second-highest seat belt usage state in the country behind Michigan's 97.2 percent, in 2008 surveys, according to the commission.

When seat belt violations were a secondary offense, where drivers couldn't be pulled over simply for not wearing their seat belts, usage was about 82 percent, said Jonna VanDyk, with the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. But when the offense became a primary one in 2002, where drivers could be stopped if they weren't wearing their seat belts, usage soared.

In 1986, when Washington first adopted the seat belt law, seat belt use was at 36 percent and there were 528 vehicle occupant deaths, compared to 362 deaths in 2008.

Wisconsin has one of the lowest usage of seatbelts (73%), and also the lowest fines ($10), compared to other states that are more agressive that get up to 97% compliance (24% difference).

http://www.examiner.com/x-26501-Mad...isconsin-among-worst-when-it-comes-seat-belts

From what I understand, these countries, China for instance, do not have a higher proportion of road deaths. But I think its more due to the harsher penalties that force people to be careful.

China drivers are crazy, but so are the pedestrians. The drivers are used to the archaic traffic flow so everyone drives more alertly, thus having fewer serious accidents (but just as many fender benders).

 

[Zelig]

China drivers are crazy, but so are the pedestrians. The drivers are used to the archaic traffic flow so everyone drives more alertly, thus having fewer serious accidents (but just as many fender benders).

No, China has more serious accidents by pretty much any measure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

(Unless they happen to be getting killed by fender benders.)

 

[Mise]

One of the major reasons is that any vehicular accident which would otherwise result in a charge of dangerous driving would be upgraded to death by dangerous driving/vehicular homicide.

This post is a good post.

 

[Samson]

The reason I voted No is because generally the govenment (or anyone) should not tell me what to do if it does not effect anyone else. Because them doing so effects me in many real ways I object to being remined about it every time I get in the car.

Some more practical reasons:

Risk compensation. If the sort of person who would not put on a seat belt is forced to, they may drive faster and take more risks, making the roads more dangerous for everyone else.

Societal objectors. If I am required to wear a seatbelt I may well wear it LESS often than if it was my choice. I know this is a negative personality trait, but it exists all the same.

 

[nonconformist]

This post is a good post.

I mean, imagine if a person who, granted through their own fault, hit a car at, say 20mph. 20mph is trivial. However, without a seatbelt, one of the passengers of either car could seriously injure themselves to the point of death.

And there you go, something that would be a dangerous driving charge, or even not charged at all would automaticvally incur a death by d/driving or vehicular homicide charge, based on the principle there's a body.

 

[Bamspeedy]

No, China has more serious accidents by pretty much any measure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

(Unless they happen to be getting killed by fender benders.)

Yeah I was going to edit my post (took me a long time to write it so I crossposted with yours).

I wouldn't be surprised if many of these are vehicle-pedestrian accidents.

Anectdotal, but when I was visiting China I saw many fender benders, but no deadly crashes.

My wife's sister ran over a pedestrian with her motorbike at night (victim wasn't moving so she just drove off-hit and run).

I think corrective Eyeglasses are a problem over there since my wife told me about her glasses. Because of the fact that people have to buy 'thicker and thicker' eyeglasses as they age, there solution over there is to not make the eyeglasses give you 20/20 vision (but instead only make it 40-60%% as strong as they need to be), under the belief that they are saving you from needing the thicker glasses later (of course this means people don't see as well all of this time).

 

[Traitorfish]

Risk compensation. If the sort of person who would not put on a seat belt is forced to, they may drive faster and take more risks, making the roads more dangerous for everyone else.

That assumes that safe driving is motivated purely by concern for physical harm. Whether or not your dense enough to believe that a seatbelt acts as a magical Harness of Immortality, running your car into a lamp-post is still very inconvenient, as are the monetary costs which result, not to mention the downright bother which results from smearing somebody else across the road.

Societal objectors. If I am required to wear a seatbelt I may well wear it LESS often than if it was my choice. I know this is a negative personality trait, but it exists all the same.

The majority of the population, however, are not sociopaths driven primarily by spite, and that percentage of the population constitute such a demographic is small enough to be irrelevant on a grand scale. Otherwise we may as well toss out all laws, for fear that a bitter minority should be encouraged to constantly break them.

 

[Cutlass]

You'd also have to check your stats by car for a really accurate comparison. The bigger cars sold in America with the mandatory safety standards save a lot of lives over simpler econoboxes.

 

[Cull]

China is run by drivers first not pedestrians first.

And Chinese people are just crazy.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Sure they should be mandated, lest you want a greater chance of human projectiles.

 

[Luckymoose]

It's a freedom versus order issue. Order wins.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It comes down to whether you think people have the right to be stupid and put their own lives at risk.

I would consider making it mandatory for parents to put seatbelts on kids a good thing, I would say it's almost child abuse/endangerment.

But if a hill billy wants to drive his Ford truck w/out a seatbelt, I don't care.

I say define "Kid." If by kid you mean 5 year old who has no idea the danger, I agree. If you mean a 15 year old, no.

And no for anyone older than 12. Its just pointless. All it does is waste police resources and its a stupid law.