"Stepped up enforcement" of seat belt law

cowboydoc · Jun 7, 2003

Re: \"Stepped up enforcement\" of seat belt law

There IS NO argument on that and to try and make it just shows a complete lack of actual real world experience with accident investigations.

I'd have to disagree with you there Gerard. If I had been wearing a seatbelt way back I wouldn't be here to write this right now. When I was 19 I had a Toyota 4wd single cab pickup. I was in Tahoe, NV and was heading up to meet some friends to go skiing. About halfway up the mountain a guy skidded out of control coming down the mountain. I swerved to avoid him and went over the side of the mountain. The state police figured I rolled 12 times. There was nothing left of the truck. It was flat as a pancake. Luckily on the first roll I was thrown to the passenger side under the dash. The pickup literall smashed down on top of me. If I had been wearing a seatbelt I would have been crushed and killed. The one officer that came to see me in the hospital to get my statement said he didn't see it often but this was one time where I was lucky I wasn't wearing my seatbelt as he wouldn't have been there talking to me.

Chief · Jun 7, 2003

Re: \"Stepped up enforcement\" of seat belt law

The point is roadside sobriety/seat belt check points ARE in fact an unlawful arrest search and seizure. You are stopped under threat of violent force and searched without probably cause. Plain and simple. There is NO arguement that squares with the Constitution. I personally ALWAYS wear and ensure all passengers buckle up in my vehicles and personally on my tractor. This IS MY choice NOT big brothers. Seat belt use should be enforced via the free market. i.e. insurance companies can require you to wear them and hold you liable and limit coverage if you don't and drop you at the first instance they discover you don't. This could apply to motorcycle helmet use. (kinda like Dad set the rules when first driving? His car..... his rules) Same with drunk driving. Drunk driving should warrant the death penalty in many cases but the insurance companies can sure get your attention by either not insuring you or charging you steep premiums. I for one, want to live in a FREE socienty and am fed up with everytime you turn around there is a new law because some idiot refused to exercise common sense. I am not willing nor am I ready to give in to and tolerate a socialist/ neo-communist/Orwellian society just yet.

gerard · Jun 7, 2003

Re: \"Stepped up enforcement\" of seat belt law

cowboydoc - guess i failed miserably in trying to get my point across. I never said there are no instances you'd be better off without the seatbelt but for everyone of the stories that you describe there are 100 just the opposite. A skydiver who's chute failed to open survived a 10,000 foot fall into snow. Other skydivers have died when their chute opened but became entangled. By your logic the guy that lived shouldn't use a chute!!! BYTW - I've been going to accident scenes both pre seatbelt law and post. Rollovers used to mean grab the camera, notify the reconstructionists and prepare for a fatal. Now I wait until the patrol car arrives before I put down my coffee because more often than not the next radio transmission is "They're out of the car and walking around". PS 20 years and I've never had one like yours - usually during rollovers w/o belts you get ejected.

Chief I for one, want to live in a FREE socienty and am fed up with everytime you turn around there is a new law because some idiot refused to exercise common sense If you think you live in a free society keep thinking that. There are thousands of laws in thousands of books that indicates to me our freedom has been eroded piece by piece, law by law, since the day this country was founded. Ever had your house searched against your will by the police?? I haven't but could imagine it would feel pretty invasive. You think it would feel LESS invasive if they had a little piece of paper signed by a judge?? Don't think so. For the 99% of the people who live a relatively lawful exisitence constitutional protections aren't necessary and they will never have an encounter with the police (usually!!). I guess the point I was trying to make is founding fathers were trying to protect against gross government abuse when they wrote the laws and I DONT think they had in mind the way things are interpreted today.

I for one don't understand the big fuss over seatbelt laws. You also have to have your vehicle registered, inspected, have adequate brakes, can't be blind and drive, have to have headlights (working), tailights, insurance etc. Then you have all those pesky rules of the road - drive to the right, stop for red lights, don't speed, signal your turns etc. Seatbelts are just part of the whole package. Look at seatbelt use as a voluntary tax. If you don't want to pay the tax - wear your seatbelt. If you don't want to pay the tax then don't wear it and pay the fine for the 1 in a 100 times you actually get caught. Actually though, I agree with you and am not defending the practice of trying to legislate away common sense and personal responsibility, just saying that it's been done and will only get worse. When was the last time you heard of a law being repealed????????????? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Anonymous Poster · Jun 8, 2003

Re: \"Stepped up enforcement\" of seat belt law

cowboydoc: Good post. I was contemplating two scenarios one showing death because of seatbelts, one the opposite. You've already shown by real life example. There are lots of examples where wearing seatbelts could cause death. Jambed release in a fire for example. There are many examples where belts would save your life. The whole point is the simple-minded seat belt laws, and their simple-minded enforcement is not so clear cut as some would have you believe.

