Seat Belt Laws: For or Against?? (Post Initial Thread Re-Vote) (county, support)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've simply spouted off the same position. Repeating yourself is not an equivalent.
I thought this thread was about seat belts, now you want to make it about everything? This thread is about seat belts, therefore I am just addressing seat belts, that is why I am not addressing other laws, if you want to address those laws too you are welcome to create a thread specific for them as well.
I have to keep repeating myself because you seem to ignore facts. Let me show you what I mean, you do not understand what "ban" means. A seat belt law is not a ban on you being able to drive, you can drive with a seat belt on and you can drive without a seat belt on. When you choose to not wear a seat belt your risk increases both with accidents and with potential traffic violations. See how that works? It isn't the same thing as a ban.
If you want to compare the seat belt laws to motorcycles you need to stop comparing apples to oranges. A ban on motorcycles would make people safer, but then again so would banning cars. Am I suggesting we ban cars? No I am not suggesting we ban cars, nor am I suggesting we ban motorcycles. On the other hand, I do think helmet laws should be in effect for people who ride motorcycles, which is also up to each state to decide and is not a Federal Law. Have I lost you yet, please let me know when this gets to confusing for you? It is proven that helmets reduce brain damage and death for people who ride motorcycles and the states that have a helmet law have a higher percentage of helmet users, the problem with this is that motorcycles are still dangerous with or without a helmet therefore I can see not having a helmet law because the effect to safety is a much lower effect. Another fact about motorcycles and scooters.
Quote:
Number of motorcycle riders surges, fatalities don't | ksl.com
Many new riders recognize they can't take their safety for granted. Bo Sheperd is a new rider. He said, "When I'm on the bike, I go the speed limit. I'm very safe. I want to make sure, 100 percent."
In 2004, there were nearly 41,000 registered motorcycles in Utah. That includes scooters. By 2006, there were 8,000 more. But in the last two years there has been a big surge as 24,000 more riders bought motorcycles.
Of the 24 fatalitites this year, more than half, 13 of those riders, were not wearing helmets. In five of the crashes, officers don't know. Six riders, one-fourth, were wearing helmets.
In addition to helmets, safety advocates stress motorcycle safety training courses. The state gives incentives to those who take the course. And of the 25,000 riders who've taken the course, only three have been killed in motorcycle crashes.
I thought this thread was about seat belts, now you want to make it about everything? This thread is about seat belts, therefore I am just addressing seat belts, that is why I am not addressing other laws, if you want to address those laws too you are welcome to create a thread specific for them as well.
I have to keep repeating myself because you seem to ignore facts. Let me show you what I mean, you do not understand what "ban" means. A seat belt law is not a ban on you being able to drive, you can drive with a seat belt on and you can drive without a seat belt on. When you choose to not wear a seat belt your risk increases both with accidents and with potential traffic violations. See how that works? It isn't the same thing as a ban.
If you want to compare the seat belt laws to motorcycles you need to stop comparing apples to oranges. A ban on motorcycles would make people safer, but then again so would banning cars. Am I suggesting we ban cars? No I am not suggesting we ban cars, nor am I suggesting we ban motorcycles. On the other hand, I do think helmet laws should be in effect for people who ride motorcycles, which is also up to each state to decide and is not a Federal Law. Have I lost you yet, please let me know when this gets to confusing for you? It is proven that helmets reduce brain damage and death for people who ride motorcycles and the states that have a helmet law have a higher percentage of helmet users, the problem with this is that motorcycles are still dangerous with or without a helmet therefore I can see not having a helmet law because the effect to safety is a much lower effect. Another fact about motorcycles and scooters.
I'll address your points when you address my articles. That's what I mean about jumping around in the discussion. You don't actually disprove a point, you just move on to something else. Other posters can see right through it.
Given the massive, obvious opposition to seat-belt laws, why did state legislators suddenly change their minds and begin to pass them in 1985? Simple–money and federal blackmail. According to the Associated Press, Brian O’Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said, “People have been talking about seatbelt laws and there have been attempts to pass them for well over 10 years. It’s been a snowball effect, once the money poured in.”1
That sudden flow of money began in 1984, when then-Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole promised to rescind the rule that required automakers to install passive restraints by 1990 if states representing two-thirds of the U.S. population passed seat-belt laws by April 1, 1989.2 Passive restraints included air bags, which automakers bitterly opposed because, they claimed, the high expense to develop and install them would raise the price of autos way beyond what the average auto buyer would pay. Dole’s promise amounted to an invitation to the automakers to use their financial resources to lobby states for seat-belt laws, something the Department of Transportation (DOT) was forbidden to do by law, in exchange for the government’s not forcing them to install air bags. In effect, the DOT surreptitiously used the financial resources of the private sector to further the political agenda of the federal government through blackmail.
