Redstate

As you say, your children will buckle up without prompting. That's due to good parenting, not fear of Officer Friendly down the street. The laws are NOT necessary and should be repealed (along with similar nanny state laws). Please quit trying to protect me from myself.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Unless everyone is 100% financially responsible for their own health care, it is in our collective interest that seat belts (and motorcycle helmets, for that matter) be required.

Unfortunately, a high percentage of people that are not responsible vehicle operators also do not take on the responsibility of insuring themselves.

Two wrongs don't make a right, though. The fact that some people don't pay for their own health care doesn't give government the power to micromanage even more of my life. I know that your intention is not to that extreme, but using your reasoning, you could justify any conceivable nanny state law.

Death rates per 10,000 riders tends to be lower in states without helmet laws than in states with helmet laws. Somewhat the oposite of what people expect.

My own theory for this is because helmets:
1. Block hearing an vision, thus making it less likely that you'll see or hear a car and avoid an accident.
2. Cause rider fatigue that increases the risk of having an accident.

Note that I'm not suggesting accidents are more survivable without helmets (some people DO claim that helmets cause a trade off between head injuries and neck injuries and are at best a wash), only that helmets may contribute to an increased accident rate.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

had to cut a dead body out of a seatbelt,just live ones.
Seatbelts save lives and my guess is that the Governor will never ride in a vehicle without one ever again.

"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"

And I wear one EVERY time I get in a vehicle. But I don't think the government should tell me I MUST wear one. I also don't think the government needs to tell me not to stick my hand in a live light socket.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Death rates per 10,000 riders tends to be lower in states without helmet laws than in states with helmet laws. Somewhat the opposite of what people expect.

Doesn't mean a whole lot on it's own. A more relevant statistic would be to compare death rates to motorcycle accidents.

If the helmet free states have notably fewer accidents per 10,000 riders than the riders in helmet law states, your numbers would be inherently skewed.

FTR, I am fairly indifferent to helmet laws. Helmets will save lives but they do take away from the experience considerably. And given that the most likely cause of serious injury on a bike is simply getting into any sort of accident, I'm not sure that helmet laws should be in place.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

"If the helmet free states have notably fewer accidents per 10,000 riders than the riders in helmet law states, your numbers would be inherently skewed."

That's kind of my point Flyerhawk. The helmet free states have fewer accidents per 10,000 riders. I suspect this is due to less restriction of hearing and vision in riders who don't where helmets. I can tell you from personal experience, that it's easier to avoid an accident if you can see it coming.... but that's annecdotal.

"Helmets will save lives ..."

Well the numbers provide some dispute for this. Death rate per 10,000 riders is lower in helmet free states. Death rates for those in accidents with helmet vs no helmet is a different statistic. Personally, I choose increasing my chance of avoiding accidents over increasing my chance of survival if I'm not able to avoid one. The stats suggest my choice is the correct one because I'm slightly less likely to die.

"... but they do take away from the experience considerably."

You're not a rider are you? They DO change the experience considerably.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I saw "do NOT take away" when you wrote "do take".

You may be a rider after all. 8*)

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

That's kind of my point Flyerhawk. The helmet free states have fewer accidents per 10,000 riders. I suspect this is due to less restriction of hearing and vision in riders who don't where helmets. I can tell you from personal experience, that it's easier to avoid an accident if you can see it coming.... but that's annecdotal.

First off your original point was death rates per 10,000, not accidents. Secondly there is no way to know whether it is helmet laws that cause accidents or whether it is other factors such as more congested highways. NJ has far more accidents per 10,000 motorists than Montana because there is far more TRAFFIC on the road.

Well the numbers provide some dispute for this. Death rate per 10,000 riders is lower in helmet free states. Death rates for those in accidents with helmet vs no helmet is a different statistic. Personally, I choose increasing my chance of avoiding accidents over increasing my chance of survival if I'm not able to avoid one. The stats suggest my choice is the correct one because I'm slightly less likely to die.

Well going by this anti-helmet website we see that mandatory states have a 2.98 deaths per accident while voluntary have 2.9. Statistically they are about the same.

Looking at the states themselves you see some interesting numbers, although the sample sizes are too small to be conclusive.

According to this article in the state of Pennsylvania the number of riders went up 19% after helmet laws were rescinded but fatal accidents went up 31% in that same time period.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

That could very well be explained by a significant increase in inexperienced riders. (common sense says that inexperienced riders are the most likely category to have an accident). It could also be a statistical anomaly.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

That is a possibility as well.

I could bring up the numerous NHTSA studies on the matter as well.

To be clear I have no position on the matter. I was simply responding to Brian's assertion that helmet laws make driving a motorcycle MORE dangerous.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Yes, the stat I've quoted is death rates per 10,000 riders. Those death rates are lower in states witout helmet laws. I've speculated that the reason for that is lower accident rates (which you confirmed), and I've futher speculated that the reason for lower accident rates is better hearing and vision for non-helmeted riders (purely speculation based on personal experience).

I'm actually a little surprised that the death rates per accident are slightly lower (though statistically similar) in helmet free states. I expected that death rates per accident would be slightly lower in helmet law states rather than the same.

So the stats indicate that:
1. Accident survivability is roughtly the same with or without helmets.
2. Accident rates are lower without helmets.
3. Inexperienced riders are more likely to get into accidents.

Looks like the law of unintended consequences has struck again. The intent of helmet laws is to reduce deaths, the consequence is that deaths rates are higher. This is typical of government involvement in personal choices....

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I think you are extrapolating a bit too much.

Remember that the site I linked was an anti-helmet law advocacy site.

Let's see what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has to say about this..

Based on a comparison of fatal crashes involving
motorcycles with two riders, at least one of whom was
killed, the National Center for Statistics and Analysis
(NCSA) of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) has estimated helmets to be
about 37 percent effective in preventing fatalities.1 In
2003, there were 3,661 rider deaths in fatal motorcycle
crashes. An effectiveness of 37 percent for motorcycle
helmets suggests that an estimated 1,158 additional
motorcyclists would have died were it not for the fact that
they were wearing helmets. Had all motorcyclists
consistently worn proper helmets, an additional 640
motorcyclists could have survived otherwise fatal crashes
in 2003. Unfortunately, the potential lifesaving benefits of
helmets are not being realized, as fatalities continue to
rise in response to declining helmet usage rates.
According to the 2002 National Occupant Protection Use
Survey, only 58 percent of motorcyclists nationally were
observed to be wearing helmets2. This represents a
dramatic decline since 2000, when the usage rate was 71
percent.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Wow, that source makes a lot of assumptions based on estimates and questionable definitions (their definitions of helmeted and unhelmeted appeared flawed). It also completely avoids the accidents rate argument. If states without helmet laws have less frequent motorcycle accidents then that will have a positive net effect on the survivability rate of riding a motorcycle.

P.S. It also avoids the real issue here, which is individual liberty.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

It has been a few years since I last took a statistics class, so I might be a bit off here, but I seem to recall that you cannot really compare statistical probabilities without z-scores, levels of confidence, or something else along those lines.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

It seems to me that any accident that you avoid is an accident that you survive.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

By your logic, laws regulating fast food consumption and requiring a certain amount of exercise should be enacted. I prefer making my own decisions about myself.

They die early and save (actuarially) on social security and medicare.

Yes they often die prior to age 65, but that does not really mitigate the massive medical expenses they incur prior to death. Face it the overweight, people, consumers of tobacco, drinkers, drug users, etc. live very expensive (medically) lifestyles. Many such persons are undoubtedly on government provided health insurance, so under your argument we have a collective interest to ban their choices as well.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

You can't have it both ways. If you want to bring in the "we pay for people's healthcare" argument... that is a license to regulate *everything* about a person's private life.

We could have laws requiring condom use too (and maybe a special police force charged with enforcing the requirement). After all, you could contract HIV and depend on the state for your health care... or get pregnant and depend on the state to pay for the care of the child. Both events are a heck of a lot more expensive to the state than your average auto fatality.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Are you aware that you just made a case against socialized health insurance? Are you also aware that your basic argument can be/is used to defend totalitarian tyranny.

P.S. our collective interest is to ensure the protection of each and every individuals natural rights to life, liberty, and property. There is no collective interest to tyranny, just a very limited special interest for it.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Are the natural rights. Property isn't in there...
Just thought I'd point that out...

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

Jefferson listed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights (not natural rights) in the Declaration of Independence. I was referring to the Lockean philosophy that underlies our republic.

P.S. The 5th Amendment of our Constitution does directly use the words life, liberty, and property.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Without the right to truly own property, there is no liberty beyond the liberty to have everything arbitrarily taken away from you.

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."
My SUVs park in the shade of AlGore's carbon toeprint.

He was right, and I was wrong. I mixed up unalien able rights with natural rights.

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

No, by definition anyone that does not purchase insurance is taking on all the responsibility for insuring themselves (they are self-insured).

Do you have a financial stake in the insurance racket?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Seat belt laws can be abused by authorities. My brother-in law got pulled over for running a stop sign on a residential road near his house in LA. While he waited for the cop to get out of his cruiser, he unbuckled his seat belt to get out his wallet. Yep, you guessed it. He got an additional ticket for not wearing his seat belt. I have to admit that I feel a little paranoia because of that, even though I am a reflexive seat belt wearer. I also now worry that a cop will actually give my child seats a snugness test. So you may be right on principle, but it's still a law I can live with for now. I may change my mind if I think it is becoming a tool of harassment.

Generally, I agree with you on the nanny state stuff. I don't like helmet laws, for instance... not even for kids on bicycles! Go figure. It's just that seat belts are like headlights; they're part of the car and, by law, you should use them when appropriate--which in the case of seat belts is when the car is moving. However, I let my kids STAND UP IN THE VAN AND HANG OUT THE WINDOWS when I drive 500 yards to and from the achool bus stop! I always safety lock the doors,though. I bet if the man could find a way, he would bust you for not locking your car doors, too.

Yes, I feel guilty and worry that a neighbor will rat me out, but most of them do it too. I guess we all need a little authority to subvert occasionally.

Headlights are not there for the Driver's assistance.

They are there so that Other drivers can see your vehicle and avoid you. They are for the safety of others, so laws regarding their use are perfectly appropriate. Seat Belt laws are there to protect YOU because the government (and apparently you) think that YOU are too stupid to protect yourself.

My point of view: If you are too stupid to protect yourself from yourself, then just stop breathing and save the rest of us a lot of harassment.

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

But

I like a little foolish risk as much as the next guy. The fact is, head light are not just there for the benefit of other motorists. If you're in fog, low beams are better for the driver's vision than high beams, and if you are too stupid to realize this the government can give you a ticket for it. If you are driving with no lights at night, dawn or twilight, the government can give you a ticket for it. If you are driving with one headlight, the government can give you a ticket for it. Police do not distinguish between whether you are a danger to yourself or others when they ticket you for these infractions.

If you have a wreck while not wearing a seat belt, and you fly through the windshield into an oncoming car, killing or injuring the other driver, your failure to wear a seat belt has endangered others. If you have a rollover wreck and are ejected from your vehicle due to your failure to buckle up, and other drivers swerve to miss your corpse, resulting in a 10 car pile-up, your lack of beltedness has compromised the safety of others.

There are many things the government demands which insult my intelligence. Mandating seat belt usage is not one of them.

once told me he had NEVER unbuckled a dead man from a seatbelt, but had scraped plenty of dead bodies off the pavement.

I'm not big on government intervention into our private lives, but mandatory seat belt is a good thing. It was the law in my father's car since the first one tht came equipped with one...our 1963 Olds 98.

"in most cases" right?
Most times, when driving at night in the city (where most people who drive at night drive), it is hard to tell if your own headlights are on because of the streetlights. And in those cases, you don't need your own headlights. Other drivers do.
When driving at dusk, most people can see fine and headlights offer nothing to them. They do offer greater visibility to the other drivers.
When driving in the rain during the day... Well, I could go on, but I won't.

It is true that police don't choose whether you are a danger to just yourself or others when they enforce headlight laws. After all, you might be a danger only to yourself at that very moment, but you might risk others 5 minutes later. But in the end, it is illegal, period and it's not their job to figure out who you are risking if you are breaking the law to begin with.
As for your seatbelt examples, how many times have they happened? Got examples?

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

In 1971, ny family was driving north out of Atlanta on I-85, on the way to a family reunion in South Carolina. Traffic was fairly heavy on the two lanes headed north but moving fast. The speed limit was still 70 then. Around Lavonia, my dad said "look at this crazy fool coming up behind us!". My mom, sister and I turned to see this white pickup about 100 yards back swerving and weaving his way up through the traffic, throwing up clouds of dust as he careened out onto the shoulders. "he's gonna wreck that thing", my dad said. We were in the slow lane doing sixty, watching in dread as this truck got closer and closer. We braced as he blew past on the median shoulder and jammed himself back into the passing lane. We kept watching him weave into the distance a couple of hundred yards ahead, until suddenly he lost control, headed for the median ditch, jammed into it nose down, and the truck sailed into the air, @$$ over tin cup, towards southbound 85.

It hit ground in the southbound passing lane and landed upside-down in the slow lane. I saw the driver (sole occupant, thankfully) fly out and land in the passing lane face down. he pushed himself up on one arm then slumped back down for good. Cars were swerving into the nedian and far shoulder to avoid him and his truck, and we in the northbound lanes were all moving in stunned slow motion by now. I remember saying to myself, "C'mon get up, man...please get up!" By this time, there were a bunch of cars stopped, some wrecked, some to help, but I knew he was dead. The thing I remember most vividly to this day is how the chains on his tailgate were swinging and clanking as he swerved his way up the road. I don't think another word was spoken until we got to Pickens.

My mom showed me an article in paper the next week that confirmed my instinct. I am still aware of how fast my 10 year-old mind went from a kind of smirky pleasure that a fool had gotten the wreck he deserved, to desperately hoping he was OK.

You can rationalize your contempt for seat belt laws with the notion that they are only there to hinder your freedom, and I can choose to rationalize my support for the laws with the notion that seat belts are standard safety equipment--like headlights--to be used as the law dictates. Just let's not call each other stupid, OK?

As you can see one man's failure to use his seat belt had a traumatic effect on many people that day, including me.

Especially Headlights, Seatbelts and turn signals (in that order). But laws on the use of something that is almost purely for your own safety are just wrong. If a person is too stupid to breathe, then he's going to stop doing so evetually, no matter how long we try to keep him alive. Like that guy in the pickup you mentioned.
And he had other issues that day that wearing a seatbelt really wouldn't have helped. Even if he hadn't been thrown from his truck, his truck still landed in the other lane and forced people to swerve and have additional accidents to avoid hitting him...

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

While incidenta of beltless humans as deadly projectiles or sudden road hazards are relatively rare, they probably occur more than you think.

Having said that, I can somewhat understand your point of view if I see it like this: Most of the equipment allows you at least some discretion as to when its use is necessary, while one thing--the seatbelt--leaves you no wiggle room, figuratively and literally. As I have mentioned above, I break the seatbelt law myself, and allow my kids to do it, too! Of course, we are only going 5 mph for a few hundred yards, but I am still taking a risk and breaking the law.

This leads into the issue of your passengers, their seatbelts, and your legal responsibility. I alway demand that my passengers buckle up, and now I have the force of law behind me. But the other edge of that sword is when I get stopped for something and I have my seatbelt on, but my passenger has unbuckled his. I now get a ticket for that in addition to whatever it was that I was originally stopped for. I won't get into the irony of the law creating a situation where someone's failure to use a seat belt has now cost me.

Like I said, I can be persuaded, because I generally hate nanny state laws on principle, but I have a lot of anecdotal experience that keeps me from putting up too much of a fuss about seatbelt laws.

Must be overcome so you can look at stuff like this objectively.
But the passenger seatbelt bit is just the first step in the seatbelt law "creep"...
But you just said that you know this, so I'll drop this for now.

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

put them in cars I had that didn't come with them. Spent a good bit of time racing during my misspent youth and wrecked quite a few cars. If you've never done it, you have no idea how beat up you get if you hit something hard or go a** over teakettle in a car at any speed even when you have a real seat belt and shoulder harnesses. I rolled one a few times once and had aches and bruises where I didn't know I had places for weeks.

That said, I think the new mandatory seat belt laws are simply a sham. Where the cops can now just stop you and ticket you for not wearing, they really have probable cause to stop anybody, any time, and for anything: "It appeared he wasn't wearing a seat belt, your Honor" is all it takes. They can make you blow, they can do a Terry search, they can do lots more if they want to push it a little. Next time you're out driving just look around and see if you can tell if the drivers around you are wearing their belts if you're coming up behind them in the dark or meeting them at highway speeds.

In Vino Veritas

...may be another arrow in the cop quiver, but I am more bothered by "Work Zone: speeding fines doubled", with the speed limit reduced to 45mph for twenty miles. Now, I am all for the safety of road workers, but some of these "work wones" are, shall we say, extremely undermanned for months at a time. At least some locales have the decency to say "speeding fines doubled when workers present", but as you say, "they can do lots more if they want to push it a little" on the definition of "workers" and "present".

My feeling is they'll find a way to get you if they really want you, and all you can really do is try not to stand out(and this includes driving flashy cars), make sure all your equipment works, use it as required and don't throw stuff out your window. This has gotten me a long way with minimum hassle.

.

On that last bit.
If Cell Phones really are the risk they are made out to be, then where are the stats that support it?
Why has the rate of accidents continued to decline even while cellphone use is exploding?

Let's see the numbers...

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

...I wasn't necessarily thinking of restrictions. I was thinking about all the times I've almost gotten side-swiped by some trophy wife in a Lexus SUV who's gabbing away on a cell phone like there's no tomorrow. Purely anecdotal.

[Please note: I mean no offense to trophy wives, Lexus drivers, women in general, or women who drive Lexus (Lexi?). I'm just referring three incidents that I witnessed with almost identical identifying features. Go figure.]

Add up, where those factors are counted, to a higher rate of accidents. No arguments. People (but women seem to be marginally more prone to this) driving vehicles too large for them cause more accidents than anyone else on the road.

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

People who are injured in accidents who would likely have been uninjured had they been wearing a seatbelt put an unnecessary strain on first responders.

And people who smoke or use candles or plug too many things into an extension cord or aren't too good at using the stove put a strain on first responders. Clearly we need a lot more laws if that is the standard we have to meet.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Hack erases last 10 months of all blogs--now he gets to go up against Rudy one-on-one! John who?

soli Deo gloria