Should You Be Forced to Wear a Seatbelt?

"Brian Tschiegg" (WritingInCars) 08/29/2013 at 09:38 • Filed to: None

0

41

Between law enforcement and safety figures, no one should be driving without a seatbelt. We all saw the video posted this morning. Seatbelts keep you from flying through the windshield and sanding yourself down to nothing on the asphalt. Anyone who doesn't wear a seatbelt in my car is immediately ejected until they want to consider their own safety.

On the Morning Shift over at that wasteland known as the FP, a story about BMW's attempts to get an interlock system approved by the NHTSA made me think, "Why isn't this already a thing?" It's a known fact that seat belts greatly increase your chances of survival in a car crash and you get a massive fine if you're not wearing one, so why isn't it mandatory to buckle up before you start driving? Anyone with a modern car knows the incessant dinging that comes from your car when you don't wear one. If people are ready to deal with that sound the entire time they're driving, then they obviously have no regard for their safety. Is it their right to go ahead and die from a massive head trauma if they want to?

I guess this issue strikes a balance between my libertarian side (people should have the right to wear safety gear or not as long as it doesn't endanger other drivers) and my side that believes that people are idiots and rarely rational actors (Dear God, save them from themselves for they know not what they do). So where does Oppo stand on the issue?

Aya, Almost Has A Cosmo With Toyota Engine Owned by a BMW. > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 09:43

0

I'll force everybody who rides in my car to wear a seatbelt.

There's a law in my country that puts the driver as a murderer, if he or someone that rides with him got killed in an accident becuase he forget to wear a seatbelt.

And just in case i crash my merc, i don't want to be blamed as a murderer.

Brian Tschiegg > Aya, Almost Has A Cosmo With Toyota Engine Owned by a BMW. 08/29/2013 at 09:49

0

Now I'm kind of wondering if you can be tried for Manslaughter here if you drive recklessly and your passenger isn't wearing a seatbelt. I make everyone put one on just because it gives me peace of mind. Also, my car is the neediest with all its beeps and dings. If anyone isn't wearing a seatbelt, the Jetta will yell at me the whole time until everyone is belted in.

Agrajag > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 09:49

1

I think the car manufacturers should be required to implement safety devices. I however don't believe one should be required by law to use them or any other safety device. That said, you're a fucking idiot if you don't use them, and anyone riding in my vehicles will be using them.

Brian Tschiegg > Agrajag 08/29/2013 at 09:52

0

Yeah I can't find why the NHTSA wouldn't let BMW install the interlock system, but I'm guessing it's the personal freedom argument.

Tom McParland > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 09:57

0

Here was my response-

4th gear- I am well aware that seat belts save far more lives than otherwise. But just something to think about, when my wife was in her car accident over 10yrs ago (before I knew her) her car flipped 6 times, she was thrown from the car because she was not wearing her seat-belt. She uses a wheelchair today but had the seat belt kept her in the car we would have never met.

Aya, Almost Has A Cosmo With Toyota Engine Owned by a BMW. > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 09:58

0

In my country?
Yes.

My country always blame the driver for any accident.

You rent a poorly maintained car and killed someone?
You're a murder.

You just being hit by an asshat that ignoring the red light, and that guy is dead?
You're a murder.

Someone got killed by hitting your parked car?
You're a murder.

Weird, eh?

DocWalt > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 10:03

1

Statistically speaking, wearing your seatbelt reduces the costs of injuries sustained in an accident. Insurance companies will push rates up to cover their dumb-asses. That means people not wearing seatbelts are costing you money.

Brian Tschiegg > Tom McParland 08/29/2013 at 10:08

0

It's hard to argue with your anecdote. I've just seen plenty of bodies strewn on the asphalt that weren't nearly as lucky your wife. It is a tricky subject, but I'm a big believer in statistics so I always wear mine.

Tom McParland > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 10:10

0

And I am a firm believer in buckling up at all times. Like I said...just something to think about.

GasolineLollipop > Tom McParland 08/29/2013 at 10:10

0

There is that logic. There is also the possibility for the car to roll on you as you lay on the ground unconscious from being thrown from the car.

Tom McParland > GasolineLollipop 08/29/2013 at 10:12

0

It's not logic, it's just what happened. I am in no way saying folks shouldn't wear their seat-belts. I just wanted to present another perspective.

Brian Tschiegg > Aya, Almost Has A Cosmo With Toyota Engine Owned by a BMW. 08/29/2013 at 10:12

0

Yeah that is pretty crazy. It makes me feel better about my state. I live in Florida, so the law here is that each driver is equally culpable for the damages to their car; however, on the personal injury front, you have to carry at least $10,000 in personal injury protection, so everyone in an accident tries to take advantage of that. Even if you just bump someone, you can reasonably expect a personal injury claim from the driver you bumped, attempting to get you to pay for a ton of ridiculous things. It's a whole industry down here. Personal injury lawyer is the most common profession in the state of Florida. I believe an attorney saying "Were you injured in a crash?" is our state bird.

Agrajag > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 10:13

0

What is the interlock system? I did a quick google search and only found this http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insight… .

GasolineLollipop > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 10:13

0

Is this similar to helmet laws? I think you are a fool if you don't wear a helmet or a seatbelt. Is it your right to not wear it? In Texas the person not wearing the seatbelt gets the ticket.

Fl1ngstam > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 10:14

0

I suspect it's more likely that BMW didn't want to engineer their cars for the NHTSA safety test requirements unique to the US market (e.g. different structures behind the dash and different airbag systems to contain the movement of unbelted passengers). By requesting a get-out clause which effectively forces all occupants to wear seatbelts, they could save millions in R&D and manufacturing costs.

Brian Tschiegg > Agrajag 08/29/2013 at 10:15

0

Oh sorry, I realized I didn't really clarify in the body because it was on the FP. It's a system where either a.) the car won't start when until you buckle up, b.) you can't move it out of park until you buckle up, or c.) you can only travel at low speeds until you buckle up. I guess looking at the comments that it was attempted in 1974 and turned out terribly, but BMW is taking another stab at it.

Brian Tschiegg > GasolineLollipop 08/29/2013 at 10:17

0

That's kind of the issue. Is it your right to not wear a seat belt BECAUSE 'MERICA? Or should you be forced to buckle up because you're an idiot? It's the same thing in Florida with the lack of helmet laws. Whenever I see people riding without a helmet, I think to myself, "This is the land of the free after all" but I'm also thinking, "If they crash and sand their cranium down to nothing, I will not give two shits because he made that choice."

Brian Tschiegg > Fl1ngstam 08/29/2013 at 10:19

0

Yeah, that's what I'm finding now. It would allow them to sidestep a lot of regulations, but the NHTSA is not having it.

GasolineLollipop > Tom McParland 08/29/2013 at 10:20

0

The people I have encountered who claim they refuse to wear their seatbelt use this idea that they will be thrown to safety in an accident as a valid reason for not wearing it. Its their logic for not wearing it.

Agrajag > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 10:20

0

Hmmmm. Not sure how I feel about it, but that won't stop the people who don't wear seat belts, since they just buckle them and sit on top of the belt. Actually I am sure now. I don't like it. Mostly from the standpoint of as few electronics as possible.

J. Walter Weatherman > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 10:22

3

I generally view people that are against seatbelt laws as falling into one of two camps: (1) those that are opposed to ANY government intrusion into their lives whatsoever (i.e., live in a libertarian fantasyland), or (2) those that deny that there are harms to other people if they get injured in an accident (i.e., the "I'm only hurting myself" crowd).

In my mind, the burden of government intrusions into our lives need to be weighed against the benefits realized by those intrusions. In the case of requiring seatbelts, the intrusion is so miniscule, and the benefit is so great, I simply can't comprehend the argument against it.

GasolineLollipop > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 10:28

0

I guess I just parroted your question. "Because 'Murica" then yes it is your right to be an idiot and not wear your seatbelt. There are many states that don't require adults to wear a helmet so maybe they should also have a similar seatbelt law. I feel uneasy knowing that a simple accident could be fatal without wearing a helmet. We have these squishy meat bodies that doesn't do great when smashed against hard things.

Casper > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 10:40

1

I don't think it should be required to use, but should be required to be available. People can choose to be as stupid as they want... that ensures natural selection.

Everyone you know or have ever known will die. That's how life works.

Casper > J. Walter Weatherman 08/29/2013 at 10:45

0

The simpler answer would be to make those injured responsible for their own costs, not legislate a requirement on the entire body of the population... but hey, that's logical.

Casper > DocWalt 08/29/2013 at 10:46

0

There are caps on damages to average this weight already. The reality is that insurance companies charge as much as they can either way, that's why they are so extremely profitable. Their calculation tables are based on exposed liability, not actual damages.

Darwins_Payoff > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 10:54

2

No. Everyone knows what can happen if you don't. If you choose not to, you also chose to accept the consequences if you get into a collision. Children are another matter entirely, it should be against the law not to have them strapped in.

Brian Tschiegg > Agrajag 08/29/2013 at 10:55

0

So no seatbelt interlocks, because racecar?

Brian Tschiegg > Casper 08/29/2013 at 10:58

0

Well that's the question here. BMW's interlock plan would make it so you absolutely can't even start your car without your seatbelt on (unless you override the electronics like many people did in the 70s when the idea was first introduced).

Casper > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 11:03

1

Yeah, or we get those shitastic automatic seat belts like the 80s/early 90s. Those were awfully stupid as well.

Agrajag > Brian Tschiegg 08/29/2013 at 11:03

0

Always, but more so it would just be something else that won't work in 10-15 years.

