Topic: Anti-seat belt law advocate killed in automobile accident
Spicyitalian
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
I was in an accident where the contents of my trunk ended up in the back of my car. It was probably the only way that I was going to get that crap out of there. I was wearing a seat belt, and I did have an air bag.
Without going into too much detail, I basically ran off the side of the hill building up an overpass, so it was a 2 story drop nose first into mother earth. After that, the car did a complete sideways flip and then luckily landed back on it's wheels. I immediately checked myself, then thought about the possibility of fire and calmly undid my seatbelt, and climbed out the window.
Between the seatbelt and airbag, I was spared much facial trauma and bodily injury. The insurance adjuster asked if the driver was in the hospital, or dead. I never even went to the emergency room, or took any time off of work. What could easily have been a fatal accident, was a totaled car, a pair of bent glasses and a sore hip.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdrs of the Lost Ark:
quote:Originally posted by Greg of Winter:
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdrs of the Lost Ark: But traffic laws affect the safety of the public at large. Seat belts deal with individual safety.
Overwhelming evidence shows that non-belted passengers suffer more severe injuries. You could argue that non-belted passengers are a larger drain on public EMS services, which does affect the public at large.
Well, that is getting better. But then, people with asthma are also a larger drain on public EMS services...
But people with asthma generally can't help it. Not wearing a seatbelt is a choice.
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except those who contract asthma because they made the choice to smoke, or to be born poor.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the arguments I've heard in road safety adverts here is that it costs on average £1million to deal with the after effects of a fatal road accident. I'm sure the costs are different in the USA but the things to deal with such as medical bills, police time, court costs etc will still exist.
-------------------- I tried to get in touch with my inner child, but she isn't allowed to talk to strangers. Posts: 674 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Atlanta Jake drinks Back-draft beer: Me too, AnglRrd. I detest Government intrusion into my personal life (I do wear seatbelts, by my own choice). Can anyone tell me why I should not assume that these laws will lead to such things as: Outlawing Motorcycles, fatty foods, or Alcohol use? All three can lead to disability and or death.
Jake
here in Australia we have seatbelt laws for at least 30 years (the time i have been driving) and we have not banned Motorcycles, fatty foods, or Alcohol
non slippery slope edit for spelling
-------------------- Wake up --- time to die So I'm Evil Get over it
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people Posts: 1551 | From: NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: This never seems to come up, but it is my opinion that a person who is belted in is a better driver, and that *does* affect the safety of others. Basically, it fixes them in position better, preventing them from moving around, so that their hands and feet are less likely to slip from the controls.
I admit that this is an aspect of the argument that I have never considered. I'd like to see some hard research to back this up (and I do believe it exists). You may well have changed my mind on this matter, Silas. I'm certainly going to consider these facts. If you look at my litmus test, you'll see why.
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: However, I could cope with rescinding the laws mandating seat belts and helmets ... so long as insurance companies offer hefty discounts (similar to non-smoking discounts) to those of us who are still sane. Silas
A very Libertarian answer, Silas!
quote:Originally posted by Davros vs Teppanyaki: here in Australia we have seatbelt laws for at least 30 years (the time i have been driving) and we have not banned Motorcycles, fatty foods, or Alcohol
That is good, but just because a well adjusted, intelligent country does something, does not mean that the United States will behave similarly!
Seriously, though, am I the only one who can see a similarity here? At what point would laws for personal responsibility be too onerous?
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdrs of the Lost Ark: But traffic laws affect the safety of the public at large. Seat belts deal with individual safety.
The only argument that really persuades me against this point was made by my girlfriend. A student in her class last year suffered injuries due to a driver being thrown from his vehicle into her vehicle because he wasn't wearing a seat belt. Anecdotal I know, but it is a plausible enough situation that someone not wearing a seat belt could be a danger to another driver. Until then I totally agreed with your line of thinking.
quote:Originally posted by breakin' 2: chillas vindaloo:
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
quote:Originally posted by breakin' 2: chillas vindaloo:
quote:Originally posted by Pigman: These arguments about "safer driver because they wear seatbelts" are another slippery slope argument
You are aware that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, are you not?
