I am not sure where to put this so I will leave it up to Jaime and Mike.
In Illinois it is the law to wear seat belts. I wear mine all the time so for me it is no big deal.
But today when I came home from work, on the corner were 2 police officers standing in the middle of the street. It is at a 4 way stop. There was a sign but from where I had to make my right turn I didn't see it till I did the turn. Sign read seat Belt check. And they were giving tickets to people that were not wearing their seat belts.
In Illinois the last couple yrs they do announce on TV ads on holidays upcoming and till the holiday weekend is over "Click it or Ticket".
I am not sure what the fine is for not wearing a seat belt is.


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.

I believe if you have passengers under the age of 16 in your vehicle, they should be required to wear a belt. Anyone over the age of 16 can make they're own choice, depending on the wishes of the driver.




No...but again, this pertains to those over the age of 16.



This, to me, goes right along with the helmet laws.


I will add that I always wear my seatbelt.

This is one of those "forcing people to be safe" laws. Which is like the helmet laws that Andy Mosity said previously. I think it's a good idea but I'm not too sure people will follow it. My question is what about people riding in the back of pick up trucks? I think you have to be above 16, or at least in Texas, though I'm not sure. But there are no seat belts back there, so is that against the law?



If you choose to break a law knowingly then you're putting yourself at risk. People know it's illegal to drive drunk, but they still do and they get a ticket. These laws were created to help keep people safe. If you decide to disobey a law then you better be ready to face the consequences of your choice, even if you don't think you should follow it.

This is a question which, for me, can be answered both ways.

Fundamentally, seatbelt laws and helmet laws are abhorrent, because they are so nanny-like. Shouldn't people be able to choose whether or not to engage in risky behaviour?

On the other hand, I work as an EMT. I have seen first hand the results of motor vehicle accidents. People who do not wear seatbelts are crazy. People who allow their children to go unbelted are scum.

I will not be petitioning the government for the repeal of seatbelt laws anytime soon, even though I recognize that such a law is flawed on a fundamental level. Here's why: I believe there are laws inhibiting our civil liberties which are inflicting harm on people. They are restricting peoples' positive freedoms. Seat belt laws, while sharing the same causal flaw, are, on the contrary, resulting in fewer fatal crashes, and less severe injuries.

i dont think the government should try to protect me from myself. im an adult. let me worry about myself. obviously its a good idea to wear your seatbelt. im not gonna dispute that fact. but i dont need the gov sticking their grubby little hands into my life. its pretty funny here in florida where i live. you have to wear your seatbelt but you dont have to wear a motorcycle helmet. thats the most idiotic thing i ever heard. if your going to pass a law to protect me from my own decisions then make me wear a helmet. i drive cars and ride cycles. i would much much rather be in a car accident w/o a seatbelt than be in a motorcycle crash w/o a helmet. i think the laws here are like this because of bikeweek in daytona beach. basically, the government wants you to be safe,, unless of course forcing you to be safe my cost them tourist dollars. hypocrites.

Here in the UK seatbelts have been compulsory for many years for front seat passengers, as have helmets been for bikes.

Maybe we are sheeplike fools, but nobody here seriously thinks that the law is an infringement of our civil liberties. We also have about the safest roads in the world (even though we tend to drive at higher speeds on twistier roads than Americans do.)

Maybe we are meek sheep, or maybe Americans are overly attached to not being told what to do by anyone EVER and should stop behaving like a nation of stroppy teens and grow up a bit.

They are also now compulsory for back seat passengers - statistics showed that a large number of front seat passengers were being killed by being hit by unrestrained back seat passengers in crashes. The civil liberties argument holds more water here than it does for the front seat people, since you aren't just risking your own life, but those of other people too.

I share a similar position as quarkhead on this issue. I would say that in general I am against creating laws to protect you from yourself and laws which put the government in a position of being "mom".

However, contrary to that general belief I completely agree with seat belt laws, motor cycle helmet laws and bicycle helmet laws.

Severe injuries on these vehicles are in some cases completely preventable if the person would have just worn a helmet or buckled up. I would much rather see police expend a little extra resources each year during click-it or ticket campaigns than see an increased burden put on hospitals and EMT staff for completely preventable and stupid injuries. The cost of these injuries increases insurance premiums and fills up hospital beds which could be used for other purposes.

Adults who do not force their children to buckle up are irresponsible and I would venture to say criminally negligent.

noone in america is picketing any state capitols over seat belt laws. i do believe we can discuss laws without be a "nation of stroppy teens". thanks for your input though.

I think you are missing or dismissing Julian's point thegdin.

I believe he does have a point about the average American behaving like a "stroppy teen" (man, British English is cool!) when laws such as this are passed.

I can remember when they first passed motorcycle helmet laws, seat belt laws and open container laws in Texas growing up. At first, everyone was outraged by it and people thought it was a dumb idea. Eventually people got used to it and realized the law was in their better interest and auto fatalities of certain types went down.

I believe its part of driving, sort of like the speed limit. Sure I can handle my car at pretty high rates of speed, but the faster I go the more severe the injuries I'll sustain when I actually do hit something. Seat belts saves lives and money by keeping insurance low by reducing injuries, and thats the bottom line, money. I pretty sure the insurance company had a major lobbing force to get this one passed.
For the record used to speed excessively until I got into one of those life changing accidents in October, the only reason why I wear my seat belt is the annoying light in the dashboard (my moms 2003 4Runner evens has a pressure sensor on the passenger side which turns the light on too) Although I don't wear mine I usually insist on everyone else wearing theirs and I usually have to lead by example.


I'm pretty sure it's 13 and you need to keep it under 55, unless it's changed in the past 4 years.

Maybe we are meek sheep, or maybe Americans are overly attached to not being told what to do by anyone EVER and should stop behaving like a nation of stroppy teens and grow up a bit.

They are also now compulsory for back seat passengers Julian is so right about this one. 1989 in front of my house there is a strait away 50 mph zone, 2 teens in the front 3 preteens in the back of a chevy cavalier , the teen driver was swating at a fly and drove head on into a tractor trailer , driver was killed 2 preteens in the back were killed one thrown through the BACK window halfway out gurgling blood were he soon died. I was told the gory details by the emt's wife. I just couldn't understand how he was thrown through the back window on a headon collision. I imagined what it was like and it makes me sick. No one gets into my car without bucketing up , front or back

You tell him, gdin! Nobody is going to tell us Americans that we are
a nation of stroppy teens.

Actually, I share Julian's point-of-view. Why must we look at such
a law as government trying to control us. I view it quite differently.
It is a sensible and necessary law.

Another thing to think about is the cost of auto insurance. It would
go through the roof if seat belt laws were not mandatory. I don't know
about y'all, but I do not want to pay more for my car insurance just so
careless people can feel free.

While I wear my seatbelt, I still don't think it should be a law.

It just amazes me all the people who think "it saves lives, therefore it is good" are often the very same people who are all riled up about the Patriot Act. It's purpose is to save lives, too, but it's bad. Go figure.

The seatbelt law doesn't make much sense when people are allowed to ride in the bed of pick-ups. On the reservation a pick-up is the only vehicle people have with large families.



edited to add: While driving the children to school this morning, looked at the school bus. Why aren't students require to wear seat belts on a bus? Why aren't seat belts require for all school buses? Just some questions.

If you don't want to wear a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet, fine with me... with one proviso. If you are injured because of your failure to use a seatbelt or helmet, you should be precluded from recovering any damages, getting any public assistance, getting insurance payouts and all claims based upon your irresponsibility by heirs, etc should also be denied.

Just make people responsible for the consequences of their actions. This of course would be the attorney full employment act (which I don't oppose -- I will retire from the Army at some point). This is also not the American way. We want a safe nerf world with rounded corners and someone else to blame when we screw up. I have made a successful living as a criminal defense counsel doing that.

If you would require people to pay for their consequences of failing to buckle up, I would bet the compliance rate would be above 99%.

Until we have that law, requiring people to buckle up is a good law. If it makes my tax rates and insurance rates lower for such a minor "inconvenience" (it really isn't) so be it.

J

In the regards of safety belt, I recently watched a special on History Channel about safety devices, contraption and mechanisms on the road and in the car. Back when safety belts were started, for some reason american manufactureers correlated low sales of certain models to "uncoolness" of the safety belt. This notion was changed by Volvo,after it introduced seat belt to all of its cars after it's VP's wife died in a collision.
On the grand scale, I personally believe that safety belts go hand-in-hand with air bags, speed limit, stop signs, speed bumps, guard rails and a plethora of other "diabolical devices invented to thwart our freedoms and turn us into minions of the Big Brother". Sound ludicrous? Cause it is.
Fatality rate of hundred thousand+ blatantly indicated that humans cannot be trusted to manage themselves. Fatality rates were high in 1910s and 20s with 20mph-30mph speed limits, what would it be nowadays with 75mph highway speed limit? The laws designed to protect ourselves from our own ceralessness have shown themselves to work in practice and it would be against common sense to petition for their annulation just because it violates some liberal principle of metaphysical freedom of choice and freedom to kill yourself and other passenger in the crash.

Yeah, 'cause it's equally suspect that the gov't require I use a safety device already installed in my car while using public roads and availing myself of public safety faculties as it is that the gov't can execute sneak-and-peak warrants of my home out of secret courts based on indirect, suspected links to a suspected terrorist, or execute a roaming tap on my cell phone. Or prosecute a librarian that refuses to hand over my reading list or who does so than tells me about the "search".

I had a class where we had an Israeli and a Palestinian-American spokesman speak to us. The Palestinian told us he had attended a conference of Palestinians working on a peace resolution at which there was someone who was accused of terrorist actions in the past. Having been at a meeting with this guy, not only was our speaker eligible for a tap, but so was anyone he met with, including our entire class. With the warrant for the tap issuing secretly and written broadly enough that anything they overheard that could be construed as illegal-jokingly saying I'd like to kill someone, jokingly saying "i'll bet you . . ." to someone in another state- would be a prosecutable offense in court.

Saying everyone should buckle up is a wee bit less invasive, more directly related to saving lives, and written more narrowly to address the evil it aims to protect us against. It's abit ridiculous to waste police time chasing down people to lazy to buckle a belt, so I'd like to see the estimates on how many lives will be saved and how the resource costs/saving breakdown- will having to scrape less brain off the pavement save us money versus gas spent chasing forgetful people?

But trying to paint this is some kind of draconic invasion of privacy is just silly, especially when driving on an interstate. Maybe the law should be narrowed to allow people to drive on their private property without their seatbelt on, assuming that's not already the case.

How do you figure? If I drive at 150 mph, I pose a hazard not just to myself, but to other vehicles around me. If I blow through a stop sign, I pose a hazard not just to myself, but to other vehicles around me. If I drive drunk I pose a hazard not just to myself, but to other vehicles around me.

Now maybe you can explain to me how me driving without a seat belt poses a hazard not just to myself, but to other vehicles around me.

It is the government's job to protect me from others, NOT from myself. If I want to take a chainsaw to one of my legs, it's MY BUSINESS, nobody else's. It's my body, not the government. Who the hell are they to tell me I can't hurt myself, if I so desire.

This is exactly how we wind up with "wonderful" legislation such as drug laws, criminalization of prostitution, etc.

If someone wants to live in a bubble room, that's fine, everyone should have the absolute freedom to create that kind of environment for themselves. But some people don't seem content unless others have to live in a bubble room as well.

wow! interesting debate.. i live in the UK like julian and i'm currently taking my driving test.. (doing it 2morrow for the 5th! time!) (fingers crossed) anyway.. front passengers by law should b belted, if seat belts are fitted to the back seats again it is compulsory to use them.. there is a question on the theory test in the UK...

"if a passenger is in the car and is not seat belted, who's responsibilty is it?"

"1. the driver
2. the passenger
3. the oldest person in the car
4. the person who has insurance cover for the car.."

well.. in all cases it is the car driver.. doesn't make a jot of difference if u fail to belt up and ur over 16.. cos the driver can get done for not making sure u do..

as for under 16.. they have to wear seat belts or have suitable child seats fitted to the car.

and it is against the law to carry more passengers than the car is designed for.. (try getting 6 ppl in a taxi only able to carry 5.. and the driver will turn u down)

also it's illegal to ride in the back of trucks, aka the beverley hillbillies..

as to do is it an invasion of rights or civil liberties or big brother ... someone has already said.. do u think that about the speed limit? do u think that about airbags, etc etc etc.. when ur taking off in an airplane do u complain about civil liberties when they ask u to do saftey checks..

seems to me americans go on about loss of rights to silly things like this.. when in other areas of the world they are busy erroding the rights of others with military muscle..

As already stated: your state and every state in the nation requires that you have at least minimal automobile insurance to cover you. Will you grant that you're more likely to have significant injuries or death if you were to wrap your car around a lightpole while not wearing a seat belt (compared to if you DID in fact wear one)? Statistics will bear this out.

So... if insurance costs are higher because the payout is larger for you not wearing a seat belt, then that affects EVERYONE. Insurance is a pool. All participants in the pool pay based on actuarial stuff that I'd rather not get into just now, but one of the main factors for the pool is how much the payout was in the past year. If you (and hundreds who believe the same way) don't wear a seat belt, wrap your car(s) and your body(ies) around a light pole, then MY insurance rates will likely go up, because the payout from the pool has gone up. Compared to if you put your seat belt on and lived to fight another day after wrapping your car around that light pole.

Let me know if that wasn't clear. Sometimes I'm not when it comes to this stuff.

1.) You poses a hazard to my insurance rates.
2.) What about the passengers in you vehicle, like children in the back who are to small to know how to or care about operating a seat belt.
3.) An accident with a fatality cause more traffic since they now need to call the coroner or ambulance.


But there is a point to using drugs and prostitution. Drugs recreational relaxation, prostitution brings money and recreational relaxation, not wearing a seat belt ....... I'm drawing a blank here Looms help me out.

Like I said before driving is a privilege, you can choose to drive and obey the laws that society has chosen to be beneficial to drive a 1 ton vehicle at a high rate of speed, or not to do either. See, there you go Looms you still have a choice.

Additionally, the use of medical services (EMS, police, 911, ER facilities, ER Doctors) cost money. Some of it is tax payers money, some is insurance company money.

By getting in an accident in which you aren't wearing a seat belt, you run a greater risk of seriously injuring yourself. However, the same injury could be reduced or even prevented with a seat belt.

By not being responsible here, you are wasting tax payer money and making these same services unavailable to others (eg the fact that you are in the ER means another patient cannot have that bed or the doctor's time).

I think people here have made the point quite clearly that if you wish to have access to government services the price you pay is not only in taxes but in individual liberties.

The fact is if you get killed you will almost certainly save the government dollars over being injured. I need to see convincing stats that seatbelt laws save dollars.

How many billions of tax dollars did 9/11 cost? As someone already pointed out, The Patriot Act and seatbelt laws are based on the same premise.

Check out this study published by the National Highway Traffic Saftey Administration Hugo.

The economic savings chart is near the bottom of the web page. Net savings in all 50 states in 1997 was estimated to be $3,376,051,513. That is pretty significant.



If you compare things at that level then it is also the same thing as the drinking age, speed limits, occupancy limits,etc.

It is an apples to oranges comparison, the patriot act violates civil liberties in the name of saftey. Seat Belt laws do not in any way violate civil liberties.

If we are going to outlaw things on the premise of decreasing insurance rates, the Patriot Act will be the least of our problems.

Skydiving is dangerous, and when skydivers wind up killing themselves, their insurance company pays for it, increasing our rates.

When people don't eat healthy, they also contribute to increasing insurance rates. And if they have no insurance, the tax payers foot the bill. Not to mention that our resources get wasted, EMTs have to go take care of some fat guy having a heart attack, who never even cared about his own health. And if he is in the ER, someone else cannot have that bed, right?

I am not a fan of slippery slopes, that's not what I'm trying to say. My point is that this type of logic can be used for absolutely anything.

To me this Demolition Man-like government paternalism is disgusting, and completely unreasonable. There is NO excuse for not letting people do what they want with themselves, and if there was, it would not be that it saves us money.

I'm convinced. I bet we could save even more dollars and lives if we required everyone to wear thick rubber suits when inside a motor vehicle.

Be sarcastic if you'd like, the fact remains that seat belts save lives and they save tax payers and insurance companies money.

I honestly can't see what the big fuss is over this law, it really isn't any different than having a speed limit or requiring car seats for infants.

I'm not convinced seat belts save taxpayers money as much as driving through a red, rolling through a stop, alcohol, recreational drugs, road rage, etc., but I'm all for natural selection. Everyone should click it. I'm not sure they should get a ticket.

I was on my way home from a long road trip over the weekend. It was midnight. I was doing the speed limit but after 10 hours my reaction time was delayed by a few seconds. (Read aviophobia.) Police set up a road block after a sharp right turn in town. I had to break the car fast because, flashlight in hand and aimed at my face, the freshly minted officer walked up the middle of the lane. Blinking I asked what was up. I thought I was in store for a breathalizer. He said, "Just want to make sure you're wearing your seat belt." I shot a WTF? look up at him.

