Stupid Maine politician wants to undo the state's seat belt law (UPDATE)

"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
03/01/2015 at 03:49 • Filed to: None

Maine state senator Eric Brakey (not pictured) has !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . He says people should have the freedom to choose whether they wear a seat belt. Maine state senator Eric Brakey is a damn fool.

Maine just had a big 75-car pileup. The legislature, right after the crash, is now going to debate repealing the state's seat belt law. They should keep the law. Here's what State Senator Idiot Dumbass has to say about the matter:

"I hope that people were wearing their seat belts in that pileup. I believe that seat belts do save lives. But government's job is to protect us from each other, not to protect us from our own personal decisions about our own personal safety."

Now, I disagree with Mr. Brakey that the government shouldn't make any laws about things that people only harm themselves by doing. But putting that aside and only working within the confines of State Senator Gold Encrusted Potato's argument: seat belts protect us not only from ourselves, but also from others.

If a person not wearing their seat belt crashes their car and gets hurt, that person needs to be rushed by ambulance to a hospital, operated on in an emergency room, misses work while recovering, and maybe has long-term medical care needs.

If that person is rich or has good insurance, then maybe all that stuff won't affect the rest of society. But otherwise, that person getting hurt because they weren't wearing their seatbelt, has a very large, ongoing price tag for the state's taxpayers.

In addition, if a person not wearing a seat belt gets hurt in an accident where the other driver was found at fault, the other driver now has that much higher medical expenses they're responsible for. Whereas if the not-at-fault driver were wearing a seat belt, the at-fault driver might not have hurt them at all.

Because of these potential costs to everyone , the government should do whatever it can to ensure as many people as possible wear their seat belts.

Keep the damn seat belt law, State Senator Ow My Balls.

UPDATE: Some of you have questioned the correlation between seat belt laws and people using their seat belts. So here are some numbers.

According to !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ,

While the first seat belts were installed by automobile manufacturers in the 1950s, seat belt use was very low — only 10-15 percent nationwide — until the early 1980s. From 1984 through 1987, belt use increased from 14 percent to 42 percent as a result of the passage of seat belt use laws in 31 states. Then, from 1990 through 1992, belt use increased from 49 percent to 62 percent as a result of a national effort of highly visible enforcement and public education.

States have different kinds of seat belt laws: either primary enforcement, or secondary enforcement. Primary enforcement means a person can be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. Secondary means a cop can't pull you over for not wearing a seat belt, but can ticket you if you're pulled over for something else.

This graph is from back in 1996. Of the 10 states with the highest seat belt usage rates, 8 of them have primary enforcement seat belt laws. That's a pretty readily apparent correlation.

Here's a graph of seat belt usage increasing over time vs. traffic fatalities decreasing over time, also !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

That's just since 1995! Before then, seat belt usage rates !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

The facts are quite simple:

1. Seat belts save lives.

2. Seat belt laws lead to higher seat belt usage.

Since saving lives is a fundamentally good thing, and seat belt laws lead to higher life-saving seat belt usage, seat belt laws save lives, and are therefore a fundamentally good thing.

(Drops the mic.)

DISCUSSION (29)

Cebu > Textured Soy Protein
03/01/2015 at 11:17

Instead, howzabout repealing the speeds limit.

Aside from the fact we'd have to improve the way we educate drivers by about three orders of magnitude for that to happen.

Grindintosecond > Textured Soy Protein
03/01/2015 at 11:25

so, he wants people to have the freedom to choose ending up a vegetable and a ward of the state costing the state money after that crash they unprotected themselves from?

Must be nice to be an idiot senator.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > Textured Soy Protein
03/01/2015 at 11:35

Well, overpopulation is a big problem and senator mcdumbass is probably a big fan Darwin.

505Turbeaux > Textured Soy Protein
03/01/2015 at 11:45

I made a post about this the other day and while I agree with all of what you say, there is another element to this as well http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/thinning-the-h…

Patrick Nichols > Textured Soy Protein
03/01/2015 at 13:31

Would you like to ban motorcycles, biking on public roads, or driving in a car that would not pass todays safety regulations?

I'm from New Hampshire, over 18, and therefore am not required to wear my seatbelt. I wear it everywhere I go with a couple exceptions (moving cars when shoveling the driveway and anywhere on my closed college campus— dorm, gym, rink, etc.). I'm all for safety but the law doesn't really affect us here just over the border. If anything the law should require more strict driver education. People don't like being told what to do.

Also think about the insurance benefit we could see. Insurance costs could plummet if they didn't pay out medical for anyone that wasn't wearing their seatbelt.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Textured Soy Protein
03/01/2015 at 13:32

You have just a big of a chance of becoming a vegetable or dead by riding a motorcycle, so I really don't see the point to this debate. Just make a law putting a notice on record of saying "without seatbelt" or "on motorcycle" as the cause for injury, and make a law to deny those government assistance claims, depending on who was at fault.

Textured Soy Protein > Patrick Nichols
03/01/2015 at 14:37

Motorcycles have absolutely nothing to do with it. Just because a legal mode of transportation exists that is less safe than a car, doesn't mean we should get rid of a law intended to make cars safer.

Just because you wear your seat belt even though you're not legally required to, doesn't mean everyone else will.

It's simply not feasible to say that everyone not wearing a seat belt who gets injured in a car crash receives zero coverage.

And I don't really give a fuck if people like being told what to do or not. That's why we have laws that cost money if you're caught breaking them. If people don't want to pay the ticket for not wearing a seat belt, all they have to do is wear a seat belt. Which is the whole point of having the law in the first place.

Textured Soy Protein > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
03/01/2015 at 14:39

This is an even more stupid fucking point than Senator Fuckhead tries to make. Just because a legal mode of transportation exists that is less safe than a car, doesn't mean we should get rid of a law intended to make cars safer.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Textured Soy Protein
03/01/2015 at 14:43

If people want to die, let them. Preferably before they reproduce.

Textured Soy Protein > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
03/01/2015 at 14:47

We can't just say that everyone's insurance claim for medical payments is invalid if they weren't wearing a seat belt (or riding a motorcycle). All I want is to encourage people to wear their seat belts by making them pay a fine for not wearing one. What you're saying is that people could be stuck paying tens of thousands of dollars of medical bills and then bankrupting them. Which is the more severe penalty?

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Textured Soy Protein
03/01/2015 at 14:52

Someday people are going to have to realize that stupid can't always be fixed. Fining hasn't really stopped the problem. Stupid people are just going to be stupid, trust me, I live in the land without helmet laws.

Textured Soy Protein > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
03/01/2015 at 15:01

Fining hasn't really stopped the problem.

Actually, if you took 30 seconds to google something like 'seat belt usage statistics,' you would see just how absolutely wrong you are.

Here's a graph of seat belt usage increasing over time vs. traffic fatalities decreasing over time, from the NHTSA .

Kinja'd!!!

That's just since 1995! Before then, seat belt usage rates were atrocious .

Kinja'd!!!

Any guesses why seat belt usage might be up? It's because more states fine people for not wearing seat belts.

But hey, go ahead, just keep making up shit that's exactly the opposite of the truth.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Textured Soy Protein
03/01/2015 at 15:15

Or maybe, just maybe it could be that more cars without seatbelts have exited the roads in the past 20 years or the 20 years before that. And maybe just maybe, it could be that earlier generations of drivers have kicked the bucket in that time span. Just a few errors with those graphs, when you fake those 2 things in consideration. Those two very concrete things.

Ryan A. > Textured Soy Protein
03/01/2015 at 15:27

He's not suggesting that seatbelts should be outlawed. You can still choose to wear your seatbelt.

If heroin became legal, would you decide to do heroin?

Textured Soy Protein > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
03/01/2015 at 15:41

You're still pulling shit out of your ass that is still wrong. You can't just say "that graph is wrong" without some kind of actual data to prove your point.

Let's check in again with the NHTSA , shall we?

States have different kins of seat belt laws: either primary enforcement, or secondary enforcement. Primary enforcement means a person can be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. Secondary means a cop can't pull you over for not wearing a seat belt, but can ticket you if you're pulled over for something else.

Kinja'd!!!

This graph is from back in 1996. Of the 10 states with the highest seat belt usage rates, 8 of them have primary-enforcement seat belt laws. That's a pretty readily apparent correlation.

It has nothing to do with cars without seat belts being phased out. The average age of a vehicle on US roads is 11.4 years , and it used to be lower. Seat belts have been installed in cars since the 50s. If seat belt usage would've simply increased as the cars without seat belts were phased out, then seat belt usage would've jumped up a lot sooner. It only increased after laws were passed.

Textured Soy Protein > Ryan A.
03/01/2015 at 15:44

Yes, people can still choose to use their seat belts. But the fact of the matter is, the reason so many people use their seat belts is because states passed seat belt laws. To repeal the law gives people less incentive to choose to wear their seat belt.

Burrito de EJ25 > Patrick Nichols
03/01/2015 at 15:47

If people don't like being told what to do they need to hop on a rocket and fly to the moon.

Burrito de EJ25 > Textured Soy Protein
03/01/2015 at 15:52

Because it would be difficult to prove/disprove and it would just make accidents even more stressful and complicated.

That is an absolute idiotic law even be upset about having to follow. It's bordering on parody. What idiots.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Textured Soy Protein
03/01/2015 at 15:53

Agree to disagree, life expectancy dictates(of the period) that a lot of those that would have been driving during the years before seat belts were ever installed, would be dead before the laws were enacted, therefore of course more people would be wearing them if they had been around since they were driving.

Textured Soy Protein > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
03/01/2015 at 16:05

"Agree to disagree," does not apply. All you're saying is you've looked at a bunch of numbers that prove you wrong, but "whatever, I don't care about your silly facts ." You can try to disagree all you want but it doesn't make you any more correct.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Textured Soy Protein
03/01/2015 at 16:09

What I am saying is that there is way more than "See laws work" that make those statistics. A generation dying out is HUGE factor.

Textured Soy Protein > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
03/01/2015 at 16:31

You're just guessing that older people dieing led to higher seat belt usage, but you have no numbers to back up your guess.

The fact is, from 1984 through 1987, belt use increased from 14 percent to 42 percent. Unless there was a mass dieing of non seat belt users over those 3 years, which I highly doubt, the main thing that happened during that time was more states enacted seat belt laws.

Show me some numbers that back up what you have to say, and maybe I'll believe you. But that's the common theme: you haven't given any numbers.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Textured Soy Protein
03/01/2015 at 16:43

Millions die each year. A large percentage of that are older people. If you make the habit early on doing something, it's going to take a lot more than usual to break that habit. When the people that have that habit start dying off, the average of those who use vs. those who don't rises. It's just kind of common sense to link the two.

Ryan A. > Textured Soy Protein
03/01/2015 at 17:54

I prefer individual freedom over the nanny state.

Textured Soy Protein > Ryan A.
03/01/2015 at 21:55

Great. Good for you. Unfortunately when individuals use their freedom to do shit that is clearly not in the best interest of the state, the state steps in. Call that a nanny state if you like. But it doesn't change the fact that seat belt laws save lives, and you and others' rhetorical preference for individual freedom, really doesn't matter for a damn in this case.

Patrick Nichols > Burrito de EJ25
03/01/2015 at 22:54

I phrased that poorly. People don't like being told what to do when it affects only themselves. I mainly find the law in other states with "click it or ticket" slogans as it is probably just another excuse for you to be pulled over and having your privacy needlessly invaded. I guarantee they try to poke around more cars for drugs or booze with this law than actual lives saved.

Textured Soy Protein > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
03/01/2015 at 23:08

Every single time I've quoted actual facts and suggested you do the same, you haven't. You're making too many leaps of logic with not enough actual facts to support them.

Millions die each year. A large percentage of that are older people.

True.

If you make the habit early on doing something, it's going to take a lot more than usual to break that habit.

You're implying that old people disproportionately don't/didn't use seat belts. You're also implying that younger people use seat belts in larger numbers than older people. Which may very well be the case, but you don't have anything to back up that claim.

If we stipulate that younger people do in fact use seat belts in larger numbers than old people, why do you think that is? Did younger people just decide, all on their own, that they were going to use their seat belts more? Or could there have been some external factor encouraging them to wear their seat belts? Maybe that external factor was seat belt laws? Sure sounds like a possibility to me.

When the people that have that habit start dying off, the average of those who use vs. those who don't rises.

Ok, sure, some old people dying and being replaced by young people probably accounts for a small portion of the increase in seat belt usage. But enough of a portion to say that seat belt laws don't account for the increase in seat belt usage? Nope. Here's why.

I'll repeat the same numbers I've already thrown at you which you have not responded to: from 1984 to 1987, nationwide seat belt use jumped from 14% to 42%, a 28% increase. In that same period of time, 31 states passed seat belt laws.

Here are some more facts.

In 1987, there were 161,818,461 licensed drivers in the US . The 28% of them that started using their seat belts was 45.3 million people.

In the years 1984-87, 8.3 million people died in the US .

Even if all 8.3 million of those people who died were licensed drivers who didn't wear their seat belts, and they were replaced by 8.3 million new licensed drivers who all wore their seat belts, that would create an absolute maximum of 16.6 million new seat belt wearers, which would only account for 37% of the total increase in seat belt wearers over that period of time.

Putting aside for a moment that it's impossible for all 8.3 million people who died in 1984-87 to have been not wearing their seat belts, and that it's also impossible for all of the new drivers registered over that period of time to have been wearing their seat belts, that means that at the very least, there is absolutely no way for old people dying off to account for the other 63% of the total increase in people wearing their seat belts.

Which means, there has to be some other reason for increased seat belt usage. That reason is seat belt laws.

Burrito de EJ25 > Patrick Nichols
03/02/2015 at 16:18

It absolutely does not just affect that person. Just think of the insurance nightmares that'll come from this when someone tries to claim you weren't or were wearing your seatbelt. Why bother complicating things?

PS9 > Textured Soy Protein
03/02/2015 at 20:14

Everyone's all 'down with the nanny state' 'til they need an ambulance or a police officer.