Correct; Wintermute is attempting to say that if we favor seatbelt laws, we should also favor prohibitions on car radios or driving licenses for the elderly, which, as it happens, we don't.
Psst ... that's not Wintermute.
That was indeed my point! Also people who post "facts" such as "many low speed accidents turn into major accidents because they are not wearing seatbelts" should be able to document the source(s) for this fact. I look forward to it.
Just because something may be a "fact" does not always prove your argument. How many of these low speed to major accidents are we talking about?
I just read ONE news story about a couple of people NOT wearing seat belts who rear ended a semi at 25 MPH. Because they were not wearing seat belts, they were able to lay flat on the seat and avoid having their heads ripped off as the truck trailer ripped the top of their car off.
Does this true story really sway anyone either way? Just my 2 cents.....
IP: Logged |
Pigman
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
"Seriously, though, am I the only one who can see a similarity here? At what point would laws for personal responsibility be too onerous?"
-Jake ======================================
This is the question I thought we were trying to answer! Passing a law preventing very young children from going into Walmart and purchasing a fire arm to play with makes sence to me on multiple levels.. but just how far down the nanny state scenerio are we willing to go?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Atlanta Jake I admit that this is an aspect of the argument that I have never considered. I'd like to see some hard research to back this up (and I do believe it exists). You may well have changed my mind on this matter, Silas. I'm certainly going to consider these facts. If you look at my litmus test, you'll see why.
Interestingly, this seems to be something that is so true that there's no hard data backing it up, or something. I was hoping to find something in the academic journals Lexis-Nexis indexes, or on the Internet, but at the moment I'm coming up dry. It's just something that everyone knows to be true. For what it's worth, this belief was one of the driving forces behind the decision in favour of seatbelt laws in People v. Kohrig (1986), which concluded that "Legislature could rationally determine that seat belt use law would serve public safety and welfare by reducing likelihood that driver would lose control of his vehicle and jeopardize other motorists or pedestrians"; additionally, I found a webpage (arguing, I believe, for seatbelt use in school busses) describing a "1972 crash in Virginia ... The Board found that 'the second collision of the bus, into the embankment, was caused by loss of driver control; the nonuse of available seatbelts by the driver prevented the regaining of control." But that's just an anecdote.
On the other hand, the NTHSA repeats the idea here, and various military organisations do as well. A website from the 1st Infantry Division (here) makes a (maybe!) relevant point that pilots have been wearing safety belts for control reasons since the First World War. Beyond Kohrig, the "seatbelts help drivers maintain control" also seems to be the motivation behind belt laws in states like Minnesota and New York.
It seems to me fairly self-evident that seatbelts would be useful in preventing loss-of-control--I had it repeatedly drilled into my head when I took a driver's education course that even low-speed collisions result in extreme forces being put on the body. That said, in the absence of hard evidence at the moment, is there a reason, offhand, you can think of why seatbelts might not be beneficial in helping to maintain control of an automobile?
-Baikal
-------------------- I'm just a typical American boy from a typical American town. Posts: 1463 | From: CU, Boulder Campus | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Friend of a Friend
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Oh, the petty/closed/stable irony of it all.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure my auto insurance in is like most and will not pay for anyone not buckled up. That is good enough reason for me to use a seatbelt. I do not see were the goverment can add to that other than telling that their insurance will not pay.
Posts: 1152 | From: Somewere | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ooohhhh. As some of you may already know the seatbelt issue really is my bugbear!!
Recent events have only enforced this.
Basically in the UK the law requires drivers and passengers of a car to buckle up or recieve a penalty notice. As I grew up the ethos of wearing seatbelts was bought home to me by my dad whose friend was killed after flying from the back of a car through the front window and into a lamppost after an accident years ago.
I'm a journalist and this year I have attended three inquests which related to three seperate incidents where the person involved would have survived had they been wearing a seatbelt. A fourth inquest regarding a person who would have survived had they been wearing a seatbelt appeared in our paper but I did not go as it was someone I knew.
Four lives lost because they didn't take the three seconds it takes to clip in a seatbelt.
Bear in mind thats just three inquests in one small area.
About three weeks ago my best friend in the whole world was the passenger of a car hit by a prat who was speeding through a local village. She wasn't wearing a seatbelt and got thrown around like a sock in a washing machine and enjoyed a hospital stay to recover from severe bruising. Had she been wearing a seatbelt she would still have needed to be cut out of the car but would be considerably less injured.
On top of this through work I have conversed long and hard on this subject with a paramedic who says that he can honestly say with decades of experience that seatbelts saved lives. He has never seen an incident where a seatbelt has taken a life.
I think belting up SHOULD be the law. If you crash and fly forward, it's not just you that you hurt, you become a human missile that could hurt others.
You also cost the emergency services a lot of time and money clearing up after you and patching you up.
I cannot see how asking people to buckle up is a breach of any kind of human right or that it is draconian.
-------------------- It's been a while but I'm back!! Posts: 884 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Pigman
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
I am going to suggest that this discussion is not about wether seat belts are a good idea or not, for me it's about the legislation aspect.
Are we really going to try and legislate personal responsibility?
IP: Logged |
quote:Are we really going to try and legislate personal responsibility?
But it isn't personal responsibilty - not wearing a seatbelt puts others at risk.
I'll see if I can find some stats before/after seatbelts became mandatory in Belgium.
-------------------- All along the untrodden paths of the future, I can see the footprints of an unseen hand. Posts: 6912 | From: Flanders | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think legislation is required. The general public, as a whole, are idiots and need all the help "they" can get.
It's the same as the tresspassing laws on railways in the UK. anyone with a quarter of a brain-cell knows it is idiotic to walk trackside on the railways, but we still need to make a law about it.
-------------------- "British English speakers point to Americans adding more syllables so that they can make even more noise without actually saying anything." Llewtrah
Posts: 2235 | From: Sussex , UK | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Is wearing a seat belt mandatory in the US at the moment or not? Does it vary from state to state?
It's been mandatory to wear front seat belts in the UK since 1983 and in the rear seats since 1991, and our civilisation hasn't collapsed yet, nor have motorcycles, fatty food or alcohol use been banned (as in Australia, as Davros pointed out.)
On the other hand, I guess this is one of those strange cultural differences that would never work in America for obscure reasons that just look like gung-ho stupidity to the rest of the planet. (The rest of the planet thinks exactly the same things that I do.)
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I recall, New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die") is the only state without a mandatory seat belt law. In Tennessee, not wearing a seat belt is not a "primary offense," in other words, you can't be pulled over for not wearing your seat belt, though you can be cited for it when you're pulled over for something else.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pigman: I just read ONE news story about a couple of people NOT wearing seat belts who rear ended a semi at 25 MPH. Because they were not wearing seat belts, they were able to lay flat on the seat and avoid having their heads ripped off as the truck trailer ripped the top of their car off.
Does this true story really sway anyone either way? Just my 2 cents.....
Here in Europe, trucks are required to have rear-end guards to prevent exactly that type of accident. Just my 2p.....
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdrs of the Lost Ark: As I recall, New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die") is the only state without a mandatory seat belt law. In Tennessee, not wearing a seat belt is not a "primary offense," in other words, you can't be pulled over for not wearing your seat belt, though you can be cited for it when you're pulled over for something else.
That's the way it was in Georgia, but I believe that has been changed.
If you click the Click It or Ticket link there's a line that says, "State law allows enforcement officers to write safety belt violation tickets by simply observing an unbelted driver or passenger."
posted
The Tennessee Highway Patrol *advertised* the "Click It or Ticket" campaign, but it had never been legislated.
It was a bit of a snafu.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdrs of the Lost Ark: The Tennessee Highway Patrol *advertised* the "Click It or Ticket" campaign, but it had never been legislated.
posted
Texas seatbelt law states that all passengers in front must wear seatbelt. Passengers under 16 (or 18, I forget) anywhere in the car have to wear one.
You can be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, you can and will be given a ticket for each minor not wearing a seatbelt. Any passenger not wearing a seatbelt over age 16 (or 18, I forget) gets their own seperate ticket. Years ago it was a $50 or so fine, I'm sure it has gone up since then. Even at $50, that's pretty steep, espically if you are transporting minors and get stuck with 3-4 of them...
I still don't see this law as mandating personal choice. To me it's a public safety issue and subject to the scrutiny of state laws.
IP: Logged |
-------------------- All along the untrodden paths of the future, I can see the footprints of an unseen hand. Posts: 6912 | From: Flanders | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ghost on Toast: Yeah, I really don't see this as any kind of infringement on personal rights.
It's legislation designed to save the lives of drivers and other road users. How could anyone have a problem with that?
Can someone explain the other side of the argument to me because IMHO anyone who drives without wearing a seatbelt is one selfish NFBSK.
I always wear mine, but I don't see why the government should dictate that someone else take steps to preserve their own life. Some people just don't like wearing seatbelts. If they don't they should be free to not wear them. That is until you look at the other aspects of how their choice negatively affects others. If it weren't for that I'd be wholeheartedly against seatbelt laws. It's not my responsibility to force someone else to do what's best for them as long as they aren't endangering anyone else.
posted
I have no problems with mandatory seat belt laws, either. Remember: driving is not a right, it's a privilege that the government grants you. They can decide what criteria you have to meet to be allowed to drive (provided it's not discriminatory), so they can tell you to buckle up.
And, in terms of the "higher insurance rates for people who don't wear seat belts": how is that supposed to work? Is there going to be a "Do you wear a seat belt?" check box on your insurance forms? Exactly how many people are going to leave that blank, knowing it'll cause them higher insurance rates?
-------------------- "I've allowed my love of gravy to distract from my prescriptivist linguistic crusade!" -T-Rex, Dinosaur Comics Posts: 726 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ghost on Toast: Yeah, I really don't see this as any kind of infringement on personal rights.
It's legislation designed to save the lives of drivers and other road users. How could anyone have a problem with that?
Can someone explain the other side of the argument to me because IMHO anyone who drives without wearing a seatbelt is one selfish NFBSK.
I view it in much the same way as I view anti-suicide laws.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This statement by itself is rather contradictory
Posted by Chimera:
quote:if it was up to me I'd ban motorcycles before I'd require seatbelts. Luckily its not up to me. I don't think the decision should be made by anyone other than the adults engaging in the behaviour.
And especially when you later state:
quote:I guess I'm just too libertarian. I think adults should have freedom and take responsibilities for their own actions.
So you'd ban motorcycles but you're libertarian and think the decision should be up to the individual? Which one is it?
-------------------- Skunks hate the sound of industry. Posts: 2723 | From: Geneva, Illinois | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anybody who things that not wearing a seatbelt is safer then wearing one is a fool.
As for the libertarian argument, the idea of losing control due to not being securly fastened in your seat, to me, proves that the choice not to wear a seatbelt is not just about "personal safety" but also about the safety of others. You may get to make the decision about your own health (fatty foods, smoking, etc) but you dont get to put others at risk.
-------------------- "All people are responsible for the good that they didn't do" Posts: 4774 | From: Virginia | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I view it in much the same way as I view anti-suicide laws.
Which is........
Well, how about this: if you do it in private, then, while I regret it, I won't make a law to stop you. But if you try it out in public, then you're violating the rights of others.
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdrs of the Lost Ark: I view it in much the same way as I view anti-suicide laws.
What anti-suicide laws are you talking about? The only ones I am aware of prohibit assisted suicide.
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