If I had any say in it:

1) Do not go all stealthy a la Darkwing Duck and set up a damn roadblock in a tight street.

2) Do not walk up to cars like you're Patrick Swayze.

3) Screw the road block and put those five officers on patrol for DUI offenders.

I agree completely with Quarkhead on this one.

Also, if you don't belt up you run the risk of hurting others in the car with you. See for example this quote on back seat seatbelting:

Automobile Association of Singapore
Given this, not belting potentially places risk not only for you but for the people around you.

Driving is a privilege not a right. The government has the right to restrict your driving for the safety of those around you as well as (to an extent) yourself.

*sidenote* My mom is really annoyed by the crack down on the seatbelt law but frankly I'm glad they are doing it because it forces her to belt in.

You have some valid points, Looms. However, safelty belt
laws should "take the back seat" to speaking out against bigger
governmental wrongs, such as The Patriot Act.

And, just for the record, nobody is forcing us to wear our safety
belts. We can go without if we choose. The worst that will happen
is a stiff fine, and a person could even refuse to pay. It would
take the government some time to catch up with you...

If a person does not want to wear a safety belt just because
someone is telling him to, then he's a fool. It is foolish to
drive without the use of a seat belt. Plain and simple.

I firmly believe that nobody except those under 16 should be required to wear a seatbelt. The laws should be changed so that wearing a seatbelt is optional. I'd rather police spend their time stopping real crimes like robbery, rape, and other violent crimes. I don't believe mandatory seat belt laws are fair. I always ride with my seatbelt.

if saving insurance money is an arguement, and i dont believe it is, lets outlaw other things too. fast foods for one, or over eating any kind of food. how much does obesity cost? how much insurance money is wasted on those who smoke or drink to much? hey! since we are talking about safety equipment,, how about making it a ticketable offense to have unprotected sex. sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies cost the western world a lot im sure.


my arguement is this. im a responsible adult. if i choose comfort over safety it is my business. and it remains my business until i put others at risk.

When I was taking driver's training in 1962, I was told that "Click it or Ticket" was the law in Michigan. "Click it or Ticket," according to the public service ads they are currently showing in Michigan, is now the law in all 50 states. I don't know what took so long for it to become national policy.

I was 15 when the next door neighbor died. He was stopped at a traffic light. The car that hit his car had been stopped on the cross street, but was making a right turn. He turned a little too wide, and hit the neighbor's car. Estimated speed of impact was less than 2 MPH, but it popped open his door, and knocked him out of the car. He was not using the seat belt, and the car door was not locked. The police told his wife, he probably would have been uninjured if he had been locked in the car or wearing his seatbelt. Then they unloaded him from the ambulance. She was the RN on duty in the emergency room they took him to... He arrived alive, but had a brain concussion that killed him before the end of her shift.

I have never ridden without a seatbelt since.

Seatbelt and helmet laws have not really been implemented to keep adults from making foolish decisions. They have been implemented because the survivors, the insurance companies, and the relatives who had to pay for long term or intensive medical care told their lawmakers, "This tragedy could have been prevented!"

Fair? I've never found a seatbelt uncomfortable. I've had passengers say they wouldn't wear one, and I have waited patiently for them to change their minds so that I could start the car. I've yet to see someone so insistent on their right to ride unprotected that they chose to walk.

I'll chime in on this one. In the UK we've had seatbelt enforcement for a long time. It is also illegal for a passenger not to wear a seat belt.
There was some grumbling to start off with but now it is second nature for practically everyone.

I really can't believe how het-up some people are getting about this.
This is not a terrible law. Nor is it any great infringement on your civil liberties. Or if it is its civil liberty I can cope without.

If you wear a seat belt your chances of living greatly improve. If someone is not smart enough to look out for their own safety then the government has every right to slap your hand and tell you to buckle up. Eventually it'll sink in and people will wonder why they made such a fuss in the first place.




Alright here's why I want you to wear a seat belt:

1. I don't want you to die

2. If you do die I don't want to see your mangled corpse on the street. (wear a seat belt and protect me from long term physiological problems)

3. If I'm driving and your in the back and you don't buckle up you could kill me.
(don't want that)

4. If my daughter sees that it's alright not to fasten your seat belt then when she drives she may well be influenced to do the same and contribute to her own death.
(don't want that either)

5. The car your sitting in has been tested and designed to be as safe as possible, but they have designed it working on the premise that the driver is capable of employing the most basic and essential piece of safety equipment - the seatbelt.

6. It's really not a big deal. Why don't you want to wear your belt?

7. There may be a fine but it's really, really easy to avoid.

8. The government also doesn't allow you to park anywhere. Sometimes this is because you'll pose a danger to yourself and others if you do. Is it being overly draconian here too?

I may have been a little tongue in cheek with this post but please go on Buckle up. The next time you rear-end someone at 20 mph and suffer a sore shoulder instead of flying through the windscreen you'll thank me.

mule:



1. A reasonable person doesn't want someone else to die but there are degrees of acceptance. Your countdown is absurd. I don't want my mother to die but I can't stop her from smoking. Beyond my immediate wants for the sake of society at large I'm glad I can't keep her from killing herself.

2. While we're on weak constitutions, please make women heavy with children wear diapers so I don't have to witness their water break and sluice down their leg in opaque nastiness.

3. Or... I could not.

4. Your daughter is responsible for her own actions (or lack thereof) unless she has the IQ of a walnut, at which time you'd be completely responsible for her wellbeing. Don't pass the buck.

5. No argument here, but not a justification to chip away self-autonomy.

6. It is a big deal when others feel they have a right to dictate on the basis of they know better than you, regardless of what the subject is.

7. Nice. Make right by negative reinforcement when all else fails.

8. Not in this case. We don't need to make "all or nothing" comparisons to be correct.

I may have been a little tongue in cheek with my reply.

I doubt a national seat belt requirement will reduce insurance premiums. Insurance companies don't stay afloat by breaking even with rising costs independent of seat belt related injuries. I do think seat belts save more lives than they cause serious injuries. Difference is I don't think it's my place or the government's to make anyone (minors need not apply) conform to my wishes.

Our state has been very big on this as well. We had one of the nation's highest rates of deaths from auto crashes last year. Using that as a pretext, we have experienced the same effort to pull people over for not wearing their seat-belts. Getting to the debate question-it is unfair to those who don't wear seat-belts. At the same time, driving is a privilege and not a right. If your state legislature or other people in charge decree that everyone should wear it, then so be it. The "good" of preventing deaths and injuries outweighs the "bad" of annoyance and lack of desire to wear a belt(i.e.-you are going across town which for me, is about twelve blocks) Just as an FYI-over the recent Memorial Day weekend, the Nebraska State Patrol nailed nearly 300 people for seat-belt violations. Anyone else care to share how their respective state patrol did over the weekend about this topic?

I'll admit, I was firmly entrenched in the anti-paternalism camp when Jagwease made a point that resonated loudly with me. Its admittedly a delicate balancing act with my general views of civil liberties and my extreme prejudice towards self-autonomy. However, I do feel individual self-determination has to reconcile with your potential to become a ward of the state by not wearing your seatbelt and smashing your noggin on the windshield. The significant risk of becoming vegetable in this scenario is probably common and pervasive enough to warrant a public interest in asking someone to buckle up if they choose to ride in a vehicle.

This is a very tricky slope to tread however, as one is using risk/personal safety in a civil liberties balancing act. The question is begged, where does public interest end and my right to autonomy exist? I'm not sure of the answer to this, but for now I will buckle up and accept a small loss in self-autonomy to avoid becoming a burden on society. I'll likely put some water socks on to avoid any slippage for now.

Doc

To me, the rights of others(i.e.-the public interest being other motorists and society in general) begins, and your rights of autonomy ends, upon your car leaving the driveway and you hit the city/county roads. If you choose not to wear slippers, then the reverse holds true and yes, society will still take care of you-though not entirely since you pay taxes and social security will help you out. I don't see seat-belts as being a threat to civil liberties to tell you the truth. Would the founders have a revolution over a two-inch strap that prevents you from being harmed?

It should be a law, if for no other reason, than to teach teenagers (our future
drivers) the importance of safety. Our children learn from us. As parents, we
set rules for our children. They do not always like the rules, and many times
they try to rebel, but the responsible parents do not give in to such rebellion.
We all want what is best for ourselves and our loved ones. If a law protects
our youth it is a just and fair law.

The U.S. Dept. of Transportation reported that:

In 2001, 5,341 teens were killed in passenger vehicles involved in
motor vehicle crashes. Two thirds of those killed were not buckled up.6

Many high school students fail to use their safety belts even when riding with
adults who are buckled up. An observational survey conducted at 12 high schools
found that 46 percent of high school students were not wearing their safety belts
when riding with adult drivers. About half of the unbelted students were riding
with adults who were belted.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/air...n/buasbteens03/

First: Seatbelts are uncomfortable? Really?