/ninjaedit

J. Walter Weatherman > Casper 08/29/2013 at 11:12

1

Except when those people can't afford the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions, in the case of people that become crippled and need a lifetime of care) worth of medical bills, and the cost falls back to the rest of us anyway. Whether it is through insurance premiums, taxes, or just higher cost of medicine in general, we all are going to pay for it somehow.

And if your response is "we should just deny those people medical care if they can't afford it, let them die or be horribly disfigured", let me just go ahead and say that you are one of the people that I think lives in a libertarian fantasyland.

Tom McParland > GasolineLollipop 08/29/2013 at 11:19

0

Well those people are idiots and may a
Darwinism take its course.

Gamecat235 > J. Walter Weatherman 08/29/2013 at 11:24

0

Thank you. You summed up the thoughts I had much nicer than I ever could have. And you did it without using the words/phrases "asinine", "crazy", "social security", "medicare", "new deal" or "governments responsibility to it's people".

Casper > J. Walter Weatherman 08/29/2013 at 12:58

0

You understand that we had a system that worked for a very long time before insurance, and these issues only have existed in recent history. The system of making something illegal does not fix the issues you are referencing. Otherwise we would have no crime and no one would get a ticket simply because we had made what they were doing illegal.

I would argue that it is you who lives in a fantasy land because you believe simply legislating something actually makes it an impossibility.

J. Walter Weatherman > Casper 08/29/2013 at 13:04

0

Please enlighten me as to this system that worked so well before insurance. I would love to hear about it.

Casper > J. Walter Weatherman 08/29/2013 at 13:12

0

Health insurance as we know it did't gain traction until after 1930, but was still a niche concept until the excess wealth post war. Before that, the average American simply paid cash or bartered to a local doctor. After 1930 insurance pressured doctors into offering "prepaid" plans that eventually morphed into required insurance concepts that were partially abolished in the 50s. In the case of auto insurance, the concept originated as a way to cover the losses of the load underwriters on new vehicles. It wasn't until much later that medical expenses become intertwined with auto insurance. The push for covering medical costs was mainly from the underwriters (again) in conjunction with health insurance companies who saw it as a chance to offload the new expenses associated with the growing expense of automotive injuries.

Of course the side effect was massive increases in healthcare costs due to the inflation of payments. If you charged the average Joe Schmoe $20,000 he would take decades to pay you back, but if you charge insurance $20,000 they pay it easily. This led to predatory medical systems that aggressively price out individual coverage in order to force more use of insurance.

The problems that insurance was intended to fix not only were not fixed, they were now handed over as a marketing measure. We still don't have people able to pay for healthcare, but more than that, even FEWER people can afford even basic care due to healthcare inflation.

MPA > Brian Tschiegg 09/01/2013 at 15:40

0

If people are dumb enough to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, people should be allowed to drive without a seatbelt.

I always wear it, I don't see a reason not to wear one since nothing really changes with it on.

Matthew Henry > Brian Tschiegg 09/01/2013 at 16:24

0

For adults, I think the answer is no. In my Ethics and Democracy course, we recently covered this question. If you drive drunk, you are statistically more likely to cause an accident that may result in you, or someone completely innocent, being killed. If you choose not to wear your seatbelt, you are the most likely person to die. In theory, you shouldn't be forced to wear a seatbelt. I think children are a different matter, since they are considered by law to be incapable of making their own decisions. Kids should always be buckled in.

That being said, if you die because you aren't wearing a seatbelt, you aren't the only person who will suffer. Think of your relatives, friends, employers, and other people who would mourn your death. If you are married or have kids, to not wear your seatbelt would be particularly un-ethical, as you're endangering the happiness of the people you should care about most. If you do not have a spouse or kids, and choose not to wear your seatbelt, you are merely stupid.

TL;DR: A rational human should always wear a seatbelt, as it's a minimally inconvenient safety feature that is statistically proven to better your chances of surviving an accident. But the government shouldn't force you to.

Dsscats > Brian Tschiegg 09/01/2013 at 20:56

0

Why not just have a mechanism to block you from shifting into gear until you are buckled up?

Dean Los Angeles > Brian Tschiegg 09/04/2013 at 11:44

0

Anybody that doesn't want government interference gets a red "X" on their car.

When they crash, minor injury, major injury, or fatality, we do nothing.

We wouldn't want those government ambulances interfering, would we?

ryangille > Brian Tschiegg 09/28/2013 at 07:32

0

I have a disability which prevents me from wearing a seat belt. I have an exemption which allows me to not have to wear a seat belt. Police officers should not stop people who are not wearing a seat belt because they don't know whether the person is breaking the law or not. Please watch my video called "Seat Belt Stops Are Unlawful" and help me end these violations of constitutional rights.

Here is the URL to my video: