Seat belt laws

[SingingAnalyst]

In 1986, Massachusetts voters famously overturned that state's seat belt law. Equally famously, that ballot question had about the same number of "blank" ballots (about 6%) as the Governor's race,  which was at the top of the ballot (about 5%). (As I was registered to vote in Cambridge at the time, and a big fan of Ayn Rand and libertarianism, I voted No to overturn the law).

In 1998, Secretary of State (and candidate) Candice Miller (R-MI) supported changing Michigan's seat belt law from Secondary (a ticket can only be issued if a driver is pulled over for something else) to Primary (a driver can be pulled over simply for failing to wear a seatbelt). Organizations representing Blacks argued that such a change could give an excuse for officers to pull someone over for "driving while Black".  Alas, Miller was re-elected that year with 67.7% of the vote (I abstained, in part because of her support of the seatbelt law; the Dem candidate was very weak and even lost Wayne County).

What do you think? I am aware of the arguments for such a law (safety; the fact that medical care for auto accident survivors costs the state money and raises insurance costs, etc.) I vote Secondary.

[emailking]

I fail to understand why anyone wouldn't want to wear a seat belt. And at this point, I'm so used to it that I feel practically naked if I'm in a car without a seat belt on.

That said, it should only be required for minors. If adults want to be reckless with their own lives, well it's their decision.

[Koharu]

While I think seatbelt safety is hugely important, I'm not a fan of it being a reason to pull someone over. I'm sure that most states' demographics for who gets pulled over/tickets would be similar to what the ACLU found in Florida: https://www.aclu.org/report/racial-disparities-florida-safety-belt-law-enforcement So, yeah, adding another reason to pull people over in states where it isn't already the case should be avoided.

[Hammy]

If it's clear that there are children in the car who aren't wearing seatbelts then by all means they should be pulled over, but otherwise shouldn't be a legal reason to pull over, and should only be cited (similarly to not having your license) if it's discovered when you're pulled over for some other offense, or obviously in the case of an accident especially if there are passengers not strapped in .

[here2view]

Primary. There is no reason to not wear a seatbelt. I wear it every time and feel weird without having it. Not wearing it can cause danger to yourself or others (aka death.)

No one will really care if it's a secondary offense, because if you never get pulled over you won't get caught. It's a huge liability to not wear it. I have a friend that doesn't and whenever he gets in my car I tell him to put it on. I'm not going to be responsible for a death if God forbid we get in a crash and he dies because he didn't have it on.

[Yellowhammer]

Minors should be required to wear seatbelts, but not adults.
Seat belt laws and similar nanny state regulations are ridiculous.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

A person not wearing a seat belt can harm others in a car accident too. They basically become a high speed projectile.

Freedom laws.

[ElectionsGuy]

In a perfect world, only children should be required to wear them and adults should be held responsible for any consequences of children not wearing them. I don't think however that it should be illegal for adults. I actually thought about this for a little bit. One is endangering themselves and only themselves when they don't where a seat belt. Its not like drinking where you are impairing your driving which makes you more dangerous to other people. So on paper it shouldn't be illegal but this is a very Utopian issue that will never happen. I'm okay with the status quo on it right now just because its so dumb not to wear one.

[IceAgeComing]

If adults want to be reckless with their own lives, well it's their decision.

Not just them though; as BRTD said if a person not wearing a seatbelt is involved in an accident then there is a chance that they might pose a risk to others other than themselves including people not otherwise involved in the accident.  Add in the fact that a person not wearing a seatbelt isn't going to be at all protected in a crash (modern car safety equipment like the hundred airbags in every car plus things like the way that cars are designed to deform on impact are designed with the assumption that everyone in the car is wearing a seatbelt so if you aren't it isn't going to protect you and may even hurt you more than it would if the stuff wasn't present; not to mention that being gradually brought to a halt and dissipating forces gently only works if everything in the car is under control which you aren't if you're not held in) and that adds the risk of possible mental distress for other people involved in a car accident which has the potential of being a long term problem.

In many ways I see it as a similar issue to expecting people on construction sites to wear PPE - they aren't just putting their life at risk but also could be harming others nearby, and we correctly don't tolerate that.  Sure do whatever silly dangerous things you want to do in places which only you will be harmed but as soon as you put others at risk then that your right to be an idiot ends and the right of others to not be harmed by your idiocy is more important.

[Santander]

A person not wearing a seat belt can harm others in a car accident too. They basically become a high speed projectile.

Freedom laws.

In most jurisdictions, it is legal to transport more passengers than seatbelts. Seatbelt laws usually only apply for drivers and front passengers. Obviously, they are good laws, but not for this reason.

They should be a secondary offense though, due to the difficulty of enforcement (or perhaps potential for abuse) if they were a primary offense.

[emailking]

A person not wearing a seat belt can harm others in a car accident too. They basically become a high speed projectile.

Not just them though; as BRTD said if a person not wearing a seatbelt is involved in an accident then there is a chance that they might pose a risk to others other than themselves including people not otherwise involved in the accident.

Those are highly, highly unlikely scenarios.

The vast majority of the risk you pose to those people comes from deciding to drive at all.

Not everything that could theoretically cause somebody to get hurt should be protected by a law.

Add in the fact that a person not wearing a seatbelt isn't going to be at all protected in a crash...and that adds the risk of possible mental distress for other people involved in a car accident which has the potential of being a long term problem.

Not sure I entirely understand, but it sounds like you're saying that your injuries or death will upset family and friends, possibly causing them long term issues. Sure, but so can a zillion other risky or destructive habits that could lead to disability or death, like drinking, eating junk food, mountain climbing, etc.

As far as I'm concerned, it's other people's problem how they might feel about actions you take, at least from a legal perspective.

[IceAgeComing]

I was talking more about the other people involved in the accident or those who'd ordinarily be bystanders; the people who probably wouldn't like to see the aftermath of a high speed road collision where one person isn't wearing a seatbelt.  The former especially; if it was one of those accidents where there was joint liability (which is most road accidents; very rarely is only one person at fault; usually its one of those things where the other person could have done something to stay out of trouble) then it'd probably make the other person feel very guilty and I've seen the impact that can have on a person first hand and its not nice.

There's also another factor in this which is the fact that there already are certain things that we mandate of drivers.  We expect all drivers to pass a driving test to prove that they can drive safely, to be insured (mainly to cover the costs of others if they are responsible for an accident although the driver themselves is usually covered); we expect all drivers to keep their car in a roadworthy state (which doesn't just include the obvious things but also things like the depth of tread allowed on their tyres to ensure that the car can safely stop in wet conditions again mainly to ensure that others are not hurt by the drivers negligence but also for the safety of those in the vehicle) and we have rules that drivers have to follow.  There already are a whole load of rules that those of us who drive have to follow so I don't see why mandating the use of seatbelts is somehow worse than the other rules that we have.  Unless you favour allowing uninsured drivers to drive deathtraps yanked out of the nearest scrapheap in the name of freedom I don't see how you can see those rules as being somehow different from seatbelt laws.

Personally I think that being in a car without a seatbelt is very stupid and I feel odd if I don't have my belt on in a car.  When I drive I check to make sure that everyone has their belt on, partially because we have a law on it but mainly because I like the people who travel in my car and I don't want them to be hurt because of them not putting on their seatbelt: and as the driver I am fundamentally responsible for everyone in the car and if something did happen and they got badly hurt or worse then I'd feel incredibly responsible.  Also if they are a backseat passenger then I'd be very worried about having something loose sitting right behind me in a frontward collision but that's far less important.

[emailking]

I was talking more about the other people involved in the accident or those who'd ordinarily be bystanders; the people who probably wouldn't like to see the aftermath of a high speed road collision where one person isn't wearing a seatbelt.  The former especially; if it was one of those accidents where there was joint liability (which is most road accidents; very rarely is only one person at fault; usually its one of those things where the other person could have done something to stay out of trouble) then it'd probably make the other person feel very guilty and I've seen the impact that can have on a person first hand and its not nice.

Ahh, Ok. I understand now.

Well those are real effects and I don't mean to minimize them, but I just don't think we need laws to protect people from being horrified.

As for the guilt, one shouldn't feel guilty if the other person voluntarily waived a key safety precaution. I get your point that they're going to feel guilty anyway, but logically they shouldn't.

There already are a whole load of rules that those of us who drive have to follow so I don't see why mandating the use of seatbelts is somehow worse than the other rules that we have.

Well the other things you mention go towards the physical safety and property of others, which I think should always be protected by the law. Not wearing a seat belt could make someone upset, but to me that does not outweigh the freedom of choice one should have not to wear it.

[Dabeav]

Are seat-belt related deaths higher in New Hampshire?

According to the CDC, nope: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pdf/seatbelts/restraint_use_in_nh.pdf

Quit legislating common sense and nanny stating our lives.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Minors should be required to wear seatbelts, but not adults.
Seat belt laws and similar nanny state regulations are ridiculous.

I agree, although people not wearing them are stupid.

It's done for the benefit of insurance companies.  I refuse to believe the government is really interested in "saving lives".  Generating revenue without raising taxes, however, is . . .

[darklordoftech]

We're told that, "Socialism is bad because it leads to laws like this", yet America has more laws like this than the "socialist" countries do.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I fail to understand why anyone wouldn't want to wear a seat belt. And at this point, I'm so used to it that I feel practically naked if I'm in a car without a seat belt on.

That said, it should only be required for minors. If adults want to be reckless with their own lives, well it's their decision.

No, because the other driver in a crash is far more likely to be traumatized if the non-seatbelt wearing driver is killed, even if they aren't at fault.

[emailking]

No, because the other driver in a crash is far more likely to be traumatized if the non-seatbelt wearing driver is killed, even if they aren't at fault.

Maybe, but as I said, that's not a good enough justification for me. There's no valid reason to feel guilty in that circumstance. So if they do, that sucks and I would empathize, but it's ultimately their problem to work through. I don't think it's a reason to take away someone's freedom to engage in risky behavior.

[RINO Tom]

If it's clear that there are children in the car who aren't wearing seatbelts then by all means they should be pulled over, but otherwise shouldn't be a legal reason to pull over, and should only be cited (similarly to not having your license) if it's discovered when you're pulled over for some other offense, or but obviously in the case of an accident especially if there are passengers not strapped in.