Further (if I may be permitted to take a concrete and expand it to a broader principle) the whole notion of seat-belt laws is a trivial, but crystal clear, example of a violation of freedom and individual property rights (the individual "owns" himself). The only ethical justification for seat belt laws is if the individual is the "property" of the collective (the state) and the state therefore has the right to keep its "property" (i.e. YOU) from harming itself. Slaves may need seat belt laws, free people do not.

Finally, so-called law (on the state level anyway) is based on the English concept of the common law (with the exception of Louisiana which is based on the Napoleonic code) which means, in effect, that a law is valid only if people abide by it.

JEH

cowboydoc · Jun 8, 2003

Re: \"Stepped up enforcement\" of seat belt law

Gerard,

Don't get me wrong. I wasn't arguing with you about the good practice of wearing seatbelts. I was just saying there are good real life instances where they have or could have caused deaths instead of saving them.

For the most part you are right they do save lives. Still should be an individual choice though in my opinion.

Chief · Jun 8, 2003

Re: \"Stepped up enforcement\" of seat belt law

Gerard, you confuse my God given right and constitutionally guaranteed right to be free from unlawful/unreasaonble search and siezure with driving which is a privelige. If I choose to drive I obey the vehicle laws which must still square with the Constitution. I AM still guaranteed those constitutional rights when I am driving. All this sounds good but in actual practice the Federal, State, and Local governments pee all over us everyday. Does not mean that I have to willingly and gladly accept it though. We are forced everyday to yield our liberties everyday. A good example that most people never think of or realize how immoral and abusive government excersice of power is; is property taxes you pay. The local government siezes ownership of your private property and force you via threat of violent force to pay a property tax on it. The response to this statement is nearly universal........you're being radical or unreasonable. Well, refuse to pay your property tax once and the local government will give you a first hand demonstration as to who actually holds ownership of your "so called" private property. The same theory applies to seatbelt use and in general the "typical attitude" most oblivious Americans have towards their liberties. A very wise patriot said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

Anonymous Poster · Jun 8, 2003

Re: \"Stepped up enforcement\" of seat belt law

Gerard,

Don't get me wrong. I wasn't arguing with you about the good practice of wearing seatbelts. I was just saying there are good real life instances where they have or could have caused deaths instead of saving them.

For the most part you are right they do save lives. Still should be an individual choice though in my opinion.

I don't really have a strong opinion on the seatbelt law (we have many worse more important laws like immigration that need fixin') Where I think this law does differ from the helmet law is that it not only CAN protect the wearer but others as well. So I don't think it is just a matter of choice.

I know at least from 2 experiences that I have had that your chances of maintaining control after your vehicle is struck greatly increase if you are wearing a belt. Both times I was struck by other vehicles but my vehicle maintained it's foward momentum (once at highway speeds), even with the belt it was hard to stay in the saddle and at the controls. Without a belt my vehicle would have been freewheeling. Both times I regained control and struck no other vehicles, without the belt it would have been up to lhance as I would have lost the ability to steer or brake.

Also if you get struck on the passenger side and your passenger is not belted it is going to be hard to control your vehicles with a passenger on your lap.

This opens up another can of worms, now your decision not to wear a belt COULD negatively impact someone else, unlike the helmet law where your the only "victim".

*In at least one of my examples I would have undoubtedly rearended the vehicle in front of me that was stopped in traffic even with the belt I barely got reseated and found the brake.

I don't think this type of occurence is rare, in many accidents I have seen the vehicles end up a long way from the initial impact. I think the odds are way higher that a belt will enhance your ability to control the vehicle than the odds that you will live because you were unbelted and thrown from a firey wreck.

Hey, Chief are you the same Chief who recommended the JD790 to me on jplan.com?

Bird · Jun 8, 2003

Re: \"Stepped up enforcement\" of seat belt law

( chances of maintaining control after your vehicle is struck greatly increase if you are wearing a belt )

And even if you ain't struck. I think in this day and age, I wear my seat belt for the right reasons, but when I was a youngster and first wanted a seat belt, it was for the very reason that I once spun out, and off the road, to avoid an accident and was slung across the seat. When I came to a stop, I was sitting against the right door. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif It was sheer luck that I did, in fact, avoid the accident and no damage was done. But I decided I wanted a seat belt to keep my rear end under the steering wheel; really wasn't too concerned about the safety aspects at that time. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

SteveBenson · Jun 8, 2003

Re: \"Stepped up enforcement\" of seat belt law

>Further (if I may be permitted to take a concrete and expand it to a broader principle) the whole notion of seat-belt laws is a trivial, but crystal clear, example of a violation of freedom and individual property rights (the individual "owns" himself). The only ethical justification for seat belt laws is if the individual is the "property" of the collective (the state) and the state therefore has the right to keep its "property" (i.e. YOU) from harming itself. Slaves may need seat belt laws, free people do not.

Well said /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

>which means, in effect, that a law is valid only if people abide by it.

Now there's something I didn't know. I'm going to have to look into this some more. More ammo in the belt couldn't hurt /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif