I'm not positive of the exact reason, but I think it's because these things are tanks. But a couple of weeks back, a school bus tipped over on a guardrail. The guardrail ripped through the side, but luckily no one was hurt. These things aren't indestructible (almost, but not quite ), and I think that they should put seatbelts on them. Even if it only makes them marginally safer, it'll keep children from flying. Perhaps it will only be more of a distraction for the bus drivers to keep the belts on the kids (especially the young ones who treat seatbelts like the plague). Hmm... they need something like on rollercoasters... just lock them in there . But I think that school buses are much, much safer than your average vehicle on the road. Perhaps that is the major reason that there are no seatbelts on them. I still think that it couldn't hurt. School bus drivers less distracted? Oh, I don't know about that. They have to somehow balance looking up in the rearview mirror to make sure that they aren't killing each other, smoking pot, etc. and driving a massive vehicle. I'm amazed that there aren't more bus accidents-- and I do know that if I drove a school bus, I'd go careening off the road the first day .

Lesly:

1. You're right, a reasonable person doesn't want someone to die and if some people won't take the most basic of precautions then it is time for an authority to step in. This is not an infringement of civil liberties it's a law put there to protect you and others.

2. Fair enough, I only raised this point to emphasise the first one.

3. Nice attitude. Perversely I don't care if you might not kill me. I care that you could. If you don't care enough about the person driving to do something as simple as fasten a seatbelt then a law telling you too seems all the more justifiable.

4. You're right. I can't track and monitor all her actions. The reason I put that point in there was to show you that as innocuous as not fastening you belt might seem, it may help result in someone else death by making a stupid action appear more acceptable. Don't get me wrong I don't consider it a strong point but it does exist.

5. Your civil liberties are controlled in a million different ways otherwise you'd be living in anarchy. Why does this one bother you so much?

6. In this case they do know better you. They are right. The statistics prove this, it isn't some fancy whim. The belt does save your life and the lives of those around you. If this is not enough reason for you to wear the belt then yes they should be able to take that decision out of your hands.

7. I'm not entirely sure of your point here, but if you mean that they should punish you for not belting up when the results could be deadly then yes use negative reinforcement when all else has failed.

8. I don't see the difference. They both save lives by controlling through fines what you can and cannot do it a car.

My judgement on this issue is a little clouded by the fact I have difficulty understanding how you can accept all the rules and fines associated with car driving (most of which are in place for the same reasons as the seatbelt law) yet find this very sensible new rule a bridge too far?

I just wonder how much more "wrinkled and unkempt" you would be ejected through the windshield and wrapped around a telephone pole if some drunken leadfoot rear-ins you (freeway or no freeway).

I think you'd still be a hottie my dear Artemise if your dress were wrinkled and crinkled. Maybe less so if it were your pretty face or body.

The reasons against wearing seat belts pale in comparison to the reasons to wear a seat belt. Stylish or dead? Gee, that's a tough choice.

Personally, I'd rather be alive and a fashion victim than dead (but my, isn't that a marvelous dress she has on) but that's just me.

Well, you did say tongue in cheek. There are innumerable, plausible scenarios for road fatalities. Do you have a percentage of passengers that didn't wear seat belts killing another passenger in the vehicle? I'll wager more people die from the impact or impact-related injuries than passengers taking flight as human battering rams.



I guess that makes it all better.



A few of our company cars have sensors in the back that warn the driver there's a nearby object.



Perhaps the sensor offers a good chance of preventing toddlers from being crushed as unaware drivers back out of the driveway. Perhaps the sensor can even lower the cost of insurance premiums by reducing rear-end collision accidents at parking lots. The cost of new technology offsets over time. Should I refuse to buy cars with a sensor in the future am I a bad person, a splinter threatening to snag the bubble-wrap world some pursue to guarantee the most competent drivers meet government sanctioned levels of efficiency either by conscious action (seat belt) or sensory output (sensor)? After all both can save lives.

A law removing conscious choice is not inherently right because it is written with the public in mind. You are held legally and financially responsible at 18, can vote, can be drafted against your will to kill and die on foreign soil and despite it all you can't have a beer. There's another rule for you associated with driving that I disagree with.

There are some interesting links that are available concerning seat belt laws and motorist interests in general.


National Motorists Association

The NMA opposes primary seat-belt laws(not wearing one as a pull-over offense, as opposed to being written up for not wearing one in conjunction with another violation) They follow a rather Libertarian argumetn in opposing such laws:



Not wearing a sealt-belt is safer?


The first line of opposition is what a lot of folks here have echoed-the second line is one that has not been used. What do you guys think? Are they right?

I'll take my chances with 30%.

The secondary seat-belt law approach is a good one. Another would be including a seat belt report when authorities notify insurance agencies of motor vehicle violations if they don't already.

To you? Yes.

To me? Yes.

To everyone? Heck no.

The problem with seat belt laws, is the state is dictating their version of safety while many might disagree with somewhat valid reasons.

Without scientific evidence, I would assume that your face slamming against the windshield at 65 MPH is much worse than getting your neck jerked out of whack by a seat belt.

But many people I know don't feel that way. They have a general feel of being trapped in a ball of twisted burning metal. They would rather be thrown from the car. So, that's their comfort level. I think it's both flawed in science and theory, but who am I to tell them? So, who is the state to tell them?

I could empathize with people who favor death over being a vegetable (something seat belts realistically could contribute to). I could also empathize with people who don't want to feel like they're trapped by a mechanical device in case of an accident. Meaning, they could burn to death instead of being knocked unconscious first.

I believe the benefits outweigh the risks and I wear a seat belt almost always. But for the above reasons, I believe it's a personal choice with merits on both sides of the issue no matter how absurd you think either side is.

By the way, I'll be buying a new gas-guzzling ozone depleting SUV at the end of the summer (and probably whining about gas prices on AD at the same time). Until then, I'm driving my old car that has a lapbelt that needs to be manually clicked and a shoulder harness that works automatically with the door.

If the shoulder harness is over my shoulder, but my lap belt is not used, can I get a ticket? The harness - by itself - is practically useless. So, if it's about safety, can I get fined even if I'm technically wearing a seatbelt? Just wondering...

Like our president, I'm not a "fact-checker" but I would be interested in knowing how other factors figure into this seat-belt and death question. For example, do they take into account wild-eyed teens who take the Chevelle 100 mph down a street? Do they count the 89 year old great-grandmother in a Ford LTD who pulls out in front of people and who brakes suddenly, forcing others to veer off and take defensive action?? If we made it harder for the very young and the very old to drive, I would be interested to see what happens to driving fatalities nationwide.

Seat belts are the most effective means of reducing fatalities and serious injuries. Every hour someone dies in America simply because they did not wear a seat belt. Shouldn’t it be your choice if you want to wear a seat belt or not? Not according to the Law, the Penalty for the violation of not wearing a seat belt is $30.00 plus other legal costs. Sometimes personal choice is forfeited when others are injured or killed. Today over 25 countries around the world have some type of mandatory seat belt laws.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, approximately 35,000 people die in motor vehicle crashes each year. About 50 percent (17,000) could have been saved if they wore seat belts. Even though they had air bags, air bags do not help with side, rear end, or rollover crashes. What about the people that died when they could not get out of the car because of seatbelts not releasing due to the accident? It is recommended that you carry a cutting device, example a knife, in your car. If you are in the driver’s seat, you cannot reach the glove box to get this cutting device. If you carry it in a door pocket and you are stopped, you may be arrested for a concealed weapon.
The National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) say that when a driver is buckled in that 94 percent of the time children in that vehicle are buckled in; NHTSA also say when a driver doesn’t use his/her seat belt that only 30 percent of child passengers are buckled in. This I find unbelievable!! Many parents, I know, say just because they don’t use a seat belt doesn’t mean that their children are not using a seat belt. Adults, who are not wearing seat belts, are some of the common cause of death and injury to children in motor vehicles. It is said, that occupants being thrown into each other is one cause out of four serious injuries to passengers. Use of seat belts would keep you from being thrown around or out of the car. I know from personal experience someone that would be here today if they didn’t have a seat belt on.
Despite all the evidence saying that is would help you in a car wreck, shouldn’t we have the right to make that choice? We all are aware of the dangers or not wearing a seat belt and as long as we are aware of those dangers, we should have a right to choose. Ask anyone who has ever been trapped in a car that was on fire what he or she feels about seatbelts? We have freedom of speech, why can’t we have the right to wear a seat belt or not? This is just another way for the government has control of us. Instead of worrying who is wearing a seat belt or not, they need to be worrying about criminals breaking the law.

I know I'm a little late to this debate; my apologies.

Looms, you are unfortunately, not correct in some of your assumptions, here. There's no real "slippery-slope argument to be made, because higher insurance rates are usually accrued for most of what you have mentioned.

For instance, life insurance rates for those with with "lifestyle issues" like skydiving, are considerably higher than someone who doesn't engage in "risky" hobbies. So is health insurance, if you are not part of a group plan, but pay for it on your own.

The same increases apply to those with health issues. Let's face it - if you are overweight from a sedentary lifestyle and overeating, you're more likely to be taking cholesterol or high blood pressure medication, or perhaps contracting Type II Diabetes before you ever have your first heart attack. If you don't report these things to your insurance company, when asked, you may find your policy restricts the payments you can receive if you then have a heart attack related to these original symptoms. On the other hand, if you do tell them, I guarantee your rates will go up.

So actually, maybe that's the better way to go. Don't make it illegal to wear a seatbelt. But make you report the fact that you don't wear one to your insurance company. And if you are stopped for a traffic violation, and you are not wearing one, require the police report it to your insurance company. When folks insurance rates triple, I imagine they'll find it a lot less "inconvenient" to wear that seatbelt.

And the upside is, the government won't be restricting your rights at all. Whether or not you save money on your insurance will be entirely up to you.

Your state must be have a primary enforcement law. In Florida we also have had a mandatory seat belt law for some time, but it is not a primary enforcement. Here you can only be cited for it if you've been pulled over for something else (no sticker, broken blinker, traffic violation, etc.)

I think it's good for states to enact as a secondary law. States have an interest not only in driver's lives, but in the controlling the escalation of auto insurance costs. Seat belt laws help to bring those costs down for the states, and ultimately ease the costs for the drivers.

I started the debate should seatbelts be mandatory. Well my daughter went with my family for b-day dinners and on the way home we hit a check point to see if we were wearing our seatbelts.
We were. But I was annoyed.
Why do they need these check points?
I think they cause delays and it cost us tax payers money for this.
It is the law in Illinois to wear your seat belt and we do. But do we need this? No if you get in an accident or pulled over for speeding, and not wearing a sealt belt you pay. It is the law like I said. But stopping people to check to see if you are wearing a seat belt I think is ridiculous.

Is it just me or does it seem like you could see the check point coming and put your seat belt on to avoid the ticket?

I would just think that anyone who's thinking at all would immidately put their belt on (assuming they're not drunk or anything). I havn't encountered a check point yet, but I don't see how they can really help. If someone doesn't want to wear their seatbelt then they'll just take it off after the check point I would assume.

My question to debate should it be a law? And is this fair for the people who choose not to wear one?

Absolutely! I honestly can't see a single reason not to wear a seat belt. It saves lives! Why on earth would someone not use it?

I would be similarly annoyed if I was stopped for a sobriety check, and they do those here in AZ for every holiday weekend. I have never been stopped, because I rarely go out late at night, especially to the bar district. But, I applaud the efforts of law enforcement to save lives, however they do it.
It is a small amount of our time, and a small amount of taxpayer expense, thus a minor annoyance compared to the devastation that is often caused by our unsafe actions. And think of the police, fire department, and rescue workers who have to scrape our bodies off the highway. They would just as soon they didn't have to do that. So, yes it should be a law, and no it is not unfair to those who choose to be unsafe to be asked to reconsider.

Kudos for those who serve, no kudos for those who whine about their efforts.

BTW, the only time I have ever been stopped for this or a similar reason was coming home from California, and it was by immigration, making sure I wasn't an illegal "immigrant".

My question to debate should it be a law? And is this fair for the people who choose not to wear one?

I am a believer in libertarian principles on this stuff. Your life is your possession. If you choose to endanger it smoking, scuba diving, or driving without a seatbelt, so be it. Darwin'd be happy. When your choices and actions endanger the lives of those around you, it becomes not just their business, but the business of law enforcement.

Here's my dilemma: We should have the right to do what we want in our own backyard (or car)... but choosing not to wear a seatbelt on principle ("I don't need that) is not just an unhealthy choice, but a really dangerous one (Far more dangerous than drug use, or other things the government tsk tsk's us for). More importantly, parents who don't wear their seatbelts will likely influence their children not to (as was the case with my mother).

I don't think that there should be a ticket or other financial attack for such choices. I think a much better approach is annoyance. If a driver is ever pulled over without a seatbelt on, make them take classes where those scary and disgustingly graphic teen driving docu-horror films are shown. No one feels good about not wearing a seatbelt after watching someone shoot through a windshield and pop their head like a watermelon on the asphalt.

We've long had strict laws regarding seatbelt use in the UK. For a many years now it has also been illegal to not to wear your seat belt in the rear passenger seats. I remember I was never all that bothered about the rear seats one until I saw an advert which showed that drivers/front seat passengers die from the passenger being thrown forward and smashing in to the back of the drivers head. If this is the case then anyone with the same principles you have has to at least wear their seatbelt in the back because if they don't they're endagering the life of the person in front of them. Ergo - if they're not wearing them - fine them till they do!

I have many family members in law enforcement, I've seen the statistics on seat belts saving lives, I've also seen pictures of people who died because of their seat belt....cutting throats....flames melting the plastic on the female end making it impossible to disconnect and end up burning to death..etc. One might say that they would have died anyway without the seat belt, but no one knows for sure, the same could be said of all the seat belts "saving lives", we don't know for sure without a time machine and altering events I guess.

However, I do understand that your odds are better when you wear them. I personally don't wear mine as often as I should. I feel like I'm restrained and it freaks me out....I'm sure it's some sort of phobia, who knows...

I guess seat belt laws would make more sense to me....but when I look at how they handle motorcycles, here in arizona, a helmet is not required. Not to mention, wrecking a motorcycle, even at 40mph with a helmet is pretty dangerous in and of itself considering you're now on the street with moving vehicles and probably a little tore up from the fall/slide and not able to move out of the way very quickly. I've seen those photos too

I'm not sure I like the idea of traffic stops though, I know from the horse's mouth that they are much less concerned with your safety and more concerned with city/county politics. "We've ticketed over 1,000 people making our streets safer"....etc. But hey, if you can kill two birds with one stone, more power to you.

I am 100% agaisnt seatbelt laws.

Why ? First off, it's our own business if we want to risk our lives, and secondly, only people who need these laws are ppl to pathedic to remind themselvs(so they need laws to remind them),

Why do we want ppl his pathedic all around us ? it's fricken twisted, and ppl like them vote for ppl like nader.

And its also ppl like them who get laws that are worth less past, worth less ? no just worthless.

My question to debate should it be a law? And is this fair for the people who choose not to wear one?

I don't find requiring seat belts any more unfair than other safety laws. Texas has had a seat belt law longer than I can remember, but I wore one before it was law. I will not let a passenger ride in my car without one. My vehicle also has front air bags. There isn't much doubt that seat belts work. See link below:

http://www.edgarsnyder.com/news/seat_belts_statistics.html

If I get another vehicle anytime soon, I want it equipped with side impact airbag. In fact, I would buy a Volvo for its safety features if I had the resources.

Regarding the second part of the question, I don't see much wrong with protecting people from themselves.

Well, what about the people responsible for scraping you off the sidewalk after you have a car crash, forgot to wear your seat belt and smashed through the windscreen.

Do you think they want to do that? I'd hate to have to wash some idiots brain off the street.

The law is a fair one, because it helps lessen the burden faced by the good people in emergency services.

My question to debate should it be a law? And is this fair for the people who choose not to wear one?

No, it should not be a law because it is interfering with the basic freedoms that we as humans are born with and does not take away from other peoples freedoms.

This is the basic question in which should be asked about any law.

Does this law infringe on the absolute freedom that a human is born with? Yes

Does this law protect those freedoms that a human is born with? No

My question to debate should it be a law? And is this fair for the people who choose not to wear one?




Edited to highlight debate question & to note this thread has been moved to Domestic Policy.

[/quote]


Yes. The statistics are clear. People who don’t wear belts are killed and injured more often and ALL of us pay for this in MA.

Fundamentally, I'm against nanny laws regarding my personal behavior. However, I will make an argument for seatbelt and helmet laws.

When we are in our younger years, what others do around us impacts our own behavior to a large extent. Why, even into older years we may fall into this pressure. It seems to be a built-in thing, something to do with being social critters.

But these two kinds of laws, the seatbelt and helmet, take the responsibility away from us. As a result, we don't feel like we're different from the crowd. This in turn helps to save lives, according to the statistics I've seen.

Oh, I could get mad that I'd wear a seatbelt and helmet anyway, but back when I was cool and 19, had a motorcycle crash that broke a collar bone and smushed my helmet, not my noggin.

Thank you, Minnesota, for saving my sorry young tush back then. I think we owe it to the kids and those who respond to the crowd.

Excellent point. There need to be more laws protecting people from the job they chose. You think it's fun unclogging toilets? WE NEED A LAW TO STOP PEOPLE FROM FLUSHING THINGS THAT CLOG TOILETS!!!! Think of the plumbers! And of the children!

Exactly, it's good manners, if nothing else.

Whilst I accept that everyone chooses the job they do (although toilet uncloggers may not have)...at the same time, it's ill mannered and discourteous to make other people's lives more difficult, such as by splattering yourself across the pavement so that they have to clean you up.

Individual liberty is all well and good, but there is nothing wrong with being well mannered

I fully understand why those who believe this law is not something that should have been passed because of principle but because it does save lives will not attempt to repeal it (then again should we pass a law that forbids eating to much fast food?).

I have a question for those who believe we should have seat belt and helmet laws.

How does it infrindge on anyone elses freedom?

If it does not infrindge on anyone elses freedom it should not be passed period. That include's drug laws.

Short of the higly unlikely event that someone flying out of the car and hitting another person I see absolutely no reason why this should be a law (so should we outlaw buying the color yellow as a shirt for someone else because it could attract a bee to sting them and if they are allergic it could kill them?).

The government shoud NOT decide what is better for yourself.

Do seatbelt laws infringe on my freedoms? I don't see how. I am still free to travel where I please, say what I please, do business with whom I please, worship how I please.

For those saying that this law infringes on your rights, then please explain to me how seatbelt laws are any different from most other traffic laws. Are your rights being infringed by stop signs? By speed limits? I mean, come on...some people take this idea of "rights" to ridiculous extremes sometimes, and this is one of them.

And by the way, your "right" not to wear a seatbelt does inpinge on my right to hang on to as much of my money as possible, to use as I see fit. Because those not using seatbelts, and getting seriously injured because of it, are going to raise my already considerable medical insurance premiums. Not to mention my auto insurance premiums.

My question to debate should it be a law? And is this fair for the people who choose not to wear one?


I like the take Washington State has on this (they can get away with it because insurance there is run through the state). If you get in an accident, and you don't have your seatbelt on, you forfeit insurance. The reasoning being that you clearly failed to take action to protect yourself, therefore the insurer shouldn't be responsible for the consequences. Harsh, yes, but hard to argue against the logic--and it still leaves the choice firmly with the individual.

I allready adressed this in my post. Stop sign's are there for a reason - to save other peoples lives. Having a seat belt on does not save other peoples lives. And yes a seatbelt law infringes on the choice that you and you alone should make.


That's interesting and sounds good to me.

If there is no law requiring seatbelts to be worn, almost every driver who chooses to not wear a seatbelt, also doesn't care if his kids are belted. I have seen this firsthand, working as an EMT. I have never seen a wreck in which the driver was unbuckled, while the kids were all belted in. It is almost always all one way, or the other. After you've had to work a few MVAs with unbelted passengers, you might change your tune.

Sure, it seems crazy to legislate stupidity, right? But I don't really care about the idiots - just their children and families.

We can also talk a bit about indirect harm. The death of a loved one certainly does echo in widening circles of people. Not wearing a seatbelt, and then dying in a wreck, does harm others.

All that said, I don't think it needs to be a draconian law. It's ticketable, it's a moving infraction. You're not gonna go to jail.

But, Vamp, using your own logic, I am going to guess that you are absolutely in favor of recognizing gay marriages - after all, why should we infringe on people's choices, since no one is being harmed?

And if there is a law will that change their attitude of buckling up their child?

I agree that children should be required to wear a seatbelt. The decision should lay on those that are able to comprehend the decision they make is a life-threatening one. That is why most adult law's are handled differently when a child commit's them.

Yes mental harm can be done easily. Should we outlaw a divorce? That affect's the children and families.


Erm dont assume that I run lock-step with the Repulican party. If you look to the left of this post you will see that I classify myself to be a Libertarian.

I completely support gay marriage.

Seatbelts keep the driver in his seat behind the wheen in the event of a collision. This saves lives by allowing the driver to regain control and by preventing other occupants from becoming deadly projectiles.
If you die or are injured, it effects everyone else through increases in insurance premiums.
I always wear mine and feel naked without it.