Read more: The Fraud of Seat-Belt Laws : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
In response to Dole’s promise, the automakers created the lobby Traffic Safety Now (TSN) and began spending millions of dollars to pass seat-belt laws. That caught the attention of state legislators, and suddenly the “will of the people,” void of financial backing, gave way to the “will of the seat-belt law lobbyists,” who had millions of dollars to spend.
Besides the millions of dollars spent by TSN, the federal government added millions more by, for example, giving grants to states for achieving a certain percentage of seat-belt use and to pay the police to enforce the seat-belt law.3 And with increased seat-belt law enforcement, ticket income increased, another source of easy revenue for the state.
Read more: The Fraud of Seat-Belt Laws : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
I'll address your points when you address my articles. That's what I mean about jumping around in the discussion. You don't actually disprove a point, you just move on to something else. Other posters can see right through it.
My apology, I actually missed these two posts, that is why I did not comment on them.
While such laws had been proposed before 1985, they were rejected by most state legislators since they knew the vast majority of the people opposed them. “The Gallup Opinion Index,” report no. 146, October 1977, stated: “In the latest survey, a huge majority, 78 percent, opposes a law that would fine a person $25 for failure to use a seat belt. This represents an increase of resistance since 1973 to such a law. At that time 71 percent opposed a seat belt use law.” “The Gallup Report” (formerly “The Gallup Opinion Index”), no. 205, October 1982, report showed that a still-high 75 percent queried in June of that year opposed such a law.
Given the massive, obvious opposition to seat-belt laws, why did state legislators suddenly change their minds and begin to pass them in 1985? Simple–money and federal blackmail. According to the Associated Press, Brian O’Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said, “People have been talking about seatbelt laws and there have been attempts to pass them for well over 10 years. It’s been a snowball effect, once the money poured in.”1 That sudden flow of money began in 1984, when then-Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole promised to rescind the rule that required automakers to install passive restraints by 1990 if states representing two-thirds of the U.S. population passed seat-belt laws by April 1, 1989.2 Passive restraints included air bags, which automakers bitterly opposed because, they claimed, the high expense to develop and install them would raise the price of autos way beyond what the average auto buyer would pay. Dole’s promise amounted to an invitation to the automakers to use their financial resources to lobby states for seat-belt laws, something the Department of Transportation (DOT) was forbidden to do by law, in exchange for the government’s not forcing them to install air bags. In effect, the DOT surreptitiously used the financial resources of the private sector to further the political agenda of the federal government through blackmail.
In response to Dole’s promise, the automakers created the lobby Traffic Safety Now (TSN) and began spending millions of dollars to pass seat-belt laws. That caught the attention of state legislators, and suddenly the “will of the people,” void of financial backing, gave way to the “will of the seat-belt law lobbyists,” who had millions of dollars to spend.
Besides the millions of dollars spent by TSN, the federal government added millions more by, for example, giving grants to states for achieving a certain percentage of seat-belt use and to pay the police to enforce the seat-belt law.3 And with increased seat-belt law enforcement, ticket income increased, another source of easy revenue for the state.
Yep, in the 70s and early 80s majority of people were against it, but then again majority of the people didn't have seat belts in their cars and even had bench seats in their cars. Of course over the years education has helped and a large majority support seat belt laws and a majority support primary seat belt laws. I thought we were talking about today, not the late 70s. The first article also points out that car companies bitterly hated the idea of airbags, try going to a dealership and ask for the car that doesn't have airbags in it and see how the people there look at you funny. It is also funny that the first article goes on to say that it was the car companies that were bitterly against airbags were the ones lobbying the hardest for the seat belt law, guess you can thank the car companies for that. I do agree with fining and going after car companies that have defective seat belts because those too can lead to serious injury.
There was something at the end of the first article that really stood out to me, it said "we need more responsibly educated drivers, safer vehicles, and better roads to prevent traffic accidents." I would be happy to see the end of the seat belt law as we know it and would totally trade that for harder driving tests, longer tests, mandatory classes for driving, and having to take the written and driving test every time you go in to renew your license to make sure you are a better educated and a more responsible driver. I think education is huge in preventing accidents and I think more education is key. Heck in the state of NJ, to switch from my Oregon license to a New Jersey license all I have to do is show up with my old ID, some other identifications, and $24 to get a new license. No tests whatsoever and that shouldn't be okay, we have too many bad drivers on the road because it is too easy to get a license in this country. So you are right, we should get rid of the seat belt law for tougher education and driver tests.
The law, passed in 2009, allows police to ticket drivers not wearing seat belts even if they haven't violated other laws. Before that, seat-belt violaters weren't tagged unless they'd been stopped for some other violation.
But during discussions late Monday night, the Pioneer Press says, Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, suggested a return to the secondary seat-belt law approach, noting police were making stops to increase compliance.
"I think it's totally unnecessary and is more of a revenue raiser than a safety issue,'' Rukavina said.
The amendment passed 75-55.
Yesterday, public safety officials spoke at the Capitol against the proposed change.
Public Safety Commissioner Ramona Dohman said: "The best tool that we have to improve public safety in Minnesota is in jeopardy as a result of a bill that passed in the House last night repealing the primary seat-belt law."
Statistics cited by Cheri Marti, head of the Public Safety Department's Office of Traffic Safety show since the law's passage:
There have been 179 fewer serious injuries and 69 fewer fatalities involving unbelted motorists.
Seat-belt compliance has increased from 87 percent to 92 percent.
Well this is a fun article and shows your ability to cherry pick is quite good, but not good enough. This article was about turning the primary seat belt law back into a secondary seat belt law, which is something a state congress can do because they are made up of the people of that state. This passed the State House in 2011, but I am guessing it failed in the State Senate because if you look up the seat belt law in that state, you will see they still have a Primary Seat Belt law probably because of the two facts at the bottom of this article that you should probably go back and re-read.
If the law was so effective at getting people who don't normally wear seat belts to wear them, how come our courts are still full of people for seat belt violations??
Even the court clerks were against the law. One gave me an instance of wear a person was cited after removing the seat belt once they were stopped. Another cited how there'd been a sharp increase in seat belt tickets recently and gave me a look of agreement.
If you think this debate is about personal safety only, your mistaken. The picture is much broader than that.
My apology, I actually missed these two posts, that is why I did not comment on them.
Yep, in the 70s and early 80s majority of people were against it, but then again majority of the people didn't have seat belts in their cars and even had bench seats in their cars. Of course over the years education has helped and a large majority support seat belt laws and a majority support primary seat belt laws. I thought we were talking about today, not the late 70s. The first article also points out that car companies bitterly hated the idea of airbags, try going to a dealership and ask for the car that doesn't have airbags in it and see how the people there look at you funny. It is also funny that the first article goes on to say that it was the car companies that were bitterly against airbags were the ones lobbying the hardest for the seat belt law, guess you can thank the car companies for that. I do agree with fining and going after car companies that have defective seat belts because those too can lead to serious injury.
There was something at the end of the first article that really stood out to me, it said "we need more responsibly educated drivers, safer vehicles, and better roads to prevent traffic accidents." I would be happy to see the end of the seat belt law as we know it and would totally trade that for harder driving tests, longer tests, mandatory classes for driving, and having to take the written and driving test every time you go in to renew your license to make sure you are a better educated and a more responsible driver. I think education is huge in preventing accidents and I think more education is key. Heck in the state of NJ, to switch from my Oregon license to a New Jersey license all I have to do is show up with my old ID, some other identifications, and $24 to get a new license. No tests whatsoever and that shouldn't be okay, we have too many bad drivers on the road because it is too easy to get a license in this country. So you are right, we should get rid of the seat belt law for tougher education and driver tests.
Well this is a fun article and shows your ability to cherry pick is quite good, but not good enough. This article was about turning the primary seat belt law back into a secondary seat belt law, which is something a state congress can do because they are made up of the people of that state. This passed the State House in 2011, but I am guessing it failed in the State Senate because if you look up the seat belt law in that state, you will see they still have a Primary Seat Belt law probably because of the two facts at the bottom of this article that you should probably go back and re-read.
We finally agree on something. I strongly agree with what you mentioned in the bold.
I'm not a dangerous driver. I see all the time where people are on their cell phones or texting and almost blindside somebody. Ironically, the police never seem to see those drivers.
There are people who are creating greater risks on the road. Drunk drivers are some of the worst as well as some distracted drivers, old drivers, and just flat out bad drivers. Those are the people who are a danger. What I've been trying to get you to understand is that this law is not implemented properly. Or in a sense, is being abused.
I feel that driver education should increase. As well as general education. I think we are coming from two different principles, but both care about society.
If the law was so effective at getting people who don't normally wear seat belts to wear them, how come our courts are still full of people for seat belt violations??
Even the court clerks were against the law. One gave me an instance of wear a person was cited after removing the seat belt once they were stopped. Another cited how there'd been a sharp increase in seat belt tickets recently and gave me a look of agreement.
If you think this debate is about personal safety only, your mistaken. The picture is much broader than that.
Ah yes, math, do you know how many drivers are on the road? Well if drivers who wear seat belts are about 85% conservatively and 92% liberally, how many drivers on the road do not wear their seat belt? "Overall, there were an estimated 254.4 million registeredpassenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2007 DOT study." Now lets see if the number of people in our courts for not wearing their seat belt match the percentage of people who don't wear their seat belt.
We finally agree on something. I strongly agree with what you mentioned in the bold.
I'm not a dangerous driver. I see all the time where people are on their cell phones or texting and almost blindside somebody. Ironically, the police never seem to see those drivers.
There are people who are creating greater risks on the road. Drunk drivers are some of the worst as well as some distracted drivers, old drivers, and just flat out bad drivers. Those are the people who are a danger. What I've been trying to get you to understand is that this law is not implemented properly. Or in a sense, is being abused.
I feel that driver education should increase. As well as general education. I think we are coming from two different principles, but both care about society.
I also think many of those people should lose their license and have to retake the written and driving test. Though I don't see that happening any time soon so I am fine with the seat belt law increasing the use of people who wear seat belts. I do find it odd that you are okay with tougher testing to get a license than you are with seat belt laws which one could easily argue that the tougher testing infringes on their freedoms, but I will take it. It is nice to finally see some common ground.
My apology, I actually missed these two posts, that is why I did not comment on them.
Yep, in the 70s and early 80s majority of people were against it, but then again majority of the people didn't have seat belts in their cars and even had bench seats in their cars. Of course over the years education has helped and a large majority support seat belt laws and a majority support primary seat belt laws. I thought we were talking about today, not the late 70s. The first article also points out that car companies bitterly hated the idea of airbags, try going to a dealership and ask for the car that doesn't have airbags in it and see how the people there look at you funny. It is also funny that the first article goes on to say that it was the car companies that were bitterly against airbags were the ones lobbying the hardest for the seat belt law, guess you can thank the car companies for that. I do agree with fining and going after car companies that have defective seat belts because those too can lead to serious injury.
There was something at the end of the first article that really stood out to me, it said "we need more responsibly educated drivers, safer vehicles, and better roads to prevent traffic accidents." I would be happy to see the end of the seat belt law as we know it and would totally trade that for harder driving tests, longer tests, mandatory classes for driving, and having to take the written and driving test every time you go in to renew your license to make sure you are a better educated and a more responsible driver. I think education is huge in preventing accidents and I think more education is key. Heck in the state of NJ, to switch from my Oregon license to a New Jersey license all I have to do is show up with my old ID, some other identifications, and $24 to get a new license. No tests whatsoever and that shouldn't be okay, we have too many bad drivers on the road because it is too easy to get a license in this country. So you are right, we should get rid of the seat belt law for tougher education and driver tests.
Well this is a fun article and shows your ability to cherry pick is quite good, but not good enough. This article was about turning the primary seat belt law back into a secondary seat belt law, which is something a state congress can do because they are made up of the people of that state. This passed the State House in 2011, but I am guessing it failed in the State Senate because if you look up the seat belt law in that state, you will see they still have a Primary Seat Belt law probably because of the two facts at the bottom of this article that you should probably go back and re-read.
It just shows that there are politicians who oppose the law. There's valid support of why the laws should be repealed. They're being abused too often (as revenue generators and excuses to randomly stop innocent citizens) and they don't require evidence to enforce. They infringe upon or freedoms (some people have been saved by NOT wearing a seat belt) and they often don't deter citizens from wearing seat belts.
Many people that I know who have gotten seat belt tickets, still don't wear seat belts.
I also think many of those people should lose their license and have to retake the written and driving test. Though I don't see that happening any time soon so I am fine with the seat belt law increasing the use of people who wear seat belts. I do find it odd that you are okay with tougher testing to get a license than you are with seat belt laws which one could easily argue that the tougher testing infringes on their freedoms, but I will take it. It is nice to finally see some common ground.
I feel that the tougher testing would improve the safety of the general public. I don't feel like seat belt laws improve public safety, but rather personal safety. That's why I hold that opinion. I've been trying to argue that but maybe haven't articulated it enough.
I'm also pro legalization and gun rights. I support stricter gun laws, but not bans. I support legalization, but an improved rehabilation system.
I believe we should help people through education and programs, not laws that make people criminals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
