Seatbelt Law

[FordMan08]

I hate wearing a seatbelt. I think it should be a choice and not a law. I have been pulled over three times in the last year just for not wearing one. I found a website that a doctor put together where if you fill out a "yes and no" questionaire and meet criteria, he will write you a prescription for one year to not have to wear a sealbelf for medical reasons. It costs $50 bucks for the first year and renewal prescriptions are $20 a year there after. This "doctors note" is good in every state. He even sends a laminated card for your wallet to show an officer if ever asked. What do you guys think? Seatbelts should be a law or a choice?

Before anyone asks, I DO believe children under 18 should be required by law to wear them. And I support all Child safety laws.


Oh....got my Dr's note in the mail this morning.

 

[gage]

CHOICE. I'm not keen on the wearing either so I have my windows tinted dark and in the summer ride my cycle. I vote "CHOICE" for the helmet law too. I moved to Indy partly because Texas enacted a helmet law and Indiana didn't have one. I was also happy that at the time Indiana didn't require truck drivers to wear..but sadly that changed.

 

[techres]

I have always worn a seatbelt and so does anyone who gets in my car. If I could affordably do so, I would have 5 point harnesses installed. Frankly, I cannot imagine not doing it as basic self protection.

That being the case, it should not be mandated. You want to make yourself a projectile only to be stopped by broken glass, that is your adult choice to make. It is not the choice of others to make for you.

 

[EliteCageFighting]

I wear mine, but think it should be choice. I don't understand how we can have a seatbelt law, yet we are one of the only states in the nation where you may ride a motorcycle with no helmet. Where's the logic in that one?

Personally, I think if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet, then we should just let Darwin's law have it's way with them.

 

[Jack Ryan]

I hate wearing a seatbelt. I think it should be a choice and not a law. I have been pulled over three times in the last year just for not wearing one. I found a website that a doctor put together where if you fill out a "yes and no" questionaire and meet criteria, he will write you a prescription for one year to not have to wear a sealbelf for medical reasons. It costs $50 bucks for the first year and renewal prescriptions are $20 a year there after. This "doctors note" is good in every state. He even sends a laminated card for your wallet to show an officer if ever asked. What do you guys think? Seatbelts should be a law or a choice?

Before anyone asks, I DO believe children under 18 should be required by law to wear them. And I support all Child safety laws.


Oh....got my Dr's note in the mail this morning.

Why should the government supercede MY authority in rearing my children?

I oppose ALL seat belt laws of any kind.

 

[Dogman]

After having covered 3 vehicle fatalities and helped with 4 others, and several hundred other vehicle accidents, I'm a firm believer in the seatbelt
laws.

 

[Jack Ryan]

This is going to be a good one.

 

[repair]

I'm for choice but I wear my seat belt all the time but I'm sure that it comes from the racing that I have done, I don't feel safe without one.

The law is driven by the insurance companies, it has been proven that it you are in an accident you are more likely to be injured if you are not wearing a seat belt, injury = money.

Before any insurance people bash me my wife works for Anthem.

I wear my helmet when I ride but that too should be the persons choice. I have been saved by my helmet and I have a friend that has been saved by his but if you are an adult it should be your choice.

 

[Jay]

I spent 15 years riding an ambulance as an EMT. My vehicles don't move unless all occupants are belted in. I had to explain to a neighbor once, that the reason they couldn't see their son after an accident was, that we hadn't found all his parts yet. The other three in the car were belted, and survived.

Having said that, competent adults make lousy choices all the time, and the choice should be made by individuals, not the State.

 

[concrete dog]

choice for adults not children.my cousin had his on in his wreck but it broke lose from the floor and he was thrown out anyway and got brain damage.

 

[Drail]

I believe that seatbelt laws are unconstitutional. The state is NOT responsible for our safety but they are only too happy to take our money. The ironic part of this is that every vehicle I have owned for the last 25 years has a 4 point harness installed by me after having been in several bad wrecks, one of which involved the inertia reel failing and I ate the steering wheel. I will never again trust a D.O.T. approved restraint device. There is not a single race sanctioning body in the world that will allow you to compete with a D.O.T. restraint because they're junk. D.O.T. restraints actually injure and kill almost as many people as they save. Here's the interesting part, almost none of the 4 or 5 point harnesses approved for racing have been approved by the U.S. D.O.T. and so are illegal to use on the street. The reason seems to be that none of those manufacturers want to pay to have the government certify their harnesses because they believe their market is racing only. This means if am stopped by a cop who actually knows the law I can be ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt even though I am wearing a 4 point harness. If they're really worried about saving lives (they're not) they would require a restraint system that does not rely on 3 points with an inertia reel, but in the end it is about money.

 

[Scutter01]

I had to explain to a neighbor once, that the reason they couldn't see their son after an accident was, that we hadn't found all his parts yet.

You stay classy.

 

[Jay]

You stay classy.

...trust me, I'd much rather someone else explained that one. I"m much more comfortable dealing with victims, than family members....

 

[Pami]

I'm surprised W9ZEB hasn't chimed in on this one yet.

Drail, Lars has a similar story: when he lived in WI, he raced his del Sol, and consequently had a racing seat and 5 point harness installed. He was pulled over once and given a ticket for not having a DOT approved seatbelt. He asked the officer to write exactly what kind of seatbelt he was wearing on the ticket. Instead of just paying it, he went to court to discuss the ticket. Apparently in WI, you see an Assistant DA or similar before you go to the judge so you have one last option to just pay the ticket instead of going through the trouble of a trial. He asked the ADA if the seatbelt law was about safety or about the state getting their money. If it was about money, he'd pay the ticket and be on his way. If it was about safety, he wanted to know why a seatbelt that was rated to allow guys crashing into a wall at 200 mph to walk out of their cars after the crash was unsafe according to the DOT.

He didn't have to pay the ticket.

That said, the law has helped, obviously by the example of the emergency responders we've had respond so far. However, as others have stated, it's a prime example of too much government. Like anything else, it should be a choice, but continuing education needs to go with it. It's not a comfort thing, it's a safety thing.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

It's a choice IF

- while in an accident WITHOUT a seat belt on, you forfeit your automobile insurance coverage and medical coverage for the accident
- while in an accident WITHOUT a seat belt on, you forfeit any government assistance (welfare) for medical bills

I don't think your rights should cause me an injury by paying ever higher insurance premiums to cover other peoples choices. If you decide to do something stupid like not wearing a seat belt, you should have to deal with all the negative consequences of that stupid decision and not spread around the pain through your insurance and government welfare.

This line of thinking goes for motorcycle helmets and seat belt laws. As a side note, the same line of thinking could be applied to other lifestyle choices like smoking, drinking, drugs, and diet and exercise. To be honest, I'm still trying to work through the last set and how my previous logic would/could work on that set of life choices.

 

[jeremy]

Everyone should wear a seatbelt.

That being said I also think if you so chose it should be your right to not wear a seatbelt. Just be aware that if you wreck you whatever you are driving. It is my right to pick up whats left with a stick and spoon.

 

[Coach]

It is a choice or it should be. I am all for a law forcing anyone under 18 to wear one until they are old enough to make their own decisions. I have at least 10 seat belt tickets in my life.

Seatbelts may or may not be a good idea. I think fear has been trumped up to force people to bend to the will of the government. The ole we are doing this for your own good and your safety thing. Makes me want to puke.

 

[Coach]

It's a choice IF

- while in an accident WITHOUT a seat belt on, you forfeit your automobile insurance coverage and medical coverage for the accident
- while in an accident WITHOUT a seat belt on, you forfeit any government assistance (welfare) for medical bills

I don't think your rights should cause me an injury by paying ever higher insurance premiums to cover other peoples choices. If you decide to do something stupid like not wearing a seat belt, you should have to deal with all the negative consequences of that stupid decision and not spread around the pain through your insurance and government welfare.

This line of thinking goes for motorcycle helmets and seat belt laws. As a side note, the same line of thinking could be applied to other lifestyle choices like smoking, drinking, drugs, and diet and exercise. To be honest, I'm still trying to work through the last set and how my previous logic would/could work on that set of life choices.

Your insurance premiums and and coverage have cost a lot of freedom for all of us. Why are your premiums more important than someone else's daily choices? Who linked them? Why?

 

[40calPUNISHER]

I think it should be a choice. That said, I always wear my seatbelt. Here's something to ponder. For those of you that carry a gun but dont buckle up. You carry for you and your families protection, why would you not wear a seatbelt? Example: You are out driving with your fam in the car and you get in a minor wreck. You however, not wearing your seatbelt, get knocked out or injured and become unable to operate your still moving car.... Your fam is in more danger. I know, we could do these "what if's" till we are blue in the face. My point is, its about protecting yourself.

 

[Disposable Heart]

I have to agree with Hoosier on this one. Forfeiture of insurance coverage should be a situation for those who ignore the safety functions on our car. If someone doesnt wear their seat belt, hits me, then comes up with medical bills, go fark themselves.

While some will consider it a not appropriate comparison: Would you carry your 1911 around without the thumbsafety on? While the chances of a ND (yes ND, not AD, as you are choosing to ignore the safety function of the weapon) are slim, the chance is still there. While there aren't laws against carrying without a safety, there are laws against discharging a firearm.

The hubris (yes, hubris) of not wearing a seatbelt is sheer insanity. Most of the folks here aren't teenagers, therefore, should be over the overconfident stage of their life and hopefully have realized that luck runs out and no one is indestructible. I have dealt with auto accident victims and have gone to two funerals where someone played Superman through the glass, both the "seatbelts are a rip off" crowd. Constituion aside, automakers put those in, not just due to Federal guidelines, but because the Federal government and automakers have researched this and found it a critical step in reducing injury in an accident. Also, consider this: Federal and State money goes into the roads, licencing and safety inspection of vehicles. Their money (which, yes, its ours, but that is not the point here) goes into these seatbelt programs. Through social contract, the people and the government have both agreed that these laws save lives, not just out of gumption, but though hard scientific fact and research. In my mind, driving is not a RIGHT, its a privlidge. When you take the test at the DMV, you are proving you are responsible enough to understand an automobile or tractor trailer is NOT a toy, but a federally licenced vehicle that has safe passage to navigate the Federally and state funded road system. People take that for granted I think and I do not believe the seatbelt laws have ANYTHING to do with the Constitution, as I believe roads to be Federal, State or Municipal property. The idea of it being an unreasonable restriction: Go ask the dead.

Contrary to the constitution chest thumpers that I see on many boards, there ARE some things that you can trust your government with, that is why I have a flag in my office. I used to drive a truck. The rules that govern tractor trailers arent unconstitutional, they are for the safety of everyone else and myself on the road. Same applies to automobiles. Helmet laws are very important in my mind, not only for the protection of the motorcyclist, but also to prevent a huge court case where Nimrod's family sues the other motorist for damages that Nimrod caused by acting reckless. These are safety measures. Some will argue that they kill more than they save, but those are the instances where the accident goes past an accident, but into incident.

Plus, helmets look cool! Safety is COOL!

My two cents. Sorry about all of that, but some of that stuff really gets me boiling. Its safety, pure and simple. When I raced my CRX in SCCA, always a seatbelt. Go do a demo-derby without a seatbelt and see how far one goes...