Second: What if you slam into a telephone pole at 50 mph, fly out your front windsheild, and kill a pedestrian with you airborne corpse?

Third: Isn't it just plain illogical not to wear a seatbelt?

don't see seat-belts as being a threat to civil liberties to tell you the truth.


It isn't a big invasion of rights, but it is a invasion. It is smart to wear a seat belt?
You bet it is. Does it save lives, yes it does(not always though)but should it be a law? I don't think so. Why is okay to legislate this, but not morality? Does not morality save lives? I think it does.

Like many here, I have mixed feelings about this. Do mandatory seat belt laws limit personal freedom? Sure. Do they benefit society? Sure. All I can do is to try to balance out these two factors. In my opinion, the freedom that is lost through mandatory seat belt laws is very minimal, and the benefit is very high. With this in mind, I accept such laws with a little reluctance.

I'll agree with you all on the benefits of seat belt laws, however, is a $100 ticket justifiable?, or just the way to make the state a bunch of cash? Thats a heavy ticket for most.

Get this story just for fun... Im driving a 85 Lincoln Continental from N. New Mexico to Texas, right into the West Texas border, no air-con, and the old canvass seat belts that break your back on a long haul and bruise your feminine parts rather that protect you from anything. Its hot, dry, Ive been driving 12 hrs. My neck is killing me. I remove the shoulder strap down below my breast still have the waist belt on as well, get some water from the passenger side floor and rub my aching neck. (BTW, seat belts were designed by men for their body parts in mind, not ours)
I get pulled over on a highway where the speed limit must be 75 or whoever you can leave in the dust. Because of the inherant danger, the officer does not want to stand on my driver side as trucks pass us a optimum speeds, and asks me to exit passenger side, where he gives me a ticket, for a seat belt worn 'incorrectly'. I tell him my dilemma (16 hrs drive, hot-dry-need-water-aching neck) but hes having none of it, he claims, its more dangerous even to wear a waist belt and not a shoulder belt. We can hardly hear each other for traffic. I tell him this is not a good example of 'protect and serve' as we are both a considerable risk on this road, not for a full violation but a 1/2 violation. The ticket was $90 dollars.

I am the brokest person you would ever want to meet at this time in my life, $90 is like a months cost of food ( why else would I be in an 85' Lincoln in the year 2000?) This young officer needs money for his dying speedtrap town and gives me no break. I sigh in disgust and go on my way.

Ok , We know speedtrap towns etc, its just fun for me to tell the story. On my way back I , belligerant as I am, stop in to see the judge, outside of court date, but hey, Im passing through this one horse town and *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off, what else has she or me got to do that day? However, I find I cant plead 'not guilty' if I want to see her, I have to plead 'no contest', which I do. She and I one on one, I explain that it was much more dangerous to pull me over on this highway, I had a waist belt on, etc etc. and lucky me, she lowers the fine to $78 from its original $90. A compensasion of $12 dollars for my infraction.

I dont feel seat belt laws, ( I was less happy about helmet laws back when), are an infringement of civil liberties, I just object to the heavy penalties for something you can easily forget. Although supposedly this is to lower our insurance rates, I havent seen that either, and medical coverage is really limited on our policies.
This is a sort of State sponsored nannyship, but more-so an easy way to exact funds. I prefer education, then personal choice.

Oh I have to add one thing, and this may seem stupid but generally is something women often think about...I have on a beautiful silk dress, or nice pressed outfit, same, man in suit, impeccable. Were going out for the theatre, opera, a formal dinner or just fun at a club in cool gear. I put on that seatbelt and its all ruined, the whole thing, its just not the same. I end up wrinkled in all the wrong places. Its horrible.
Tell me none of you have thought about this? How many of us have chosen not to mess it all up with a seatbelt? After all, Im not on a freeway. I might even take the ticket in that circumnstances. Risk your life or be wrinkled may seem idiotic, or we may think we are simply mortal and I would rather look astonishing tonight and take chances than show up on every event your in life from here on wrinkled and unkempt looking even in the best dress.
I have to say, odds, I take my chances.

Good story, Artemise! Just for the record, I always wear a seat belt and my car doesn't move until everyone in it puts theirs on as well. Yes, even "gifted" females. But, that's my business, not the state's. I don't know that I buy the line that seatbelts save on insurance costs, I've heard that it is often times more expensive to care for a person that has been badly injured than it is to pay their death benefits. This whole thing really smacks more of the state deciding that we are too stupid to take care of ourselves so the state should do it - and get paid for that.

I do think it's pretty stupid not to buckle up quite frankly, but I can understand how it might be somewhat uncomfortable for females to do that. Seems to me that's an area that some bright inventor might want to look into and make their fortune inventing a breast-friendly shoulder strap. They'd make a ton of money and heck, the research alone would be a ton of fun!

I understand your point, but I believe that it ignores a key factor-the fact that such policies are the product of legislation and decrees of elected officials. Since it is elected officials and others who are duly given power by the people-then any and all restrictive actions on you and others are hardly violations of your rights. That is the major flaw that I find with those who argue that anything legislated upon citizens is a violation of some ultimate civil right. We give up some rights(aboslute freedom) for others(protection) and we have all entered into this contract. Seat belt laws are not a violation of your rights since the public had input(as to who is to represent them, as well as the right to let their elected stiff know how to vote) and the people can reverse any and all actions the elected stiff takes that they don't like.

Here in Nebraska we have no primary seat belt law for adults. However children are required to wear a safety belt or be in a safety seat until a certain weight or age which ever comes first. They cannot stop you for the offense of not wearing a seat belt, but they can add it to a ticket for whatever moving violation they do stop you for.

But should it be a law? aboslutly. Seat belts save lives, there is just no way around that. and for children, it absolutly has to happen.

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

Well, my initial thought is to say that the world may be better off with fewer people who don't wear their seatbelts... if that's any indicator of the other choices they make in life . Before anyone jumps down my throat, I was kidding about that last one. But then I realized that there are people out there who simply don't wear a seatbelt because it's "inconvenient". Like death is any less convenient. But... I suppose we have to break down and regulate this most basic safety measure to save peoples' lives. It's sad, but I think that any civil liberties concern that could even be raised is trumped by the urgent necessity to save lives. Even the staunchest civil libertarian shouldn't object to this one; it's just plain common sense. If there is such a way to codify common sense. Well, let's just say that, in this case, I'm not too concerned about the people who want to die after being ejected from their windshield.

Edited to add the very critical "don't" to the first line. It makes a lot more sense now.

I don't think anyone is really debating the issue of seat belts saving lives. It's the issue of should it be a law. I guess the government should make all sort of laws, especially for those who don't have any common sense. For those who don't wear seat belts, even tickets aren't apt to make them wear a seat belt. THEY DON'T LIKE THEM.


One really strange issue in this seat belt discussion. Why don't school buses have seat belts? Why is that kids in a car have to wear a seat belt or ride in a booster seat, but ride a school bus without either? Is the bus driver a better driver, less distracted(gads driving a school bus would be a nightmare for me)?

Midwest Angie,

Good to hear from a fellow Nebraskan! It's good to know a few people here at AD are from Huskerland. Right you are about our seat-belt laws, but under the "click it or ticket" program that lasts until June 10th, you can be pulled over for not having your seat-belt on.

In regards to the child-seat belt/restraint provisions, you are corect 100%. I was unable to find the age or weight deal, though I've heard lots of people say it's around 60 or 80 pounds.


from the Nebraska State Patrol website.

I agree with you that we should have seat-belt primary laws(as opposed to secondary laws which can only be enforced if there is another violation) Car-seat technology is also something else. They now have these three point straps that hook up to a metal clip in the back of the car to further add for safety. My 12 month old looks like a land-rocket pilot when he's all strapped in, but it's all worth it.

FIRST: yes, i do find them to be uncomfortable. i guess i must be different than you.

SECOND: what if your seatbelt causes you to have some rare reaction that makes you drive your car into a missle silo that causes a launch that triggers WW3 and ends civilization as we know it.

THIRD: my arguement isnt against the use of seatbelts,, just laws mandating the use of seatbelts.

Hi nebraska29... thanks for the warm welcome.

Im glad to hear you say that, as you know that bill fails on the unicameral floor every time it is introduced. I take it I can count on your support when Senator Mossey. or Senator Foley introduces that as his priority bill this coming session?

I was going to say eight years or eighty pounds, glad I didn't, would have looked foolish.

thanks for the info!